Rekha Patel loses her house

[TheNewSaint]

We designate a unit of pig-headed, scorched-earth self-impoverishment called a "Crawford", each unit being approximately £75,000 / US$100,000 / C$120,000. We can then conveniently refer to the losses in this or that case as being 0.7 Crawfords, 1.6 Crawfords, a Double or Triple Crawford etc. But the specific term "Full Crawford" stands separately, meaning simply that the whole capital, whatever it was, is gone.

HP, I really like your intellectual rigor. You've identified the problem: we're trying to measure both monetary loss and pigheadedness. I think we can simplify this.

If we want to measure monetary loss, we could just use money. We have units of measure for that. We don't have a unit of measure for pigheadedness, which I think is what we're after. So I'll counter-propose:

1 crawford = the amount of pigheadedness necessary to lose all the value in your home

I like that this approach ties pigheadedness to the value of one's home, a reasonable estimate of wealth. Someone who loses a cheap bungalow is just as pig-headed as someone who loses a multi-million dollar estate. At the same time, a £500 fine for court shenanigans is more punitive to someone who can less afford it. And, the term Full Crawford* for losing your home completely still works.

As a practical matter, we need sub-units. I propose the millicrawford, which is the amount of pigheadedness necessary to lose 1/1000 of the value of your home. I chose milli- over centi- because it lets us measure small things like traffic fines, a common event in the FMOTL world. And, the more granular unit puts the scale of it all into perspective.

Say your home is worth £150,000. Have you ever lost £150 being pigheaded about something? I certainly have, and I suspect most people have. The household repair you tried to do yourself for cheap instead of calling a professional; the poker hand you overplayed when everyone at the table knew you were beat; the bum investment you wouldn't cut your losses on; the futile attempt to impress someone you had no chance to; etc. You felt bad about wasting that money when you came to your senses later. But it only cost you a millicrawford or two. Compare your losses to what Tom and Rekha pulled off. Yyyyyyyyeah.

* - (Capitalization note: crawford is lower-case, as with other units of measure named after people: newton, ohm, angstrom, smoot, etc. Full Crawford is still capitalized, because it's a proper noun-phrase, and because it just looks better that way, dag nab it.)

[Pottapaug1938]

My daughter was just in Manchester for my nephew's wedding (his bride is from Salford). I should have had Lindsay swing by Thackstone Cottage for the kind of entertainment she'll never get anywhere else; but instead she headed for London via the Harry Potter World attraction.

[grixit]

Might need the IEEE involved

Or the ISO.

Hmm, can we mark sovs with colored bands like those on resistors?

[Hercule Parrot]

1 crawford = the amount of pigheadedness necessary to lose all the value in your home

I like that this approach ties pigheadedness to the value of one's home, a reasonable estimate of wealth. Someone who loses a cheap bungalow is just as pig-headed as someone who loses a multi-million dollar estate. At the same time, a £500 fine for court shenanigans is more punitive to someone who can less afford it. And, the term Full Crawford* for losing your home completely still works.

As a practical matter, we need sub-units. I propose the millicrawford, which is the amount of pigheadedness necessary to lose 1/1000 of the value of your home. I chose milli- over centi- because it lets us measure small things like traffic fines, a common event in the FMOTL world. And, the more granular unit puts the scale of it all into perspective.

Outstanding work - empirical, rigorous and evidence-based. I endorse this unreservedly, and hope that the next generation of scientists will take our work forward.

Later we will need a theoretical framework which distinguishes endogenous crawford from inducted crawford (eg measurably caused by the proximity of a dense MMH* object). Also laboratory work to identify the elusive particle of common sense which must be present in Rekha's mind - Patel's Boson.

(* MMH = A provisional term for the Mccrae-Morris-Haining influence, loosely defined by psychologists as "Let's squander your wealth in pursuit of my ego")

[He Who Knows]

NYGMan wrote:

Another example of someone who thinks they know it all, can never be wrong. I am glad she is losing everything here. Hoping it teaches her, she isn't above the law, isn't special in any way, and really has no clue as to how the legal system works.

