Rekha Patel loses her house

[notorial dissent]

Considering that the source of this complaint is Wrecka and her hangers on, the likelihood of validity or veracity is vanishingly small.

First rule of thumb, ANYTHING ANYTHING ANYTHING a sovcit/fotl says claims, particularly about a qualification/source/law/event is almost certainly A LIE intentional or based on ignorance. The blind pig rule still applies but the likelihood of the former is still the greater.

[Penny Wise]

Barry strikes again on Rekha's FB page

Rekha a house Patel has deleted the picture of the damage to her neighbours home from her facebook page - clearly not trying to hide anything is she

[Penny Wise]

o the DJ has issued a warrant with bail dated to 28/11/17. Presumably the police have to find them first - tricky when one has no fixed abode.

Anyone knows what will happen after 28 November ?

[TheNewSaint]

It sounds to me like the court simply failed to control the proceedings. Any questions about the judge's identity, or other sovcit bullshit, could have easily been addressed and then moved on from. They also let Ken Thompson waffle on way too long. And a result of the court's ineptitude, justice has been delayed yet again, and these insufferable people have been handed a public relations victory.

The questions are part of Thompson's strategy to find some phony reason to declare the proceedings null and void. Judge didn't give their name? Illegal proceeding. Didn't start at the scheduled time? Everybody go home, and make preparations to move back in.

The hammer is still going to fall eventually, but it galls me that these tactics delay justice.

[ArthurWankspittle]

o the DJ has issued a warrant with bail dated to 28/11/17. Presumably the police have to find them first - tricky when one has no fixed abode.

Anyone knows what will happen after 28 November ?

I think, and I am by no means certain, that if they don't show up then a further or modified warrant is issued and proceedings will recommence when they are found.

[Wakeman52]

But, & forgive me if I'm wrong & stating the blindingly obvious, it seems there are 2 separate cases here.

One is the ongoing civil action to recover legal fees, interest & bailiff charges resulting from Rekha's repeated attempts to reverse the damages award made several years (!) ago.

The other is the criminal case after her & Cheryl's arrest for obstruction of HCEOs in mid-July. This is the same charge for which Chrissy Morris was convicted & fined £400 + costs earlier this year (over 6 months after the fact), although he was supposed to be appealing. If Thompson (& his 'client' ) think they're going to delay the course on which the civil proceedings are set by stringing out the other process, then they're surely wrong. As far as the magistrates will be concerned, the reasons for the eviction writ being issued & the HCEOs actions ought to be irrelevant to the case they're due to hear.

IMHO, therefore, the delay in the criminal case will have no impact in respect of the house sale.

So, since bail has not been lifted (& one condition was that our heroine not go within a 2-mile radius of Simmondley), if she does show up at the cottage (say when it's due to be auctioned), she is liable to be arrested. I would actually call that a result.

{Edited several times (!) to improve readability]

[Penny Wise]

One is the ongoing civil action to recover legal fees, interest & bailiff charges resulting from Rekha's repeated attempts to reverse the damages award made several years (!) ago.

I would argue that this isn't on going anymore and is done and dusted, it is now just a matter of the property being sold a la crawford and those funds being used to pay the above and the remaining going to Reckha A House Patel.

[Wakeman52]

One is the ongoing civil action to recover legal fees, interest & bailiff charges resulting from Rekha's repeated attempts to reverse the damages award made several years (!) ago.

I would argue that this isn't on going anymore and is done and dusted, it is now just a matter of the property being sold a la crawford and those funds being used to pay the above and the remaining going to Reckha A House Patel.

Point taken, except that, since the cottage has been pulled from sale as a result of Rekha's harassment of the local estate agents, the original order may have to be varied to allow an auction once the specified 3 month period has expired - in September?

[rumpelstilzchen]

To be fair we don't know for sure why the property is not being marketed atm.

[exiledscouser]

I think you're both right (Wakeman & Pennywise). It's a bit like TC and his rooftop antics. The ship or in this case ownership (got to get the Maritime jibe in) issues have long since sailed & been determined. TC lost his house because he failed to repay his mortgage, freely entered into. RP will lose hers through losing her double or quits gambling actions over court fees which are now secured against the property.

Their ancillary criminal proceedings were and are a bit of a side show really.

That said, you can bet that RP has had stringent bail conditions imposed along the lines of stay completely away from Hanover Cottage. All the way into November to allow plenty of time for the auctioneers hammer to fall. So probably a good thing, even if unintentional. To answer Rumple's speculative post, I think it will be auctioned.

It was RP's recklessness fighting initial relatively modest court costs that led her to where she is now. I think she's reached the end of the road, (civil) appeals-wise and although she's not yet a VL she must be knocking very loudly on that door. There's not much left to feck up further. A rational thinker would call it a day and recognise that you can't fight City Hall.

But you know she won't.

A new school term starts shortly so less time in the week to get into more trouble. Her bosses must surely have noted recent press reports.

More to come, sadly.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Two points: Is she even going to go back to work? She has a warrant out for non-appearance so even the thickest woodentop would arrange to "visit" her place of work first day back.
Secondly, how far away from Hanover Cottage does she have to keep? If it is a mile or two she might be too close just going to work.

[Burnaby49]

Two points: Is she even going to go back to work? She has a warrant out for non-appearance so even the thickest woodentop would arrange to "visit" her place of work first day back.
Secondly, how far away from Hanover Cottage does she have to keep? If it is a mile or two she might be too close just going to work.

