Rekha Patel loses her house

[exiledscouser]

Bungle

The reason she hasn't moved back in is because some half-wit has dumped a two tonne bollard right outside the front door!

Where's the planning permission for that I wonder, hardly in keeping with a conservation regime, Council busybodies will be sniffing round if not already aware. Imagine if your neighbor placed a WW2 tank-trap in the street.

Rekha should stop digging herself into deeper and deeper shit. The list of actors now includes her parents and someone from work too. I smell BDW behind all this and TNS is right - the claimants solicitors will have a field day here, they'll be loving the challenge. More costs more grief.

Perversely entertaining though, you couldn't make this stuff up!

[rumpelstilzchen]

I find it incredible that a schoolteacher would believe they can circumvent the court order by selling the house to a company owned by their parent for £2.
We have to be grateful for the stupidity of the freetard fraternity. Just when you think it is all over, without fail they go even more stupid, and we receive more and more hours of entertainment.

[Bones]

I thought she had moved back in

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... s-11677603

But Rekha, who was forced to move in with her parents in Stalybridge, has now fulfilled her promise to take back her beloved home.

She admits it was by force, and that police were called - but insists she’s in the right.

She said: “We got back in but someone called the police and they turned up. But I showed them all the documents to prove that I was the rightful owner and they wished me well and left.

“It’s so good to be back, this is my home and I love it.”

And Rekha insists she will not be paying up.

She added: “The eviction was simply wrong. It’s like something out of a film that you’d never expect to happen.

“I hear it’s quite common, people being made homeless for no reason. This could happen to anybody.”

Rekha bought the cottage, her first home, in 2010 for £162,500. She spent years and £30,000 doing it up before moving in to the property in 2013.

[TheNewSaint]

Perversely entertaining though, you couldn't make this stuff up!

It's certainly more entertaining than this:



Whoever produced that show really needs to get busy making a follow-up episode. The story of what happened later is much better than that threadbare reality drivel. The interview with the neighbor alone would be quality viewing. And it would be a nice cautionary tale to anyone tempted to do the same. (Something I think these vacuous housing shows could use a lot more of.)

[Bones]

I always thought Craig was the brains of the family

But today Amanda has shown that it is actually her.

She thinks it is a smart move for Rekha to sell a property from which she had been evicted from several months earlier, to two companies, one of which her Mother is the sole director and the other her Father is the sole director for £2. Then for the companies (bearing in mind the sole directors are unable to claim they are not fully aware of the situation) to rent the property back to Rekha.

The Court will have a field day when this comes to light

[JimUk1]

Here's another ingenious idea Rekha,

Why don't it set up your own LTD company "inter-fraud ltd" and buy the house off the other limited companies for 1 pence and reclaim your house!

Because it's such a watertight plan that has never been used before!

[AndyPandy]

Well she's managed to change the name on the Royal Mail's post code finder to

Patel Cottage
81 Simmondley Village
GLOSSOP
SK13 6LS

and on the Land Registry's Title Deeds it says:

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

She's in some serious trouble now !!

Charges Register stays the same

C: Charges Register
This register contains any charges and other matters
that affect the land.
1 (02.10.2013) Equitable charge created by Interim charging order of the
Manchester County Court dated 25 September 2013 in favour of [Name Omitted By Request] (Court Reference 1IR69558).
NOTE: Copy filed.
2 (15.04.2015) Equitable charge created by an interim charging order of
the County Court at Manchester dated 26 March 2015 in favour of [Name Omitted By Request] (Court Reference 1IR69558).
NOTE: Copy filed.
3 (22.04.2016) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of a Charging Order dated 4
April 2016.
NOTE: Copy filed.
4 (22.04.2016) BENEFICIARY: [Name Omitted By Request ]care of Plexus Law Limited
trading as Cogent Law of Josephs Wells, Hanover Walk, Leeds LS3 1AB and
DX716926 Leeds (reference 279353/1)

[mufc1959]

From Rekha's local paper's website.

https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/01/2-cottage-sale/

Mr Metcalfe reiterated “at the time of the Injunction application, she was not in a position to sell the property.”
The judge then said “If she does not have the money herself there is an issue of the of the companies liability.
You might say there was no power to convey a tenancy agreement potentially”
Mr Metcalfle replied “ we do not know” the judge then told Mr Metcalfe “THATS MY POINT”
The judge then addressing Patel said: “I have a serious suspicion that you knew very well that you knew of the injunction and took these steps.
“However I am not prepared to take steps to prevent you from occupying the property until the next hearing and it would also be unfair to set aside the injunction I will adjourn.” Directing the question to Mr Metcalfe the prosecutor, the judge asked: “What would be the terms of an adjournment?
Metcalfe then replied: “He needed to go to the Land Registry” he then said: “he would consider calling for a prison sentence if it was proven that there had been Contempt of Court of the injuction .

[letissier14]

I hope she gets sent down for this as a warning to all those stupid fmotl

[Bones]

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

Now this is what I find interesting as according to the news report

The hearing before Circuit Judge Iyers on Wednesday morning, was told the application from the claimant represented by Mr Metcalfe could not be heard today until the issue of title held at the Land Registry was sorted.
Judge Iyers rebuked Miss Patel for handing the papers proving her short term tenancy agreement in to the court so late.
Miss Patel apologised and explained she had just received them the day before.
The judge then asked who had purchased the property?
Miss Patel mentioned two companies Fringed Ltd and Land and Property Protection Alliance Ltd.
Judge Iyers asked who did they acquire the property from?
Patel replied:”Myself”

She claims to have received a short term tenancy agreement from, I presume her parents companies, the day before the hearing, yet the property was sold again for a nominal sum to a third company on 14 December.

