Rekha Patel loses her house

[Burnaby49]

I'm personally obsessive about providing citations and links because it was burned into me on the job. I spent almost an entire 35 year career as a federal income tax auditor. When you cut through all the bullshit I was paid to force people to pay more money in tax. People were surprisingly reluctant to get on board with that and they often appealed my reassessments to the Tax Court of Canada. The Canada Revenue Agency doesn't like losing at Tax Court and appeals of my assessments were almost invariably dismissed by Tax Court. This was because I tried to base assessments on provable facts. As a result I spent a working lifetime focused on backing up any claim I made with documents, transcripts of interviews, court precedence, whatever was required to substantiate my reassessments to the satisfaction of the Tax Court. I told my team to prepare every file on the assumption that it would have to be defended at Tax Court.

I'm retired but I still tend to carry that perspective over to Quatloos. However I don't expect the same standards from fellow posters just basically rambling on about one of our idiots. I want citations when a posting is about a significant new fact and relates to accessible documents, court decisions, website quotes, things like that. But I see no need to link to things that have been cited in the past and are now just part of the general discussion. For example I post frequently about Dean Kory, an aspiring Freeman guru who's really just a petty criminal deadbeat. I often make direct quotes from his FB page but never link to it. I've given the link in the past and I'm not about to do it every time I quote more of his stupidity.

[Hercule Parrot]

Siegfried shrink wrote:

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.

This is pure speculation. Just because Wrecka says she has not been charged [yet] it does not make this so. It appears the new owner has written a police statement which shows his intent. The police will now be investigating given the absence of Land Registry updates.

Yes, too soon to know either way. Police will take statements, obtain CCTV footage, consult CPS etc. Perfectly possible that they'll do nothing, but if so further provocation is inevitable so nothing has been lost. Also possible that they'll advise the developer to obtain an injunction with penal warning (easier to prove breach of a do not enter injunction).

To be honest I'm surprised that this wasn't anticipated by the developer, and the steel shuttering left in situ.

[ArthurWankspittle]

To be honest I'm surprised that this wasn't anticipated by the developer, and the steel shuttering left in situ.

Maybe it is rented so the renting would end with the sale and the problem is the new owners?

[Siegfried Shrink]

Maybe it is rented so the renting would end with the sale and the problem is the new owners?

This seems probable. The egregious Mr Eburt was prosecuted for theft for removing shuttering and 'losing' it. The new owner would probably need to hire his own anti Reckah measures.

The question would be, is Wrecker on police bail? If charges were contemplated after further investigation, this would be normal practice. It is not the same as being released without charge. Technically the person on bail is not released from arrest. Just freed from actual custody.
Naturally, what she posts may well not be entirely accurate, or it may be just how she mistakenly sees it. Or it may be true. Time will possibly tell.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

This case is as clear as mud, but there are probably some inferences we can make.

If the property has been sold (from her own words: "The new owner..."), then it can be assumed that the question of ownership has been resolved. A solicitor putting through a sale where it hasn't been is opening themselves up to liability and, in any case, by law the seller has to state truthfully any outstanding legal disputes.

The question of police bail or released without charge may be revealed if Wrekha attends the property again within the next 28 days. It would be very unlikely that police bail for alleged criminal trespass wouldn't include a restriction on return until the matter has been fully investigated and violating police bail is arrestable in its own right regardless of whether a person is innocent of the original arrest.

[He Who Knows]

The case is quite a lot clearer than mud. For all newcomers onto this thread since June 2017 who can't be arsed to read back to page 24 (or thereabouts) here is the main ruling from the High Court Chancery Division Judge Pelling QC:
https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/06/ne ... udgement1/
In a nutshell, the sale of the cottage for £2 to Wrecka's parents' companies ('Fringed Ltd' and "Land & Property Protection Alliance") was a sham. The sale of the cottage a month or so later to Tunkashila Ltd for £100 was a sham. The 10-year tenancy Wrecka has with Tunkashila Ltd (£50 a month rent!) is a sham. Judge Pelling's decision on June 2017 to give the insurance company's solicitor conduct of sale was not a sham. Simples.

[Comrade Sharik]

released without charge.

If this is true than so is

The incompetence of this Derbyshire force is unbelievable,

Assuming RP's version approaches the truth, then I'm astonished that TBIB would let her get away with it. You'd have thought that by now, given the high profile of the case, that they'd be aware of what was really going on, and not fall for RP's flim flam. It seems however, that she's managed to convince them that it's a civil matter, and they've chosen to put in the 'too difficult' pile.

If I were the new owner, or the neighbour, I'd be considering a formal complaint.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

In a nutshell, the sale of the cottage for £2 to Wrecka's parents' companies ('Fringed Ltd' and "Land & Property Protection Alliance") was a sham. The sale of the cottage a month or so later to Tunkashila Ltd for £100 was a sham. The 10-year tenancy Wrecka has with Tunkashila Ltd (£50 a month rent!) is a sham. Judge Pelling's decision on June 2017 to give the insurance company's solicitor conduct of sale was not a sham. Simples.

Now that might be clear to us, but the land registry allowed this charge to be added AFTER the ruling…

(25.07.2017) Agreement for an assured shorthold tenancy dated 14 November 2016 in favour of Rekha Patel from 14 November 2016 to 14 November 2026.