Two miles I believe. She could probably get the restriction amended to allow her to enter within the two mile zone for the sole purpose of going to work via the most direct route from outside the zone. But of course she'd have to go to court to get it.

[daltontrumbno]

Two points: Is she even going to go back to work? She has a warrant out for non-appearance so even the thickest woodentop would arrange to "visit" her place of work first day back.
Secondly, how far away from Hanover Cottage does she have to keep? If it is a mile or two she might be too close just going to work.

Two miles I believe. She could probably get the restriction amended to allow her to enter within the two mile zone for the sole purpose of going to work via the most direct route from outside the zone. But of course she'd have to go to court to get it.

She is stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment, Glosopp Community College is within her exclusion zone so she would have to apply to the court for a variance in her bail, problem with that being she will likely be arrested and be convicted for failure to appear which would see her automatically barred from teaching for twelve months, so right now she is pretty much screwed as far as her job is concerned.

[notorial dissent]

I think there are at least three if not four cases here actually.

1. 1) was the original property damage law suit that she lost and was ordered to pay damages and court costs. She eventually very reluctantly paid the damages and then ignored the costs.
   
   2) was the case against her for the actual court costs from the original suit and the interest and additional costs from her delaying actions that spiraled to the last mentioned amount of £90,000 and change, which has of course since risen even further, which she also lost and lost title to the cottage and was evicted.
   
   She then broke back in and took up residence again.
   
   3) was the next eviction action to get her out of the property AGAIN so that it could be sold and which dragged on for months before she ultimately lost that one as well and was once again evicted.
   
   4) was when she and a friend tried to break in again or interfere with the bailiffs, I’m still not altogether clear on that one, but she got arrested, got to spend the night in jail and was set up for a hearing later in the month of which the first she disrupted so it had to be adjourned til later and that one she skipped altogether. I believe it was at this point the house was actually sealed and guards posted.
   
   5) is the failure to appear warrant which I think will be a second matter to 4).

So as I see it she now has an arrest for trespass, or whatever they are calling it, that she has to answer for, and then another arrest warrant for skipping the last hearing. So I would say that the first three were civil and the last 1/2 are criminal. She is really racking them up at this point.

[daltontrumbno]

1) was the original property damage law suit that she lost and was ordered to pay damages and court costs. She eventually very reluctantly paid the damages and then ignored the costs.

What I have problem understanding is where did the £72k come from, the neighbours original damages claim was for around £5k and they were awarded £8200 presumably damages and fees, Rekha eventually paid £16k, what I don't understand is where did the later £76k come from.

[daltontrumbno]

1) was the original property damage law suit that she lost and was ordered to pay damages and court costs. She eventually very reluctantly paid the damages and then ignored the costs.

What I have problem understanding is where did the later £72k come from, the neighbours original damages claim was for around £5k and they were awarded £8200 presumably damages and fees, Rekha eventually paid £16k, what I don't understand is where did the later £72k come from.

[AndyPandy]

1) was the original property damage law suit that she lost and was ordered to pay damages and court costs. She eventually very reluctantly paid the damages and then ignored the costs.

What I have problem understanding is where did the £72k come from, the neighbours original damages claim was for around £5k and they were awarded £8200 presumably damages and fees, Rekha eventually paid £16k, what I don't understand is where did the later £76k come from.

Her neighbour used her household insurance legal cover to bring the initial claim and to defend against years of Rekha's subsequent legal idiocy - the insurance Company will have appointed an approved Solicitors firm - it's their costs the insurance firm is attempting to recover.

[daltontrumbno]

1) was the original property damage law suit that she lost and was ordered to pay damages and court costs. She eventually very reluctantly paid the damages and then ignored the costs.

What I have problem understanding is where did the £72k come from, the neighbours original damages claim was for around £5k and they were awarded £8200 presumably damages and fees, Rekha eventually paid £16k, what I don't understand is where did the later £76k come from.

Her neighbour used her household insurance legal cover to bring the initial claim and to defend against years of Rekha's subsequent legal idiocy - the insurance Company will have appointed an approved Solicitors firm - it's their costs the insurance firm is attempting to recover.

I think I have got it now correct me if I am wrong so to £76k has very little to do with the original damages claim and is mainly stems from Rekha's counter suits against the neighbours and the various appeals to have the original award overturned.

[Burnaby49]

Yes. After her first loss she could have walked away from it all with manageable costs awarded against her and kept the house. But she went litigation crazy and pursued totally pointless lawsuits against the neighbours. All of which she lost and which generated new costs against her.

[He Who Knows]

Burnaby49 wrote:

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
Two points: Is she even going to go back to work? She has a warrant out for non-appearance so even the thickest woodentop would arrange to "visit" her place of work first day back.
Secondly, how far away from Hanover Cottage does she have to keep? If it is a mile or two she might be too close just going to work.

Two miles I believe. She could probably get the restriction amended to allow her to enter within the two mile zone for the sole purpose of going to work via the most direct route from outside the zone. But of course she'd have to go to court to get it.

When I rang Stockport Magistrates on Monday they confirmed that Wrecka's latest bail warrant doesn't contain any conditions. Meaning that her original bail condition which excluded her from the Simmondley area only lasted until 18th August when the new warrant was issued. She's now free to go anywhere she wants to, presumably that includes Patel Cottage and Glossopdale Community College.