Ben Spencer MP

7 October 2020 letter to Ben Spencer MP  - No reply!

Mr Ben Spencer MP House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Re: Mr and Ms Beach, Padd Farm, Egham, Surrey TW20 8QJ

CA Office No: 201902906 B4 / T20150174

CA Office No: 201805155 B4 / T20140549

Dear Mr Spencer,

I am writing in relation to pensioners Mr and Ms Beach who are victims of a horrendous injustice.

I understand that you have been in communication with Mr and Ms Beach and have made some enquiries in relation to this matter. However, nothing has changed, and Mr and Ms Beach are still the victims of a grand plot to deprive them of their land by people in authority at Runnymede Borough Council.

Despite Mr and Ms Beach providing the High Court of Appeal clear and undisputable evidence that Runnymede Borough Council lured Mr and Ms Beach into taking payments for accommodation and then prosecuted Mr and Ms Beach for taking the payments (Which is entrapment). Mr and Ms Beach lost their appeal and furthermore, the High Court will NOT release the written ruling from the hearing which was held on 31 July 2020. Nor is the ruling published at bailii.org

Runnymede Borough Council, having unlimited access to legal funding and the best barristers. I suspect that the courts are not going to rule in favour of a farmer [Mr Beach] who is representing himself. Which is totally unfair with Mr and Ms Beach now needing your urgent intervention.

Enforcement Receiver, Louise Brittain represented by Blake Morgan Solicitors has further applied to the High Court to have Mr and Ms Beach evicted. The hearing is on 10^th November 2020. 

On 23 February 2018. Pensioners Mr and Ms Beach were imprisoned for 5.5 and 6.5 years respectively for non-payment of confiscation orders despite having sufficient equity in their 32-acre farm to discharge the orders.

While Mr and Ms Beach were in prison. The State (Runnymede Borough Council) successfully applied for the appointment of an Enforcement Receiver who straightaway devastated Mr and Ms Beach’s lawful businesses, confiscated their life savings and evicted legitimate rent-paying tenants from Mr and Ms Beach’s farm. 

After six months. HHJ Goose at the High Court determined that the State did not follow the correct procedures and as a consequence Mr and Ms Beach’s prison sentence was unlawful and ordered their immediate release.

The State appointed Receiver deprived Mr and Ms Beach of their legitimate income which resulted in Mr and Ms Beach being unable to pay essential bills such as mortgage payments. Furthermore, the Receiver refused to reinstate the legitimate rent-paying tenants. 

With the unlawful imprisonment and the Receiver refusing to reinstate Mr and Ms Beach’s legitimate income. Mr and Ms Beach are currently confined to their home frightened to do anything in case they are sent back to prison. 

Mr and Ms Beach are victims of unfair and discriminatory executive power implemented by Runnymede Borough Council.

The contention in this case is the extraordinarily high level of confiscation applied to Mr and Ms Beach during the prescribed 6-year indictment period amounting to approximately £1,500,000.00.  

Mr and Ms Beach’s property (Padd Farm) is a 32-acre estate in the Ward or Virginia Water, Surrey. This case is related to allegations of breaches of enforcement notices issued by Runnymede Borough Council. The alleged breaches ranged from failing to remove building material, equipment, skips and vehicles all of which are sometimes necessary on a working farm. To the failure to remove a dilapidated portacabin, small concrete base and an extension which could have been easily delt with by a retrospective planning application. From all counts in this case; the only means of income Mr and Ms Beach could possibly have received is from the rental of caravan accommodation.

The confiscation amount applied are alleged ‘illegal earnings’ which have been grossly exaggerated by the Runnymede Borough Council and include payments made TO Mr and Ms Beach BY the State (Runnymede Borough Council) for the rental of accommodation.

Brief History

• In the mid-eighties, Mr and Ms Beach purchased a 32-acre farm which now is located in UK's most expensive place to buy a property outside Central London.

• July 2016 Mr and Ms Beach sold their property to a land developers by way of an Option Agreement recorded at HM Land Registry. 

