Padd Farm sold at a THIRD of its market value

But it’s not all over yet!

↓
HM Land Registry
Are investigating this matter

↓

Padd Farm Conspirators
↓

Mr Paul Turrell
Chief Executive at Runnymede Borough Council

Mr Nick Prescot
Leader of Runnymede Borough Council

Mr Mario Leo
Corporate Head of Law at Runnymede Borough Council

Ms Louise Brittain
Enforcement Receiver at Wilkins Kennedy (Azets Holdings)

Mr Russell Compton
TRM Land Ltd (Director of and purchasers of Padd Farm)

Mr Robert Mark Love 
TRM Land Ltd (Director of and purchasers of Padd Farm)

Mr Ben Hall
Solicitor at Baron Grey Solicitors

Mr John Hardy QC
Barrister at Three Raymond Buildings

HHJ Moss (retired)
Judge at Guildford Crown Court

Master Eastman
High Court Master

Dr Ben Spencer
MP for Runnymede and Weybridge

This website is designed to help the reader understand the collective grounds of a ‘conspiracy to defraud’ committed by the above-named people. Conspiracy to defraud is an offence under Section 5[2] of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Conspiracy to defraud involves two or more people planning to dishonestly deprive another person of something that belongs to that person. The offence of conspiracy to defraud is the agreement to do the fraud NOT committing the fraud and carries with it a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

Some of the above-named are also guilty of ‘fraud by abuse of position’ which is an offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 which also has a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

THE FRAUD IN A NUTSHELL

The above-named have conspired to obstruct a multi-million-pound property sale in order to acquire the property at below market value to make a gain from its resale and its redevelopment for themselves.

Significantly, instead of the owners of the property, Mr and Ms Beach, receiving a contractually agreed amount due by way of a deed of sale registered at HM Land Registry. Evidence provided proves that the above-named have conspired to manipulate the sale so that co-conspirators can be placed in a position to pay just a fraction of the agreed amount, not to Mr and Ms Beach, but to OTHER co-conspirators, leaving Mr and Ms Beach with a substantial loss of equity and the loss of thier farm.

Some of the above named have colluded from the outset while others have been introduced at a later stage. Most of them hold privileged positions but ALL have the same goal, which is to profit directly, indirectly or as a favour to others so that they can benefit at a later stage.

THE FRAUD

Pensioners Mr and Ms Beach own a 32-acre estate named ‘Padd Farm’ in Surrey. Their farm is in the ward of Virginia Water which, apart from Central London, is the UK’s most expensive area to buy land and property.

Having invested in their property for over 30 years and now pensioners ready to retire. In July 2016, Mr and Ms Beach sold their 32-acre estate subject to planning permission being granted to the new owner to build homes.

The contract of sale included an ‘overage’ or ‘uplift’ clause where further amounts would be payable to Mr and Ms Beach’s family if additional planning is granted for more homes on the remainder of the land regardless of who the owner is at any time during the next 125 years.

Terms of the ‘Contract of Sale’ also known as the ‘Option Agreement’ were agreed between Mr and Ms Beach and the directors of TRM Land Ltd, who are the property purchasers.

The contract was witnessed, signed, sealed by conveyancing solicitors from both parties and registered at Her Majesty’s Land Registry.  

Officers and other senior staff at Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) subjected Mr and Ms Beach to a torrent of unwarranted enforcement notices claiming breaches in planning regulations and their whole family to a number of discriminatory legal actions. Including the rental of caravan accommodation where RBC were one of Mr and Ms Beach’s customers. Income of which the council now claimed was ‘illegal’ CLICK HERE.

Despite the council paying Mr and Ms Beach for emergency accommodation for years, Mr and Ms Beach were prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for 'receiving' rental payments from RBC. Notwithstanding their defence of ‘entrapment’. Mr and Ms Beach were made liable to a manifestly excessive confiscation order of over 1.2 million pounds.

