Rekha Patel loses her house

[ceylon2]

The £17,000 was the result of her not paying for the damage or having her insurance cover it and then not responding until she was taken to court over it. So she was adjudged to have been at fault and the damage amount determined, as well as the legal costs. Morris was long after the fact, and had no money insurance or otherwise to give anyone for anything. He cannot in fact pay his own legal costs, which are mounting daily. Morris is a buffoon and a legal pest and a help to no one.

Like I said, she accepted causing damage by paying £17,000 and payable to cogent law representing her neighbour. Then stating she paid it under duress in fear of them taking her home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibLDnVvHX04
Go to 1:48 and hear the relevant statement. Even if it was an insurance payment she still accepted doing the damage.
She even states that she was not knowledgeable back then but now she is. That knowledge points to Morris the monkey who obviously has no idea about the danger he and others put vulnerable people into.

Whether or not she accepted causing/doing the damage is irrelevant to reality. The court determined that she was not only responsible but liable for the damage to the neighbor. She did not pay the damage claim amount until she was forced to by the court, and then she did not pay the costs accrued as a result of her intransigence by the legal action and thus ended up back in court and found liable for the costs resulting in her house being seized and sold to cover the costs.

How did the court determine that she was responsible or liable for the damage caused??????????

[KickahaOta]

How did the court determine that she was responsible or liable for the damage caused??????????

That is what courts do. That is their job.

You are trolling poorly.

[JimUk1]

Possibly because the planning permission called for a specialist builder for listed buildings, that was wilfully ignored.

All the planning documents are available for inspection to the public online.

They clearly state, removal and reinstall the thack stones. Not cut them back.

[rosy]

Thack stones.

Ceylon2, have you read this thread from the beginning? Everything you need to know to determine who was in the wrong (Ms Patel and her cheap builder) is already covered in the thread.

Ms Patel has only herself to blame for the predicament she has found herself in. She did work on her house without getting the necessary planning permission. The work damaged her neighbour's house and Ms Patel refused to pay to put it right until forced to by the courts, which meant her neighbour and the neighbour's insco incurred costs (which Ms Patel has to pay). She refused to pay these costs, so her neighbour had to incur even more costs to enforce the court's order. Now the court has ordered her house sold to pay the neigbour's costs.

Ms Patel has ended up homeless and probably jobless, and it's entirely her own fault. Her FoTL thinking landed her in deep shit, and all she's done since has just worsened her situation.

[arayder]

It seems to me the honorable (i.e. real freemen way) for Patel to have dealt with the situation would have been upon damaging her neighbor's property to have owned up to the deed and then set about to make it right.

Of course she could have done even better and never have ruined the wall in the first place.

If she'd done right her neighbor may have given her some consideration.

[ceylon2]

I read somewhere that she had her insurance pay for the damage, that's why I stated she had agreed so my bad

[AndyPandy]

She was warned by the presenter on that TV show she was a part of that anything she did to a Party Wall she had to seek permission, she ignored that then refused to accept responsibility and pay the damages awarded.

Her neighbour's insurance company have only sort to recover what she'd forced then to pay out in fees. Look at the Bennison thread for a lesson in how not to litigate.

[ceylon2]

How did the court determine that she was responsible or liable for the damage caused??????????

That is what courts do. That is their job.

You are trolling poorly.

Internet Trolling
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.

Now for you to show where the trolling is used by myself.

[longdog]

How did the court determine that she was responsible or liable for the damage caused??????????

That is what courts do. That is their job.

You are trolling poorly.

Internet Trolling
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.

Now for you to show where the trolling is used by myself.

That's rather rich coming from somebody who accusing the whole forum of being FMOTL trolls only 24hrs ago.

[exiledscouser]

Ceylon2, just a quick question but were you posting as Bluebell on the goodf site, the one set up when Getoutofdebtfree imploded?

[ceylon2]

Ceylon2, just a quick question but were you posting as Bluebell on the goodf site, the one set up when Getoutofdebtfree imploded?

Bluebell? No why?

[AndyPandy]

Ceylon2, just a quick question but were you posting as Bluebell on the goodf site, the one set up when Getoutofdebtfree imploded?

Bluebell? No why?

Or Bluebells?

[ceylon2]

Ceylon2, just a quick question but were you posting as Bluebell on the goodf site, the one set up when Getoutofdebtfree imploded?

Bluebell? No why?

Or Bluebells?

No sorry

[aesmith]

Bluebell? No why?

Ex-member "bluebells" was promoting your book on the new Goofy, and also claimed to have a Youtube channel under the name of John Green.

[ceylon2]

Bluebell? No why?

Ex-member "bluebells" was promoting your book on the new Goofy, and also claimed to have a Youtube channel under the name of John Green.

Hahahahaha you saying I have an admirer? It could be someone I know now you say that, she had lost thousands to a guy names eggie where ceylon was involved big time. Something to do with void mortgage. I was speaking with her a few weeks ago and she stated she was going to rub the book in his face (eggie) lol

[ceylon2]

She also told me who the name of the guy was that purchased goodf.

[AndyPandy]

Hmmmm, well whomever 'Bluebells' is they claim to have written the book.

read my book, it's full of gold not dirty wellies

http://goodf.forumotion.com/t1004-membe ... =bluebells

They've now been banned so you have to open up the messages to read them.

[ceylon2]

Hmmmm Well whoever 'Bluebells' is they claim to have written the book.

read my book, it's full of gold not dirty wellies

http://goodf.forumotion.com/t1004-membe ... =bluebells

They've now been banned so you have to open up the messages to read them.

Let's move on with the thread topic because it aint important is it, or is it?

[ceylon2]

Just popped over quickly and there is no bluebells in the forum just chatting about her or him. Whoever bluebells is he/she has rattled their cage big time. I guess they would attack due to the book. My book has pissed a few off don't ya think?

[arayder]

Just popped over quickly and there is no bluebells in the forum just chatting about her or him. Whoever bluebells is he/she has rattled their cage big time. I guess they would attack due to the book. My book has pissed a few off don't ya think?

Why don't you start a new thread and stop trolling this one?