• An initial Payment of £9.5m plus an additional £20m being payable to Mr and Ms Beach subject to the granting of planning permission by Runnymede Borough Council (RBC).

• Strategic land availability assessments and proposed local housing targets published by RBC over the years have ‘earmarked’ Mr and Ms Beach’s farm for development. 

• A new electrical sub-station has been installed close to Mr and Ms Beach’s farm boundary in anticipation of a new housing development. 

Original Trial

• Crown Court Judge HHJ Moss ordered the deletion of evidence relied on which proved RBC were luring Mr and Ms Beach into accepting payments for the rental of accommodation. Rendering Mr and Ms Beach’s defence completely useless.

Confiscation Hearing

• RBC served revised and highly overestimated allegations of illegal income ONE DAY before the confiscation hearing. Mr and Ms Beach notified the court about the ‘ambush’ and requested an adjournment. 

• Despite Mr and Mr Beach not being present and not being legally represented. HHJ Moss continued with the confiscation hearing and agreed to just about every exaggerated request by RBC whist ignoring a previously supplied s17 financial statement submitted by Mr and Ms Beach as their defence.

• RBC (being the only party present) alleged that ALL income received by Mr and Mr Beach during the indictment period was illegal income. Which is simply untrue as there are many areas on the farm with existing residential and commercial planning permissions granted.

Folkestone Magistrates' Court

• Despite RBC being aware that Mr and Ms Beach had sufficient equity in their property and in any event the property was sold subject to planning permission. RBC demanded that the default prison sentence be activated. Mr and Mrs Beach were sent to prison for 5.5 and 6.5 years respectively.

• Being in prison surrounded by criminals, thugs and paedophiles was the most frightening pensioners Mr and Ms Beach experienced in their life. With Mr Beach nearly taking his own life.

Runnymede Borough Council (RBC)

• Mr and Ms Beach sold their farm by way of an Option Agreement in July 2016. £9.5m is due to Mr and Ms Beach subject to the granting of planning permission for a small housing development.

• The purchasers (who are also the land developers) have reported that RBC have been delaying the progress of a planning application by various means including the insistence of a ‘EIA Scoping Opinion’ which is normally only applied to extra-large housing developments, airports and oil refineries.

Appeal

• Mr and Ms Beach, being imprisoned and still waiting many more months for RBC to grant the relatively straight forward planning permission. Mr and Ms Beach and with my help on 13 December 2018 decided to appeal the level of confiscation.

• Grounds were planning permission to legitimately rent buildings and hard standings had been previously granted and Mr and Ms Beach were entrapped into accepting rental payments from Runnymede Borough Council for the letting of accommodation. 

• Therefore, HHJ Moss was wrong to ignore State entrapment and wrong not consider R v Wayaand R v Salewhere confiscation amounts were restricted to reflect the ‘true benefit’ obtained. 

• In addition, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is not to be used as a punishment. The Act is designed to confiscate illegal earnings only.

Enforcement Receiver

• The Enforcement Receiver applied to Guildford Crown Court to have the proceeds of the multi-million-pound sale transferred away from Mr and Ms Beach to a person or an organisation of the Receiver’s choice.

• The Receiver ‘withheld’from the court the agreement that displayed the previously agreed sale price of £9.5m plus overage payments which could amount to around a further £20m due to Mr and Ms Beach or their family during the course of the next 125 years. No court bundle was served to Mr and Ms Beach.

• The property purchasers (and land developers) objected to the transfer of title. 

• The Receiver [privately] offered terms to change the previously agreed sale price of £9.5m + £20m overage - to £5.59m and £0 overage on the condition the purchasers withdrew their objections to the transfer title away from Mr and Ms Beach. 

• With the purchasers saving multiple millions of pounds. The purchasers accepted the Receiver’s terms and withdrew their objections to the Receiver’s application to change title away from Mr and Ms Beach to a person or an organisation of the Receiver’s choice.

• It must be noted that the Receiver is duty bound is to realise as much as possible from the sale of assets by way of appropriate tender on the open market and not simply transfer title to RBC.

