Noëlle Rawé, victim of leasehold fraud andcorruption at Jefferson House, Basil Street,London - to generate a £7m(?) (US$12m)jackpot for Andrew Ladsky et.al. - with thehelp of surveyors, lawyers, accountants,tribunal, courts and police |
Trapped in my 'concentration camp' leasehold flat with no avenue open to me for justice, redress and protection
|
Welcome to leasehold-outrage.com
Website of Noëlle Rawé (sometimes shown on documents as Ms Noëlle Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé) - leaseholder (definition) of a flat in Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX, UK - I call the 'CONCENTRATION CAMP'.
WHAT THIS WEBSITE IS ABOUT:
Home page sections (UNDER REVIEW; written at the time of the launch in 2006)• 3. Reduced to launching this website
• 5. Summary evidence in support of the last part of my claim: 'no protection' • 6. The root cause of everything captured on this site • 8. The system actively helps crooked landlords to exist • 10. My situation is desperate • 11. I do not have £300,000+ (US$530,000) to spend on 'buying justice' • 14. Privacy and MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD • 15. Anyway, why should the individuals mentioned on this website have anything to worry about? 1. The basis of my caseThe basis of my case, I nicknamed ' project nightmare ' ('project sunshine' since the relaunch), is that when, in July 2002, Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS of Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for the block, sent me an invoice for £14,400 (US$25,400) as "contribution towards major works" for Jefferson House, I 'dared' to ask the question: "what are you going to spend it on?" - as the supporting letter to the demand had no breakdown of costs and none had been separately supplied (subsequently confirmed during the 5 February 2003 tribunal hearing - point 14 of the 17 June 2003 determination - and 'admitted' by Mr Brian Gale of Brian Gale Associates, Steel Services / Mr Ladsky's surveyor - point 2.04 ). This demand was preceded by Mr Brian Gale's February 2002 'condition survey' (2.4MB) detailing the "works required" at Jefferson House. As can be seen from the photographs captured in this pack, Mr Gale's interpretation of his recommended "remedies" in relation to the identified "defects" is fascinating to say the least. (The 2 May 2006 (2.3.MB) response from Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to my criticisms of his firm and of Mr Brian Gale was "Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it" ) As evidenced, among others, by my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement (which never made to the court (because Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) - but by which I totally stand by) (see My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement and Piper Smith Basham # 7 , # 7.17 and # 7.17.1 for detail) I consistently agreed that repair and maintenance works were required to the block. (A fact recognised by Mr Lanny Silverstone , Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT), Mr Ladsky's solicitors, in his 25 June 2003 letter). Consequently, that I would need to pay my share (as, indeed, I did in the past). This is all I wanted to do: pay my just and fair share of the costs i.e. as per the terms of my lease - which is a legally binding contract - on both parties - landlord and leaseholder, and as per my statutory rights - and because, in addition to my sense of justice, my moral principles prevented me from being treated differently from my fellow leaseholders. (I was forced to give up on both) I therefore persisted in wanting to get the answer to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question to ask i.e. acted as the majority of people would when asked to pay £14,400 (US$25,400).
2. Overall objective
3. Reduced to launching this websiteIt is an extremely sad state of affairs to be reduced to having to develop a website in order to achieve this objective. It is the outcome of living under the archaic, feudal leasehold system in this country - which is supported by an infrastructure that heavily favours landlords at the expense of leaseholders. It can be said that, in effect, landlords have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please. This will soon become apparent to you as you read this summary section. You will see that I have exhausted all potential avenues within my means - at very great cost to myself:
When I finally admitted to myself that the system was against me, instead of being there to help me, on 19 December 2003 , "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end", I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the major works (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Although, legally, I did not even owe this sum, I did this in the hope of putting an end to this horrendous nightmare. Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004 . Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 .
Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously, I informed Ms Joan Hathaway that I had accepted the offer in settlement of my share of the major works and had paid £6,350 (US$11,200). Fourteen months later, in January 2006, I received another invoice from Martin Russell Jones, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. It has been followed in June 2006 with an invoice stating a " Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200). As with the prior invoices: no breakdown on the composition of the sum. (These invoices are fraudulent) Hence, what is the amount 'deemed' by the 'landlord' and his aides to be currently hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300)(?), £14,500 (US$25,600)(?), £5,625 (US$9,900)(?), £8,621 (US$15,200)(?) or all four combined i.e. £44,246 (US$78,000)(?) (NOTE : For update since then - see PORTNER and JASKEL and WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT - POST 2004) What else is going to be dropped on me tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, and so forth? I have no idea. It clearly depends on the 'landlord' and his aides will dream up. As I wrote to the then leader of the Conservative Party ,
If not, then, as I wrote, in November 2004 to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (in the context of the impact that this five-year ordeal is having on my health):
4. - Summary evidence in support of my claim: 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'4.1 - On-going harassment and intimidation since 2002The nightmare started six months before I received the £14,400 (US$25,400) demand when I challenged Martin Russell Jones on the true nature of the intended works pointing out that they had more to do with works that would be required as a result of a planning application to build a penthouse flat, than with repair and maintenance to the block. (see also Planning applications ) As can be seen in the extracts from Mr Brian Gale's February 2002 'condition survey' (2.4MB) detailing the "works required" , his identified "remedies", the photos he took of the back of Jefferson House at the time - and the photo I took three years later: I WAS RIGHT. Within 48 hours, I started to suffer on-going harassment, intimidation, as well as, on one occasion, assault ( crime report ; summary of events ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 1). (Hence, treatment similar to that suffered by other leaseholders who 'dared' to challenge 'Steel Services'. Head Residents Association ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents). (See the introduction to My Diary for some of the events directly involving Mr Ladsky) (SUBSEQUENT NOTE: In reading events, consider (1) My Diary 13 Apr 08 for reports of Britain becoming "a police state" spying on its people through an army of 'covert human intelligence sources' ; by tracking people's emails, phone calls, hacking into their personal computers, etc. (2) My Diary 7 Jun 08 for: whistleblower being followed and threatened ; (3) My Diary home for an updated overview of my being under surveillance, and My Diary 2 Jan 09 for the continuation of the physical threats against me) This has continued, and with 'renewed vigour' since 2005, as can be seen in My Diary. It details, among others: being followed (e.g. 26 October 2003, 1 June 2005, 16 July 2005, 5 August 2005; 17 August 2005, 26 August 2005, 25 December 2005, 4 January 2006; 15 January 2006, 23 January 2006; 22 March 2006; 24 April 2006; 16 May 2006, 20 June 2006; 22 June 2006; 26 July 2006; 27 July 2006; 30 July 2006; 2 August 2006, 19 August 2006, 23 August 2006; 8 September 2006, 25 October 2007), as well as threatened (e.g. 6 August 2005, 16 August 2005, 19 April 2006; 17 June 2006, 1 August 2006, 23 August 2006 ). Also, leaks in my flat (11 March 2002; 8 August 2005, 18 August 2005) and one which narrowly missed my flat on 6 February 2007 - and another one in July 2007 that definitely did not ; hosing of my windows in the early hours of the morning (6 September 2005, 4 October 2005, 7 April 2006, 4 September 2006 ; 9 January 2009); anonymous phone calls (19 February 2002; early March 2002); phone call and 'message' intended to scare me (January / February 2004 ; 2 January 2009); electricity cut-off only in my flat (8 July 2006); building works immediately above my flat until 23h00, etc. It also includes lack of maintenance of the internal and external area (1.6MB) around my flat (which are Steel Services responsibility), as well as lack of concern for health and safety (see also Photo gallery ). These amount to criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as well as breach of my rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Right to respect for private life" and under Article 1 of the First Protocol, "Protection of property" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 4.2 - Use of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) by 'Steel Services' in an attempt to enforce the fraudulent service charge demand on Jefferson House's LeaseholdersBarely three weeks after sending the July demand which many of my fellow leaseholders would not have had a chance to receive, on 7 August 2002, Ms Hathaway filed an application in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) (tribunal for service charge disputes - part of the English legal system) to "determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" i.e. £736,000 (US$1.3 million). (NB. Please note that this application was filed on behalf of 'Steel Services'. The evidence suggests that, at the time, Steel Services did not exist. See Owners identity and Jersey address for detail) In my view, it was done in the expectation of being able to 'steamroll' the application without opposition and thereby get the 'official seal of approval'. (The fact that leaseholders cannot recoup their LVT-related costs acts as a very strong deterrent to challenge an application by the landlord. In addition, even when the outcome is very damning for the landlord, preventing the landlord from putting its LVT related costs on the service charge requires leaseholders to spend yet more for another set of hearings. See LVT - My 20C application # 5 , # 8.2 and # 9 . See also Issue 18 of the Leaseholder ). The tribunal provided a 'helping hand' towards the achievement of this objective as it waited two months before informing the leaseholders that a pre-trial hearing would take place on 29 October 2002. (Even in its communication dated two days earlier , it had not referred to the pre-trial hearing). Many leaseholders lived overseas, a fact known to the tribunal as it had been provided with their address. In addition, as suggested by the letter from Piper Smith Basham to my then solicitors, not all leaseholders were informed of this action. (See also LVT # 10 ) At the hearing, attended among others by Mr Ladsky and Ms Hathaway , we (the leaseholders) were asked whether we had paid the service charge. We all replied that we had not as we had not been provided with a breakdown of costs. (Hence, among others, amounting to a breach of our statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985) (Under Section 20 of the Act a landlord must consult a leaseholder for works exceeding £250 (US$440) in value. It requires issuing a 'Notice' supplying a detailed estimate from at least two separate contractors. Among others, this is to allow leaseholders to get their own quote).
