Exclusive. Eviction simply does not add up insists Glossop maths teacher, who says she will turn the tables on her “tormentors” .
Tuesday 2nd August 2016 12:12 News Posted by Nigel P.

Rekha Patel, the 43-year-old, Glossop teacher who is attracting national headlines after defiantly re-entering her home a month after she was evicted and her property was boarded up by a company of bailiffs is ready to go on the offensive.
The eight bailiffs supported by up to 21 police officers claimed to be acting on the authority of the High Court in Oxford which they supported with paperwork in the form of writs complete with court stamps

However, Miss Patel is claiming that the paperwork carried no legal validity for a variety of reasons and in reality the bailiffs had no legal right to break down the door of her Simmondley, Glossop, cottage and remove her and friends from the property, that she says she owns outright having paid off the mortgage.
Miss Patel said the debt which is separate from the award of £17, 500 in respect of costs and damages to her neighbour which Miss Patel says she has paid already several years ago.
She explained: “ The original dispute related to alleged damage to some stones following re-roofing work that I had done when I first moved in.

The stones came out of the neighbour’s partition wall which were protruding just above the level of my roof tiles in fact I contended the stones were originally part of my house which is a floor lower than my neighbour’s and was built before the neighbours house was built.

When the neighbour pointed out there was some damage following the re-roofing I actually agreed with her and we jointly appointed a structural engineer to work out the best way forward.

The engineer’s report concluded that the damaged stones could not be replaced as they were embedded in the neighbours wall and taking them out and replacing them would only compromise the stability of the wall which separated our houses.”

Miss Patel claims the stones were already not in a perfect state and were covered by old rendering plaster in the years before she bought the property and the engineer advised that the stones be again covered over by lead flashing with a view to waterproofing Miss Patel’s newly roofed property.

At this point both parties seemed content to accept the engineer’s advice, but that solution did not apparently satisfy Patel’s neighbour, who a month after completion of the work , sent Miss Patel a solicitor’s letter accusing her of breaching ‘The Party Wall Act’ and demanding the “damaged stones replaced.”

Unfortunately to date  Miss Patel’s neighbour has remained unavailable for comment.

Miss Patel explained: “The case was heard at Tameside Magistrates but then referred to  the Manchester County Court, where the court ruled against me, but then I uncovered further historical evidence and applied for permission to take the case to the High Court in London.

“I was refused leave to appeal and at that point I had to pay up, so I did in full.

“I thought that was the end of the matter but some time later I received a bill for £30,000 from a firm called Cogent Law.

I immediately contacted them and asked them who the money was for and the break down of what it was in regard to.”

“I contacted them several times but they would not offer any explanation in which case I was not prepared to pay.”
“As time went on I got further bills from the company which kept increasing every several months until eventually they said I owed £72 000, unbelievable ! for what I only paid the neighbour £8,000 in damages how could they justify that amount? They simply would not tell me.”
Tameside Reporter contacted Cogent Law for a response, at the time of going to press we had not managed to get through to their number in Leeds which appeared to be constantly engaged.

Miss Patel is now back in her home and is determined she will not be intimidated or removed again and is confident that the local police who during the first eviction were acting in support of the bailiffs will next time take a neutral position following an encounter with them and Miss Patel shortly after she had re-entered her house,

The police were filmed by Miss Patel’s friends arriving at her house with the intention of removing her as a trespasser but following intense legal discussion between herself and the police and providing legal documentation to reinforce her case the police left satisfied that Miss Patel had not broken any laws was not a trespasser and in fact was within her rights to re-enter her home.

Miss Patel said: “I have a lawful excuse to return home because I have been displaced unlawfully and I have lawful excuse to return home and make it good.

The teacher originally from Stalybridge is determined not to leave it there switching from the defensive to the offensive she said: ‘”Criminal claim is being made in the magistrates court, there’s a claim being made in the county court and the land registry have issued proceedings in the property chamber due to the allegations of fraud and wrong doing.”

“I will be lodging criminal complaint about the unlawful destruction of my front door,”

She was adamant that: “There is no document to allow eviction and there is no Legitimate document issued by the court to allow the eviction.”

During her month away from her 300 year-old property Miss Patel was forced to live at her parents house in Staybridge.

High Court Eviction the Liverpool based  company that provided the  bailiffs who broke down the door of Miss Patel’s cottage to enforce the eviction in June said:”They were aware of the case but had been instructed not to comment:” when contacted by the Tameside Reporter