Rekha Patel loses her house

[hucknallred]

Well the only question left is will Macca replace the thackstones or redo the flashing properly?
Last time I looked the bodge job was still in situ.

[ArthurWankspittle]

so......why would they only take her and not all of them? they're all trespassing.

Almost certainly because it would only be arrestable if they refused a lawful order to leave the property. If they were milling about it would seem they complied. Wrecka appears to have barricaded herself in. If she had left when asked to it is doubtful that even she would have been arrested.

Five freetards and dog would fill the front garden anyway. Those not barricading themselves in the house would be offered get out of the way or get arrested for obstruction if I was in charge of the operation. If you had enough cops in the front garden to knock the door in, you wouldn't have room for anyone else, trust me.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Well the only question left is will Macca replace the thackstones or redo the flashing properly?
Last time I looked the bodge job was still in situ.

I hope Don Goodfellow will do the right thing and replace them. Otherwise he risks the Planning getting upset and it will make a resale harder if the work is still outstanding. If he is doing work on the place anyway it isn't too big a deal to correct the bodge, it just needs someone who knows what they are doing with local stone. Plus the neighbour is still in the position of the damage not being corrected yet, so their insurers and lawyers will still be looking out for them.

[daltontrumbno]

I was of the understanding that Rekha paid the damages from the original judgement several years ago, if this is the case why hasn't the repair work been carried out. Or was this another of Rekhas lies, and the damages were never actually paid.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I was of the understanding that Rekha paid the damages from the original judgement several years ago, if this is the case why hasn't the repair work been carried out. Or was this another of Rekhas lies, and the damages were never actually paid.

Two reasons - one, the whole issue wasn't finally sorted until the house was sold and the insurers got paid. Two, does anyone really think Princess Shoutypants would let anyone on her roof to do the repairs? (And would YOU work on a roof knowing her highness was down below waiting for you?)

[TheNewSaint]

There's also the high risk that Rekha would simply vandalize any work done.

[hucknallred]

it just needs someone who knows what they are doing with local stone.

That will be the guy mentioned on here.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/ ... ame=164542

[He Who Knows]

ArthurWankspittle wrote: Five freetards and dog would fill the front garden anyway. Those not barricading themselves in the house would be offered get out of the way or get arrested for obstruction if I was in charge of the operation. If you had enough cops in the front garden to knock the door in, you wouldn't have room for anyone else, trust me.

There is quite a large garden that belongs to the cottage across the lane. This is where the tents were pitched and the BBQs held. According to police it's OK for people to trespass in your garden as that's civil not criminal. So presumably nothing to stop freetards returning to Patel Cottage garden tonight and pitching up.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So presumably nothing to stop freetards returning to Patel Cottage garden tonight and pitching up.

Highly unlikely. The new owner appears to know what he's dealing with. He will have got an Interim Possession Order which would make any new trespass a criminal offence. It takes a minimum of 3 days to get one which would explain why there was an apparent lull in enforcement, as anyone who has been involved in evicting travellers from public land would recognise.

I know we're all impatient here, but there is a certain rhythm to these proceedings.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I couldn't work out which bit belong to who round there, but living in a tent in someone's garden when their house is across the road, which is a cul-de-sac, is hardly going to gain much publicity. I look forward to them staying there through next winter.

[He Who Knows]

Posted on Tunkashila FB probably by Peter McDowell as the spelling's too good for Ken Thompson :

Tunkashila Limited
22 mins ·

Well well well, Derbyshire Constabulary ignore the civil occupation at Simmondley Village where the real land owner was in peaceful possession of the garden and outbuildings. They use force to harrass and remove the persons in occupation of the lands, remove the tent structures and forcefully stop us re-entering by issuing directions to leave vicinity and advising anyone entering upon the land would be arrested. We understand that there was no active warrants at the time of their forced entry and they were advised in advance that our tenant had an overriding interest (confirmed by land registry on telephone recording) as she was in actual occupation and actual possession of the land. The police have assisted this fraudster Paul by involving themselves in a civil matter and using brute force and ignorance to enable fraudster Paul to seek an advantage by the use of such brute force. This is absolutely disgusting and a complete erosion of the so called Rule of Law and the procedures which Fraudster Paul if he isnt a fraudster could have gone to any high court and obtained a possession order against us under CPR Part 55. Clearly Fraudster Paul knows he cant prove his interest even on the civil burden of balance of probabilities so hes resulting to using his friends at Derbyshire Constabulary. I say friends as he is on first name terms with all officers at the scene and has been video'd and photographed laughing with them in the back of the police vans.

The alleged new owner is now occupying our land unlawfully and we know the HM Land Registry have raised a live investigation into title fraud and we are asking how our title could have been transferred or changed hands to a complete stranger when we have not signed any transfer or TR1 deed of execution.

