Rekha Patel loses her house

[notorial dissent]

Good ole Liz "illiterate ignorant incoherent" Nolson, she'll tell 'um wut's, wut. Just priceless. I wonder if any of the other valiant defenders got. taken, at the very least loitering with intent I should think, or more hopefully trespass, or even better yet complicity with B & E.

[noblepa]

It's all just a minor misunderstanding - Liz Nolson has called the police and its all cleared up now

She was following a restoration process in accordance with UCC 9-609 610 and as the UK treaury is a corporation held as unsecured accounts in securities exchange commission and those enforcing this shot are in uniform uniform commercial code applies to them not u

That's a new one. Since the bailiffs wear uniforms, they fall under the Uniform Commercial Code!

[noblepa]

It's all just a minor misunderstanding - Liz Nolson has called the police and its all cleared up now

She was following a restoration process in accordance with UCC 9-609 610 and as the UK treaury is a corporation held as unsecured accounts in securities exchange commission and those enforcing this shot are in uniform uniform commercial code applies to them not u

Thank god somebody has a plausible explanation apart from the unfounded accusations that Rheka was pulling a B&E. For a while it looked like her actions might be misinterpreted. She was just exercising her rights under an American law with no legal weight in Britain. Now that Rheka has claimed authority under the UCC she'll be getting her the cottage back and compensation from the government for illegally displacing her, I can't see any other outcome. This is UCC 9-609 and UCC 9-610

9-609. SECURED PARTY’S RIGHT TO TAKE POSSESSION AFTER DEFAULT.

(a) [Possession; rendering equipment unusable; disposition on debtor's premises.]

After default, a secured party:

(1) may take possession of the collateral; and

(2) without removal, may render equipment unusable and dispose of collateral on a debtor's premises under Section 9-610.

(b) [Judicial and nonjudicial process.]

A secured party may proceed under subsection (a):

(1) pursuant to judicial process; or

(2) without judicial process, if it proceeds without breach of the peace.

(c) [Assembly of collateral.]

If so agreed, and in any event after default, a secured party may require the debtor to assemble the collateral and make it available to the secured party at a place to be designated by the secured party which is reasonably convenient to both parties.


9-610. DISPOSITION OF COLLATERAL AFTER DEFAULT.

(a) [Disposition after default.]

After default, a secured party may sell, lease, license, or otherwise dispose of any or all of the collateral in its present condition or following any commercially reasonable preparation or processing.

(b) [Commercially reasonable disposition.]

Every aspect of a disposition of collateral, including the method, manner, time, place, and other terms, must be commercially reasonable. If commercially reasonable, a secured party may dispose of collateral by public or private proceedings, by one or more contracts, as a unit or in parcels, and at any time and place and on any terms.

(c) [Purchase by secured party.]

A secured party may purchase collateral:

(1) at a public disposition; or

(2) at a private disposition only if the collateral is of a kind that is customarily sold on a recognized market or the subject of widely distributed standard price quotations.

(d) [Warranties on disposition.]

A contract for sale, lease, license, or other disposition includes the warranties relating to title, possession, quiet enjoyment, and the like which by operation of law accompany a voluntary disposition of property of the kind subject to the contract.

(e) [Disclaimer of warranties.]

A secured party may disclaim or modify warranties under subsection (d):

(1) in a manner that would be effective to disclaim or modify the warranties in a voluntary disposition of property of the kind subject to the contract of disposition; or

(2) by communicating to the purchaser a record evidencing the contract for disposition and including an express disclaimer or modification of the warranties.

(f) [Record sufficient to disclaim warranties.

A record is sufficient to disclaim warranties under subsection (e) if it indicates "There is no warranty relating to title, possession, quiet enjoyment, or the like in this disposition" or uses words of similar import.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-610

I have to confess that I fail to see how this has any relevance to Rheka's situation but then, unlike Liz Nolson, I'm not an expert in American commercial law.