The indictment period for offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a maximum of 6 years. The total income from caravan rental for a period of 6 years, even if Mr and Ms Beach included the rental payments from RBC CLICK HERE, are nowhere near £1.2 million.

Therefore, the confiscation order was a manipulation and a manoeuvring by the co-conspirators including that of HHJ Moss, who as a Crown Court Judge knows very well that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is ‘not’ to be used as a ‘punishment’. Nonetheless, HHJ Moss granted the manifestly excessive confiscation order with just RBC being present at the hearing (without Mr and Ms Beach nor their legal representatives being present).

Whilst the prosecuting authority (RBC) were aware of the pending sale of Mr and Ms Beach’s property, Padd Farm - where there was more than enough equity remaining in the property to cover the inflated confiscation order and the accruing interest. RBC nonetheless demanded Mr and Ms Beach should be ‘imprisoned’ for not paying the confiscation order.

Mr and Ms Beach were sent to prison for a combined 13 years.

While Mr and Ms Beach were in PRISON. On the 18 May 2018 RBC applied to Guildford Crown Court for a ‘Receiver’...

...Mr Ben Hall from Baron Grey Solicitors visited Mr Beach in prison to have Mr Beach sign a document where it was guaranteed that his [Mr Beach's] interest in the ‘Contract of Sale’ or ‘Option Agreement’ would be protected – on the condition Mr Beach did not object to the council’s application for a Receiver.

It later transpired that this was just a ruse as solicitor Mr Ben Hall altered the document to mean something completely different. Mr Beach’s wife, Linda, also while she was in prison strongly opposed the application to appoint a Receiver. Which was totally ignored by the co-conspirators. 

HHJ Moss on the 18 May 2018 appointed a ‘Receiver’ with a known controversial working history: Louise Brittain. Conversely, the court issued an order where it specifically states the Receiver, Louise Brittain, MUST:

“Dispose of Padd Farm in accordance with the 2016 registered Option Agreement”

While Mr and Ms Beach were still in prison. The Receiver, Louise Brittain, visited Padd Farm and proceeded to lock up buildings and gates to prevent people from coming in and out. The Receiver threatened Mr and Ms Beach’s commercial tenants with legal action or the removal of their equipment if they did not vacate the farm immediately. Innocent tenants who had nothing to do with the proceedings were forced to relocate their businesses. Resulting in business interruption for the tenants and a loss of commercial rental income for Mr and Ms Beach.

The Receiver, Louise Brittain, also confiscated Mr and Ms Beach’s banked pension monies and their son’s disability payments leaving their disabled son with nothing to live on, nobody to look after him and nowhere to live.

Six months into the 13-year combined prison sentence. High Court judge HHJ Goose determined the prosecuting authority (RBC) did not follow procedure and therefore sending Mr and Ms Beach to prison was ‘unlawful’. On the same day, 9 August 2018, Mr and Ms Beach were released from prison.

Soon after Mr and Ms Beach were released from prison. The directors of TRM Land Ltd (the purchasers of Padd Farm) proposed to pay just a fraction of the agreed amount instead of the originally agreed amount due to Mr and Mrs Beach.

Mr and Ms Beach reminded the purchasers that they had carried out multiple surveys and presumably their due diligence which resulted in their offer to purchase Padd Farm as detailed in the ‘Contract of Sale’ or ‘Option Agreement’.

In addition, the contract was varied (amended) in January 2018 to allow the purchasers, TRM land Ltd, to own the farm ‘outright’ subject to the initial payment. The ‘overage’ or ‘uplift’ where around a further 82.5% for 20 acres would be payable to Mr and Ms Beach’s family during the next 125 years remained unchanged.

In any event. Despite property prices going up since entering into the 2016 agreement. Mr and Ms Beach have not asked for an increase in sale price. They reminded TRM Land Ltd that the whole point of registering an ‘Option Agreement’ at HM land Registry is that all parties know exactly where they stand, especially the sale price.

