Rekha Patel loses her house

[aesmith]

I don't think she has lost anything like £225k. Maybe about half that at present. What she won't be doing for many years is buying a Listed Cottage in that area.

Well she's reportedly already paid £17K, then the court order was for £90K and we're assuming costs are clocking up while she messes around. At the moment she has lost the house and the way she's carrying she'll be luck to get anything back when it finally sells.

[notorial dissent]

I may be misremembering, but I thought the £90K was in addition to the £17K as a result of her playing games and not paying to begin with, basically the actually damages plus legal costs. I would suspect that by this point she has racked up a good deal more, and if she continues she will pretty well deplete the residual.

[He Who Knows]

ArthurWankspittle wrote: I don't think she has lost anything like £225k. Maybe about half that at present. What she won't be doing for many years is buying a Listed Cottage in that area.

Patel Cottage was/is marketed at £225,000. Two months on it's probably now worth about £150-180k due to the adverse publicity Wrecka has caused. Plexus Law's fees must be fast approaching £130k. Plus the £17k she has already paid to the other side and all her own costs incurred on legal 'advice', 'reports', barricades. That's not taking into account all the money she spent on renovating it which even though was done 'on the cheap' it would have cost tens of thou. That's a loss of at least £225k I'd say.

[notorial dissent]

Pretty much my take on it as well. Are UK real estate agents required to tell potential buyers about possible problems, i.e. such as a lunatic former owner? I would think Wrekha and her potential for legal issues would be a definite negative to a buyer who didn't wish any future difficulties. She could potentially cause them as much difficulty and expense as she has caused the neighbor.

[longdog]

Pretty much my take on it as well. Are UK real estate agents required to tell potential buyers about possible problems, i.e. such as a lunatic former owner?

Yes.

I would think Wrekha and her potential for legal issues would be a definite negative to a buyer who didn't wish any future difficulties.

Undoubtedly. A developer or property investor might not really care but it will still cause a huge drop in the sale price.

She could potentially cause them as much difficulty and expense as she has caused the neighbor.

I would think the new owner would have their arses well and truly covered by the fact the property was sold as a result of a court order which gives them a rock solid title to the property. Any action RP could conceivably bring against the new owners would be struck out before it got anywhere with or without the need for legal advice. A semi-conscious pro-se baboon could prove title in under a minute.

[notorial dissent]

My sense is that she has managed to drag the property value down with her antics.
What I was thinking of was her breaking back in and moving back in and having to be removed again, or just starting litigation against the new owners. Valid or not that sort of things costs people money which could make the property more expensive in the long run just to get quiet title.

[TheNewSaint]

I would hope that Rekha's criminal case ends with a permanent order to stay away from the property.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Pretty much my take on it as well. Are UK real estate agents required to tell potential buyers about possible problems, i.e. such as a lunatic former owner?

Yes.

I actually think "no" but it will come out in the standard legal questions with a bit of "reading between the lines" which will result in conversations between the parties' lawyers. If the seller was evasive then it reduces the price or results in a buyer pull out; but that isn't going to happen here. No lawyer is going to leave themselves open to suggestion that they messed up a court ordered sale.

[ArthurWankspittle]

What I was thinking of was her breaking back in and moving back in and having to be removed again, or just starting litigation against the new owners. Valid or not that sort of things costs people money which could make the property more expensive in the long run just to get quiet title.

True but the first time she tries it with the new owners people will be getting arrested, given the prior history. Equally, if in the middle of finding some in your property, you "screwed their pelvis to a cakestand", then the CPS would be very reluctant to prosecute. These days I tend to recommend a gang of Akitas or Giant Alaskan Malamutes.

[longdog]

What I was thinking of was her breaking back in and moving back in and having to be removed again, or just starting litigation against the new owners. Valid or not that sort of things costs people money which could make the property more expensive in the long run just to get quiet title.