Aside from the minor quibble that the UCC is American law and does not apply in the UK, there is the fact that Ms. Patel is not the secured party. That would be her mortgage bank, or, in this case, the courts who are enforcing the judgement against her.

[NYGman]

Sometimes they say it is Uniform sometimes it is Universal, I wish they would chose one and stay with it, or maybe there are two versions of the same thing?

[notorial dissent]

Calling a skunk cabbage a cumquat doesn't make it edible, kind of like expecting rationality and consistency from people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Hercule Parrot]

Elisabeth Nolson - The transcripts prove through judge lawtons findings that the original repossession was unlawful and illegal meaning the charge against someone obstructing an enforcement officer had to be dropped because the warrant wasn't valid .. That constitutes theft by the neighbour

So much fail, compressed into so few words. Let's do this methodically -

The transcripts.... Nope. Partial notes taken by Cwissy's friend are not legal transcripts, they are evidentially worthless.

prove through judge lawtons findings that the original repossession was unlawful and illegal... Nope, HHJ Lawton did not make that finding (and his criminal court had no capacity to overturn a civil order even if he wished to). All that HHJ Lawton said, correctly, was that for Cwissy to be convicted of criminal obstruction the prosecution must satisfy the court that the possession was authorised by a lawful court order. And CPS made no attempt to do that, so Cwissy was entitled to walk.

meaning the charge against someone obstructing an enforcement officer had to be dropped because the warrant wasn't valid .. . No Liz, you've really got to pay attention now, I can't keep repeating this forever. Crissy's appeal was properly allowed because the CPS made no attempt whatsoever to prove the validity of the warrant. Now listen carefully, okay? "Not being proved valid" is not the same thing as "Being proved not valid" . I know it's hard, but it's a really important rule of logic that you need to understand. Cwissy's acquittal has no bearing upon the legitimacy of the repo.

That constitutes theft by the neighbour..... Honestly, my Labrador would understand this better. Wrecka's cottage was taken by an insurance company, as a last resort and after properly obtaining a court order, to meet the debts which she owed to them after a prolonged and costly legal dispute which she chose to aggravate at every opportunity.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, yes, you are dealing with well facts and reality, and Liz is dealing with hearsay and wishful thinking, and reality has never entered her abode.

[Gregg]

I'm saddened by this.

Not for what you think. I'm saddened because the property has apparently been sold and the inevitable costs the Fruit Command is running up now are running against someone else, and its quite possible that to take possession of their new home, the buyers might have to begin a whole new round of litigation.

And I gotta wonder what the final selling price was, and if there was any equity at all left. We could possibly have in reality what experts have only thought theoretically possible, the elusive Recka-Full Crawford Singularity.

To refresh your collective memory..

Full Crawford
A Full Crawford is a real estate transaction in which the owner, through stupidity and persistent legal woo above and beyond the call or duty, disposes of equity in a home exceeding the value of said home, without regards to the amount of that value. It means you pissed away every penny you had in a house. It does not require you piss away the actual value of a home, Casa Crawford the residence on which this unit is based, was probably worth upwards of £140,000 and Poor Tom only lost £90,000 give or take. But the important thing is Tom had something approaching that much in equity after taking into account what he owed. So he achieved "Full Crawford" when he got to the point when he would not get a bent penny from the eventual sale of the property. Though figures are not known in exactitude, Clan Stupid owed expenses relating to agents, bailiffs, security and legal costs of almost £90,000 after the home was sold. This means that Crawford might have in fact done an extremely rare Double Full Crawford, pissing away his equity and as much again after. A truly memorable own goal, the likes we rarely see.