We have full title guarantee (Title Absolute) to this land and we are shocked at the fact the HM Land Registry do not appear to be able to tell us how they have effected the transfer and how they have bypassed our RQ(Co) anti-fraud Restriction which was supposed to protect us against this type of fraud. They simply cannot tell us how this has been effected as they have been put on notice on the 14th June that we suspected fraud was about to take place. On the 18th June HM Land registry received an application from Aspinall Wright Limited (A Solicitors in Glossop) it would appear that someone other than our company has effected a sale of our estate contrary to the RQ(Co) Restriction which required that an authorised officer of the company must sign a transfer or conveyance of the estate in order for it to be valid.

Tunkashila needs some support right now in order to continue. It needs people, legal and non-legal to assist on several claims that need to be brought quickly.

Please get in touch if you can assist.

[aesmith]

If this link works it's a brief video of Paul McC dealing with one of the idiots ... https://www.facebook.com/10001268914209 ... 785274722/

[exiledscouser]

Ha ha Ken, that ship has sailed I’m afraid. Tunkashila is a busted flush.

More empty words from a man who’s warped legal advice has done much to push Rekha off the financial cliff edge. Others have helped but Ken and his “sell it to a company” scheme has simply doubled down the debt.

Here surely is a warning to anyone contemplating a flutter on a footle - it’ll all end in tears and the loser will be you, not your guru or know-it-all advisor. Ken is content to snipe away from a distance. I suspect he’s had too many run-ins with plod to want more.

Rekha kind of knew it was coming on top with her “pathos to camera” piece of a day or two ago. How sad she couldn’t be steered away from total ruin.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Posted on Tunkashila FB probably by Peter McDowell as the spelling's too good for Ken Thompson :

[I AM NOT A LAWYER!!! ]

So that explains their claim of overriding interest. A person in occupation with a lease longer than three years can claim that. However, Wrekha's only lease is with a company which didn't appear have the legal right to issue such a lease in the first place.

If anyone else can make head or tail of it, the rules of overriding interest are here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... disclosure

P.S. The demanding of adherence to the rule of law from FOTLers always makes me laugh

[longdog]

if he isnt a fraudster could have gone to any high court and obtained a possession order against us

The possession order was issued a long time ago if I'm not very much mistaken. Do these idiots think reoccupying a property in contravention of a possession order or the fake sales after the event mean the original possession order is invalid? It's some sort of one shot deal?

"You are hereby ordered to vacate the premises but if you want to just go out and come back in again that's just fine and dandy"?

As far as I know a possession order is only needed to evict somebody who is legally entitled to be there. For trespassers it's something else entirely.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

As far as I know a possession order is only needed to evict somebody who is legally entitled to be there. For trespassers it's something else entirely.

This is not quite true. A possession order is not needed for a residence but to remove a trespasser from land you need either a possession order or an interim possession order. You can attempt to remove a trespasser yourself but this leaves you open to all kinds of counter claims. Admittedly my main experience has been in removing travellers from public land, but the only real difference is that the council has a set of welfare conditions that they have to apply on top of the legal eviction process.

From a legal site on private land trespass:

Get of My Land!! – How to Remove Trespassers
The answer may seem obvious. What stops the landowner simply removing the trespassers himself? Not taking into account the risks to personal safety, pursuing the option of self-help puts the landowner at risk of civil claims and criminal offences, including assault and criminal damage. It is understandable that some landowners feel that this is an affront to their rights as property owners and many would agree; however, the risks are really too great to ‘have a go’.

The only safe option for a landowner in these circumstances is to take swift action to obtain an order for possession over the land. This allows the High Court Enforcement Officer to evict the trespassers without risk to the landowner. Compared to other types of court claims, the process is relatively quick and simple. It is often possible for proceedings to be issued on the day the trespassers arrive, and for an eviction to take place within 3 to 4 working days. If proceedings are necessary, accurate information about the trespassers is crucial and will form the basis of any action. If it becomes necessary, make sure that information concerning numbers of people, vehicles and the precise location of the trespass is readily available. Providing ownership of the land is not in dispute, an order for possession can invariably be obtained.

Edit: Added extra paragraph from legal site to give context

[Hercule Parrot]

Tunkashila Limited, by the Grace of God, hereby solemnly makes the following public decree:

All named parties, in this document, which are currently attempting to effect a conveyance of Patel Cottage against the will of Tunkashila, who is the exclusive and sole registered proprietor, are to cease and desist forthwith from engaging in said unlawful conduct.

Any and all third parties must forthwith cease and desist from attempting to defenestrate, infringe, or usurp the status, rights, and/or powers of Tunkashila vested in it by the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, along with the will and the intentions of Parliament.

Sealed and Delivered on the 14th Day of June in the Year of 2018.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/b7knqohyon2pa ... a.pdf?dl=0)

[Siegfried Shrink]

Doesn't 'defenestrate' mean 'to throw out of a window'?

I am really impressed by the bit about 'By the Grace of God'.and I'll certainly have some of what they are having.

[longdog]

Doesn't 'defenestrate' mean 'to throw out of a window'?

I am really impressed by the bit about 'By the Grace of God'.and I'll certainly have some of what they are having.

Remember... 20% of what they're having and 80% tobacco... Any stronger and you have whitey with or without the grace of god

[MaritalArtist]

Dictionary


word salad
noun
a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech indicative of advanced schizophrenia.