It is important to note that RBC in their January 2018 SLAA (Strategic Land Availability Assessment) have determined Padd Farm as ‘vacant’ or ‘derelict’. This report was published ‘before’ the council (RBC) applied for a Receiver on the 18 May 2018 and ‘before’ the Receiver evicted Mr and Ms Beach’s commercial tenants. A clear indication that RBC and co-conspirators were working towards their own agenda.

In the full knowledge that Mr and Ms Beach’s purchasers, had conducted numerous pre-planning obligations, such as surveys, plans and public consultations in preparation for a planning application in August 2019 which would trigger the sale of Padd Farm (and a substantial payment) towards the end of 2019. The Receiver, Louise Brittain (pictured), suddenly made an application to Guildford Crown Court for the court’s permission to SELL Padd Farm on HER TERMS. This was heard on 18 July 2019.

This is despite previously on 18 May 2018 the Receiver, Louise Brittain, was DIRECTED to continue the sale of Padd Farm under a COURT ORDER of the same date. Extracted here:

The Receiver’s 18 July 2019 application stated Louise Brittain (the Receiver), received an unconditional offer to purchase Padd Farm suspected to be from a ‘Scaffolding Company’. Extracted here:

The amount of £1.95m is ‘conveniently’ equal to Mr and Ms Beach’s debts, including the trumped-up and exaggerated confiscation order granted by HHJ Moss (now retired). No marketing had been taken place therefore by definition the party making the offer must be somebody known to Louise Brittain (the Receiver) or her agents.  

Mr and Ms Beach were sent copy correspondence from their purchasers’ solicitors. Their purchasers (TRM Land Ltd) formally objected to the Receiver’s 18 July 2019 application to remove Mr and Ms Beach as property title holders and confirmed that the final planning application will be submitted to the council during August 2019 when upon its approval at around the end of 2019, the ringfenced amount to cover the purchase will be released to the Receiver for distribution. Extracted here:

Mr Beach went to the 18 July 2019 hearing at Guildford Crown Court confident that the Receiver’s application would fail as there is no provision in the 2016 ‘Contract of Sale’ or ‘Option Agreement’ to replace Mr and Ms Beach as the beneficiaries of the sale. In any event, Mr and Ms Beach stated their case by way of a Witness Statement.

If the Receiver’s application succeeded it would mean the ‘Scaffolding Company’ would benefit when planning permission is granted by the council (RBC) plus potentially an additional 82.5% of 20 acres INSTEAD of Mr and Ms Beach who would end up with NOTHING. Which would be outrageous and damn right criminal !!!

Not being able to afford legal representation. A McKenzie friend accompanied Mr Beach to the 18 July 2019 hearing for the purposes of moral support and quietly making suggestions.

HHJ Moss refused Mr Beach the assistance of a McKenzie friend and made Mr Beach sit by himself where the jury normally sit. Nonetheless, Mr Beach stated in open court that Padd Farm is worth a lot more than what the Receiver, Louise Brittain, is suggesting selling it for and in addition, to do so would be a breach of the previous order made on the 18 May 2018.

During the actual 18 July 2019 hearing. Barristers representing Louise Brittain (the Receiver), RBC and TRM Land Ltd were negotiating with each other and dashing in and out of the court room. Presumably to make private conversations or to make telephone calls.

Presiding judge HHJ Moss was eventually told that between the Receiver, RBC and TRM Land Ltd an ‘agreement has been reached’. Details of which will be sent to the court 'at a later stage'.

Without seeing or knowing anything of what was agreed between the co-conspirators, HHJ Moss (now retired) and without giving any consideration to the terms of the 2016 registered 'Option Agreement’ or even the 18 May 2018 order protecting Mr and Ms Beach’s interests which he [HHJ Moss] granted himself - HHJ Moss ‘granted’ the Receiver’s 18 July 2019 application a week later by signing an ambiguous court order - Heavily bias towards the Receiver and TRM Land Ltd's terms.

