Runnymede Borough Council

January 1986

Mr and Mrs Beach move into 32-acre Padd Farm.

1990’s

Government recommended that farmers should diversify to survive. Planning permission at Padd Farm was granted to use buildings for commercial purposes and 5 acres of concrete hardstanding.

Economical commercial rent at Padd Farm attracted dozens of small business start-ups. Many of which were successful and later relocated to larger premises.

Mr and Ms Beach made available economical caravan rental. Runnymede Borough Council sent homeless families to Padd Farm and paid the rent directly to Mr Beach.

For a period of time, Mr and Ms Beach were paying the local council domestic and business rates around £2000 per week. This went on for years without issues.

2000 & 2009

To execute local council’s own plan for 32-acre Padd Farm; Council decide activity at Padd Farm should be scrutinised

Newly elected councillors hold Public inquiry in 2000. Council barrister accidentally states Padd Farm would be the ‘jewel in the crown’ if site was owned by the council.

2009 another public inquiry was held with alleged planning breaches. Mr and Ms Beach to pay public inquiry costs.

2011

Electricity Substation and gas supply installed in Hurst Lane on the border of Padd Farm. Local electrician states substation is big enough to supply 1500 homes but currently idle with an estimated installation cost of £5m. Main gas supply also present but capped off.

FOI request at the local council regarding the purpose of the substation returns the council are ‘unaware’ of the substation and say planning permission is ‘not’ required to close roads and instal an electrical substation. FOI request sent to SSE say it is their substation but have no record of who commissioned the installation and for what purpose such a large substation was chosen.

SSE said they will check to see which homes the substation supplies (if any). To date, SSE have not confirmed which homes the substation is connected to and delivering electricity.

September 2012

Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) commenced litigation against Mr and Ms Beach. Mr and Ms Beach were jointly fined £100 for allegedly breaching planning regulations. RBC escalated this to include the Proceeds of Crime Act and were awarded a Confiscation Order of £250k (approx.)

Mr Beach suffered a serious heart condition. RBC decided to continue litigation against Mrs Beach only.

26 October 2015

Local council commenced ‘further’ Proceeds of Crime litigation with presiding judge at Guildford Crown Court directing the majority of Mr and Ms Beach’s defence to be deleted from the court bundles.

• Trial took almost 2 weeks.
• Jury (with little defence to refer to) returned a guilty verdict.

April to June 2016

Council applied the default sentence (prison) against Mrs Beach. Mrs Beach was represented by a solicitor but imprisoned. Friends and family got together and covered the £84k Confiscation Order and Mrs Beach was released.

April 2016

Mr and Ms Beach commenced negotiations with land developers TRM Land to re-develop and sell Padd Farm.

February 2017

Mr and Ms Beach applied to sell ‘part’ of Padd Farm.

• Applied for the 1994 s106 restriction to be released so that part of Padd Farm could be sold to cover the Confiscation Order.
• Refused by the council on 22 March 2017.

3 April 2017

Council conducted a confiscation hearing WITHOUT Mr and Ms Beach.

• Council insisted that ‘all income’ at Padd Farm was illegal and should be confiscated.
• Presiding judge at Guildford Crown Court granted a £1.4m Confiscation Order without Mr and Ms Beach being present and without Mr and Ms Beach being legally represented.
• Note: The Proceeds of Crime Act only allows the confiscation of illegally earned monies and not legitimate income .
• Note: Nor is the Act to be used as a punitive measure. But Mr and Ms Beach were ‘entrapped’ and ‘punished’ by RBC – forcing them to sell or face eviction.

7 July 2016

Deal with land developers TRM Land agreed.

• TRM Land agreed to pay Mr and Ms Beach in instalments if planning is granted in stages for new homes at Padd Farm.
• Option Agreement recorded at the Land Registry.
• A number of surveys commenced at the land developer’s expense.

25 January 2019

TRM Land forced to make a ‘variation’ to the development Option Agreement

• TRM Land were informed by the council that if Mr and Ms Beach were involved in any way whatsoever – no planning application would ever be approved by the council.
• TRM Land agreed to purchase the entire property upon approved planning on just part of Padd Farm. Mr and Ms Beach would retain agreed future benefits but would have to move out upon first payment.

23 February 2018

Mr and Ms Beach imprisoned for a combined 13 years.

• Local council insisted the default sentence should be activated.
• Padd Farm had sufficient equity as it stood and, in any event, up for development with proof of funds submitted to the court. However, at the request of the council, this was ignored by the Magistrates Court.

March 2018

Mr Beach is visited by his solicitor in prison.