Many of us had repeatedly been asking for a breakdown of the costs. In my case, by then I had made four requests ( 11 August 2002 , 16 September 2002 , 17 October 2002 , 22 October 2002 ) to which the reply from Ms Hathaway had been the threat of prosecution. I conclude from this that Ms Hathaway has committed a criminal offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 21 - Blackmail, of the Theft Act 4.3 - Because I did not have legal representation, Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT), threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lenderAs to the reply from Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT , it was the threat to - illegally - forfeit my lease (i.e. losing my flat) and contacting my mortgage lender if I did not pay the £14,400 (US$25,400) immediately. I conclude from this that Mr Silverstone has committed the same above mentioned offences as Ms Hathaway. I also made two requests through the LVT ( 22 October 2002 and 25 November 2002 ) on which Martin Russell Jones was automatically copied. It was not until 36 hours before the LVT hearing on 5 February 2003 - and therefore seven months after the original demand that I received the priced specification. Evidence in relation to other leaseholders includes, for example, Leaseholder G's letter of 3 August 2002 and the 3 September 2002 letter from Leaseholder K's solicitors. It also includes letters from leaseholders to the LVT ( # 8.1.2 ) (also copied to Martin Russell Jones) e.g. 19 October 2002 letter from Leaseholder M, 28 October 2002 letter from Leaseholder K, 20 October 2002 email from Leaseholder C. As in my case, Ms Hathaway, threatened other leaseholders with proceedings As suggested by the letter sent by Mr Lanny Silverstone to a leaseholder's solicitors barely ten days after he had threatened to forfeit my lease , leaseholders who could afford to employ a solicitor were evidently treated very differently "We note you have made no proposal on behalf of your client to pay all or part of the interim service charge. We would be grateful if you would clarify whether your client does in fact have any objection to the cost of the major works." I give this letter as additional support to my position that Mr Lanny Silverstone has committed an offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 21 - Blackmail, of the Theft Act 1968 What none of us had noticed at the time of the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing is that, contrary to what it had stated in its 8 October 2002 letter, the LVT did NOT include a copy of the Appendix: "statement showing how the service charge is made up." (It was finally admitted at the 5 February 2003 hearing and led to a postponement of the substantive hearing to 13 March 2003 - point 16 ) Yet, when, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing, all the leaseholders were clamouring for a copy of the breakdown of costs, neither the Chair, nor the Clerk said anything about the copy they had had on file for more than two and a half months. We were handed a leaflet which, on page 5 , states that the tribunal "only has jurisdiction over services that are still unpaid " . In other words, we were specifically told by the tribunal to NOT PAY the service charge until the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had therefore been implemented - (in line with Landlord & Tenant legislation - and our lease) 4.4 -West London County Court allowed Steel Services-CKFT to proceed with a false claim against 11 leaseholders - in the full knowledge that the claim was in breach of the directions set by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
Allowing this claim to be filed is wrong, as it implies that we are 'jointly and severally' liable for the £304,000 (US$536,000) which we are not - as each one of us is merely liable for the percentage of the total charges - as specified in our leases. The Particulars of claim (1.1MB) state - under a Statement of Truth - that the lease supplied with the claim is the same for all the flats (apartments). This is not true . The lease supplied to the court ('apparently' for flat 23 ) states, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) "The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor)..." (Ms Hathaway did the same thing with the tribunal) To my mind, this is equivalent to saying: "Give your cheque book to the lessor who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice". I find it extremely difficult to believe that a leaseholder would agree to such outrageously unfair contract terms. Under the same Clause, my lease states " The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year. shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings...by the aggregate of the rateable value.of all the flats in the Building". As a result of my stating in my defence to the claim that the lease supplied was different from mine, two months AFTER it had written the claim against me - accompanied by a Statement of Truth - in a letter dated 23 January 2003 Mr Silverstone, CKFT , asked me to send a copy of my lease. (I did). Aside from being traumatised by receiving this court claim (which, of course, was the objective), I was also very confused considering the instructions I had been given by the tribunal (see My Diary 6 December 2002). It led me to bring the LVT action to the attention of West London County Court three times in December 2002 , requesting that the court action be stayed (i.e. suspended) until the completion of the action through the LVT. Namely, my letter of 10 December 2002 ; my defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002; my letter of 17 December 2002 (included with my defence to the claim). (NB: I informed the courts of the LVT action a total of 8 TIMES ! )