The 18 July 2019 order (signed a week later) allows Louise Brittain, the Receiver to dispose of Padd Farm to an ‘anonymous’ party for an undisclosed amount and the ‘anonymous’ party to then sell Padd Farm to TRM land Ltd for just a fraction of the agreed price. As long as TRM Land Ltd secure planning permission (any planning permission) from the council (RBC) before January 2022.

How would the Receiver know the ‘anonymous’ party who are initialy paying £1.9m for Padd Farm would ‘want’ to sell Padd Farm to TRM Land Ltd at less than the original price - if it was not pre-agreed? A clear and illegal pre-arrangement by the co-conspirators.

Mr and Ms Beach say the co-conspirators named above have colluded to:

Acquire property title at well below market value.

Make a further gain from its sale to TRM Land Ltd.

Make an even further gain from its sale by TRM land Ltd to Runnymede Borough Council.

Runnymede Borough Council have already had an electrical sub-station bordering Padd Farm in Hurst Lane installed. A brand new electrical sub-station costing around £5m capable of powering about 1500 new homes. Currently unused and waiting to be connected to new homes. When Mr and Ms Beach made enquiries about it. The council had no record of an electrical sub-station in Hurst Lane nor any record of Hurst Lane being dug up to lay the massive cable! Not even a planning application. Isn’t that strange?

Officers at RBC have access to unlimited public funds to finance their manoeuvrings. Therefore, Mr and Ms Beach say the co-conspirators are taking advantage of their privileged or fortunate positions to conspire to commit the fraud using the courts as ‘cover’. A suitable idiomatic would be: ‘Fraud in Plain Sight’.

PREMEDITATED 'CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD' BY THE RECEIVER

It came to light that ‘prior’ to the 18 July 2019 hearing (The hearing where Louise Brittain, the Receiver, applied to sell Padd Farm to a ‘anonymous’ party). The Receiver had ALREADY AGREED with Mr and Ms Beach’s purchasers that in return for their cooperation, TRM Land Ltd would only need to pay £5.59m for Padd Farm instead of £9.5m + 82.5% of 20 acres which is contractually due to be paid to Mr and Ms Beach.

This is evidenced in the Receivers Skeleton Argument dated 11 July 2019 which was used at the 18 July 2019 hearing. On the last page it states that up to £5.59m is payable under the option. Extracted here:

Six months before the Receiver’s 18 July 2019 application to sell Padd Farm to her friend or so called ‘anonymous’ party: on 4 January 2019. Mr Russell Compton of TRM Land Ltd proposed to Louise Brittain (the Receiver) that the initial price he originally agreed to pay to Mr and Ms Beach by way of the ‘Contract of Sale’ or ‘Option Agreement’ should be REDUCED from £9.5m to £5.59m.

£5.59m, you will see is the same amount the Receiver, six months later at the 18 July 2019 hearing is expecting to receive from the sale of the property to Mr Russell Compton of TRM Land Ltd - as evidenced in the extract above.

Subsequent conversations between Louise Brittain and Mr Russell Compton of TRM Land Ltd must have taken place to include the ‘overage’ or ‘uplift’ of 82.5% of 20 acres as this amount is ‘included’ in the Receivers Skeleton Argument as ‘Total payable under the option – up to £5.59m’. Illustrated in the extract above. A 20 acre ‘bonus’ for TRM Land Ltd if they align themselves with the other conspirators. Happy days!

It is therefore clear that at the very least the Receiver, Louise Brittain, on behalf of the ‘anonymous’ party, had agreed with Mr Russell Compton to accept £5.59m from TRM Land Ltd instead of the contracted £9.5m + 82.5% of 20 acres Mr Russell Compton had agreed to pay Mr and Ms Beach by way of the 2016 registered ‘Option Agreement’.

It is also clear that this arrangement was on the condition TRM Land Ltd allowed the terms of the 18 July 2019 court order to be compiled [written] by the co-conspirators which allows Louise Brittain, the Receiver to first sell the property to a party of her choice at well below market value.