She has no clue indeed. Apparently, Rowcliffes Estate Agent in Glossop has taken down the sale particulars of Patel Cottage presumably because she's been intimidating them, not only with her social media campaign where she's sullied their name on 126 shared sites, but also by telling them that they're aiding and abetting a crime

I wonder what the High Court Chancery Division thinks of that?

[ArthurWankspittle]

We designate a unit of pig-headed, scorched-earth self-impoverishment called a "Crawford", each unit being approximately £75,000 / US$100,000 / C$120,000. We can then conveniently refer to the losses in this or that case as being 0.7 Crawfords, 1.6 Crawfords, a Double or Triple Crawford etc. But the specific term "Full Crawford" stands separately, meaning simply that the whole capital, whatever it was, is gone.

I suggested something like this a while back in terms of Unicorns. Amanda keeps going on about finding the "unicorn" and I pointed out that £43k would have saved the whole situation. After all that's what Tom was looking for in his early post on GOODF. Tom with all the costs is now approximately 2.5 Unicorns down, Rekha just over 2 Unicorns.
However, I do like the term "A Full Crawford" (as in "never go full Crawford").

[ArthurWankspittle]

She has no clue indeed. Apparently, Rowcliffes Estate Agent in Glossop has taken down the sale particulars of Patel Cottage presumably because she's been intimidating them, not only with her social media campaign where she's sullied their name on 126 shared sites, but also by telling them that they're aiding and abetting a crime

I wonder what the High Court Chancery Division thinks of that?

I'd be more worried about what Rowcliffe's lawyers think of it. I can see no problem preventing them getting an injunction telling Rekha to stop it.

[He Who Knows]

Arthur Wankspittle wrote:

I'd be more worried about what Rowcliffe's lawyers think of it. I can see no problem preventing them getting an injunction telling Rekha to stop it.

I see two problems in Rowcliffes getting an injunction:
1. An injunction costs more than the 1% fee on the sale of a £225,000 house, and
2) they would never recoup the money back from Princess Snowflake.

Easier for them to back out of the job now.

[AndyPandy]

Arthur Wankspittle wrote:

I'd be more worried about what Rowcliffe's lawyers think of it. I can see no problem preventing them getting an injunction telling Rekha to stop it.

I see two problems in Rowcliffes getting an injunction:
1. An injunction costs more than the 1% fee on the sale of a £225,000 house, and
2) they would never recoup the money back from Princess Snowflake.

Easier for them to back out of the job now.

Think it would be easier for the neighbours solicitors to go back to Court and ask for the less than £225k order to be revoked and for it to be sold cheap at an auction.

Just read an article from January 2017 and apparently, the Solicitors firm are from the neighbours insurance Company.

Obviously, the neighbour has used her home insurance legal costs coverage to bring the claim and it's the insurance company who are seeking to recover their costs (in the neighbours name), so the neighbour hasn't actually paid a penny in Solicitors fees.

[Flup]

Arthur Wankspittle wrote:

I'd be more worried about what Rowcliffe's lawyers think of it. I can see no problem preventing them getting an injunction telling Rekha to stop it.

I see two problems in Rowcliffes getting an injunction:
1. An injunction costs more than the 1% fee on the sale of a £225,000 house, and
2) they would never recoup the money back from Princess Snowflake.

Easier for them to back out of the job now.

Think it would be easier for the neighbours solicitors to go back to Court and ask for the less than £225k order to be revoked and for it to be sold cheap at an auction.

Just read an article from January 2017 and apparently, the Solicitors firm are from the neighbours insurance Company.

Obviously, the neighbour has used her home insurance legal costs coverage to bring the claim and it's the insurance company who are seeking to recover their costs (in the neighbours name), so the neighbour hasn't actually paid a penny in Solicitors fees.

Although they may have paid an excess, and will probably see their insurance premium increase after this large claim.

[John Uskglass]

Although they may have paid an excess, and will probably see their insurance premium increase after this large claim.

Is that claimable from Patel as a consequential loss?

[Flup]

Although they may have paid an excess, and will probably see their insurance premium increase after this large claim.