Rekha
A Rekha is a slightly different measure and one that as of yet, officially, the person for whom it is named may not actually achieve. It is in fact a purely theoretical unit at this time, experts think it does exist but have yet to demonstrate an actual Rekha in nature or in the laboratory. For a Rekha to be achieved, a person or family that owns a home free and clear of any mortgage must run up legal and other costs in pointless and frivolous legal actions that result in the loss of the home, without leaving anything for the protagonist. Rekha Patel has indeed lost her little cottage, and she has done so through court ordered legal costs of her neighbor, the underling damage charge having been paid fairly early in the attempt. No, Rekha has given to date £90,000 of her equity to the lawyers for the insurance company that paid to defend her neighbor from her pointless and vindictive lawsuits. Cottage Patel has been ordered sold for no less than £225,000 so Rekha has quite a ways to go to earn a title named after her. (where else but in Sov-Cit stupid could this happen) But we are optimistic for a few reasons. First, charges relating to the final eviction, full time security, eventual boarding up of the home have yet to be tolled, as have almost certainly more legal fees. Second, though the court ordered the property sold for no less than £225,000 Rekha's actions and the condition of the property may require that order to be revised and the price reduced. It seems the market value of what now looks like one of the Fuhrer's Bunkers which the past owner is likely to re-occupy as soon as she thinks no one is looking, along with the near certainty that she will start in filing costly lawsuits against anyone who buys it in the future is somewhat depressed in this market. Who knew?
So, to sum up, a Full Rekha requires a house fully paid for, with every £ of equity extracted by lawyers, agents, movers and security, among other costs in inadvisable legal proceedings.
It is important to know when to cut the bitch free and just pay the phuckers....

That was written almost a year ago, and its almost scary how accurate my prognosis of the case was. Princess Braindead has done every single thing I mentioned that she might do to destroy any value she had left, and I am cheering for the final numbers to come in and see if she has indeed pissed away almost a quarter million pounds.

[He Who Knows]

Gregg, your numbers of a quarter of a mill were conservative. A Full Wrecka is more likely to be upwards of £280,000 in the bullish UK property market for Glossop.
Zoopla has the current value of Casa Patel at £279K https://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/hanov ... s/21606710
Word on the street has it that the new owner paid £160K which, if costs were £90K a year ago, probably just about covers intervening costs "extracted by lawyers, agents, movers and security, among other costs in inadvisable legal proceedings". So, unless I've missed something, Princess Shoutypants has surpassed the Full Crawford.

[Gregg]

I'm curious to kow if she's broken back in and set up shop, and is there an imminent showdown coming when the new owner either moves in, or they bought it for investment, starts working on it. I'd like nothing more than to see a dumpster parked in the garden and whatever is still in the house tossed out the windows into the bin. If Cwissy and the Clown Army shows up and films it all, more the better.

[Burnaby49]

So, unless I've missed something, Princess Shoutypants has surpassed the Full Crawford.

I don't care if she has or hasn't, she still wins in my books. Tom Crawford pulled his stunt because, after all these years of payments, he'd paid nothing towards the mortgage principal and the bill was falling due. He probably couldn't afford to pay a regular mortgage and didn't want to sell. So his home was at risk and he took a chance to try and keep it. Rheka had nothing at risk, she owned her place mortgage-free. Through sheer demented pig-headedness she turned some easily manageable court costs (incurred because of her own gross stupidity) into the loss of her home without even sharing in a small portion of the proceeds. She simply threw it all away for no understandable reason because she didn't want to pay a relatively small amount of money.

Tom had never paid anything for his house, an interest-only mortgage is essentially the same as renting. His total loss was the money he would have realized had he faced reality and sold, the amount the value of the house had appreciated over the mortgage principal. Rheka lost everything, the price she paid for the place and its appreciation in value while she held it. Her home wasn't even at risk until she chose to force the insurance company to take action against her. And, with this B&E, I'm guessing she'll finally lose her job with no chance of getting another given her history. She may well end up in jail if this obsession continues unabated. All over replacing a few stones on her roof. As far as I'm concerned she's the new gold standard regardless of relative financial losses.

