Rekha Patel loses her house

[Gregg]

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.

Not to pick nits on this, but didn't I see where Tunkshila was behind on some filing or tax or some other and had been struck from the roll by Companies house, and as such, all their supposed assets have reverted to the crown?

[noblepa]

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.

Not to pick nits on this, but didn't I see where Tunkshila was behind on some filing or tax or some other and had been struck from the roll by Companies house, and as such, all their supposed assets have reverted to the crown?

I believe that I read that, too.

Is this like the escheat process in the US? If I put money in a bank account, forget about it, and never deposit anything or withdraw anything for five years, the bank turns the money over to the state. It must be an external transaction; interest paid by the bank or service charges doen't count. However, if I find out that this has happened, there are procedures for me to prove I am the rightful owner of the money and recover it from the state.

Can the owners of a company that has been struck off recover the assets that were forfeited to the Crown?

[NYGman]

Agreed, ND, Neighbor is likely fed up with Wreka's antics, and it is probably infringing on her enjoyment of of her own cottage, not to mention depressing the value of her own home, due to a lower sale price of Hanover cottage, and living next to a known problem, which I think could not have helped her property value.

Not that Wreka has a pot to piss in anymore, but given that criminal charges have not made much impact on her, could she have grounds to sue Wreka for the devaluation, creating a nuisance, or some other Common law violation (Think of the Irony), and get a financial judgement, and a banning order to keep her well away, now, and in the future.

Just seems Wreka is intent on giving the neighbour continued grief, and is not likely to drop this, unless someone interviens.

[Hercule Parrot]

released without charge.

Assuming RP's version approaches the truth, then I'm astonished that TBIB would let her get away with it.

It's too soon to know, Comrade. They won't charge until they've collated all the evidence and cleared it through internal case progression teams or CPS. That can take weeks. The new owner (victim) will have their opportunity to express their views, and Police will no doubt be aware of Wrecka's history of timewasting & troublemaking. I think they're likely to charge her with something.

In the meantime, being released without charge means only that. It signifies nothing. Very few offences are immediately charged at the custody desk - typically ones which can be proven BRD on Police evidence.

Finally, be aware that the splendid Policing and Crime Act 2017 imposed tight restrictions upon pre-charge bail, after it became clear that the police were utterly taking the piss, keeping suspects on bail for several years as they dawdled along. So now they can only impose pre-charge bail for 28 days, and many forces have just stopped using it. Suspects are "released under investigation" instead, which in practice has worked fine.

So although I'll never stake my life (or even my gardening shoes) on the excellence of DerbsFuzz PLC, "released without charge" has no meaning of "got away with it".

[Hercule Parrot]

Not that Wreka has a pot to piss in anymore, but given that criminal charges have not made much impact on her, could she have grounds to sue Wreka for the devaluation, creating a nuisance, or some other Common law violation (Think of the Irony), and get a financial judgement, and a banning order to keep her well away, now, and in the future.

Just seems Wreka is intent on giving the neighbour continued grief, and is not likely to drop this, unless someone interviens.

This will happen soon, I think. The new owner/developer has a financial interest in getting Wrecka's nonsense out of the way, and local police will be very cooperative. The neighbour will likely be a windfall beneficiary, and nobody would begrudge her that.

[Pox]

In my experience, UK police are adept on saying 'its a civil matter' as an excuse/reason to do FA.

[King Lud]

The police aren't much interested in anything. 'Here's a crime number' is the order of the day.

[exiledscouser]

In my experience, UK police are adept on saying 'its a civil matter' as an excuse/reason to do FA.

That was certainly the case at Chez Neelu today

[Siegfried Shrink]

That was certainly the case at Chez Neelu today

I don't think so. Apart from attempted murder, theft and totally ignoring her, there hardly any crime at Chez Neelu (Neelu Cottage?) today.

[TheNewSaint]

I note that the document is published by YAINO PRODUCTIONS, Ken Thompson's alleged company. The tacky, amateurish artwork at the top is also a dead giveaway.

[He Who Knows]

That's Ken Thompson's Ya I No Productions Ltd that was dissolved in June 2017. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08886594
Tunkashila Ltd needs to file some accounts in 3 months time before it too is dissolved.