To take advantage of the £5.59m deal and to loosely comply with the original 2016 ‘Contract of Sale’ or ‘Option Agreement’ and perhaps an attempt to remain undetected by the authorities. TRM Land Ltd had to have ‘approved planning permission’ before January 2022 in order to activate the option and pay just £5.59m for Padd Farm.

Therefore, to be in a position to pay just £5.59m. Mr Russell Compton of TRM Land Ltd produced an alternative planning application consisting entirely of social housing.

A planning application consisting entirely of housing association homes is more likely to be ‘approved’ by the council as opposed to the original plans which are.

Remember, these plans were due to be submitted to the council in August 2019, with the option activated (£9.5m paid to Mr and Ms Beach) towards the end of 2019. But the Receiver, Louise Brittain, had to stop this from happening. Hence the sudden 18 July 2019 application by the Receiver.

Using the 18 July 2019 court order (signed by HHJ Moss on 26 July 2019). The Receiver, Louise Brittain, went on to apply for a ‘Writ of Possession’ from a Master at the High Court in London. This would allow the Receiver to evict Mr and Ms Beach and sell the estate to it seems either the ‘anonymous’ party who may be the ‘Scaffolding Company’ or Runnymede Borough Council or Council Officers masquerading as a clandestine organisation.

If indeed Runnymede Borough Council are the ‘anonymous’ party offering to buy Padd Farm for just £1.9m. The council would simply wait until the contract between Mr and Mrs Beach and their purchasers, TRM land Ltd, runs out and is void in January 2022. A council asset which at that stage would be free and clear of any encumbrances, ready to be redeveloped into luxury homes and acquired for just £1.9m. Clever - but illegal.

Mr and Ms Beach informed Master Eastman that the Receiver is breaching a previous court order and supplied evidence that Louise Brittain, the Receiver, together with other co-conspirators have secretly agreed with TRM Land Ltd a much lower sale price if first the property is sold to an ‘anonymous’ party.

Despite explaining to Master Eastman that a Receiver is ‘duty bound’ not to make a profit for themselves or any interested parties, such as TRM Land Ltd or RBC, whilst other parties, such as Mr and Ms Beach suffer a loss. Master Eastman on the 10 November 2020 issued a ‘Writ of Possession’.

On several occasions Mr and Ms Beach have asked Master Eastman and his office to release his ‘ruling’, which would explain his reasonings to why he decided to issue the requested ‘Writ of Possession’. To date this has been refused. The ‘Writ of Possession’ issued by Master Eastman is currently under appeal and Mr and Ms Beach are waiting for a hearing since January 2021.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence proving that Louise Brittain (the Receiver) had agreed with TRM land Ltd they can pay just £5.59m for the entire 32 acres. Astonishingly, in her response to Mr and Ms Beach’s appeal, the Receiver has denied it. Part of clause 6, extracted here:

UPDATE
Mr and Ms Beach's appeal against the 'writ of possession' was granted by Mr Justice Bourne on 10 June 2021. However, unbelievably, for a High Court Judge to grant an appeal for an extension against a ‘Writ of Possession’ does NOT to supersede the writ of possession itself. In other words, the eviction can continue. WTF - who makes these rules? 

BACK STORY

Mr and Ms Beach (both pensioners) own a 32-acre farm in Egham Surrey. Their estate just happens to be located in the ward of Virginia Water which, apart from Central London, is the UK’s most expensive area to buy land and property.

Mr and Ms Beach purchased the property back in the 1980s. Over the years, they were granted planning permission by Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) to build a bungalow, commercial buildings and extensive hard standing areas.

In the 1990s Mr and Ms Beach decided to install all that is required to have caravans on Padd Farm. Mr and Ms Beach also invested in their own caravans which they made available at a low-cost to accommodate the less well of members of the community.