• As a consequence of the Receiver agreeing an 80% discountwith the purchasers. The purchasers have lost the incentive to complete the sale with Mr and Ms Beach and will undoubtedly wait until title is transferred to a person or an organisation of the Receiver’s choice. To offer a massive discount to a third party in order for the Receiver to get their way in court must surely be a breach of the Receiver’s duty.

• A whistle-blower has informed Mr Beach that Runnymede Borough Council have submitted an unconditional offer to purchase the property from the Receiver. In which case RBC would receive title and simply continue delaying planning permission until the current 5-year sales agreement between Mr and Ms Beach and the land developers runs out and becomes void in July 2021.

• This means that not only has the Receiver given the purchasers false hope and will cost them in the region of half a million pounds in terms of plans, surveys and public presentations which have already been paid for. But also, the Receiver has no intension of marketing the property in the proper manner. Another serious violation of the Receivers duties.

• Despite Mr Beach stating in open court his 32 acres of land has a value of around £20m* as opposed to the Receiver’s under-valuation of £1.6m. HHJ Moss agreed to an order allowing the transfer of title away from Mr and Ms Beach without the need to announce the new owners and with no minimum price constraints.

*Valuation guide: 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8327255/Man-people-New-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-owns-seven-acres-land-Surrey-worth-10m.html

High Court of Appeal hearing (31 July 2020)

• Mr Anthony Eskander. Barrister from Church Court Chambers notified the High Court that he will be representing Mr and Ms Beach. Mr Eskander was told by the High Court that he could NOTrepresent Mr and Ms Beach at the 31 July 2020 hearing.

• During the Court of Appeal hearing. Judges took a short adjournment to read Mr and Ms Beach’s submissions. The judges quickly returned and read out the ruling which was clearly already prepared. Both the original confiscation amount appeal and Enforcement Receiver appeals were refused.

• Despite the ruling being pre-prepared and read out in open court. After several telephone calls and written requests. To date, the Criminal Appeal Office has not supplied a copy of the High Court of Appeal ruling.

Mr and Ms Beach have been victims of a brutal bullying and victimisation campaign by local authority, Runnymede Borough Council. Mr and Ms Beach humbly ask you to examine why a Magistrates Court, Crown Court and even the High Court have ignored evidence of entrapment and to consider…

How can it be just that a local authority can be allowed to exaggerate the amount of illegal income a citizen has received in order to cover up the fact that the same local authority was the main source of illegal funding. 

How can it be just that a local authority can use the Proceeds of Crime Act - a judicial process that cannot be used as a punitive measure - to punish its citizens or to force its citizens into financial submission. 

How can it be just that a local authority can torment its citizens by deliberately delaying planning which would finalise a property sale and then to have the same citizens imprisoned for not finalising a property sale.

How can it be just that a local authority can for decades pay its citizens for accommodation services and then for the local authority to prosecute citizens for receiving the payments?

How can it be just that a State appointed Receiver can ALTER a HM Land Registry recorded property sales agreement by creating a loss of around £24m for Mr and Ms Beach. Solely so the Receivers get their way in court.

With the High Court seemingly ignoring evidence of entrapment as well as the High Court refusing Mr Eskander (Barrister - Church Court Chambers) requests to represent Mr and Ms Beach at the 31 July 2020 appeal hearing. It is doubtful that the High Court will grant a certificate enabling this case to be heard at the Supreme Court.

On behalf of Mr and Ms Beach. I respectfully propose that:

• The State luring citizens to take payments and for the State to prosecute the citizens for taking the payments.

• For the State to use the Proceeds of Crime Act as a punitive measure against its citizens.

• For the Receiver to gain an unfair advantage by enticing the purchasers with an 80% discount in return for the purchaser’s agreement to transfer title away from Mr and Ms Beach to a person or an organisation of the Receiver’s choice. (Believed to be a party representing Runnymede Borough Council or/and its officers).

. 

The above are points of law of general public importance and ought to be considered by your good self and the Secretary of State for Justice.

Kindly let me know if you are in a position to help your constituents, Mr and Ms Beach.

Yours truly,

No Reply from Mr Ben Spencer MP