Rekha Patel loses her house

[He Who Knows]

AndyPandy wrote back in January 2017:

C: Charges Register
This register contains any charges and other matters
that affect the land.
1 (02.10.2013) Equitable charge created by Interim charging order of the
Manchester County Court dated 25 September 2013 in favour of [Name Omitted By Request] (Court Reference 1IR69558).
NOTE: Copy filed.
2 (15.04.2015) Equitable charge created by an interim charging order of
the County Court at Manchester dated 26 March 2015 in favour of [Name Omitted By Request] (Court Reference 1IR69558).
NOTE: Copy filed.
3 (22.04.2016) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of a Charging Order dated 4
April 2016.
NOTE: Copy filed.
4 (22.04.2016) BENEFICIARY: [Name Omitted By Request ]care of Plexus Law Limited
trading as Cogent Law of Josephs Wells, Hanover Walk, Leeds LS3 1AB and
DX716926 Leeds (reference 279353/1)

Compare this to what AnOwlCalledSage paid £3 to the Land Registry for last Monday. Spot the difference?

[Footloose52]

There's a tenancy agreement in there that wasn't there before and a charge dated 2013 has disappeared.

[TheNewSaint]

The Chancery Court hearing, in which the judge ordered the house sold, was in June 2017. (See the Tameside Reporter story here: https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/06/ne ... udgement1/ ). And in late July there's a new "lease agreement" added to the land registry. Which means, after losing in Chancery Court, Rekha and fruends just went back and changed the Land Registry again.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

If anyone one wants to read the full pdf:

[Link deleted by mod] 23/03/2018

Mod note: Someone complained that the linked file contained the name of a neighbor which, it was previously decided, should not be published. I don't know anything about this, but deleted the link. You guys please work this out, because I don't want to read a 1600-post thread. - WS

[D-C]

The interesting thing is that squatting in a private house is now a criminal offence. So what may happen is that someone buys the house starts living there and then Rekha calls the 5-0 as there now is a criminal act in progress.

[Wozzle]

If anyone one wants to read the full pdf:

[Link deleted by mod] 23/03/2018

Mod note: Someone complained that the linked file contained the name of a neighbor which, it was previously decided, should not be published. I don't know anything about this, but deleted the link. You guys please work this out, because I don't want to read a 1600-post thread. - WS

I think by now everyone knows the name in question, and if anyone didn't they would just need to check Rekha's FB so its hardly any protection not listing it on here?

[Wakeman52]

If I was the neighbour, I think that the fewer places that my name was visible, the better.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

[Link deleted by mod] 23/03/2018

It is a public document, but understand the reasoning and concur. I didn't spot that. I think I've already quoted the salient points.

[Hercule Parrot]

The interesting thing is that squatting in a private house is now a criminal offence. So what may happen is that someone buys the house starts living there and then Rekha calls the 5-0 as there now is a criminal act in progress.

Yes, she's probably stupid enough to do that. Hopefully they'll nick her for wasting Police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[noblepa]

The interesting thing is that squatting in a private house is now a criminal offence. So what may happen is that someone buys the house starts living there and then Rekha calls the 5-0 as there now is a criminal act in progress.

Yes, she's probably stupid enough to do that. Hopefully they'll nick her for wasting Police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

In the US, and I assume in the UK (as those laws are rational), making a false police report is a crime. So, if she tried something like that, she could be sent to prison. She could also face a massive civil lawsuit from the new owners, although, I imagine she is a destitute, judgement-proof pauper.

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect that she, and her actions and bad behaviors, are all too well aware of who she is and what she has been up to.

[letissier14]

So you're banning public documents now??????

Pathetic.

What next redacted copies?

[Gregg]

So you're banning public documents now??????

Pathetic.

What next redacted copies?

Not exactly. We're following our own policy of not disclosing certain personal details needlessly. As it is a public document, if you feel reading it is vitally important to you, or mildly interesting to you for that matter, you are free to find it somewhere else and read it. Just because one can do something is not always a good argument that one should.
Thanks

[He Who Knows]

Hercule Parrot wrote:

D-C wrote: ↑
Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:18 pm
The interesting thing is that squatting in a private house is now a criminal offence. So what may happen is that someone buys the house starts living there and then Rekha calls the 5-0 as there now is a criminal act in progress.

Yes, she's probably stupid enough to do that. Hopefully they'll nick her for wasting Police time or attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I would have thought Derbyshire Police are by now fully clued up on the antics of Ms Patel having had at least two years of dealing with her and her Footle gang. They just need to take one look at the Title deeds to be convinced that a new owner owns the property then she will get done for wasting police time/perverting the course of justice, as Hercule Parrot rightly says.

[wserra]

Pathetic.

I don't know about you, but I don't waste my time reading pathetic sites.

[letissier14]

So you're banning public documents now??????

Pathetic.

What next redacted copies?

Not exactly. We're following our own policy of not disclosing certain personal details needlessly. As it is a public document, if you feel reading it is vitally important to you, or mildly interesting to you for that matter, you are free to find it somewhere else and read it. Just because one can do something is not always a good argument that one should.
Thanks

Well in that case you could say the same for a vast majority of posts on here. You either have a blanket ban or no ban, you can't be selective on a whim that suits at the time.

[Burnaby49]

So you're banning public documents now??????

Pathetic.

What next redacted copies?

Not exactly. We're following our own policy of not disclosing certain personal details needlessly. As it is a public document, if you feel reading it is vitally important to you, or mildly interesting to you for that matter, you are free to find it somewhere else and read it. Just because one can do something is not always a good argument that one should.
Thanks

Well in that case you could say the same for a vast majority of posts on here. You either have a blanket ban or no ban, you can't be selective on a whim that suits at the time.

Perhaps you've missed the point on what we mods can and cannot do. We can do whatever we want, we're the moderators. If you have a problem with that follow Wes's suggestion and go elsewhere where your imaginary rights are respected.

you can't be selective on a whim that suits at the time

No whim involved. We don't have a list of rules apart from politics and religion but we have an informal understanding on some points. One is to not drag victims names into discussions unnecessarily. It's irrelevant whether the names are readily available elsewhere.

[Siegfried Shrink]

You either have a blanket ban or no ban, you can't be selective on a whim that suits at the time.

I think you can. it is what you might call politeness, there are times to offend and times not to, and my general rule is to offend the offensive and not offend the inoffensive.

I think in general those involved through no fault of their own in other people's disasters should be afforded some discretion. The woman involved with Steve Macrea, expert in FA was a williing accomplice in a fatous plan to steal her neighbour's home, and well nameable, but people like Rekah's neighbour could be left out of it. Anyone can find the name if they want, it is more a gesture of courtesy to omit it.

Black and white or binary solutions sound easy, but in life, shades of grey are usually more appropriate.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

No whim involved. We don't have a list of rules apart from politics and religion but we have an informal understanding on some points. One is to not drag victims names into discussions unnecessarily. It's irrelevant whether the names are readily available elsewhere.

Trying to douse the fire, the "name" in the document looked to me like a legal holding arrangement. If I had realised it was making the neighbour identifiable, I would have redacted it myself! I'm fully behind the policy, informal or not. If people dox themselves (as both Neelu and Rekha do all the time) that is one thing, but if its not relevant to the matter in hand, privacy should be respected.

[NYGman]

Well in that case you could say the same for a vast majority of posts on here. You either have a blanket ban or no ban, you can't be selective on a whim that suits at the time.

Please don't Ban Blankets, we need them when it gets cold, Especially the reptiles among us.