Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • good  thanks for telling us the full story. its better we know where we stand always.   get the last CCA return up into ONE multipage PDF please read upload. don't post as JPG's to your thread please
    • The decisions were mine.  I had alot going on back in early 2011. We had a fire in our home office and my wife had just started a new job.  I was trying to get my head around my business which folded at the end of 2009 and what to do as well as look after 3 daughters 16, 14 and 11. That was when I decided to use a DMP and let someone else handle a number of c/card issues for both my wife and me. I stopped the DMP around April 2017 and then realised that I would stop paying and push to see who had a possibly valid CCA. Most of the cards have been sold on and there are no valid CCA's so are not enforceable but may raise their heads again. Cbot have decided that the size of this makes it worth trying for  suppose so that's why I'm ready to get this resolved now. Non of the CAG team have given an opinion on this recon CCA yet.   Will pick this up again on Monday as not around over the weekend. Thanks for your help.
    • I have a notice of enforcement, dated 26/4/19! This was the correspondence i received following my response to Harrow council detailing my difficult circumstances and requesting time to pay over installments.  Following receipt of this Notice of enforcement I had the visit just a few days after and before the said date on the letter.   I will do as suggested and contact my local Councillor.   Is it worth me sending a text message to the bailiff i spoke to?    
    • For a Civil Debt they would have to have a Controlled Goods Order with the items properly listed and a copy sined by the debtor. before they could apply to force entry.
    • Okay thankyou I have every faith In Ellen it's just worrying when get the letters especially with 2 little ones to think of makes u feel like u have failed them xx I'm just hoping our luck changes xx
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 3 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
Bailiff Advice

Chrisy Morris; YouTube Bailiff 'Baiter' to face 2 day trial for obstructing an enforcement agent.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 389 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Thanks BA

it was not showing the warrant, it was more that the warrant was gained by deceit, by stating it was for a trespasser/squatter,

 

I could be wrong but the obstruction charge against Chrisy M was in relation to Miss Patel's cottage. If so, she has has a lot of court hearings and the supposed 'irregularity' has been rejected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No this county court case was to do with Chrisy Morris when he was arrested

 

he must have appealed or something as i thought his case was in November last year,

 

Now been found not guilty and the judge ripped into the prosecution because of the incorrect paper work.

and apparently not showing the warrant on request

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Leakie, it wasn't a Civil court hearing Chrisy Morris was at last week.

It was his Criminal court Appeal which had been postponed from last November - obstruction of a High Court Enforcement Officer at Patel Cottage, Glossop on June 2016 (oh how slowly the wheels of justice turn).

It's all on Quatloos. Read it.

 

And no, form N293A wasn't used and correctly so.

It was Writ 66 and 88. Everything was tickety boo.

 

The only fly in the ointment being the CPS who couldn't be arsed to produce the original writs to HH Judge Lawton.

Didn't think it necessary to look for them.

Thought photocopies would suffice.

 

ut Judge Lawton who had travelled all the way up to Manchester from Woolwich or somewhere that hot day ready for a 2-day trial lost patience after 40 minutes and called the whole thing off.

 

oral of the story more funding for the overworked understaffed CPS please, Teresa May.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of confusion out there about this case.

This article from June 2017 will fill in the background

https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/06...rt-judgement1/

 

Shortly after this Chancery Division Judge's decision in June 2017 Rekha Patel was evicted a second time in July 2017 (she'd broken back into the house shortly after her 2016 eviction and squatted there for a year).

 

She was convicted at Stockport Magistrates in Nov 2017 for Obstructing a Court Enforcement Officer, and later received a 2-year Civil Restraint Order to stop her from repeatedly taking the neighbour to court for merit-less reasons.

 

Consequently, legal costs must have rocketed to well over £100k so there is likely to be no change out of the sale of her cottage.

All this is documented on Quatloos.

Added to those costs are the 24/7 dog patrol costs.

 

She and her FMoTL friends have attempted to break back in to the cottage half a dozen times since summer 2017 so security are guarding the cottage until the house is sold. T

 

he thread started in this forum by BA was closed due to 'UncleBulgaria67' and 'Bernadette' sticking up for Rekha Patel.

They must be the only 2 people left in Britain who fail to see the misery she has inflicted on a whole community with her anti-social behaviour.

And it wasn't over a 'few stones' as reported in the Rekha-fed Press - she actually undermined the foundations of the neighbours' grade 2 listed property.

Edited by dx100uk
typo/spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt I have the power to close a thread due to sticking up for anyone. This is a consumer site and it is up to the site team to decide on whether a thread is helpful to consumers or not.

 

I just have a pet hate of people seeming to take pleasure out of others people misery or mistakes. Often behind the stories is someone that has an issue where someone should have stepped in to stop them. To make a mistake and make their situation worse by their behaviours is awful to everyone involved. I do feel sorry for the neigbours, as their lifes must have been made hell.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup Unclebulgaria67, their lives have been made hell for over 7 years due to Rekha Patel, who incidentally has now changed her surname. She emailed all the teachers of her school about it even though she hasn't been teaching there for nearly 18 months. On extended sick leave with "stress". Why change her name though? Maybe it's because she went running to the Press and didn't come out too well. Stays on Google forever including this.... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extended-civil-restraint-orders-in-force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rekha had a very nice Grade 2 cottage in a good location without a mortgage. She, just like Tom Crawford before her, managed to get the attention of FMoTL and Sovereign Citizen idiots and she now has nothing. When will these people learn.

 

What she and her followers have been seeking is the proverbial 'loophole' to prove that there has been a 'fraud' or 'conspiracy'. There is none and she has lost her house and bought misery on the neighbours for years. Her change of surname speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That link shows the eCRO currently expires 30th November 2019.

