Hercule Parrot wrote:... but I also wonder about the consequences for any professionals who assisted in this. The lawyers / conveyancers who disregarded a registered charge, and the accountants who created the limited companies for this scam.
It used to be possible, and I assume still is, to do conveyancing without a professional. It is (or was) a simple process, provided there are no complications.
In this case, I suspect a professional wouldn't touch it, and the buyer and vendor probably weren't fussed about whether the job was done entirely properly.
"Although there is no requirement on the part of Land Registry that you use a solicitor or other legal adviser to complete the form and send it to us, please remember that we can only assist you in the completion of the clerical aspects of the form, we are not able to offer you legal advice."
Sign the form and a few bits of admin and away you go....
To quote from parts of a blog on the UK Land Registry site:
"There is a lot more to the conveyancing process than just completing and sending us Land Registry forms. Very often, there are also searches and other formal enquiries to be carried out before a transaction can take place safely. If these aren’t done properly, or if they’re not done at all, then big problems can arise after a transaction has happened. For example, someone other than the current owner might have an existing interest in the property that might only come to light afterwards."
"Depending on the type of transaction, there can be quite a lot of legal and financial aspects that will need to be covered in the preparation of the documents. These may not be part of the standard forms."
"If you do your own conveyancing and something goes wrong, then normally you’ll have no cover. If you use a professional conveyancer, you’ll be covered by their professional insurance."
"[The] Land Registry is no substitute for the professional advice and support they [solicitors] can give."
The address in Shoreditch (9 Perseverance Works) is that for 'Same-Day Company Service Ltd', registered company formation agents, as well as the LLP (Lambert Chapman), so the latter may not be involved if the conveyancing has just consisted of title changes via Land Registry forms completed by the Patels, their friends and associates.
Speaking as one, in common with, I suspect, many others here, who has used the services of solicitors over the years when buying and selling houses, I would not be comfortable trying to d-i-y. I have sometimes slightly resented their fees, but do feel that at least those are more justifiable than estate agent charges....
Our future is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail. James Lovelock.
Personally, for the very few house purchases or sales I've ever made, I've always used a solicitor because I could easily overlook some critical factor that could bite me years later. I need to be sure about who owns what, and who has rights to do what, and so on.
Ms Patel's situation is entirely different. It is in her interest to muddy the waters, to make ownership and rights uncertain.
ETA: I should have said, her short-term interest. In the longer term, it may achieve some free board and lodging for her and also company directors.
Due to the two equitable charges and the unilateral notice, I do not think there has been any legal professional involvement in either of the two sales. Part of the service you pay legal professionals involves checks, settlement and removal of charges etc. None of this has been done.
The actual TR1 form is straight forward to complete and the Land Registry have even made a video to show how to do it.
The problem for Rekha's parents is that they are directly involved in both sales - They brought the property from Rekha and then sold it to a third party (would like to know more about this person) with the charges and notice being clearly recorded on the deeds. I can understand (but don't agree) with the actions taken by her parents but I can't understand why the third party would then become involved, except to move things away from her parents.
I was wondering if the address for the limited company may be just a postal address to register companies at rather that the physical location of the company. I will look into that one more.
Limited Company formation including limited by guarantee
Limited Liability Partnership formation
Company searches
Company seals
Registered Office address
Directors Service address
Apostille & Certificate of Good Standing
Nominee shareholder
Can you guess their address:
Same-Day Company Services Limited 9 Perseverance Works, London, E2 8DD
T: 0207 613 8161 F: 0207 613 8162 E: info@samedaycompany.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales. Company Number 1347553.
AndyPandy wrote:
Title absolute
1 (06.01.2017) PROPRIETOR: TUNKASHILA LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 10522429) of Unit 9, Perseverance Works, 38 Kingsland Road, London E2 8DD.
2 (06.01.2017) The price stated to have been paid on 14 December 2016 was
£100.
Title number DY351143
So who is Peter Mcdowell - the sole Director of Tunkashila Ltd ?
My thoughts..... I cannot envisage a judge making Rekha homeless and then sending her to prison on top of that. My guess is a judge would see this as the actions of a desperate woman who is trying to keep a roof over her head. I think she will be told in no uncertain terms to vacate the property plus if she tries any more sleight of hand she will be finding herself back in court.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
Bones: It looks like Peter McDowell might be her parents' neighbour. There's an electrician of that name on company reports for 'RMD Contacts Ltd', Stalybridge SK15 3LY. Tunkashila is a name used by SovCits, Maritime Law folks, so must be Rekha Patel's chosen name for the newly bought company off-the-shelf that bought the house for £100.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
He Who Knows wrote:Bones: It looks like Peter McDowell might be her parents' neighbour. There's an electrician of that name on company reports for 'RMD Contacts Ltd', Stalybridge SK15 3LY. Tunkashila is a name used by SovCits, Maritime Law folks, so must be Rekha Patel's chosen name for the newly bought company off-the-shelf that bought the house for £100.
You could be right but the Peter McDowell of RMD Contracts was born in 1950 and resigned from that company on 8 December 1995. Wereas the Peter McDowell to do with Rekha was born in 1985.
Bones: well spotted on the dates of birth of the Peter McDowells. How about this one - director of I.T. company 'Geek2Door Ltd' (resigned 2011) born Jan 1985, address since February 2014: 10 Padworth Walk, Brooklands, Manchester M23 9AT
Last edited by He Who Knows on Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
rumpelstilzchen wrote:My thoughts..... I cannot envisage a judge making Rekha homeless and then sending her to prison on top of that.
Well, if he makes her homeless, she will need a place to sleep...
