Rekha Patel loses her house

[SteveUK]

notorial dissent wrote:
She can "believe" she's the Queen of Sheba and that she owns the earth and it won't alter her criminal acts. The court actions and Property Register say she doesn't own or have a legal interest in the property, despite what she may believe. The house doesn't belong to her anymore than the money in a bank a thief "believes" is really his, bank robbery is still bank robbery.

Ahhhh, you know that, we know that but will the magistrate know that on 31st July when the CPS and Police can't provide the proper paperwork?
Could be Chrisy Morris all over again.

The curse of the CPS could well rise again!Inevitably, she'll just see this as further proof that shes right. Thankfully, the protection from harrasment conditions could be applied even if she manages to get off.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

The curse of the CPS could well rise again!Inevitably, she'll just see this as further proof that shes right. Thankfully, the protection from harrasment conditions could be applied even if she manages to get off.

The weakest part of the prosecution is the squatting charge. It requires that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt (as this is now a criminal case) that the defendant entered the property intending to live there.

(a) The person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered as a trespasser;(b) The person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser; and(c) The person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.

If she can suggest that she only broke in to protest ownership, then she is likely to avoid being found guilty of that charge. I can't find them at the moment but there were some prosecutions in, I think, Brighton where this was successfully used as a defence.

The criminal damage parts should be simpler to resolve with the timeline of court orders on the property ownership.

[TheNewSaint]

If she can suggest that she only broke in to protest ownership, then she is likely to avoid being found guilty of [the squatting] charge.

Seems to me that would undermine the rest of her case. "I legitimately believe the property is mine, to the point that I remodeled the front door, but i didnt try to live there."

Furthermore, the video of one of her arrests shows a mattress on the floor, and other personal effects in the home. Which Rekha has asked to be allowed to remove. So this argument shouldn't get far.

[aesmith]

We're in danger of being distracted by Princess Shoutypant's smoke and mirrors here. The facts are:
April 2016 - the repossession was registered
June 2016 - the first eviction of Princess
July 2016 - she breaks back in and squats there illegally for a year
Nov/Dec 2016 - sham sales of the cottage to parents then to Tunkashila with sham 10-year tenancy to squatter, Princess
June 2017 - High Court Chancery Division gives conduct of sale to neighbour's solicitors

Not to nit pick too much but the April 2016 judgement which was the actual order for sale, the one that she keeps posting on Facebook, includes "3. The Claimant's Solicitors will have conduct of the sale."

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Furthermore, the video of one of her arrests shows a mattress on the floor, and other personal effects in the home. Which Rekha has asked to be allowed to remove. So this argument shouldn't get far.

I'm hearing you, but one of the squatting cases that resulted in an acquittal had police photographs of food in a fridge and a mattress in the property. However, as the prosecution couldn't prove that the food and mattress belonged to the arrested person and it was suggested by the defence that he was in the property to support the protest…

I'm not suggesting that she will get away with it but more a squatting charge is not as clear a slam dunk as it first appears. Criminal damage is far easier to prove to a criminal standard.

[exiledscouser]

It matters not a jot whether she gets convicted or gets off. The latter verdict simply says that she is innocent of criminal damage etc. and in no way bears on the question of ownership of Hanover Cottage. So in 6 - 8 months time, when the matter finally comes to a conclusion she’ll either be paying a fine or I suspect is conditionally discharged on the one hand/ acquitted on the other, nothing will have changed. She’ll still be sofa surfing and the property will have been tarted up, sold on and have new occupants.

Of course, she and her advisers fail to see that the best outcome in criminal matters is to avoid prosecution and court altogether. It’s no fun gripping the rail just to prove some guru’s theory.

If RP is (for now) properly represented then I fear the solicitor will be dispensed with when some realistic advice comes her way.

