Rekha Patel loses her house

[SteveUK]

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.

Are they flying over your house as well? The ones in my garden are bringing gifts of prosperity scams...

[Hercule Parrot]

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!

Relax, Sage, it's all cool. The victim's name is easily found, especially as Wrecka's followers constantly shout it from the rooftops. And of course, do they know where she lives....

But the mods here were reliably informed that the victim wanted to return to dignified obscurity, and didn't enjoy seeing her name plastered everywhere. So they adopted a policy that we would not publish her name on Q*. Pragmatically, this is an utterly futile and sentimental gesture - one raindrop in a monsoon. But it has a moral integrity and authenticity which transcends pragmatism. It's the right thing to do, even if it makes no difference. It says who we are, where we draw the line.

(* I think comment was invited from the great unwashed, and I think we agreed. If I remember wrongly, nothing turns on it)

[notorial dissent]

If nothing else it is called common courtesy and respect for privacy. Something I thought was supposed to be a British trait. The neighbor has done nothing to warrant any further or more attention as she is the victim in this. It is an unwritten and enforced rule around here that innocent parties ARE TO BE LEFT ALONE .

[TheNewSaint]

I still want to discuss the contents of the Land Registry record, because I think it answers some questions we've all had about this case. I will do so while redacting names. That should be acceptable.

Working from memory: there was a Section 2 and a Section 3. Section 2 included text to the effect of "This land may not be dispositioned without the express written consent of [neighbor] and [neighbor's law firm]." It was dated June 2017, the same time as the Chancery Court hearing. Which was to clarify the matter of ownership, after Princess Rekha's sham sale of the house.

Clearly, this entry was the result of that hearing.
Tunkashila Ltd is still listed as owner, having paid £100 for the home, but that entry in Section 2 prevents them from exercising ownership in any meaningful way. We know it's listed for sale, and protected by guards, so this phony ownership apparently means very little.

(I like to think they kept Tunkashila as the owner so they can prosecute the whole gang later for unpaid taxes, real estate fraud, or whatever. Wishful thinking, I know.)

Section 3 was called something like "charges against this property." It included a new entry, dated July or August 2017, to the effect of "Rekha Patel has a lease on this property from Tunkashila Ltd from 2016 to 2026 at £50/month." I guess that was their post-Chancery Court strategy: to insert another phony entry into the Land Registry. Doesn't matter what section, i guess, as long as it's there. I can't imagine this having any legal effect, but it's certainly a tactic these idiots would try.

I welcome any corrections to my amateur legal analysis.

[The Seventh String]

Trying to piece all this together, and maybe making 2+2=15....

If Tunkshila actually are the legal freehold owner, rather than simply named in out of date registry entry it is presumably within their rights to let or lease the property to whoever they wish.

Which leaseholder/tenant, from the registry details, would appear to be Ms Patel as an assured tenant with a rather long and very cheap agreement.

Obviously, houses with sitting tenants or other existing long-term leaseholders generally sell for much less than ones with vacant possession. And any potential purchaser is likely to be wary of buying a property with disputed ownership, an “unusual and interesting” legal history and possibly a sitting and very awkward low-rent tenant.

So it’s quite possible that at the moment Ms Patel has effectively blocked the sale because the property won’t realise enough to meet the court’s requirements for sale. Her brute determination to deny her creditors what she owes them - a debt created entirely by her own actions - would be commendable if applied to any useful and positive endeavour.

Perhaps someone could refresh my memory - has she been declared bankrupt at any point during this mess?

[Siegfried Shrink]

No bankruptcy yet.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Trying to piece all this together, and maybe making 2+2=15....

I rather think you are.

If Tunkshila actually are the legal freehold owner, rather than simply named in out of date registry entry it is presumably within their rights to let or lease the property to whoever they wish.

But they aren't - see para 2 of thenewsaint's post.

Which leaseholder/tenant, from the registry details, would appear to be Ms Patel as an assured tenant with a rather long and very cheap agreement.

Wondered about this so checked. Long term tenancy agreements have to be registered.

Obviously, houses with sitting tenants or other existing long-term leaseholders generally sell for much less than ones with vacant possession. And any potential purchaser is likely to be wary of buying a property with disputed ownership, an “unusual and interesting” legal history and possibly a sitting and very awkward low-rent tenant.

As previous, there is no valid tenancy agreement.

So it’s quite possible that at the moment Ms Patel has effectively blocked the sale because the property won’t realise enough to meet the court’s requirements for sale. Her brute determination to deny her creditors what she owes them - a debt created entirely by her own actions - would be commendable if applied to any useful and positive endeavour.

The court said originally sell it for £225,000. That must have changed. Rekha's alleged tenancy is of no effect, her other actions, the "unusual and interesting" bit may well affect the price. I put it to you that if you were to go into a solicitor's office today with £150,000, and were willing to take a chance on some conveyancing and property issues, you could own Hanover Cottage by four weeks Friday.

[Hercule Parrot]

So it’s quite possible that at the moment Ms Patel has effectively blocked the sale because the property won’t realise enough to meet the court’s requirements for sale. Her brute determination to deny her creditors what she owes them - a debt created entirely by her own actions - would be commendable if applied to any useful and positive endeavour.

The court said originally sell it for £225,000. That must have changed. Rekha's alleged tenancy is of no effect, her other actions, the "unusual and interesting" bit may well affect the price. I put it to you that if you were to go into a solicitor's office today with £150,000, and were willing to take a chance on some conveyancing and property issues, you could own Hanover Cottage by four weeks Friday.