[Gregg]

What he said.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Has the custom of linking to sources died?
Not that I doubt the integrity of any of the reporters, but the reviewing of original sources can help to fimd other interesting and amusing stuff.

[He Who Knows]

Wrecka speaks on Facebook:

Rekha Patel
54 mins ·

Good day and an update my home as you know was stolen from me from the neighbour, she put two Russian guards there to stop me from coming home, they were ex military. I drove past on Monday and noticed no guards, no shutters so I went to look, I looked through the window and all my stuff had gone I thought WTF I don't normally swear but I was a tad annoyed and my foot just reacted by itself and kicked open the door, [the neighbour] has footage of all of this, I complained to the police many times of my invasion of privacy but I have to say it was funny to watch I had to stop myself from laughing at the police interview, the police showed up in ten mins as usual two vans and a car 6 police officers, told them I was the legal tenant and I had rights and they didn't care, they stuck me in a cell for 16 hours where I sang, exercised, meditated and lost half a stone as I won't eat or drink their food. They were given a short written statement and a no comment interview, the statement contained the facts, I have a ten year tenancy agreement. I'm still paying rent, my landlord still owns my home, I cannot criminally damage my own property, the door belongs to me as I am the Tennant, the tenancy agreement is still valid regardless of who owns the house, released without charge. The new owner a man they said was called [redacted] a property developer who apparently bought the house but my landlord didn't sell it so some serious fraud going on if that is true. I was accused of burglary to start with, then criminal damage, but charged with sweet nothing, my neighbor clearly disappointed this [new owner] who I've only just heard about wrote a statement to say I had damaged the door and he didn't give me permission. When I said to the police that my stuff had been stolen they said that's civil. The incompetence of this Derbyshire force is unbelievable, they are near the bottom of the league in the country for their effectiveness, bit like bottom of the Ofsted league!! No wonder!!! The neighbour is trying very hard to get press from not reporting on this to the point complaining to journalist authorities about individuals she even said that the journalism portrays her to be a racist, perhaps she is reading her own diary as I've not seem anything in the paper that portrays her to be a racist.

[Burnaby49]

The incompetence of this Derbyshire force is unbelievable, they are near the bottom of the league in the country for their effectiveness, bit like bottom of the Ofsted league!!

Can't argue that if they just let her go. Of more interest is her weight loss program. She sang, exercised, and meditated for sixteen hours and lost seven pounds? Impressive. Weight Watchers beware, there's a new kid on the block!

[Burnaby49]

Has the custom of linking to sources died?
Not that I doubt the integrity of any of the reporters, but the reviewing of original sources can help to fimd other interesting and amusing stuff.

There may be other websites more attuned to your criteria.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I was a tad annoyed and my foot just reacted by itself and kicked open the door

That's a problem many people have, basically it is what keeps the door industry going nowadays.

Her account, with the deluded point of view removed, does make it all pretty clear.
I imagine her singing in her cell was a deciding factor in not making any charge, there was probably a mass protest from all the other prisoners who all promised to plead guilty of anything for a bit of peace and quiet.

The new owner probably factored a bit of door kicking into the modest reported price he paid and was unwilling to waste more time with her by pressing charges. He may come to regret this.

[Siegfried Shrink]

There may be other websites more attuned to your criteria.

I was under the impression that Quatloos was keen on quoting sources rather than just saying this that and the other. Indeed, most posts from Burnaby are well supported by citations.

[exiledscouser]

One of Rekha's supporters Liam kinda misses the point of the long post above;

Wow you lost half a stone after just singing, meditating and exercising? I'm gonna sack Slimming World

Whatever else this latest arrest is surely career suicide.

[notorial dissent]

There may be other websites more attuned to your criteria.

I was under the impression that Quatloos was keen on quoting sources rather than just saying this that and the other. Indeed, most posts from Burnaby are well supported by citations.

Since it has all was and has been documented in previous posts there is no need for endless repetition.