True but the first time she tries it with the new owners people will be getting arrested, given the prior history. Equally, if in the middle of finding some in your property, you "screwed their pelvis to a cakestand", then the CPS would be very reluctant to prosecute. These days I tend to recommend a gang of Akitas or Giant Alaskan Malamutes.

Yep... Things could get very nasty...

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced section 6.1(A) and other provisions were added, which override this and give the right of entry to "displaced residential occupiers", "protected intending occupiers" (someone who had intended to occupy the property, including some tenants, licensees and landlords who require the property for use), or someone acting on their behalf. These terms are defined in sections 12 and 12A. Such people may legally enter an occupied property even using force as the usual section 6 provision does not apply to them, and may require "any person who is on [their] premises as a trespasser" to leave. Failure to leave is a criminal offence under section 7 and removal may be enforced by police

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting ... r_Act_1994

[Hercule Parrot]

Pretty much my take on it as well. Are UK real estate agents required to tell potential buyers about possible problems, i.e. such as a lunatic former owner?

Yes.

I actually think "no" but it will come out in the standard legal questions with a bit of "reading between the lines" which will result in conversations between the parties' lawyers. .

The standard conveyancing questionnaire will force plain disclosure -
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-s ... -specimen/

[He Who Knows]

Facebook "Free Man on the Land - Fails" is reporting that there were 2 Footle trespasses to Patel Cottage last week. The first on Wednesday where 10 people pitched 2 tents for a couple of hours in the wind and rain and had a BBQ in Patel Cottage's garden (sounds fun - not). When the police didn't show up, it gave the green light for further mischief. The second visit was Thursday evening under cover of darkness when 3 Footles pretending to do maintenance work up a ladder were challenged by neighbours who phoned the police. Allegedly it was Penny Ross, Simmondley maths tutor (see web page 'Penny the Maths Tutor') who was removing the tin off the windows. Allegedly she's another teacher who's taken 9 months off sick with 'stress'. Wonder if she asks her pupils that regular trigonometry question, "What's the best angle to place a ladder when breaking into a house?" She's also ex-director of Fringed Ltd, one of the 2 companies that bought Patel Cottage for £2. The other guy was Peter McDowell (again) one of those rare Footles who likes to keep up-to-date with his car tax and insurance. The third one was allegedly Wrecker's brother, Rakesh. Police saw them off anyway without a struggle. It's the neighbours I feel for, they must be wondering if this nonsense will ever end.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... 5/officers

[ArthurWankspittle]

It will stop once a new owner gets in there. I can't imagine they won't be aware of the circumstances surrounding the sale. What does concern me, and always has with FMOTLs, is that we get a Tony Martin or Albert Dryden situation.

[Siegfried Shrink]

That seems improbable, I do not see Ms Patel as the Bandit Queen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Queen.html

[ArthurWankspittle]

That seems improbable, I do not see Ms Patel as the Bandit Queen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Queen.html

Improbable yes, impossible no. Somewhere there might be a FMOTL who can use a firearm without shooting themselves in the foot.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Somewhere there might be a unicorn.

[TheNewSaint]

Tom Crawford's visits to Fearn Chase didn't stop until his criminal court judgment barred him from going there. We can only hope that Rekha's criminal judge will see her long pattern of behavior for what it is, and do the same. Because the message from various civil proceedings clearly hasn't sunk in yet.

[Penny Wise]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for ... 59447.html

https://www.reedsrains.co.uk/property/h ... 900/search

For Sale again

[rosy]

I expect Rekha and her hangers-on will already be hassling the EA; I hope they are made of sterner stuff than the previous agents. Being a national firm, though IIRC franchises, they probably have a greater access to lawyers who will tell anyone trying to disrupt the sale to jog on.

[exiledscouser]

It’s quite sad that in her arrogance Rekha has chosen to throw away what appears to be, from the photos taken in a happier time, a lovely home.

She should be glad that it is still being marketed for a tidy sum despite efforts to derail and devalue the place.

No doubt there’ll be a reaction of some sort now.