• Solicitor Ben Hall and Barrister John Hardy recommend Mr Beach agree to a RBC appointed ‘Enforcement Receiver’ as it will get Mr Beach released for prison quicker and speed up TRM Land’s planning application.
• Mr Beach signs handwritten document prepared by solicitor containing terms ‘protecting’ Mr Beach’s interests on the condition Mr Beach agrees to the Enforcement Receiver.
• Solicitor Ben Hall ‘alters’ the document to - does NOT protect Mr Beach’s interest.
• Mr Beach submits a complaint to the SRA about Solicitor Ben Hall altering the document. But the SRA dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Solicitor Ben Hall had no previous complaints registered against his name. The fact that he changed the document was irreverent, the SRA said.
• Mrs Beach signs document denying permission for an Enforcement Receiver.

18 May 2018

Enforcement Receiver was appointed by Guildford Crown Court.

• As requested by the RBC, controversial Enforcement Receiver ‘Louise Brittain’ was appointed.
• Whilst Mr and Ms Beach were in prison. Louise Brittain visits Padd Farm escorted by several burley bailiffs and evicts all caravan and commercial tenants.
• Buildings were broken into and electricity supply cut.

9 August 2018

Mr and Ms Beach ‘released’ from their combined 13-year prison sentence.

• High Court judge quashed the prison sentence on the grounds that there was sufficient equity in Mr and Ms Beach’s property (Padd Farm), therefore the state was not at financial risk.
• Cost were not granted to Mr and Mr Beach as the representing barrister claimed he was hired by a financially poor council (Runnymede Borough Council).
• Solicitor Ben Hall telephoned Mr and Ms Beach’s son and said local council will pay £5m for Padd Farm and if offer not taken up by Mr and Ms Beach, they will end up with nothing.
  

9 November 2018

Scaffolding company PHD Access make offer to purchase Padd Farm.

• Receiver is sent offer of £1.95m to purchase Padd farm from the chairman of PHD Access.
• Receiver records another letter of interest from PHD Access on 16 October 2018.
• NOTE: The above was not disclosed at the time but came to light two years later.
• Receiver applies to the court for their permission to sell Padd Farm to PHD Access.

18 July 2019

Receiver’s application to sell Padd Farm is heard at Guildford Crown Court.

• Receiver Louise Brittain applies to the court to sell Padd Farm to a party who wanted to remain anonymous for the amount of £1.95m.
• £1.95m is the amount Mr and Ms Beach have to pay to discharge all debts.
• £1.95m is the amount PHD Access secretly offered the Receiver for Padd Farm.
• The Receiver wanted the purchaser to remain ‘anonymous’ until property title had been transferred to new owners (we now know the ‘anonymous’ purchaser was PHD Access).
• The Receiver used a years old property valuation to justify the low sale amount.
• However, the presiding judge directed that following a marketing campaign, Padd Farm
  should be sold to the highest bidder in a sealed bid auction.
• No marketing whatsoever took place. The Receiver went on holiday.

31 January 2020

Covid outbreak

December 2019

Land developer TRM Land trigger Option Agreement (not).

• Despite spending a fortune on plans and surveys and assuring all that by this stage planning permission would be received, Option Agreement triggered and monies paid to Mr and Mrs Beach. But Land developers TRM Land ‘disappeared’ perhaps warned off or threatened?
• Enforcement Receivers temporarily lose their powers.
• All went quiet for a while.

10 November 2020

High Court grant ‘Writ of Possession’

• High Court Master grants the Receiver a ‘Writ of Possession’.

February 2021

James King Estates receiver offer to purchase Padd Farm.

• Unconditional offer of £9m for Padd Farm is submitted by Abode Homes and sent to the Receiver.
• James King and Abode Homes understood the property to be sold to the highest bidder.
• Unconditional offer of £9m for Padd Farm submitted to the Receivers selling agents (The SIA Group) who said the property has already been advertised for £3.5m and offer accepted.
• NOTE: 18 July 2019 Court Order directs the Receiver to dispose of Padd Farm to the bidder making the highest offer for Padd Farm. Not to the Receiver’s colleagues.
• Estate agent James King personally tried to contact the Receiver for an explanation. The Receiver, Louise Brittain, did not respond and avoided calls from Estate Agent James King.

10 June 2021

High Court grants an extension of time for ‘Writ of Possession’

• High Court Judge grants and extension of time to appeal the ‘Writ of Possession’

21 June 2021

Mr and Ms Beach plus family are evicted from Padd Farm.

• Receiver ignores the order granting extension of time to appeal the ‘Writ of Possession’
• Mr Beach barricades himself at Padd farm with gas canisters, petrol and threatens to blow himself up if he is evicted (all on YouTube).
• James King tries to negotiate with Receiver to no avail.
• Mr Beach is rushed by armed police and escorted off the property.

July 2021

Receiver sells Padd Farm to scaffolding company PHD.

• Despite a Crown Court ordering the sale of Padd Farm to the highest bidder. The Receiver sold Padd Farm to PHD - the same party who in 2019 secretly offered to purchase Padd Farm for an amount equal to Mr and Ms Beach’s debts at the time. Which would have left Mr and Ms Beach with nothing!
• Mr and Ms Beach had no choice but to move into a small caravan with no amenities, such as running water or toilet facilities.