Mr and Ms Beach were renting caravans directly to the council (RBC). The council paid the rent straight to Mr and Ms Beach. This continued for more than a decade upon which it was decided to formalise the caravan site based on the following grounds: (1) There were no recorded objections to the caravan site for a period of 10 years therefore the granting of planning permission should be automatic. (2) The council themselves (RBC) were renting Mr and Ms Beach’s caravans and therefore by definition already granted use of the caravans for accommodation purposes.

However, RBC disagreed and refused the application. In addition, RBC served 48 [forty-eight] separate enforcement notices alleging various breaches in planning regulations in regard to the said caravans and other areas of the farm.

To date - all has been delt with. Either by the council withdrawing the notices or Mr and Ms Beach complying with the notices or completing legal proceedings in relation to the notices.

Leaving just ONE Notice containing three indictments which are as follows:

• The use of caravans for accommodation without planning permission
• The erection of a small shower outhouse without planning permission.
• A single-story extension to a detached garage without planning permission.

The majority of the £1.2m ‘confiscation order’ was based on alleged ‘illegal’ income obtained from the combination of the above indictments. As you can see, they only income that could be obtained is from the rental of caravans where most of the caravan income was received from RBC in the first place!

Despite Mr and Ms Beach declaring income to HMRC via their Chartered Accounts and having paid all taxes in the proper manner. Mr and Ms Beach are victims of ‘entrapment’ and as to the £1.2m; RBC simply added ALL income received at Padd Farm during a six-year period. Hardly ‘illegal’ income!

ACTIVITY IN THE FRAUD (IN BRIEF)

Mr Paul Turrell, Mr Nick Prescot and Mr Mario Leo (Officers at RBC):

Served 48 [forty-eight] separate enforcement notices alleging various breaches in planning in the hope some will stick.

One did stick and prosecuted Mr and Ms Beach under Section 285(1) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 where there is no defence whatsoever.

Prosecuted Mr and Ms Beach under the Proceeds of Crime Act for receiving payments from Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) and then upgraded the prosecution to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Exaggerated the level of alleged illegal income Mr and Ms Beach received during the indictment period which resulted in a manifestly excessive confiscation order.

Disregarded legal protocol by engineering Mr and Ms Beach to be imprisoned for 5.5 and 7.5 years respectfully. After 6 months, High Court judge HHJ Goose deemed to have Mr and Ms Beach imprisoned for the non-payment of a confiscation order before a successful application for a Receiver as ‘unlawful’ and Mr and Ms Beach were released from prison.

Conspired with the Receiver and Mr and Ms Beach purchasers, Mr Russell Compton. to acquire their estate at a fraction of its market value (see Louise Brittain entry).

Mr Ben Hall and Mr John Hardy QC (Solicitor and Barrister):

Taking advice from barrister Mr John Hardy QC. Mr Ben Hall assured Mr Beach that he and Mr John Hardy QC had secured Mr Beach’s interests in the sale of Padd Farm by negotiating a clause which he had added to a court order. The clause ‘guaranteed’ that if Mr Beach does not oppose the council’s application to appoint a Receiver - income from the sale of Padd Farm would be protected (i.e., Mr and Ms Beach would receive the agreed sale price of £9.5m + 82.5% of 20 acres).

After being sentenced for 7.5 years for the purported non-payment of the confiscation order. Some 4 months later. Mr Ben Hall ‘High fived’ when he visited Mr Beach in prison and informed Mr Beach of the good news and asked Mr Beach to sign a hand-written document confirming that his interests were protected - on the condition Mr Beach does NOT oppose the council’s application to appoint a Receiver.

Six months into Mr Beach’s imprisonment (Linda, his wife was also imprisoned). High Court Judge HHJ Goose determined that imprisoning Mr and Ms Beach ‘before’ an application for a Receiver was ‘unlawful’ and they were released.

There were no copying facilities in prison. Having just been released from prison. Mr Beach asked Mr Ben Hall for a copy of the hand-written document which he signed in front of him when Mr Beach was in prison. Mr Beach was astonished to see that Mr Ben Hall had ‘altered’ the document to mean something completely different.