So her parents companies owned the property between 25 November and 14 December and sold it for 50 times more than what had been paid for it

[Bones]

The company was incorporated the day before it brought her home

[NYGman]

So she is willing to blow money on incorporating companies, but will not pay the amounts she is due. I really do hope she ends up in custody, give her time to think about what she has done. Unfortunately, someone like her, will never, ever admit they were wrong, and will probably continue to file suits after her release, until that avenue is cut off. I fear this will keep going for some time.

[TheNewSaint]

Well she's managed to change the name on the Royal Mail's post code finder and on the Land Registry's Title Deeds it says:

How does this keep happening? Why can't lawyers get the Land Registry straight when this fruitcake can go down there and put anything she wants on it, and it's live within the month? Did they even investigate the situation? Did the £100 sale price not ring any alarms? Jeez. She needs serious jail time at this point.

[Bones]

I fear this will keep going for some time.

Now that the Crawfraud's are pretty much yesterday's news, I do hope so

[Bones]

I think the parents have done what they have done because it is actually their money that is on the line here. Rekha brought this property without a mortgage (I think for £165,000). Mummy and Daddy must have either given her the money or and more worryingly may have remortgaged their own home to buy Rekha her's....

I have nothing to support the above, just my personal thoughts on the matter

[exiledscouser]

That hole she's digging is getting deeper. At this rate it might just swallow up that giant concrete turd outside the front door.

Title may have passed but those charges in favour of the claimamnt (the next door neighbour) remain.

I can't decide whether the other side's Mr. Metcalf was inept, was blindsided on the day (highly likely) or that the piss-poor journalism gives an entirely misleading report on events.

Wreckka appears to have gifted away all the equity in her home; if it is still worth the £165k+ she originally paid for it then the (up to now) £75K owed would leave almost a hundred grand in equity. Maybe more. The ever optimistic Zoopla seems to think it has broken the £200k mark. Mum and Dad paid an alleged £2. This latest limited company says it paid £100. That'll certainly depress property values in SK13!

No-one 'proper' will have bought the property because, just as you'd credit check a used car for outstanding finance before buying, a bona fide property purchase will always obtain an Office Copy of the Land Reg and - blow me - there they are, those troublesome charges having first priority. The latest one was registered in April last year - they can only be removed by consent, another order of the court or by settling the debt underlying it.

So, assuming the limited companies have been sock-puppets for members of her family going through a sham arrangement, ultimately it'll be all for naught because those priority charges are still there, they won't go away and will be just as enforcable as ever they were. Any court will take one look at this situation and probably call in the plods unless the claimant's side beat them to it - this is an evasion of a liability all day long.

Section 2 of the old Theft Act 1978 is exactly what she's allegedly done here, this is now enshrined in Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

She better hope that this stays in the civil courts otherwise career and liberty will be at serious risk. I see that the legal geniuses at EFOTB are shamelessly goading her on. One of their regular contributors says;

Mark Taylor said
they will need to bring forward all the documents they claim they have, and have sworn to that they have.... or its going to be a clear case of fraud and attempt to extort money.... jail time

Quite, but jail time for who exactly?

One thing is for certain: once the Land Registry are informed of this not-so-subtle sleight of hand the proprietorship will be reset. Meanwhile that whirring sound you can hear is the cost-o-meter spinning furiously as m'learned friends at Soo, Grabbit and Runne rack up the ante still more. Mine's a gin and tonic Giovanni!

[AndyPandy]

The Civil Courts can commit you for Contempt of Court just as the Criminal Courts can, especially the High Court.

She posted all over her social media (in public mode - which hopefully, the Solicitors are fully aware of and will have already taken screen shots) that she was in receipt of the Warrants of Possession & Writ of Restitution, but she then goes onto 'sell' the property to two Limited Companies in December.

All this to no avail as the charges remain listed.

There's really no hope (or sympathy) for this one !

[The Observer]

I don't know what UK law requires when there is number of questionable transfers, liens or security agreements filed against a subject property; here in the US such filings can cause a question as to who is the rightful owner or who are bona fide secured creditors. Title is therefore is seen as being "clouded" and parties can file suit in court for a legal determination to clear the title in regards to the filings and involved parties. If such a procedure exists in UK law, Rekha has surely triggered a requirement for it.

[longdog]

I don't know what UK law requires when there is number of questionable transfers, liens or security agreements filed against a subject property; here in the US such filings can cause a question as to who is the rightful owner or who are bona fide secured creditors. Title is therefore is seen as being "clouded" and parties can file suit in court for a legal determination to clear the title in regards to the filings and involved parties. If such a procedure exists in UK law, Rekha has surely triggered a requirement for it.

I'm sure that will be the effect. The high court would clearly have jurisdiction to require the land registry to amend their records to show the true owner as decided by the court. RP is utterly delusional if she thinks she can sidestep the will of the court with these shabby shenanigans and she'll be very lucky not to face a contempt hearing at the very least.

[Hercule Parrot]

and on the Land Registry's Title Deeds it says:

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

She's in some serious trouble now !!

I concur with previous comments - this appears to be a criminal fraud, aggravated by the plain intention to frustrate or evade an injunction. Rekha is in trouble, 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.

Unit 9, Perseverance Works etc is the registered address of Lambert Chapman LLP, for example (http://www.lambert-chapman.co.uk/). Presumably they are subject to professional registration and standards, and I can't imagine this episode reflecting well on them. Their website doesn't mention bespoke services for crooks and swindlers.

Fortunately for the claimant, the long-suffering neighbour [Name Omitted By Request], this will accomplish nothing because the charge is still in force and she can still get an order to enforce it. And all the legal costs will be met by the remaining equity, so Rekha is funding her own destruction.