I think we all agree that it is a sham, but legally there is more that can play out. We established elsewhere that the Land Registry has to indemnify invalid charges against a property, and then counter claim to recover loses.

The main difference this time is that further legal bills by Wrekha will come out of her own pocket (or most likely her parents), rather than against proceeds from the sale of the property.

[aesmith]

The way I see it is that the Court order for sale pre-empts anything that went before, the court ordered the sale and who would benefit from the proceeds. At that stage I don't think it matters who's name is on the title. The only relevance, I think, would be if the so-called owner had defended the court case, or brought separate proceedings along the lines of "it's my house you can't sell it to pay Rekha's debt". I don't remember seeing mention of any such action.

Regarding the tenancy, surely they just serve notice to quit on one of the applicable grounds.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Regarding the tenancy, surely they just serve notice to quit on one of the applicable grounds.

Don't even need to do that. Repo gives it to the court, or whoever the court directs, vacant. Tenancy agreements don't override possession, a long standing issue with English tenancy and property law, because if the tenant ignores or never gets one particular letter, they wake up one morning being chucked out without warning.
The registration of the tenancy is just a note on the file, it has little significance for this situation.

[exiledscouser]

More drama

Tunkishala has gone on the warpath.

They’ll be sorry. They’ll all be sorry.

It’s a nine page document of mixed woo and actual case law although it has the whiff of EWE as the drafter rather than more competent legal minds. Enjoy.

[SteveUK]

More drama

Tunkishala has gone on the warpath.

They’ll be sorry. They’ll all be sorry.

It’s a nine page document of mixed woo and actual case law although it has the whiff of EWE as the drafter rather than more competent legal minds. Enjoy.

thats quite a heavy read, lots of important sounding words that they clearly dont know the meaning of. What the heck is it meant to be though, at first I thought it was yet another made up court ala CLC , then a long winded 'affidavit of truth' perhaps , then I thought it was just a mental note pad for someone who's clearly deranged.

Odd.

[He Who Knows]

Very odd indeed. Normal people go to court to iron out 'misunderstandings'. This Tunkashila-Love-and-Respect-for-the-Land lot seem to think the internet is a more apt forum.

[notorial dissent]

Very odd indeed. Normal people go to court to iron out 'misunderstandings'. This Tunkashila-Love-and-Respect-for-the-Land lot seem to think the internet is a more apt forum.

Or at the very least a lot less likelihood of getting banged up for their efforts.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It is several pages of wrong, irrelevance and misinterpretation.
Just to remind people of the local rules (for local people and anyone else) there are a couple of names in there that we don't need to see on this forum.

[Wakeman52]

Re: The screed from Tunkashila referenced above; mostly not much to see here.

Very odd indeed. Normal people go to court to iron out 'misunderstandings'. This Tunkashila-Love-and-Respect-for-the-Land lot seem to think the internet is a more apt forum.

A summary; it reads as a tacit admission that Ms Patel's ship has sailed or even been sunk by m'learned friends. The sale to Tunkashila Ltd was voided in the Chancery Court (and the one, nominally for GBP2.00, before that, since the property was at that point subject to a writ of possession); formal legal proceedings on the process have ended now that Hanover Cottage has been sold. The neighbour is no longer involved. apart from the fact that her cottage shares a party wall. This document will not affect any of that and legally for the Princess there is nowhere to go to 'enforce' it.

Ms Patel and her associates are left with trespass and its consequences as their only possibilities. They're probably going to try it anyway.

[Siegfried Shrink]

It is indeed a puzzle what this 'Decree' is supposed to do. Obviously as it stands it cannot decree anything.

If it was in the form of a satement of claim, disclosing a wrong and a requested remedy I suppose they could waste some money making a case out of it, so best of luck with that, from a bunch of vexatious litigants.

Is muddying the waters a recognised legal process?

It is also sadly lacking in stamps and fingerprints.

[longdog]

No "Whereas it is my understanding" either so void abinitio, ipso facto, non volenti fit injuria, savaloy et peespuddin.

[NYGman]

What this 9 pages of gibberish does show is that she still thinks her former neighbor is behind all this, and has some hidden agenda in wanting Patel out. All the neighbor did was to protect her listed home from unapproved work, that caused damage to a shared wall. Her only "crime" seems to be, being her neighbor. Wreka knew better after all, it is her house and she can do whatever the hell she wants.

I am sure the neighbor never expected it to come to this, no sane person would take it this far. My understanding is the neighbor isn't getting anything here. This is the insurance collecting on the legal fees it was forced to lay out, due to this loonies actions.

The neighbor is just Wreka's boogie man

[notorial dissent]

I'm sure the neighbor does want rid of her, any sane person would. Once her claim for damages was paid, the neighbor was out of it, except for all the grief and aggravation that came from Wrekha. If nothing else the neighbor should be incredibly thankful Wrekha didn't manage to burn both places down with her general lack of concern for the rules about little things like maybe electrical and little things that, or really did some serious structural damage. All of the legal action resulted and was generated by the insurance company, as a result of Wrekha's obtuseness and general all 'round stupidity, trying to recover their ever increasing costs thanks to her actions.