I agree. Wrecka hasn't blocked the sale, she has simply ensured that the house will be sold at a substantial discount. The creditors will recover most of their entitlement, and there will be little or nothing left for her. If she had got a grip on herself a year ago and co-operated with the sale process, she might've walked away with £100,000.

[Burnaby49]

I agree. Wrecka hasn't blocked the sale, she has simply ensured that the house will be sold at a substantial discount. The creditors will recover most of their entitlement, and there will be little or nothing left for her. If she had got a grip on herself a year ago and co-operated with the sale process, she might've walked away with £100,000.

Reality check required. Had she been capable of co-operating with the sales process she'd have had the basic underlying common sense not to lose her house and all of her equity in it over a bunch of flagstones.

[He Who Knows]

Wow, I've just been on the David Icke forum for the first time. Even contributors on there think that Chrisy Morris and Rekha Patel have got it all wrong about the 2016 eviciton:
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread. ... 427&page=6

"Rogerdun" (senior member) wrote in response to a comment from "Gremlin":

Really? Is that your attitude? It does not matter what the debt is for?
I thought that you always advocate "cause no harm or loss"? Obviously not.

Ms Patel owes her neighbour £70,000. Ms Patel's neighbour is the claimant.

How would you feel if your neighbour owed you £70,000 and when you tried to recover your money some idiot like Morris (who is totally unrelated to the case) stuck his nose in and tried to prevent you from getting what is legally yours? Would you care that a stranger like Morris was interfering and trying to do you out of your £70,000?
If your neighbour owed you £70,000 and someone said to you "it doesn't matter what the debt is for, where is the supposed authority for you to recover your money?" would you agree with them and write the money off or would you still want your money?

Answer these two questions:
Ms Patel owes her neighbour £70,000. Should the neighbour suffer the loss caused by Ms Patel?
Yes or No?
When an ordinary member of the public like Ms Patel's neighbour is owed money should they have access to the courts to recover their money?
Yes or No

[longdog]

Clearly that person hasn't grasped the basic principle of money as it applies to FMOTL... "What's yours is mine and what's mine is my own". A principle that cannot be applied by the other non-FMOTL party because reasons.

[wserra]

Wow, I've just been on the David Icke forum for the first time.

Rest, ibuprofen and plenty of fluids.

[TheNewSaint]

If Tunkshila actually are the legal freehold owner, rather than simply named in out of date registry entry it is presumably within their rights to let or lease the property to whoever they wish.

The Land Registry entry says they can't "disposition" the property. Not sure if that includes renting.

Which leaseholder/tenant, from the registry details, would appear to be Ms Patel as an assured tenant with a rather long and very cheap agreement.

I don't think she's assured at all. I think they just added this detail to an irrelevant section of the Land Registry. But someone more knowledgeable than myself would have to analyze further.

[aesmith]

An "Assured" tenancy is simply one of the types of tenancies that can legally existing in England. There are clearly set out grounds allowing a an assured tenancy to be ended against the tenant's will ..
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_ ... ed_tenants

[Hercule Parrot]

"Rogerdun" (senior member) wrote in response to a comment from "Gremlin":

How would you feel if your neighbour owed you £70,000 and when you tried to recover your money some idiot like Morris (who is totally unrelated to the case) stuck his nose in and tried to prevent you from getting what is legally yours?

Good point - a standard catechism of sovcit 101 is "we don't deal with third party interlopers"...

[TheNewSaint]

An "Assured" tenancy is simply one of the types of tenancies that can legally existing in England. There are clearly set out grounds allowing a an assured tenancy to be ended against the tenant's will ..
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_ ... ed_tenants

Thanks for the clarification.

My botching of "assured" aside, I was trying to say "I don't think sticking Rekha's alleged lease into the 'charges against' section of the registry gives it any legal status. Especially after the court has already ruled that Tunkashila Ltd may not disposition the property."

[He Who Knows]

Hercule Parrot wrote:
The other half of this story is Wrecka's professional status.

I will speculate with some confidence that she has been signed off sick for a good while now, and continues to receive full salary from the school. Also that the school is well aware of her lunatic adventures, and has been very happy to have her off the premises for the time being. But they are probably paying £2k pw for temporary cover, and they will not want to continue this forever. And they would not want Wrecka to ever return to their school.

So, looming somewhere in the background will be an HR process to bring an end to the episode. It is legal to dismiss a worker who has been sick for a long time, but there are risks. If Wrecka disputes it at Industrial Tribunal and alleges racism etc, the school will be on the hook for more cost and adverse publicity (even if they are successful).

The other route, which I imagine the school will prefer, would be fitness to teach. If a professional conduct panel concludes that Wrecka's behaviour (within the school, or otherwise) makes her unsuited for the responsible and trusted profession of teaching, she may be 'struck off' by a Prohibition Order. And then the school would have no burden to prove, she would be automatically dismissed.

I think SteveUK mentioned further up this thread that any complaint about fitness to teach can go straight to the General Teaching Council for England who can decide on fitness to teach - independently from the school. http://www.gtce.org.uk/

[Wozzle]

She worked in a college didn't she? - If so likely to be private company ran. I doubt she is on full pay if still off sick, she will be on SSP by now.

[pgk70]

She worked in a college didn't she? - If so likely to be private company ran. I doubt she is on full pay if still off sick, she will be on SSP by now.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossopda ... ty_College it's a community school, so state funded and run by the local authority. (also https://www.compare-school-performance. ... ool/112957)

[He Who Knows]

A senior Ofsted Inspector's last letter about the school (Jan 2017) is particularly damning especially about maths teaching (Wrecka's subject).

The local authority has only recently begun to offer the school the necessary critical view it has needed for several years. A year ago, the local authority’s view was that the overall effectiveness of the school was good. This was over-generous and unhelpful.