Is that claimable from Patel as a consequential loss?

I've often wondered that. In a situation where someone hits my parked car, my premium will be affected for three years (and possibly more if I lose my no-claims bonus). However no insurer can tell you the effect in advance, so what figure would you claim? Maybe there's a head of general damages you could use.

[TheNewSaint]

I suggested something like this a while back in terms of Unicorns. Amanda keeps going on about finding the "unicorn" and I pointed out that £43k would have saved the whole situation.

The value of one unicorn isn't even that much, since Tom could have saved his house by entering into a reasonable payment arrangement. Rekha Patel could have escaped her whole situation by settling the first lawsuit and stopping there (8K, I think it was). I place it somewhere south of 10,000 GBP.

But i see what you're going for with this measurement, and i like it. You're equating the mythical unicorn people need to escape their current fiasco, with the manageable amount of money they could have paid to escape it had they not been such a fathead. It illustrates how small the problem really was.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I see two problems in Rowcliffes getting an injunction:
1. An injunction costs more than the 1% fee on the sale of a £225,000 house, and
2) they would never recoup the money back from Princess Snowflake.

Easier for them to back out of the job now.

It's not the fee, it's the damage to their reputation if someone allegedly is spreading false stories about them on social media.
The house is being sold. There's a reasonable chance at this stage that there will be some equity left after all the court and legal costs.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The value of one unicorn isn't even that much, since Tom could have saved his house by entering into a reasonable payment arrangement. Rekha Patel could have escaped her whole situation by settling the first lawsuit and stopping there (8K, I think it was). I place it somewhere south of 10,000 GBP.

I hear what you are saying but would reply that, yes, if Tom had for instance, switched to a repayment mortgage then maybe it would have cost him less than £43k. However, like most commodities, Unicorn prices move with the market, so May 2013 (IIRC) it would need to be worth about £43k to solve Tom's then current problem. Isn't that always the way though, looking back you could have bought it cheaper if you got in early enough?

[Gregg]

As the longstanding, if admittedly self appointed, Parliamentarian Of Quatloos, I am currently pondering the official definition of the term "Full Crawford" which does have historical precedence on the forum. The other, sub-units, deriving as they do from the proper term, are at this time informal and non-official denominations and any usage of them is done at your own risk and are not endorsed by anyone who matters at this time.

I will announce my decisions in regards to Full Crawford upon the completion of my exhaustive research and after deliberations with the Wiener Counsel's Command of the 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment, which serves in the instant matter as the de facto Sergeants At Arms.

Nunc de Dunc pro pop tart Pizza Pizza,*

etc....

* Official Sovereign Article 61 Magnum Carter majik words UK Edition

[He Who Knows]

ArthurWankspittle wrote:

It's not the fee, it's the damage to their reputation if someone allegedly is spreading false stories about them on social media.
The house is being sold. There's a reasonable chance at this stage that there will be some equity left after all the court and legal costs.

By the time the estate agents have worked out how much revenue they have lost due to Wrecker's social media campaign, taken out an injunction, had it heard in court and possibly lost, the small change generated from the sale (or auction) of Patel Cottage will have been given back to her (assuming there is any) and Rowcliffes will then spend another 6 years trying to get money off her.

Much better to cut their losses now - advice that Princess Snowflake should have heeded 6 years ago when the bill for the thackstones was less than £5k and the damage to the drain gulley and party wall hadn't yet happened.

[TheNewSaint]

The rightmove url now says "no longer on the market." Did someone buy it already?

[exiledscouser]

The efforts to sell at a fair market price seem to have been thwarted by the peace-loving death-threat issuing community. Far from assisting Rekha these "helpers" have ensured that the property goes to auction, shades yet again of TC and his antics.

The recent history of the property will only lead to a hammer price a whole lot less than the harassed and bullied estate agent would have realised.

The equity in Hanover Cottage is rolling down like a petrol pump in reverse. Add in the 24/7 presence of G4S types and we could see Rekha squander everything. I do wish someone would talk some sense into her, even now.

[NYGman]

Sounding more likely "a complete Rekha" will mean as much as five "full Crawford's"