As for the legal charlatans who registered a change of ownership with LR without cognisance of existing charges, I hope there will be consequences for them.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It matters not a jot whether she gets convicted or gets off. The latter verdict simply says that she is innocent of criminal damage etc. and in no way bears on the question of ownership of Hanover Cottage. So in 6 - 8 months time, when the matter finally comes to a conclusion she’ll either be paying a fine or I suspect is conditionally discharged on the one hand/ acquitted on the other, nothing will have changed. She’ll still be sofa surfing and the property will have been tarted up, sold on and have new occupants. a

Of course, she and her advisers fail to see that the best outcome in criminal matters is to avoid prosecution and court altogether. It’s no fun gripping the rail just to prove some guru’s theory.

If RP is (for now) properly represented then I fear the solicitor will be dispensed with when some realistic advice comes her way.

As for the legal charlatans who registered a change of ownership with LR without cognisance of existing charges, I hope there will be consequences for them. b

(a) Indeed. That Tom Crawford and his sycophants still believe that magically the property will eventually be returned to him is an object lesson in dumb.

(b) I have myself wondered this. Does a referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority have to be made from an injured party or do they allow "concerned member of the public"

[He Who Knows]

AnOwlCalledSage wrote: Does a referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority have to be made from an injured party or do they allow "concerned member of the public"

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) protects the public by regulating law firms and individuals who provide legal services. We set standards necessary to ensure that clients receive a good service and that the rule of law is upheld. Our work focuses on firms and behaviour that causes risk to the public, and through this work we receive information from many different sources.

Our role is separate from the Legal Ombudsman (LeO). The LeO also receives information from a range of sources, but it is an independent service for consumers looking to resolve complaints about service provided by their lawyer or firm, or seeking financial compensation.

We can receive reports from anyone who has concerns about a law firm or an individual that we regulate. This can include

1. members of the public, or people representing them such as relatives or Members of Parliament
2, lawyers and employees of law firms, or
3. other regulators and professional bodies.

[hucknallred]

We can receive reports from anyone who has concerns about a law firm or an individual that we regulate. This can include

1. members of the public, or people representing them such as relatives or Members of Parliament
2, lawyers and employees of law firms, or
3. other regulators and professional bodies.

There's a very strong possibility they'd file it in the "We're not interested" pile.

[noblepa]

She can "believe" she's the Queen of Sheba and that she owns the earth and it won't alter her criminal acts. The court actions and Property Register say she doesn't own or have a legal interest in the property, despite what she may believe. The house doesn't belong to her anymore than the money in a bank a thief "believes" is really his, bank robbery is still bank robbery.

IANAL, and I'm certainly not an expert in British law, but, it seems to me that if she can convince a judge or jury that she honestly believed she was the rightful owner, and she can further convince them that she had plausible reasons to believe this, even if it is not true, then there is no criminal intent.

If the judge takes the time to review the history of her ownership of the cottage, he/she will realize that Rekha's belief is completely unreasonable and find her guilty. However, if she or her lawyer can prevent that, she may have a slight chance, not of regaining true ownership, but of either being acquitted or given a very light sentence, perhaps probation.

[longdog]

The burden of proof in that situation would be what a reasonable person, the proverbial 'man on the Clapham omnibus', would believe. I very much doubt her point blank refusal to accept the judgements of the many civil courts who have ruled against her would come even close to being reasonable whether she genuinely believed she was right or not.

Her following the advice of FMOTL gurus is probably more of an aggravating factor than mitigation.

[noblepa]

The burden of proof in that situation would be what a reasonable person, the proverbial 'man on the Clapham omnibus', would believe. I very much doubt her point blank refusal to accept the judgements of the many civil courts who have ruled against her would come even close to being reasonable whether she genuinely believed she was right or not.

Her following the advice of FMOTL gurus is probably more of an aggravating factor than mitigation.

I agree. But, normally, this would be a rather minor case and the judge may not devote sufficient time to research all that has gone before. He/she may listen to Rekha's heartfelt (but completely wrong) story and believe that she had an honest on reasonable belief that she was right. In fact, it is the responsibility of the CPS to bring all this to the judge's attention.

I hope this doesn't happen. She knows full well what happened and has no reasonable basis to believe that she still has any rights to the cottage, either as an owner or as a tenant.

Remember, we here on Quatloos probably know far more about the history of this case than the judge does.

