Rekha Patel loses her house

[longdog]

Bambos Charalambous always ask for their warrant cards

and that seems to be the extent of the advice, except the usual fraud nonsense from the likes of freshly evicted Rosie Jackson.

And a policemen can't arrest you unless he's wearing his helmet.

[He Who Knows]

aesmith wrote:What's his stake in this matter anyway, is it just publicity for him?

Brave, brave Sir Ken was making a film about Chrisy Morris & Wrecka called 'Meet the Resistance' highlighting their excellent bailiff bashing work. In true Ken style it had a Coming Soon trailer featuring some crap graphics and a Willie Thorne lookie-likie bailiff carrying out an '80s TV set. Sadly for Ken tho, his pipe dreams of becoming the next Oliver Stone were dashed when the cottage was sold to man-of-the-people Paul Mc Cartney lookie-likie on 4th June. Ken will now have to re-title his documentary "Meet the Fucktards" if, that is, it ever gets finished. Ken's had his lifetime film-making reputation hanging on this and now 'Paul McC' has ruined everything.

Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away.....

[TheNewSaint]

Brave, brave Sir Ken was making a film about Chrisy Morris & Wrecka called 'Meet the Resistance' highlighting their excellent bailiff bashing work. In true Ken style it had a Coming Soon trailer featuring some crap graphics and a Willie Thorne lookie-likie bailiff carrying out an '80s TV set.

It's still viewable on Facebook:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =652271266

[TheNewSaint]

The way things are going I can see Rekha going down the if I can't have it no one can route and torching the place.

That was my thought too. Keeping in mind that this is a listed historical building.

[SteveUK]

Bambos Charalambous always ask for their warrant cards

and that seems to be the extent of the advice, except the usual fraud nonsense from the likes of freshly evicted Rosie Jackson.

And a policemen can't arrest you unless he's wearing his helmet.

And dont forget the warrant, written in unicorn blood

[TheNewSaint]

I think the Land Registry is a big part of the problem. As long as they can show people that listing that says they own it, they can create sufficient confusion to achieve their ends. We all know the court ordered the house sold with no regard to their ownership claim, but most people won't.

And there really should have been some criminal repercussions for making that false entry into the Land Registry. Or at least a huge tax bill for the company. That's straight-up real estate fraud.

[He Who Knows]

Despite their leader being carted off to Buxton nick, there are still 3 straggler squatters in the garden from last night's damp squib BBQ of 5 people. Wayne Williams is one:

(taken from his FB page)

Wayne Williams: We need a couple people to come and sun bath in the garden to maintain occupancy of both parts of the land. If any one can get down here asap we will appreciate you forever, no one will be arrested as it's only a civil trespass in their eyes...FTR we r not trespassing.

Penny Ross is another. She of Fringed Ltd fame who bought the cottage for £2 along with Wrecka's parents.

Peter McDowell "Landlord" is currently holed up inside the cottage claiming that it's his.

Delusion continues in Simmondley.

[TheNewSaint]

Wayne Williams: We need a couple people to come and sun bath in the garden to maintain occupancy of both parts of the land.

Well, that's a pretty clear-cut admission of squatting.

[longdog]

Despite their leader being carted off to Buxton nick, there are still 3 straggler squatters in the garden from last night's damp squib BBQ of 5 people. Wayne Williams is one:

(taken from his FB page)

<snip>...no one will be arrested as it's only a civil trespass in their eyes...FTR we r not trespassing.

It might only be a civil trespass if they sit in the garden and do nothing else but if they obstruct the new owner or the builders in the course of their lawful activities it becomes aggravated trespass which most certainly is a criminal offence. The person inside is trespassing within a dwelling which is also a criminal offence.

Even if their trespass were a civil matter the owner of the property still has the right to use reasonable force to remove them and the right to summon the police to assist them if needed. Hopefully the local wallopers are getting sufficiently pissed off with the whole thing they'll be more than willing to pop by and arrest the lot of them for breach of the peace or whatever else they can think up.

[Mike_p]

If anyone is in touch with the local plod, they may like to suggest that they demand ID of whoever purports to own the cottage and ensure that that corresponds to a director of the company.
The director's registration for Tunkashila is invalid because it is made using a variation of the director's name, which, under company law, is not allowed. Unless Ken Thompson can produce legally acceptable ID that proves he is "Ken of the Family Thompson" he will be unable to prove any connection to the company that is shown on the Land Registry entry.
He may find himself hoist by his own petard!
In theory there is no valid director of the company: so it could be struck without further recourse.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It might only be a civil trespass if they sit in the garden and do nothing else but if they obstruct the new owner or the builders in the course of their lawful activities it becomes aggravated trespass which most certainly is a criminal offence. The person inside is trespassing within a dwelling which is also a criminal offence.

