UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[Siegfried Shrink]

I would not put it past Neelu to devise some new and probably catastrophic way of dealing with this money. Nothing as sensible as buying a house somewhere less expensive than London.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Given the advice I've been given, until the money actually lands in her account she is entitled to carry on claiming benefits.

If she tries to put it "in trust" it will be treated as though she still has the money in terms of her benefit claim. "Loans" to friends and family are also counted as being extant. She will be unable to hide it in a bank account as money laundering rules will kick in if she tries transferring it to someone else.

Bottom line is that If she tries to hide this money and continues to claim, that is big jail time, not piddling around over £15 per week!

100% with you on your conclusions, Sage.

[notorial dissent]

She has to get the money first, and before she does that the lawyers she has been supporting, for what the last what three years now, with her disruptive and childish antics, for their mounting legal fees, as well as the listing fees, and the accumulated security fees attendant to selling the property, SO, whatever they realized on the sale is going to be considerably diminished before she ever has even the slightest chance of claiming it, and considering her escalating irrational behavior who knows what she will do since claiming the money will mean accepting what is a done deal.

[aesmith]

Presumably no more Fee Remission for her endless court filing.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

She has to get the money first, and before she does that the lawyers she has been supporting, for what the last what three years now, with her disruptive and childish antics, for their mounting legal fees, as well as the listing fees, and the accumulated security fees attendant to selling the property, SO, whatever they realized on the sale is going to be considerably diminished before she ever has even the slightest chance of claiming it, and considering her escalating irrational behavior who knows what she will do since claiming the money will mean accepting what is a done deal.

I appreciate that this forum has speculated with glee about eye-watering security costs and it has been very entertaining but we don't have to speculate. We know that all the fees for the sale of the property including security were covered by the £67,000 fees figure on top of the outstanding capital and interest she was quoted by the Co-op the week before the auction, which if she'd paid it would have seen the auction pulled.

Other than speculation, what mounting legal fees? She has almost exclusively been a litigant in person and mounted her own defence. Her interview under caution would have been covered free. Her recent court appearance would have been on legal aid if her assets and savings were below £30,000. Her litigation fees would have in most cases been waived because she is on ESA. Outstanding legal fees, if any, would be minimal.

Happy to be educated but I'm not sure anyone can extract owed money direct from a third party without petitioning for bankruptcy to realise assets.

In any case, there is a very good chance that she is soon going to be in a lot more trouble than mere financial.

[longdog]

Did any of her inane applications to the high court require the respondents to actually respond and therefore incur legal fees or were they all just summarily thrown out by the judge as the rambling gibberish they were?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Did any of her inane applications to the high court require the respondents to actually respond and therefore incur legal fees or were they all just summarily thrown out by the judge as the rambling gibberish they were?

All the ones I know of have been chucked out at the first hearing but I've only been keeping an eye on them for the last couple of years. I did pop into the RCJ last week with the hope of asking "hypothetically" what the rules about filing fees were but I was running late so only got to have a quick wander around the corridors.

[notorial dissent]

She has to get the money first, and before she does that the lawyers she has been supporting, for what the last what three years now, with her disruptive and childish antics, for their mounting legal fees, as well as the listing fees, and the accumulated security fees attendant to selling the property, SO, whatever they realized on the sale is going to be considerably diminished before she ever has even the slightest chance of claiming it, and considering her escalating irrational behavior who knows what she will do since claiming the money will mean accepting what is a done deal.

I appreciate that this forum has speculated with glee about eye-watering security costs and it has been very entertaining but we don't have to speculate. We know that all the fees for the sale of the property including security were covered by the £67,000 fees figure on top of the outstanding capital and interest she was quoted by the Co-op the week before the auction, which if she'd paid it would have seen the auction pulled.

Other than speculation, what mounting legal fees? She has almost exclusively been a litigant in person and mounted her own defence. Her interview under caution would have been covered free. Her recent court appearance would have been on legal aid if her assets and savings were below £30,000. Her litigation fees would have in most cases been waived because she is on ESA. Outstanding legal fees, if any, would be minimal.

Happy to be educated but I'm not sure anyone can extract owed money direct from a third party without petitioning for bankruptcy to realise assets.

In any case, there is a very good chance that she is soon going to be in a lot more trouble than mere financial.

EVERY time the insurance company's lawyers had to go to court, pick up a piece of paper, etc. they were adding fees on to what was already there. They've been to court how many times since Neelu lost her first real round in court? Those add up.

