Looks like Peter McDowell is sharing his legal knowledge with the two new evictees, Princess Shoutypants and Tobe Hayden-Leigh.
Never know, this 1954 precedent might come in handy for tomorrow's hearing at Stockport Magistrates for Rekha Patel.
Richard Carter
8 hrs ·
Re Smith and The Halifax Building Society (1954) 105 L.J. 124;
Mortgagees of a house sold it the day after a judgment creditor had registered a writ of elegit.
Judge Sir Donald Hurst held that as there had been no inquisition, the writ was worthless and its registration did not give the creditor any priority.
Comments
Richard Carter
Rekha Patel Tunkashila Limited Tobe Hayden Leigh
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: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:14 am
Looks like Peter McDowell is sharing his legal knowledge with the two new evictees, Princess Shoutypants and Tobe Hayden-Leigh.
Never know, this 1954 precedent might come in handy for tomorrow's hearing at Stockport Magistrates for Rekha Patel.
Richard Carter
8 hrs ·
Re Smith and The Halifax Building Society (1954) 105 L.J. 124;
Mortgagees of a house sold it the day after a judgment creditor had registered a writ of elegit.
Judge Sir Donald Hurst held that as there had been no inquisition, the writ was worthless and its registration did not give the creditor any priority.
Comments
Richard Carter
Rekha Patel Tunkashila Limited Tobe Hayden Leigh
Thick as mince. Bet that doesn't mean what he thinks it does. I'd lay odds that he thinks the owner of a house ("the mortgagee") sold a property the day after a charge was laid against it, so the writ was invalid and so the sale by the home owner was valid (à la Wrekha).
Whereas the rest of us know that a "mortgagee" is the mortgage company and all that judgement reiterates is that they have the right to sell a property to satisfy their debt and have first dibs on any proceeds from a sale.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
Mike_p wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:55 am
Actually that precedent from 1954 is even more useful against Tunkashila:
... as there had been no inquisition, the writ was worthless ...
So since their solicitors didn't check for any prior charges on the cottage, anything they registered is worthless.
(IANAL: I might be entirely wrong!)
I was once a lawyer; and that sounds about right. When I conducted a real estate closing, the money did not get released until I had recorded by documents, AFTER a careful title search running from the end of my previous search to the very last document recorded that day -- it would have been malpractice if my documents were recorded as Documents 201, 202 and 203, if an attachment had been recorded as Document 201.
If the lawyer for the company which had secured the attachment went to record his document, only to find that I had recorded my documents just before his/hers, they would have been out of luck as far as placing the attachment against the real property was concerned.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Mike_p wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 15, 2018
Actually that precedent from 1954 is even more useful against Tunkashila:
... as there had been no inquisition, the writ was worthless ...
So since their solicitors didn't check for any prior charges on the cottage, anything they registered is worthless.
(IANAL: I might be entirely wrong!)
I was once a lawyer; and that sounds about right.
Well it looks like Longlands Solicitors registered Fringed Ltd and L&PPA Ltd with the Land Registry on 12th January 2017 and maybe registered Tunkashila Ltd a bit later. All this was done in the nick of time before the court case on 25th January 2017. See page 14 of the 'Rekha Patel Loses Her House' thread.
AndyPandy posted Casa Patel's deeds on 27/1/17 showing four entries on the charges register which had been there since Oct 2013, April 2015 & April 2016. Naughty Longlands solicitors not paying attention to the two equitable charges, the unilateral notice and the beneficiary.
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
If my knowledge of property isn't too far off, those previous orders against the property would have stood against anything filed afterward, and since the sale order came out of the earlier costs order it would still have had precedence over the sham transactions.
At any rate it would seem Longlands did not do the due diligence and care they are required to do, and intentionally or ineptly participated in the fraud. Either way, not good for them I don't think.
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.
Funny business occurring with appointments and resignations at Tunkashila Ltd. Seems Peter McDowell has appointed himself as director twice - once as himself and once as Tunkashila Group Holdings Ltd.
Meanwhile Ken Thompson has resigned as a director on 8th July.
Strange goings on... https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... 9/officers
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
I cant spot anything. the LJ means it was reported in the law journal newspaper, which ceased to be in 1965 and became the new law journal. The fact they bothered to report it suggests it contained something of importance. I couldn't find it on Bailli ether.
Has this section, the likely culprit but haven't really read it yet. Feel free to search the above for your own...
2125. writ of elegit. [Cty. Ct.] (Law of Property Act, 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5, c. 20), s. 195.) In Be Smith and Halifax Building Society (1954) 105 L.J. 124 mortgagees of a house sold it the day after a judgment creditor had registered a writ of elegit. Judge Sir Donald Hurst held that as there had been no inquisition, the writ was worthless and its registration did not give the creditor any priority.
2126. writ of possession. (R.S.C., Ord. 47, r. 1.) Consequent on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Barclays Bank v. Boherts, infra, these further directions are given ; —
Where the defendant or any other persons are in actual possession of the premises of which possession is sought, an affidavit applying for leave to issue a writ of possession must contain the following information in addition to that indicated by the form in the practice books : —
(a) whether the premises or any part thereof is a dwelling-house ;
(b) if so
(i) what is the rateable value of the dwelling-house ;
(ii) whether it is let furnished or unfurnished and, if furnished, what is the amount of furniture therein ;
(c) any other matters which will assist the master in determining whether any occupier is protected by the Rent Restriction Acts :
Practice Direction (Writ of Possession) [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1314; [1955] 3 All E.R. 646 (direction pursuant to decision in Barclays Bank v. Boherts [1954] C.L.Y. 2870).
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
I think he learned everything he knows from Expert in Phuck All.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Someone's upset Peter McDowell on his facebook page for him to post this picture. A quick check of his friends list and Princess Shoutypants is no longer there! Wonder if there's been a rift now that she has her own proper legal adviser from Robert Lizar Solicitors instead of Big Chief McSitting Bullshit's outdated legal advice
The wise man does at once what the fool does finally (Niccolo Machiavelli)...and what the FMOTL never does (He Who Knows)
Wow, what a find, here's the vid of Peter McDowell serving the police carpenter with one of his crappy legal notices after one of the Princess Shoutypants arrests last month. McDowell keeps quoting Land & Property Act 1925 at him, but he can't decide which section - S.58 or S.27
Classic response from the carpenter: "If it's your property, why aren't you in it?" https://www.facebook.com/ken.thompson.5 ... _video_tab
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: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:46 am
Wow, what a find, here's the vid of Peter McDowell serving the police carpenter with one of his crappy legal notices after one of the Princess Shoutypants arrests last month. McDowell keeps quoting Land & Property Act 1925 at him, but he can't decide which section - S.58 or S.27
Is that actually what he says, rather than "Law of Property Act 1925", which at least exists even if it probably doesn't mean what he thinks.
I'm surprised he's not claiming MC. Isn't that usually the fall back position?
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.