Mr Ben Hall added a couple of words changing the document to read he will ‘try’ to protect Mr Beach’s interests and not ‘guaranteeing’ his interests in the sale of Padd Farm. Mr Ben Hall made Mr Beach sign this disclaimer under false pretences knowing he can change it later to suit himself and the other conspirators.

Mr Beach would NOT have signed on a ‘maybe’. Mr Beach previously made it clear that he would object to the council’s application for a Receiver unless his interests were protected.

HHJ Peter Johnathan Moss (Judge – Now retired):

Mr and Ms Beach were not legally represented at a trial by jury and therefore totally relied on their paper defence bundles.

Without any prompts from the prosecution whatsoever. HHJ Moss demanded Mr and Ms Beach take out most of their defence from the bundles. Including evidence proving that RBC were making rental payments to Mr and Ms Beach which the council were saying was illegal income.

Rendering their defence useless and leaving the jury with defence bundles that were totally unusable. Mr and Ms Beach were of course found guilty on all counts. In any event, HHJ Moss allowed the prosecution under Section 285(1) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 where there is ‘no defence whatsoever’.

At the confiscation hearing: HHJ Moss was aware Mr and Ms Beach had planning permission to receive a legitimate rental income from commercial areas of Padd Farm during the entire indictment period (6 years).

During this period, Mr and Ms Beach also ran a successfully ‘buying and selling’ business from Padd Farm. All activity of which recorded by chartered accountants and income tax paid as recorded by HMRC. However, HHJ Moss was told by RBC’s barristers that ALL income received by Mr and Ms Beach was illegally gained and granted RBC a manifestly excessive confiscation order of over £1,200,000.00

HHJ Moss ignored the fact that the prosecuting party (RBC) were the biggest contributor of illegally gained income and deflected previous legal precedents where only the profit should be deemed as illegal income. HHJ Moss even allowed income to be taken into consideration which was ‘outside’ the 6-year indictment period.

£1,200,000.00 over the indictment period of 6 years equates to £16,666,66 per month. A level of income Mr and Ms Beach can only dream of. But HHJ Moss made it real by abusing his privileged position and granting the excessive confiscation order ‘in Mr and Ms Beach’s absence’ and ‘in the absence of any type of legal representation’ for Mr and Ms Beach to argue differently. To be clear HHJ Moss granted the confiscation order with just the prosecuting authority (RBC) present at Guildford Crown Court.

The Receiver, Louise Brittain, applied to Guildford Crown Court to have Mr and Ms Beach replaced as property title holders by selling the property to an organisation who made an offer at well below market rate.

Mr and Ms Beach purchasers originally objected as they only needed an extra month to submit a planning application which the sale was subject too.

However, they (Mr and Ms Beach’s purchasers) withdrew their objections when RBC’s counsel and that of the Receiver’s counsel put forward to the purchasers that if they first allow the sale of Padd Farm to an ‘anonymous party’. That ‘anonymous party’ will accept a much lower amount compared to what they agreed to pay Mr and Ms Beach. On the condition that the interim purchaser was to remain ‘anonymous’ until the sale has completed.

During this hearing Mr Beach objected to the proposed sale price of £1.9m suggested by the Receiver, Louise Brittain. Which by the time the confiscation order and other debts were paid would leave Mr and Ms Beach with ‘nothing’. Mr Beach stood up in open court and told HHJ Moss that his property is worth far more than what Louise Brittain is proposing to sell it for.

Nevertheless, HHJ Moss agreed to a court order which there was no draft and no details. Sometime later a court order was received which was signed by HHJ Moss a week or so after the hearing.  An order containing ‘redaction clauses’ and where the interim purchaser of Padd Farm can remain ‘anonymous’ until the sale is completed.

Ms Louise Brittain (Receiver):

A Receiver is duty bound NOT to make a profit for themselves or any interested parties (such as the council) whilst other parties, such as Mr and Ms Beach suffer a multi-million-pound loss. Even if Mr and Ms Beach are subject to receivership.