Why??? She is already technically homeless since she doesn't own that house any more, and hasn't legally owned it since April 2016, in spite of or despite her attempts at fraud. She has violated any number of court orders, she is in contempt of court several times over at this point, has wasted an immense amount of judicial time and resources, and she quite obviously has no respect for the law or process. Whatever equity she may have had in the property after the legal debts were settled, has now most likely been swallowed by her latest round of disruption. Those legal fees and costs mount up quickly, particularly against someone who has already been judged at fault. On top of all that she has now involved her parents in her attempts at fraud. Why should she NOT go to jail at this point?? She hasn't learned with all she has been through, so I don't see that there is any real alternative. She may very well have made her parent homeless as well, on top of felons if they are fully prosecuted for this. They are at the very least now liable to the "real owner" of the cottage as of April this year, and if I were the owner, after all this, I would be quite bloody minded about the whole thing, and it wouldn't go well for any of them.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
I agree with most of what you say, so I hate to be a pedant, but I think this is wrong:
notorial dissent wrote:... she doesn't own that house any more, and hasn't legally owned it since April 2016, ...
I think that technically Ms Patel did own the house before "selling" it to the companies. But she also owed a heap of money, and had been ordered out of the house so it could handed over to Mrs Apples. Because Ms Patel owned the house, she would get any remaining equity.
So, does that mean she was legally entitled to sell the house? Yes, I think so. But the charges on the house remain. And the instructions from the court that the house should be in the possession of Mrs Apples also stand. The house can still be sold, on orders of the court, whoever happens to own it.
If this was Ms Patel's first flouting of court orders, I doubt she would face jail. But it isn't, so I think she does.
littleFred wrote:I agree with most of what you say, so I hate to be a pedant, but I think this is wrong:
notorial dissent wrote:... she doesn't own that house any more, and hasn't legally owned it since April 2016, ...
I think that technically Ms Patel did own the house before "selling" it to the companies. But she also owed a heap of money, and had been ordered out of the house so it could handed over to Mrs Apples. Because Ms Patel owned the house, she would get any remaining equity.
So, does that mean she was legally entitled to sell the house? Yes, I think so. But the charges on the house remain. And the instructions from the court that the house should be in the possession of Mrs Apples also stand. The house can still be sold, on orders of the court, whoever happens to own it.
If this was Ms Patel's first flouting of court orders, I doubt she would face jail. But it isn't, so I think she does.
I was thinking this myself, any remaining equity once the property is sold will be sent to the Company who now own this property and paid to whomever the Director of the Company decides - she could just very well have lost the lot as it now no longer belongs to her or any member of her family.
The most Court case was simply about evicting Rekah, for which again she will be liable for costs, but this time with no equity to pay.
A few thoughts: Mr and Mrs Patel snr. remortgaged to fund this is a possibility. The court will eventually set aside the transactions as sham. If not the other parties have a valid argument in excluding Rekha Patel from future hearings.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
Actually it sounds like it might be considered fraudulent conveyance;
There are two types of fraudulent transfer—actual fraud and constructive fraud. Actual fraud typically involves a debtor who as part of an asset protection scheme donates his assets, usually to an "insider", and leaves himself nothing to pay his creditors. Constructive fraud does not relate to fraudulent intent, but rather to the underlying economics of the transaction, if it took place for less than reasonably equivalent value at a time when the debtor was in a distressed financial condition. It is important to notice that the actual distinction between the two different types of fraud is what the intentions of the debtor were. For example, where the debtor has simply been more generous than they should have or, in business transactions, the business should have ceased trading earlier to preserve capital (see generally, wrongful trading). In a successful suit, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property transferred or its value from the transferee who has received a gift of the debtor's assets. Subsequent transferees may also be targeted, although they generally have stronger defenses than immediate transferees.[2]
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
Arthur Wankspittle: But Rekha Patel's parents have since sold the house on to Tunkashila Ltd (on the Title deeds) so they no longer own it to remortgage it. Director of Tunkashila Ltd, Peter McDowell of 10 Padworth Walk, Brooklands, Manchester M23 9AT is the current owner of Patel Cottage. Wonder if he's paid the £7,500 owing in Stamp Duty?
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
He Who Knows wrote:Arthur Wankspittle: But Rekha Patel's parents have since sold the house on to Tunkashila Ltd (on the Title deeds) so they no longer own it to remortgage it. Director of Tunkashila Ltd, Peter McDowell of 10 Padworth Walk, Brooklands, Manchester M23 9AT is the current owner of Patel Cottage. Wonder if he's paid the £7,500 owing in Stamp Duty?
I meant to fund the original purchase, not the sham pass-the-parcel between limited companies that it now going on.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
He Who Knows wrote:Bones: well spotted on the dates of birth of the Peter McDowells. How about this one - director of I.T. company 'Geek2Door Ltd' (resigned 2011) born Jan 1985, address since February 2014: 10 Padworth Walk, Brooklands, Manchester M23 9AT
There's been a few companies at that address from what I could see. Also, it's a bit posh calling it Brooklands, most people would consider that Wythenshawe.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
He Who Knows wrote:Arthur Wankspittle: But Rekha Patel's parents have since sold the house on to Tunkashila Ltd (on the Title deeds) so they no longer own it to remortgage it. Director of Tunkashila Ltd, Peter McDowell of 10 Padworth Walk, Brooklands, Manchester M23 9AT is the current owner of Patel Cottage. Wonder if he's paid the £7,500 owing in Stamp Duty?
He's not only Director but majority Shareholder, he's just paid £100 for a £200k property which he could sell, pay off the charges and be left with £130k, not bad for an initial outlay of £100.
Even if it gets repossessed and sold he could still walk away with £75k - £100k.
They're taking a massive risk here, they could have lost everything, including excess equity.