[The Seventh String]

If she tries to put it "in trust" it will be treated as though she still has the money in terms of her benefit claim. "Loans" to friends and family are also counted as being extant. She will be unable to hide it in a bank account as money laundering rules will kick in if she tries transferring it to someone else.

Bottom line is that If she tries to hide this money and continues to claim, that is big jail time, not piddling around over £15 per week!

The social security law regarding “deprivation of capital” and “notional capital” is on the one hand very simple and on the other extremely complicated.

If a claimant has capital sufficient to affect their claim then if they part with it they get treated as still possessing it unless they fall under some pretty complicated exceptions.

Paying debts can be one such exception - but not always, as can things like e.g. buying a car if you need one to work, domestic appliances, replacing worn out furniture or reasonably furnishing a new home. But buy a brand new expensive car and you’re unlikely to be allowed the full cost. Essentially the test can end up boiling down to whether the DWP, tribunal or court agrees that you parted with the money for a reason which would have meant you parted with the money regardless of whether doing so left you pretty much destitute and starving.

Parting with capital to increase the amount of benefit you receive or to enable you to claim at all is a no-no. There is long-standing case law that knowing these “notional capital” rules exist or that you’ll get more benefits if you have less capital can be taken as evidence you parted with the money for the purposes of getting more benefits, and in a Catch 22 not knowing about them and parting with capital can still result in you being regarded as still having the money.

The DWP normally seems to take the lazy option and decide you have “deprived yourself of capital” and treats you as still having it as “notional capital”, and leaves it to the appellate bodies to decide otherwise if there’s an appeal. “Notional capital” cases are often worth appealing, but specialist help and advice is an absolute requirement in my opinion because if the DWP have accepted some expenditure as acceptable it’s open to the tribunal to decide otherwise so an appeal can leave you worse off.

All horribly confusing.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

EVERY time the insurance company's lawyers had to go to court, pick up a piece of paper, etc. they were adding fees on to what was already there. They've been to court how many times since Neelu lost her first real round in court? Those add up.

But is there any evidence that the Co-op ever got dragged in to her RCJ "appeal" nonsense? I can't remember her ever mentioning lawyers appearing for the "defence". All her shenanigans appeared to be ex parte filings struck out before it got any further. She was filing the wrong papers anyway so they almost certainly weren't ever served.

In terms of court dates, there was the original possession order which was granted and the aborted repossession in January. They returned to court a few days later and got a solid judgement. At that point Neelu had 28 days to object. She didn't. They then obtained the writ in April and executed it in July. From the Co-op's point of view, there was one annoying back to court session, but nothing that would have required excessive legal work, just a refiling. I suspect given that she failed to lodge an appeal in time and was taking the advice of a legal moron, this was actually an easier repossession than most.

All horribly confusing.

And also leads to the situation where the DWP can accept, after seeing every bank and savings account statement, that the proceeds from a house sale four years ago were disposed off in a reasonable and not excessive manner as living expenses and let you claim full Universal Credit whilst the local authority can determine something quite different on the same evidence and refuse you council tax relief. I'm not bitter about that!

[YiamCross]

Presumably no more Fee Remission for her endless court filing.

Now she's earned herself CRO even if she were entitled to fee remission she is required to pay for an application for permission to make an application. If a judge gives permission then that fee is refunded and she can get fee remission. Trouble is the courts don't appear to administer the system very well as I discovered when Tom Crawford not only got away without having to pay for an application to get permission but his motley crew tried to get away without paying their share of the application fees. No one see me to care no matter how many times I pointed it out.

[Hercule Parrot]

EVERY time the insurance company's lawyers had to go to court, pick up a piece of paper, etc. they were adding fees on to what was already there. They've been to court how many times since Neelu lost her first real round in court? Those add up.

But is there any evidence that the Co-op ever got dragged in to her RCJ "appeal" nonsense? I can't remember her ever mentioning lawyers appearing for the "defence". All her shenanigans appeared to be ex parte filings struck out before it got any further. She was filing the wrong papers anyway so they almost certainly weren't ever served.

True, but only of limited relevance. The bank are entitled to recover their legal costs, which may extend beyond attendance of actual court hearings. Not saying they will, but it seems perfectly feasible that they might present a long list of billable hours.