Even if their trespass were a civil matter the owner of the property still has the right to use reasonable force to remove them and the right to summon the police to assist them if needed. Hopefully the local wallopers are getting sufficiently pissed off with the whole thing they'll be more than willing to pop by and arrest the lot of them for breach of the peace or whatever else they can think up.

Cat woke me up at 3am so spent a lot of the night reading on the subject.

1) You are right about the garden bit. The squatter law is very specific about "residential buildings". If they stay in the garden, the owner must apply for a Interim Possession Order.
2) The police can only assist prior to an IPO if the squatters are offensive or threatening as it then becomes aggravated trespass.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.61.1

(a)that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his

3) If they are using any of the utilities, that qualifies as theft.

Interim Possession Orders cost £355 to file and will take longer than 3 days to be granted. However, you don't have to serve them personally (they can be pinned to the property) and anyone ignoring one is guilty of a criminal offence.

The process is slow and has to be followed properly, but the law is also interested in preventing abusive landlords from operating under colour of law so is probably justified. However, as long as short cuts aren't attempted, it can mean a prison sentence of up to 6 months.

[longdog]

1) You are right about the garden bit. The squatter law is very specific about "residential buildings". If they stay in the garden, the owner must apply for a Interim Possession Order.

2) The police can only assist prior to an IPO if the squatters are offensive or threatening as it then becomes aggravated trespass.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.61.1

I would draw m'learned friend's attention to S.68...

68 Offence of aggravated trespass.

(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—

(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

(b) of obstructing that activity, or

(c) of disrupting that activity.

The reference in subsection (1) above to trespassing includes, in Scotland, the exercise of access rights (within the meaning of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 2)) up to the point when they cease to be exercisable by virtue of the commission of the offence under that subsection.

(2) Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is “lawful” for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence or trespassing on the land.

(3 )A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.

(4) a constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.

(5)In this section “land” does not include—

(a)the highways and roads excluded from the application of section 61 by paragraph (b) of the definition of “land” in subsection (9) of that section; or

(b)a road within the meaning of the M1Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

Note that behaviour which obstructs or disrupts is specifically mentioned. Clearly their intent is to both obstruct and disrupt the lawful activities of the owner and his builder. That's sufficient cause to arrest and charge.

[He Who Knows]

It's all very well coming up with crimes to fit, but what if the new owner has neither the time nor the inclination to spend 3 hours a time filing each witness statement, spending days in court and, if they're anything like Cwisy, attending appeals. He's already presumably got a court case lined up for Wrecka's first B&E, now it's Peter McDowell, then it'll be Ken Thompson ad nauseum. Where does it end with the 6-headed hydra that is the freetard movement? Folks only have so many hours in a day and this guy's a property magnate with presumably many investments to look after.
I think he needs to get his own guys in to sort them, the direct action way...

[exiledscouser]

The new owner strikes me as someone who is more than capable of dealing with a few doylems.

[Siegfried Shrink]

obstruct and disrupt the lawful activities of the owner and his builder. That's sufficient cause to arrest and charge.

The antics with the locksmith and carpenter earlier would seem to amount to this offence and they have already published evidence of them doing it.
I suspect that their deleting of the original copies of the films would not make them vanish, by now they are archived somewhere else.

If the jails of Buxton are full, I suggest that some of the picturesque old villages in the area may still have functioning stocks or even pillories. For a less drastic remedy an official Caution might put them on notice in a more effective way than their own futile notices.

If this goes on long enough Burnaby might include Simmonsley Village in his upcoming British tour.

[Burnaby49]

I'll have to check how convenient it is based on my current plans. I managed Tom's place because I was going to Nottingham anyhow.

[noblepa]

68 Offence of aggravated trespass.

(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—

(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

(b) of obstructing that activity, or

(c) of disrupting that activity.

<snip>

It would seem to me that "serving" the carpenter who came to board up the front door and intimidating him into leaving, would qualify under this part of the statute.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It is fair comment that we're barrack room lawyers but s61 has a 6 month prison term attached rather than 3 months

Owner should get an IPO. One time application and applies to persons unknown so multiple cases are not required.

[aesmith]

Timed around 16:45 local time today ..

Ken Thompson Rehka not released as yet

[longdog]

Timed around 16:45 local time today ..

Ken Thompson Rehka not released as yet

If that's true she ought to be hoping they release her before the Friday night rush or she's likely going to be there until the courts open up on Monday.

Again assuming it's true it makes you wonder why. I can't see the cops wanting to hold her on the strength of whatever minor offences she appeared to have committed yesterday. Breach of a court injunction? A refusal by RP to accept bail conditions like not going near 'her' house? A 72 hour section?