This Receiver was appointed by RBC and HHJ Moss while Mr and Ms Beach were in prison. Mr and Ms Beach did not object to the appointment on the condition that their interests were protected. Mr Beach’s solicitor assured him that would be the case, but he simply LIED (see Mr Ben Hall entry).

The appointment of the Receiver was meant to ‘accelerate’ the sale of Padd Farm. However, Mr Louise Brittain had another agenda. That is to sell Padd Farm at well below market value to a friend or colleague.

But Louise Brittain was appointed after the 2016 the contract of sale or ‘Option Agreement’ therefore terms and conditions of the contract of sale still stand, right?.

Not according to Ms Louise Brittain (The Receiver), RBC (Mr Mario Leo and Mr Nick Prescot) and Mr Russell Compton (TRM Land Ltd). Who conspired together and agreed that if the Receiver were allowed to sell Padd Farm to an ‘anonymous party’ as an interim owner. Mr Russell Compton’s company (TRM Land Ltd) would only need to pay the ‘anonymous party’ £5.59m - instead of the agreed £9.5m + 82.5% of 20 acres which are the amounts agreed with Mr and Ms Beach as per the contract of sale or ‘Option Agreement’.

This attempted fraud was seemingly agreed prior to a court hearing which was ultimately presided by HHJ Moss who agreed to a court order allowing the fraud (see HHJ Moss entry).

In effect, the sale of my property was STOPPED by these clandestine agreements.

This Receiver has a chequered history (Google: Louise Brittain Controversial Liquidator) or Click Here.

Mr Russell Compton (Property purchaser):

Tried to re-negotiate the terms of the contract of sale upon Mr and Ms Beach’s release from prison. Mr and Ms Beach’s reminded him that he had carried out his due diligence in terms of surveys and valuations before he made his offer to purchase. Purchase amounts which are recorded in the contract of sale logged by deed at HM Land Registry.

In any case, land prices had gone up and Mr and Ms Beach have not asked for an increase. The whole point of the contract of sale called an ‘Option Agreement’ is that all parties know exactly where they stand.

It has transpired the Mr Compton then negotiated the sale price directly with the Receiver, Louise Brittain and possibly RBC. Taking advantage of Mr and Ms Beach’s predicament which is typical of a ruthless land developer.

In order for land developer Mr Russell Compton to enjoy the 80% discount as promised by Louise Brittain, the Receiver and RBC. Mr Russell Compton would need to have planning permission passed by RBC.

Mr Russell Compton abandoned the original planning application overseen by Ascot Design architects and hired Nexus Planning to submit an alternative planning application consisting entirely of social homes or affordable homes, in the hope of a swift approval. Which was submitted to RBC on the 22 April 2021. The alternative planning application is specifically designed to take advantage of the £5.59m offer made by Louise Brittain and RBC.

Master Eastman (High Court Master):

Upon application by the Receiver (Louise Brittain) on the 10 November 2020. Mr and Ms Beach enlightened Master Eastman of the attempted fraud and specifically asked Master Eastman to confront the Receiver and ask on what grounds did the Receiver make an alternative deal with Mr and Ms Beach’s purchasers.

After many requests by Mr and Ms Beach for the written ‘ruling’ from the 10 November 2020 hearing. Bearing in mind that a defendant has the right to an explanation for a judge or a master’s decision (the ruling). This was refused unless Mr and Ms Beach paid £921.60.

Dr Ben Spencer (MP):

Having presumed that Mr and Ms Beach’s MP will act in the interests of his constituents. Mr and Ms Beach send Dr Ben Spencer, MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, several emails and letters asking for his intervention and assistance.

Dr Ben Spencer initially took an interest in Mr and Ms Beach’s predicament. However, after Dr Ben Spencer discussed the matter with the other co-conspirators, Dr Ben Spencer decided he could not help his constituents after all.

The moral of this true story is if you have something valuable, there is always somebody who wants to take it from you.