Quatloos!

grixit wrote:

morrand wrote:

Bones wrote:

Seeing this led me to go through a few of the other drawings on Ms Patel's application for planning permission.

Is this typical of the level of detail/quality that goes into planning applications? Because I'm lining up a series of snotty comments about them, but if that's customary for this sort of thing, then they're not really deserved, and I'd rather keep them to myself.

Every architectural drawing i've ever seen has more details than that. Heck, do it yourself home improvement diagrams have more details. Likewise the brochure in the shelving materials aisle of Home Depot.

He Who Knows wrote:Oh dear what a dilemma for Wrecker Patel tomorrow on 1st March. Does she go to Slater Ave, Warrington to support the director of the company that bought her house for £2 - Baron David Ward - in his eviction at 12 noon? Or does she go to Tameside Court at 10am to support Chrisy Morris who tried to obstruct the bailiff in her eviction last summer? I suppose she could attend both, that is if the Judge at Tameside makes a quick clean job of it.

notorial dissent wrote:I wonder if she'll show up when her parents are hauled up in front of the magistrate on fraud charges.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:I don't think her parents will get charged with fraud but I think there is a real chance that HMRC (the tax man) will ask for the stamp duty on the transfer. They then have to either cough up (I think) £7500 per "transfer" of the property or put it in writing that it was all fake.

Mr Morris claimed that the charges were not properly served to a correct address and within a six month period.

However District Judge, D.J. Saunders while listening to Mr Morris’s arguments patiently, ruled that Mr Morris had been notified correctly and within the time limit.

Mr Morris insisted that the summonses had been sent to an address he had never lived at in his home town.

Judge Saunders said: “It looks to me that you have been served you are certainly here so on that we can proceed.”

“How did you know you had to be here if you were not served?

Mr Morris replied: “I phoned the police to double check.”

NYGman wrote:Love the formal attire he wore to court, and the 3nd photo with Rekha's eyes closed

mufc1959 wrote:

Mr Morris claimed that the charges were not properly served to a correct address and within a six month period.

However District Judge, D.J. Saunders while listening to Mr Morris’s arguments patiently, ruled that Mr Morris had been notified correctly and within the time limit.

Mr Morris insisted that the summonses had been sent to an address he had never lived at in his home town.

Judge Saunders said: “It looks to me that you have been served you are certainly here so on that we can proceed.”

“How did you know you had to be here if you were not served?

Mr Morris replied: “I phoned the police to double check.”

The Glossop teacher was there to represent herself from an injunction filed by her next door neighbour, “to prevent her or any of her friends from re-entering the property” known as Hanover Cottage in Simmondley, Glossop.
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”
The Judge then asked how much for ? and seemed a little surprised when Miss Patel replied “ £2
Mr Daniel Metcalfe for the plaintiff, then told the court that “this was the first he had known of this”
The Judge said: “As you have been surprised I am tempted to adjourn the case so the problem of conflicting accounts between Patel and your client can be gone into.”
Mr Metcalfe suggested to the court that Miss Patel was not in a position to convey the property: “because it was not hers to convey – that is Fraud”
The Judge replied “That is the point you have to prove that, but I cannot ignore the Land Registry title.” I cannot make an order.”
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 for the plaintiff, 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 .

The Judge said: “He could give the claimant a right to inspect.”
At this point Miss Patel raised questions about the legality of the original orders saying “there was a dispute over the order of sale”
Judge Iyers intervened saying: “ I am not preventing you from raising them, just not here” Miss Patel continued though saying: ‘” There are no records of any warrant or writ, no warrants are issued and if we are talking about suprise.
I was suprised the case originally went from Manchester to Oxford, I did not receive any of the paper work at the time, informing me of this.”
“I was completely taken by suprise!
Judge asked Metcalfe: “Is your client realistically able to proceed with the case?
Metcalfe replied : “I would have to go away and do research”
Judge Iyers then said: “ I will adjourn it for you to make an application.
“This case may need to go to a higher court I am advising it goes to the Chancery Division.”
Miss Patel encouraged by a small band of supporters looked relieved as she lives to fight yet another battle in the bid to save herself from losing her home.

Mr Metcalfle replied “ we do not know” the judge then told Mr Metcalfe “THATS MY POINT”

TheNewSaint wrote:I suppose it's true that she "lived to fight another day", but when that day comes the cost will be much greater. For all she's put her neighbor and the court system through, I hope they throw the book at her.

He Who Knows wrote:A quick check of the Land Registry shows that Patel Cottage is still owned by Tunkashila Ltd and has been since her parents' companies (Fringed Ltd and Land & Property Protection Alliance Ltd - of which Baron Ward was a director) sold it on for £100 last December. So she hasn't yet sold it on to the dormant company, Rekha Patel Ltd waiting in the wings. Wonder if she's gone 'abroad' for good?

In some situations you should use the market value of the property when working out your gain. Do this if:

you sold it for less than it was worth to help the buyer