[He Who Knows]

Thank goodness for that, Richard Carter has kindly offered a simple explanation of the strange dropbox message from Tunkashila:

Richard Carter wrote on Wrecka's FB:

I've been asked to simplify by Ken Thompson as apparently the document is written in a legal way and is not easy to digest.

1. [The neighbour] has commited fraud and misrepresented her interests in the land and property owned by Tunkashila Limited in Glossop. She has done so with deliberate intention to sell Tunkashila property and to gain from her unlawful conduct.
2. She was never entitled to an Order for Sale for the Property as she didn't own it, or have any legal, equitable, or proprietary interest in it.
3. She and her fraud has [sic] been facilitated by the judiciary, lawyers, land registry officials, Derbyshire Constabulary and many others acting for [the neighbour].
4. There is the usual blackout by the Mainstream Media because its a white collar highly organised sophisticated financial fraud crime.

The statement of facts and public decree of Tunkashila Limited are contained in one document here.

Finally Alles Klar.

[Wakeman52]

As far as the neighbour is concerned, there may be a case for harassment already:

Harassment
In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.

Closely connected groups may also be subjected to 'collective' harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.

Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as 'stalking by proxy'. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.

From https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/s ... harassment

[TheNewSaint]

As far as the neighbour is concerned, there may be a case for harassment already:

Yeah, I think Rekha's behavior qualified for harassment years ago, and is now up to "grounds for justifiable homicide."

[He Who Knows]

notorial dissent wrote:

More likely, alles dunkeI. The "clarification" isn't, since Wrehka's gibberish is just that, neither legal nor of any actual value whatsoever, except possibly comedic, and is legal proof of her harassment and ongoing intent to harass the neighbor and new owner. The "neighbor" isn't even remotely involved except in that she has had to live through all this and next to it all for all this long time. The insurance company was who had the sale order as a result of legal expenses against Wrehka. If anything the neighbor would have a common law tort claim of infringement of her common law right to quiet enjoyment. The only problem is that getting damages from Wrehka is next to impossible as I think she is now pretty much judgement proof.

True, but the neighbour might be able to get damages from Ken Thompson. After all, he (not Wrecka) is the director of Tunkashila Ltd which is sending out all this crap.

[notorial dissent]

notorial dissent wrote:

More likely, alles dunkeI. The "clarification" isn't, since Wrehka's gibberish is just that, neither legal nor of any actual value whatsoever, except possibly comedic, and is legal proof of her harassment and ongoing intent to harass the neighbor and new owner. The "neighbor" isn't even remotely involved except in that she has had to live through all this and next to it all for all this long time. The insurance company was who had the sale order as a result of legal expenses against Wrehka. If anything the neighbor would have a common law tort claim of infringement of her common law right to quiet enjoyment. The only problem is that getting damages from Wrehka is next to impossible as I think she is now pretty much judgement proof.

True, but the neighbour might be able to get damages from Ken Thompson. After all, he (not Wrecka) is the director of Tunkashila Ltd which is sending out all this crap.

I don't see how? I can see the liability, hut he's just another member of the sans pot club. Now her parents on the other hand maybe possibly.

[He Who Knows]

Ken Thompson sent the neighbour that nasty letter last summer telling her to take part in his fake documentary or else she's "a racist". He also helped break into the cottage a number of times and was with Wrecka when she staged that recent all day sit-in outside the cottage. He's the director of Tunkashila which keeps sending out all this malicious communication about fraud. So he's just as involved in the harassment as Wrecka, if not more so.

[Burnaby49]

True, but the neighbour might be able to get damages from Ken Thompson. After all, he (not Wrecka) is the director of Tunkashila Ltd which is sending out all this crap.

Grand idea except for one issue that affects damage awards against all of these clowns, certainly a problem in Canada. Collecting. None of them have a pot to piss in and damages are just a theoretical number totally unattached to any real money collected.

[He Who Knows]

Harassment is criminal as well as civil. Sorry I didn't mean damages for tort in that earlier post, I meant a criminal record.

[aesmith]

I know it's being said that the neighbour is not the beneficiary, but it's the neighbour who's named as claimant, and also as the one to whom possession was to be given.