Rekha Patel loses her house

[dannyno]

Thank you for pointing out McDowell and Ross, definitely “players”. Longlands solicitors is interesting as there is clearly limited capacity for supervision and oversight within the firm. I also note that there is mention that the principal has appeared before a disciplinary tribunal, although no details are available and I would treat it as unconfirmed.
<snip>

From the Warrington Guardian, 10 July 2009:

Solicitor faces disciplinary tribunal

A town centre solicitor will appear before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal following a ruling by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

David Burton-Baddeley, of Longlands Solicitors on Wilson Patten Street, is alleged to have taken money out of clients' accounts without their authorisation.

He is also accused of failing to maintain properly written up accountancy books, failing to inform clients of commission he received or seeking their consent to retain it.

It is alleged that he conducted himself 'in a manner likely to compromise or impair his integrity and his duty to act in the best interest of his clients'.

A date has not yet been set for his hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Mr Burton-Baddeley specialises in civil litigation, financial and investment services and personal injury claims.

His lawyers were approached for comment but were not available as the Guardian went to press.

According to the Law Society Gazette, 24 June 2010, the case of Ian David Burton-Baddeley was heard on 4 February 2010, and the reasons published 7 May 2010.

The outcome was:

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Warrington, Cheshire WA1, should pay a fine of £12,500. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,932.

[hucknallred]

Macca looks a nice guy giving good advise . Kept his calm as well

Some of the comments on Facebook don't share that view, posting unfounded allegations about him as a landlord.
Not to be repeated here of course.

[grixit]

Way back on page 15 of this very long thread, several contributors (including "Bones" - a forensic digger)

Who for all his efforts has so far failed to be threatened with a lawsuit, stalked on line, denounced, or even called a silly name

[aesmith]

Question for whoever got the Land Registry information, did that give the price paid?

[He Who Knows]

Dannyno wrote: According to the Law Society Gazette, 24 June 2010, the case of Ian David Burton-Baddeley was heard on 4 February 2010, and the reasons published 7 May 2010.

The outcome was:

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Warrington, Cheshire WA1, should pay a fine of £12,500. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,932.

Brilliant detective work Dannyno. I'm pretty sure the neighbour would want to see this. I even feel a letter to the SRA coming on meself

[Hercule Parrot]

Way back on page 15 of this very long thread, several contributors (including "Bones" - a forensic digger)

Who for all his efforts has so far failed to be threatened with a lawsuit, stalked on line, denounced, or even called a silly name

Yes, despite all of his excellent contributions they never mentioned him once. Very shabby, and in the end it broke his spirit. Bones hasn't logged in here for a long time, and is sadly missed.

[He Who Knows]

Grixit wrote:
He Who Knows wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:00 pm
Way back on page 15 of this very long thread, several contributors (including "Bones" - a forensic digger)

Who for all his efforts has so far failed to be threatened with a lawsuit, stalked on line, denounced, or even called a silly name

Yes, Peter McDowell certainly has been hiding in the shadows for far too long without any consequences. Is there anyone out there tech savvy enough to put his picture on here? Two photos of him camping in the garden have been posted on FB "The Failings of FMOTL" in the last couple of days.

[TheRambler]

Excellent work Dannyno, thank you very much.

TheRambler

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Question for whoever got the Land Registry information, did that give the price paid?

£162,001

[notorial dissent]

Question for whoever got the Land Registry information, did that give the price paid?

£162,001

That ought to just about cover the costs and fees she's racked up to date. Very clever on her part.

[AndyPandy]

Ken Thompson's still wittering about the County Court not having jurisdiction to order a sale for the original £66k charging order under the Law of Property Act 1925 Section 90.3, as under that section it's limited to £30k.

What he's not read / understood / wants to understand is the fact that the jurisdiction limit is for 'the commencement of proceedings' and of course at the commencement of the original proceedings the amount being claimed was for about £7k or £8k NOT £66k ordered.

So yet another

[hucknallred]

Nothing from Nigel Pivaro in the local rag yet? He's been a sympathiser for a few years.

Purely for amusement purposes, here he is in his pre journalism days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAswg92GMGs

[He Who Knows]

Lol Terry Duckworth sans trousers!
Seems he no longer works for the Tameside Reporter or the Salford newspaper. Latest thing I can find is his blog:
https://nigelpivaro.com/

[Mike_p]

There is something that does bother me in the background to this case.

The original claim was for a mere few thousand pounds, which would come within the limits of a "small claim".

From an earlier post:

Representing herself, Miss Patel was found against by a judge.

He ruled stones belonging to the neighbour, a 'key architectural feature' had been removed, ordered she pay costs and damages, and denied an appeal.

I was under the impression that it is unusual for costs for small claims to be awarded against the defendant especially where the defendant represents themselves. This is to dissuade large/rich litigants bullying people with the threat of huge legal costs. This protection seems to have been completely denied for Wrecker.

[hucknallred]

There is something that does bother me in the background to this case.

The original claim was for a mere few thousand pounds, which would come within the limits of a "small claim".

Small claims track is £5000 max I believe.

[Mike_p]

Small claims track is £5000 max I believe.

Was raised to £10,000 in 2013

[Aegis]

There is something that does bother me in the background to this case.

The original claim was for a mere few thousand pounds, which would come within the limits of a "small claim".

From an earlier post:

Representing herself, Miss Patel was found against by a judge.

He ruled stones belonging to the neighbour, a 'key architectural feature' had been removed, ordered she pay costs and damages, and denied an appeal.

I was under the impression that it is unusual for costs for small claims to be awarded against the defendant especially where the defendant represents themselves. This is to dissuade large/rich litigants bullying people with the threat of huge legal costs. This protection seems to have been completely denied for Wrecker.

I found this if it helps (bold emphasis mine):

(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –

(i) are payable under Part 45; or

(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;

(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;

(c) any court fees paid by that other party;

(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for an expert’s fees;

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably; and

(h) the Stage 1 and, where relevant, the Stage 2 fixed costs in rule 45.18 where –

(i) the claim was within the scope of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (‘the RTA Protocol’) or the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’);

(ii) the claimant reasonably believed that the claim was valued at more than the small claims track limit in accordance with paragraph 4.1(4) of the relevant Protocol; and

(iii) the defendant admitted liability under the process set out in the relevant Protocol; but

(iv) the defendant did not pay those Stage 1 and, where relevant, Stage 2 fixed costs; and

(i) in an appeal, the cost of any approved transcript reasonably incurred.

[SteveUK]

the £ limit is just one factor in allocating it to a track. Being below it doesnt mean it goes to the SCC track all the time. The complexity plays a part. So it could well be a 'small' claim but the judge believes its complex and therefore goes to the usual CC track.

I found out the hard way, of 3 claims (all around £2k), 2 went the small claims, one went county - I dumped it because of the risk.

Won the other 2 though, cheers Opodo and Turkish Airlines , we thoroughly enjoyed Sri Lanka.

[longdog]

I thought it was the multiple and completely groundless appeals to higher courts that ran up the bill rather than the original dispute itself.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

the £ limit is just one factor in allocating it to a track.

I'm wondering if this isn't also a factor (from Which UK)

There are a couple of key exceptions to this. You can't claim up to this amount for housing disrepair or personal injury, the limit for these is £1,000.

I also really need to go through the old documentation, as something else doesn't make sense. This should have been a case for prosecution by the local authority for unauthorised works on a listed building, in which case small claims would not be the appropriate avenue.