So, it expires.

As for “stays on Google forever” : it MIGHT if it were an indefinite order.

As it isn’t, it’ll be subject to the “right to be forgotten”.

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/13/google-loses-right-to-be-forgotten-case

 

So, not forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said "forever" I was talking about the many articles and news reports from the Press - not the link I posted about her extended CRO which expires in Nov 2019. This story is classed as public interest - therefore is Googlable forever. (Unless Rekha wants to ask the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Manchester Evening News, the Mirror, the Tameside Reporter, some Indian newspaper some Brazilian newspaper etc etc to take down their story. Somehow I think not)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You appear to not understand how google’s “Right to be forgotten” works.

The webpages on “the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Manchester Evening News, the Mirror, the Tameside Reporter, some Indian newspaper some Brazilian newspaper etc etc ” may still exist. The data subject just asks google to remove them from the search results.

 

The individual doesn’t have to approach each newspaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You appear to not understand how google’s “Right to be forgotten” works.

The webpages on “the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Manchester Evening News, the Mirror, the Tameside Reporter, some Indian newspaper some Brazilian newspaper etc etc ” may still exist. The data subject just asks google to remove them from the search results.

 

The individual doesn’t have to approach each newspaper.

 

Bingo... Making it harder to be found :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This story is classed as public interest -

 

Which is why this thread has received close to 15,000 views. If the thread helps just one homeowner in financial difficulties or facing repossession escape the clutches of these daft FMoTL types it will have been worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong BazzaS. Google will not remove stories if they deem them IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST which this story is. Having refused your request, Google then offers you an alternative - to go and approach each newspapers Webmaster individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Some of the public being interested” is not the same as “in the public interest”

 

How do we know how Google will respond? (Bearing in mind we can’t know when / if the request to be forgotten is going to be made!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know how Google will respond, BazzaS? By reading very carefully the Guardian link you posted earlier especially the bit about PUBLIC INTEREST. BA has already pointed out the high level of public interest on this thread alone. Also bear in mind that this story has gone far and wide beyond the reaches of the EU member states to which this 2014 'Google Spain' law only applies. Australia is another country and here is India's take on it... https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/why-uks-rekha-patel-sold-her-home-for-2-pounds-1654487

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case in general is of public interest.

That doesn’t mean every aspect will be of public interest.

 

Google’s response will thus depend on what request to be forgotten is made, and when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got a bit side-tracked here as to why Rekha Patel would change her name. Another possibility for the name-change is that now she is a fully fledged Free Man On The Land or SovCit (Sovereign Citizen), she has bought into that whole 'legal name fraud' nonsense. This is another level of weirdness and if you have the stomach for it read this... https://loweringthebar.net/2016/06/is-it-illegal-to-use-a-legal-name.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn’t referring to her name change, given the eCRO you referred to(& were talking about “forever”), that I commented on the link you provided and noted wasn’t indefinite, that is in the name of Rekha Patel!

 

The public interest aspect of her case is independent of whatever name she is currently using, and referring to it as the Rekha Patel case is more relevant than whatever moniker she is currently using, making her name change less than relevant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we keep this relevant to Rekha Patel's name change. Why do YOU think she has changed her name, BazzaS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We got a bit side-tracked here as to why Rekha Patel would change her name.

 

So, firstly the name change is a ‘side-track’ to you;

 

 

Can we keep this relevant to Rekha Patel's name change.

 

but then it becomes relevant all of a sudden?

 

Why do YOU think she has changed her name, BazzaS?

 

Don’t know, don’t care.

It is irrelevant to the issue of the “Rekha Patel” case what she is now known as, and the public interest aspect of her case : namely that it is possible to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds and your home by foolishly following FMOTL twaddle. That is what really matters, not what name she is currently known by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 13 posts ago (before this thread got de-railed) BA said: "Her change of surname speaks volumes". In your experience of the bailiff arena, BA, what does this mean? I have offered two reasons why I thought she might have changed it (1. to make her less 'Googlable' and 2. because she's bought into the' Legal Name Fraud' FMoTL nonsense) but there may be other reasons that you have come across in your line of work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have offered two reasons why I thought she might have changed it (1. to make her less 'Googlable' and 2. because she's bought into the' Legal Name Fraud' FMoTL nonsense) but there may be other reasons that you have come across in your line of work?

 

1. Still irrelevant. What matters is the details of the case under the name Rekha Patel, and the "following FMOTL can lead you to lose your house". That isn't affected by any name change, and since she is under an eCRO, she won't be issuing new legal proceedings relating to the house and / or her neighbours in the foreseeable future...... regardless of any new name.

 

2. She's already bought into the FMOTL delusion, with disastrous consequences.

Changing her name isn't likely to run well with the 'Legal Name Fraud' argument, as the whole (deluded) point of that argument is to try and differentiate the 'person' from their 'legal name'. If anything, changing one legal name to another makes it more likely to link to the person, not less........... their argument is that the legal name is foisted upon them by the birth certificate before they are able to consent to it ..... later changing their legal name as a competent adult removes the "it was foisted upon me" argument!

 

I offer you as an alternative:

3. A change of name because the whole thing has been a disaster, she's finally realised she's been badly advised, and wants to just move on .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

court reports cant be removed under the right to be forgotten legislation so she is stuck with being a laughing stock for many years to come. there will still be ways of searching for this after then and the papers dont have to purge their files, it is just how google joins the dots in their algorithms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, ericsbrother.

Maybe she deludedly thinks she'll be able to continue her merit-less court cases against the neighbour under a new name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...