[Burnaby49]

Remember, we here on Quatloos probably know far more about the history of this case than the judge does.

I certainly hope so. Supposedly a judge makes his decision solely on the evidence presented in court. In the real world this is often impossible but in a minor case like Rekha's quite probable. It's up to the prosecution to make the case that Rekha is guilty of an offense through the evidence they chose to enter and any knowledge that the judge has gained outside of the courtroom in the form of news reports, the internet, or other sources should not play a part in the decision.

[TheNewSaint]

It matters not a jot whether she gets convicted or gets off. The latter verdict simply says that she is innocent of criminal damage etc. and in no way bears on the question of ownership of Hanover Cottage.

True, but I'll wager 10 quatloos that if she is acquitted, she'll be right back at the cottage within 24 hours.

[noblepa]

It matters not a jot whether she gets convicted or gets off. The latter verdict simply says that she is innocent of criminal damage etc. and in no way bears on the question of ownership of Hanover Cottage.

True, but I'll wager 10 quatloos that if she is acquitted, she'll be right back at the cottage within 24 hours.

True. An acquittal will be seen (by her) as a complete vindication and that the cottage really belongs to her, just as Tom Crawford believed that his acquittal in his roof-top sit-in proved that he was the rightful owner of his house.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

True, but I'll wager 10 quatloos that if she is acquitted, she'll be right back at the cottage within 24 hours.

I agree and it would be far better and cheaper for the justice system to get it right first time, but she'd still be guilty of trespass and squatting on reoccupation and wouldn't be able to use the "I know nuffink" defence.

[aesmith]

Is she going for another record? Greatest number of forcible evictions from the same house. I think her score is standing at four at the moment isn't it?

[Chaos]

The burden of proof in that situation would be what a reasonable person, the proverbial 'man on the Clapham omnibus', would believe. I very much doubt her point blank refusal to accept the judgements of the many civil courts who have ruled against her would come even close to being reasonable whether she genuinely believed she was right or not.

Her following the advice of FMOTL gurus is probably more of an aggravating factor than mitigation.

I agree. But, normally, this would be a rather minor case and the judge may not devote sufficient time to research all that has gone before. He/she may listen to Rekha's heartfelt (but completely wrong) story and believe that she had an honest on reasonable belief that she was right. In fact, it is the responsibility of the CPS to bring all this to the judge's attention.

I hope this doesn't happen. She knows full well what happened and has no reasonable basis to believe that she still has any rights to the cottage, either as an owner or as a tenant.

Remember, we here on Quatloos probably know far more about the history of this case than the judge does.

how is this possible given she is no longer the owner of the house be it based on reality or the faux sales?
If she got the boot, she should be taking it up with the 'landlord' as they 'own' the property and the 'landlord' should be the one in court to prove ownership or filing the complaints against the police for bashing their door in needlessly.

[TheHallouminati]

Chaos wrote: how is this possible given she is no longer the owner of the house be it based on reality or the faux sales?
If she got the boot, she should be taking it up with the 'landlord' as they 'own' the property and the 'landlord' should be the one in court to prove ownership or filing the complaints against the police for bashing their door in needlessly.

Exactly. If I was Rekha Patel, I'd be suing 'Landlord' Peter McDowell and 'Landlord' Ken Thompson for allowing my rented home to be sold from under me without even allowing my 10-year 'short'-hold tenancy to continue with the new owner Macca.
And, I'd want my £50 a month rent back.

To add insult to injury, Landlord Ken Thompson wasn't even in court helping Rekha this time, giving out useful advice like, "Don't stand for the magistrate it gives them power over us". Neither has Landlord Peter McDowell been much use other than throwing around outdated precedents from 1954.

I mean, WHAT'S GOING ON?

[Siegfried Shrink]

I doubt if she was given an actual wriien tenancy agreement by Tunkashila, which is a shame as the case R.Patel V. Tunkashila (a company) would be one I'd actually travel to see.

Without an agreement it seems to me the 'landlord's ' breach is purely notional and not actionable.

With an agreement the case would be truly legally fascinating.