Rekha Patel loses her house

[exiledscouser]

Dead right HP well put.

It's just delaying the inevitable and lining the pockets of the recovery industry. Self centred urban warriors like Chrissy only rack up more costs for their "clients".

It might all come to a head as early as Monday 19th.

[Firthy2002]

I've had a look but I can't see anything for Monday the 19th in Manchester.

[Hercule Parrot]

Dead right HP well put.

It's just delaying the inevitable and lining the pockets of the recovery industry...

Back in the days of the miner's strike, provocative cops would wave high denomination banknotes at the picket line and boast that the overtime had paid for their holiday or whatever.

I would not want to see this sort of thing generally, but it seems to me that something more tactful might be said on some occasions. Eg when 8 or 10 bailiffs were trying to repo Rekha's cottage, and being resisted by her mob of dodgy 'supporters'. Someone needs to quietly remind her that all of the recovery costs will be deducted from the sale of her home.

[rosy]

Was Rekha due in court yesterday? I can't find any references to a case or how it went on the usual suspects' facebook pages.

[daltontrumbno]

Was Rekha due in court yesterday? I can't find any references to a case or how it went on the usual suspects' facebook pages.

It was one of her deluded followers who posted the date of the court case. Nothing was ever officially listed.

[He Who Knows]

It was Wrecker's friend Stef Shambala who said '19th June Rekha will get her say'. Pretty sure if she'd won her case it would be all over her FB page, 'Rekha Patel backed by community in her journey towards truth and justice'...

[TheNewSaint]

It was Wrecker's friend Stef Shambala who said '19th June Rekha will get her say'. Pretty sure if she'd won her case it would be all over her FB page, 'Rekha Patel backed by community in her journey towards truth and justice'...

And, there's nothing in the Tameside Reporter, the newspaper of record for this topic. (At least not on the front page of their website; I can't go any deeper without it crashing or timing out. Seems their IT is as good as their writing.)

[jcolvin2]

The Tameside Rporter provided an update on June 28, 2017:

https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/06/ne ... judgement/

Excerpt:

The latest addition to the long running dispute was played out in the Chancery Division of the High Court at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre last Monday. There presiding Judge Pelling QC, ordered Miss Rekha Patel, former owner of one of the two cottages, to pay outstanding debts of £90,000.

The debts were incurred in costs, resulting in a court case brought by Miss Patel’s next door neighbour, accusing her of damaging stones belonging to the neighbour’s house.

Miss Patel lost that case and paid £16,000 in damages and costs, but was then presented with further legal costs and interest on them that eventually amounted to £72,000.

The judge ruled that as Miss Patel has shown no intention of paying her debts through other assets, the monies owing will be taken from the proceeds of the sale of Miss Patel’s cottage.

This is despite the fact that the cottage has been sold to a company for just two pounds before a previous hearing in January 2017.

It is understood that Miss Patel a mathematics teacher, rents the cottage for £50 a week from the company she sold it to.

Despite this Judge Pelling QC ruled that the cottage should be sold for no less than £225,000 on the open market over a period of three months. Furthermore it is understood the neighbour’s solicitors are to be appointed [sic] conduct the sale. It is also understood that Miss Patel will receive the balance of the house sale proceeds after the £90,000 debt have been paid.

Furthermore Miss Patel must deliver possession of the property by vacating it ready for sale.

It is understood that the current figure of £90,000 has resulted from further interest and court costs added to the original figure.

[Penny Wise]

Given that the debt has increased from £72,000 to £90,000 and yet again she has lost another court case (giving the crawfords a run for their money there) it has to be asked if Chrisy Morris still counts this as a win.

Equity disappearing more and more each day.

Miss Patel in relation to the current ruling said resolutely that she is staying put. Despite the ruling she said: “I am not going anywhere, as far as I understand it the court has no jurisdiction over the property, so far I have had nothing from the court.

I submitted an sworn affidavit with evidence to show that the previous oders were void.
In that affidavit there is evidence from the original official court record, that clearly states and shows on the court papers ‘no court costs’ for the original hearing in August 2013.
She continued: “ As far as the debt that has now grown to £90,000 is concerned I have never had any proof of costs from the complainant or her solicitors.

I also find it ridiculous that they can take any action against me when the property has been successfully conveyed and I am no longer the owner.”

Would look like the Judge must have reversed the sale to the companies run by her parents.

[notorial dissent]

I would hope that the judge would and did declare the fraudulent transfers as null and void and also issued an immediate eviction order since she will not depart without being forced to. She is already showing that she ISN'T going to abide by the court findings and order. She is going to lose all of her equity before this is over and done with.

[noblepa]

I would hope that the judge would and did declare the fraudulent transfers as null and void and also issued an immediate eviction order since she will not depart without being forced to. She is already showing that she ISN'T going to abide by the court findings and order. She is going to lose all of her equity before this is over and done with.

I don't think that the judge could order that the proceeds of the sale be used to pay her debts, without first finding that the house was, indeed, still hers to sell.

After all, if I owe a large sum of money, the court can't order that my neighbor's house be sold to pay my debt. The court can only order that MY house be sold.

