Rekha Patel loses her house

[SteveUK]

It would be a fascinating case. Rekha doesn't realise the massive contradiction in her ramblings. Sometimes she owns it, sometimes she's on an AST with Sad Ken. It can't be both of course.

I'll take a punt and pretend she does have an AST. At the end of the day you can download it for a couple of quid and you're away.

Other questions she needs to ask Sad Ken:
-have you registered my deposit?
-have you ensured the gas safety is current?
-have you provided an EPC?
-are you declaring the income to HMRC?
-are there any access problems or known neighbour disputes you're aware of?
-do you have permission of the freeholder or bank to sublet?

I'd pay TPTB a billion REs to declare Sad Ken the legitimate landlord, then Rekha to screw him over for not acting like one, and the actual owner to come along and get it all at the end.

[ArthurWankspittle]

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.

I suspect she might have some sort of tenancy agreement, as it was registered at the Land Registry.

[Wakeman52]

Tunksahila ltd likely has no assets, apart from the purely notional one of Hanover Cottage, and GBP50/month might not cover running costs, especially if it's paying Peter McD's expenses as (now) sole director.

Returning to the subject of her solicitor, could this be another partner / associate of Longlands in Warrington, who engineered the 'sales' to limited companies despite there being unsatisfied charges? See https://www.longlands-solicitors.co.uk/about-us

If so, that will muddy the waters at the 31 July hearing.

[TheHallouminati]

Wakeman52 wrote: Returning to the subject of her solicitor, could this be another partner / associate of Longlands in Warrington,

I wonder if HardyW remembers the name of Wrecka's solicitor in court sounding something like Heather Skidmore?

[Hercule Parrot]

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.

I wish you were right, I really do....

(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b)if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—

(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

(3)For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/5

But do not be disheartened, magistrates tend to approach this with a pragmatic view. The Clapham Omnibus casts a certain shadow.

[HardyW]

Wakeman52 wrote: Returning to the subject of her solicitor, could this be another partner / associate of Longlands in Warrington,

I wonder if HardyW remembers the name of Wrecka's solicitor in court sounding something like Heather Skidmore?

I was just about to answer no sorry, I didn't note her name. But she indicated that her knowledge of the detailed history of the property ownership came from an hour long telephone conversation with "Rebhaken". The implication being, I think, that she had no previous involvement with the case.

Then I remembered: when she applied for the removal of the bail condition requiring Rekha to live at the Glossop address, it had to be agreed that court documents would be sent to her c/o the solicitor's address in Princess (!) Road M14 which I think makes it this firm www.robertlizar.com

[TheRambler]

Then I remembered: when she applied for the removal of the bail condition requiring Rekha to live at the Glossop address, it had to be agreed that court documents would be sent to her c/o the solicitor's address in Princess (!) Road M14 which I think makes it this firm www.robertlizar.com

This is the same company that represented her following her arrest.

TheRambler

[Hercule Parrot]

Then I remembered: when she applied for the removal of the bail condition requiring Rekha to live at the Glossop address, it had to be agreed that court documents would be sent to her c/o the solicitor's address in Princess (!) Road M14 which I think makes it this firm www.robertlizar.com

Ah, they were involved earlier in the guise of Michael Sophocleous. Boasts were being made about their eminent fraud specialist lawyer, although his involvement appeared to result from generic police station legal aid attendance.

Heh, Rambler beat me to it....(^^)

[grixit]

I've been to ones where the accused has refused to plead anything. Since there has to be a plea in Canadian law the judge just enters not-guilty on the defendant's behalf.

That would have made "A Man for All Seasons" a good deal shorter.

[grixit]

Tom was the biggest thing Quatloos ever had, it exploded on us, but now he's just a rapidly fading memory.

In technical terms, he's a footl white dwarf.

[Burnaby49]

I've been to ones where the accused has refused to plead anything. Since there has to be a plea in Canadian law the judge just enters not-guilty on the defendant's behalf.

That would have made "A Man for All Seasons" a good deal shorter.

And none the worse for it.

[Burnaby49]

Tom was the biggest thing Quatloos ever had, it exploded on us, but now he's just a rapidly fading memory.

In technical terms, he's a footl white dwarf.

I'm thinking more like a bout of dysentry.

[He Who Knows]

Now that the 'legal advice' of Peter McDowell and Ken Thompson has been replaced by Robert Lizar Solicitors, Shape-shifter Wrecka has moved on.
See the Peter McDowell thread for the current status of their friendship.

[TheRambler]

An interesting development, but be careful not to read too much into a single event. It could be that Rebahaken has encountered a non-judgemental legal ear who presents as non-threatening and treats her with respect. The use of her full name “Rebahaken” might be an indication. The interrogator interviewer always tries to establish a rapport with the subject.

How this could play out is if the solicitor persuades her to deal with the matter in hand, i.e. the charges she faces and stop conflating them with the whole messy business that has gone before. She may have convinced her that another Peter McDowell street theatre production in court is not the way to go. It is within the bounds of possibility that Rebahaken could even enter a guilty plea. I might put the odds of that at about 60/40 at the moment.

TheRambler

[He Who Knows]

I wouldn't put the odds that high. She has a long history of ditching solicitors and public access barristers. Sources like CAG, 'Failings', the MEN Comments Section have mentioned the following, but I'm sure there are even more:
1. Mark L Ryan of Ashton-u-Lyne
2. Edmund Farrell of Kenworthy Chambers https://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news ... ee-5246314
3. Henry Hendron of Strand Chambers (check him out he's VERY interesting http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... court.html
4. Kessar Nabi Solicitor
I'd put the odds of her being persuaded by Robert Lizar Solicitors to plead guilty at 100:1

[notorial dissent]

Her past track record says that she will place nice right up til the solicitor disagrees with her view of reality or doesn't do what she wants, then all bets are off.

[TheNewSaint]

I note she used the sovcit favorite "no case to answer" plea. Any legit reason to do that, or is she following in the steps of Tom Crawford and Guy Taylor?

[TheHallouminati]

Her silly "Financial Rape" petition has now closed
https://www.change.org/p/lord-chief-jus ... ncial-rape

[aesmith]

I note she used the sovcit favorite "no case to answer" plea. Any legit reason to do that, ...

No. That's an argument that could be made at trial following a not guilty plea after the prosecution presents their case, before and instead of presenting a defence. I suppose it's effectively a request to the court to dismiss on the basis that the prosecution is self evidently insufficient to convict.

[ManontheClaphamBus]

Example of no case to answer - I remember a motorist being summonsed for exceeding a variable speed limit on the M25, but when the prosecution evidence was provided, it showed a very quiet motorway and no reason for a restrictive speed limit, so as the motorist was adhering to the national speed limit, the case was dismissed.