For example, it is possible that they were monitoring her various attempts to commence actions, obtain warrants of treason etc. It is possible that their lawyers gave advice, took instructions, reviewed the bank's position and prepared emergency applications in case a sleepy judge granted one of her applications. It is possible that they liaised with Police and HR in relation to staff safety, perhaps explored injunctions or harassment applications. It is possible that every time Neelu wrote a social media post or shared a rambling video, billable hours were spent reviewing this and advising whether it had a legal impact on the bank's position. It is possible that her attempts to obtain bogus orders from the bogus common law court were the subject of billable consideration, and advice sought from Police or counsel about how to deal with any attempted enforcement. There may have been meetings with senior managers or media relations, requests to FB to remove material, contractual arrangements with the security company etc.

As above, they may decide it's not worth the trouble. But if they wanted to recover their whole pound of flesh, I wouldn't be surprised if they could itemise hundreds of hours of lawyering.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Further to:

In any case, there is a very good chance that she is soon going to be in a lot more trouble than mere financial.

Hoaxtead are reporting:

Miranda Moore QC told the judge that Neelu Berry had been spotted in the building. Indeed, she had started to come into the court with the rest of us, but had changed her mind and left.

The judge rose whilst a search of the building was carried out, to no avail. At 3:35, Moore asked Judge Cahill to formally refer the matter to the court Attorney, which she did.

[Siegfried Shrink]

It seems somehow unnatural that a judge should be actually looking for Neelu, an upset of the natural order of things, a falcon in her pride of place was by a mousing owl hawked at and killed.
It also seems odd that she should leave a courthouse without getting thrown out.

[rosy]

It is exceptionally satisfying to think that Neelu's continual breaches of the restraining order (that she and Sabine McNeill were given, forbidding identifying anyone that might lead to a identification of a child caught up in the Hampstead SRA hoax) will finally be taken seriously by the criminal justice system.

A Paul Rogers (Eddyisok) is banged up overnight for filming in the court precincts and breaking the injunction today. It really couldn't happen to a nicer nastier Tommy Robinson groupie.

[longdog]

According to Neelu's Facebook drivel she fled the court when she heard that the court cop was looking for her. This was, of course, to prevent her being 'disappeared' by the satanic forces of blah, blah, blah. If she has any sense she'll stay away because some of her FB comments seem to me to be contempt not only in the current proceedings but also of her permanent injunction.

[Siegfried Shrink]

PUBLIC GALLERY DISAPPEARANCES:
If anyone is wondering where a gentleman by the name of "Eddie Rogers" is, he was sitting in the public gallery in the trial of David Noakes in Court 13 and then moved to the Public Gallery in the trial of Sabine McNeill in Court 11 of Southwark Crown Court, London UK, but he was put in the dock by HHJ Cahill and accused of breaching the Fraud Restraining Order of Judge Worsley (which was made in contempt of the jury, which is the same reason why Sabine has been in remand for 7 months in Bronzfield Prison). These Court Disappearances were done on Ashok Mahajan and attempted on me and Equity Lawyer Edward William Ellis, many times. I exited upon Constable Berry following me into Court 11 -
WARNING It really is a pit full of crocodiles within the UK Justice system

This does not seem too contentious, just the usual chaff. Is there something magical about EWE that he must be referred to as 'Equity Lawyer Edward William Ellis' every time he pops up.
And now we have a constable Berry, possibly Sgt. Bertie in a new disguise.

[NYGman]

This does not seem too contentious, just the usual chaff. Is there something magical about EWE that he must be referred to as 'Equity Lawyer Edward William Ellis' every time he pops up.
And now we have a constable Berry, possibly Sgt. Bertie in a new disguise.

I would not be surprised if he legally changed his name, so that Equity was his first name, with Lawyer, Edward, and William
taking up the position in the middle.

[Footloose52]

PUBLIC GALLERY DISAPPEARANCES:
I exited upon Constable Berry following me into Court 11 -
WARNING It really is a pit full of crocodiles within the UK Justice system

Constable Berry - my goodness, is this her own family now tormenting her as well?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

PUBLIC GALLERY DISAPPEARANCES:
I exited upon Constable Berry following me into Court 11 -
WARNING It really is a pit full of crocodiles within the UK Justice system

Constable Berry - my goodness, is this her own family now tormenting her as well?

Her family have been doing it for a while Her nephew via her former marriage is Rishi Sunak, Tory MP for Richmond (the Yorkshire one). I think she is also "related" via her former husband to a Redbridge councillor.

But I ask you, what family doesn't have at least one batshit crazy person they have to invite to Christmas dinner?