Still, it would be interesting to see the actual ruling.

Didn't she do the sham sales AFTER a court ruled that she owed the 72 grand? That alone, even if the sale were for fair market value might be enough to reverse the sale. Around here, I believe that trying to convert assets in order to avoid paying a court-ordered judgement is a good way to find yourself in contempt of court and possibly in jail.

[Burnaby49]

Here it's called fraudulent conveyancing;

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... g/96163_01

However, at least here, if the house was sold arm's length at fair market value and the debt in respect to the sale was on normal market terms the transfer would be valid.

This Act does not apply to a disposition of property for good consideration and in good faith lawfully transferred to a person who, at the time of the transfer, has no notice or knowledge of collusion or fraud.

The Canada Revenue Agency gets tricks like Rekha's all the time.

[notorial dissent]

If he ordered that she pay the costs out of the sale of the house he would have first had to have found that the "sale" was a sham and voided it. I suspect there is a good deal more come out of the trial than was reported, or that she will admit to. She has at this time managed to waste almost 50% of her house's assumed value in total silliness and illegality, and she is working at going after the other 50% from what I can see. Since the neighbor's solicitors were essentially appointed as receivers for the disaster, I would say it is safe to assume that he not only sided with the neighbor but voided the sham sale. I would think after all this that the neighbor would just take the house as recompense and avoid any further episodes in the future. I certainly would have.

[Hercule Parrot]

Difficult when relying upon the press article, but I don't see any reference to voiding the purported sale. My reading is that Judge Pelling simply ignored it, on the basis that Rekha was clearly still the de facto or beneficiary owner of the property and the court did not need to be distracted by pretences.

The Judge appears to be perfectly aware of the game being played, and the creditor's lawyer will have known the terms of the order they needed to resolve this. It would be surprising if the resulting order didn't give explicit authority for the creditor's lawyer to :

- Remove Rekha from the property, by bailiffs if necessary.
- Sell the property, without the consent of any purported owner
- Deduct all owed costs before the surplus is passed to Rekha

If so, despite Rekha's blather about "no jurisdiction" this is game, set & match to the creditor. Rekha can continue to be obstructive, driving up the enforcement costs and damaging the sale value of the property. But she will be paying for that through diminution of her £135,000 surplus. If she had an ounce of sense she would vacate the property and co-operate in a positively-marketed sale, which might realise £150,000 for her in walk-away money (sufficient to buy a pleasant small home elsewhere).

Unfortunately she is so blinkered that this probably won't happen. Instead she will "Do a Crawford" by incurring another £30-50,000 of costs to remove her and secure the property with steel shuttering and security guards, and knock £30-50,000 off the sale price by threatening prospective purchasers with harassment. And every pound lost through that twin-pronged self-harm strategy will be funded from her surplus.

I know I'm a bad person, but I'm looking forward to this. Rekha is arrogant and vindictive, she flaunts her defiance of the law and expresses contempt towards the victim neighbour. What follows will be righteous karma, and also a lesson to others who might be tempted to follow her example.

[Gregg]

In most of the US, evictions are carried out or overseen by the County Sheriff and in some of the not so good locales the new owners can hire whoever they want to come and "put you out". These helpers often are hired off the corners where the unemployed gather looking for day cash jobs. You might be forgiven if you think theses guys might be a tad sympathetic to others facing hard times but that's often not the case at all. You see, being enthusiastic about the work is one requirement to getting the next gig.
So, if you're getting tossed out in say, Flint, and you give any indication you might try stuff like this, you may be greeted by three knocks, a terse announcement by the Deputy of why he is there, then the door being crashed open and half a dozen thugs coming in with the promise of a bonus if they empty the contents in less than an hour. No one will care the least if things get broken, lost or stolen by the neighbors as it sets on the curb.
Is this typical?... Well, that depends, but I have seen exactly that happen and I haven't even mentioned that normal people carry tasers ( hell,
this is America, normal people carry guns).

[letissier14]

She is going to be another Tom Crawfraud

Dig her heels in , ignore any sensible advice and have court case after court case until all the money has gone

[JimUk1]

All the babbling about fake courts, stamps and seals ect and she still went to court?

That's the part I don't get. If they truely believed that the English courts are fake, why do they even turn up and argue?

Congratulations are in order however, how to turn £250k into pennies in months! Quiet an achievement! Wouldn't be possible without people like Ceylon and Chrisy Morris tho!

[notorial dissent]

Rekha is arrogant and vindictive, she flaunts her defiance of the law and expresses contempt towards the victim neighbour.

You missed also very very stupid and very self destructive in that description. She may yest get to go to jail for flaunting a court order, and I really think she should get the opportunity.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Just as we thought the English footle scene was on its last legs we now have something that promises to be more entertaining than the Tom Crawford saga. I predict at some point Ms Patel will be threatened with some porridge before giving up.
I'm with you, Hercule. I'm looking forward to it too.

ETA: This must be chalked up as yet another win for Chrisy. Well done Chrisy! You sure stuck it to 'em

[SteveUK]

Lest we not forget the judges words in the previous hearing - 'if I find out the sale was for nefarious reasons, you could be facing fraud charges and jail '