Filing of this action in court by CKFT-Ms Hathaway while the same action was being pursued by the tribunal, i.e. under another jurisdiction (also part of the English legal system), amounts to an 'abuse of process of court' .Evidence that this is the case can be seen in the letter from the solicitors acting for Leaseholder D, to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and this letter to my then solicitors. In reply to my request for the action to be stayed (suspended) West London County Court tells me in its 24 January 2003 letter that I need to "...inform the court whether the claimant agrees to the claim being stayed pending the LVT hearing" Considering that in reply to my letter of 17 October 2002 , Mr Silverstone, CKFT , wrote on 21 October 2002 , "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the LVT" . In addition, that in his letter of 7 October 2002 he had threatened to forfeit my lease unless I paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) immediately, it was abundantly clear to me that I did not stand a chance of achieving this. Hence, I did not do as suggested by the court. (See My Diary End January 2003 )
The evidence in support of this is:
4.5 - As there were 11 leaseholders listed on the 29 November 2002 claim (1.1MB) , it provides incontrovertible evidence ( "has obtained judgement" ) that West London County Court was instrumental in making SEVEN leaseholders pay BEFORE the Tribunal issued its determination, ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02(The LVT dated its report 17 June 2003, ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02 - (ref: #992 on the LVT database)). Hence, West London County Court totally ignored the fact that leaseholders had very specifically been told by the Tribunal to not pay - until it had issued its determination - and it had therefore been implemented . • Further evidence that judgement/s was/were secured through West London County Court before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued its determination can be seen from the fact that, in its notice of 21 March 2003 , the court - wrongly - informed me that I was the defendant in a Charging Order hearing due to take place on 4 April 2003 - AND the 2 April 2003 fax sent by CKFT to the court stating : "Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003..." (Note the date !) (see Lord Falconer # 1 , WLCC # 5 ) • In my 25 March 2003 letter to West London County Court I had - yet again - brought attention to the ongoing LVT action (by now for the fourth time ), as well as reporting - very clearly, I believe - that we, the leaseholders, had specifically been told by the LVT to not pay the service charge. (I even gave the name of the Chair at the pre-trial hearing). • In its 27 March 2003 reply, West London County Court nonetheless persisted in telling me that the action concerned me. At my wits end (see My Diary 24 March , 25 March and 30 March 2003 ), on 30 March 2003 , I sent a letter to the members of the LVT Panel - on which I copied the District Judge in West London County Court - and in which I again repeated what we had been told by the LVT. • 'Armed' with the correct terminology, on 1 April 2003 I phoned West London County Court saying, "there cannot be a Charging Order against me because there has not been a judgement against me" . • At this point, I was told, "No, the Charging Order is not against you, it is against other residents" (as captured in my 1 April 2003 letter to West London County Court ). (The fact that a Charging Order can only be issued once a judgement has been entered was also confirmed 'ever so kindly' by the Court Service in its 23 August 2004 reply under point 11) (See also Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1 and My Diary 1 April 2003 )
During the 24 June 2003 hearing, the judge told Mr Silverstone, CKFT, that he was "wasting my time and the court's time. The LVT report has just been issued. You need to give the Defendants time to review it" (leading the judge to award costs to me (and the other leaseholders present)) Consider the latter part of the judge's comment in light of the above. Consider also the LVT's 21 July 2003 reply to Mr Silverstone's letter of 17 July 2003 ,
In other words, while I ended-up being the only leaseholder challenging the application (and none of the other leaseholders have contributed to my £30,000 (US$53,000) LVT costs), it does not alter the fact that the determination applies to the whole block. Hence, 'Steel Services' cannot charge differentially, other than on the basis of individual leaseholders' fixed percentage share of the service charge - which must surely be obvious . Further evidence that the calculation of the service charges payable by individual leaseholders is based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied, is also found in: • Ms Hathaway's 30 August 2002 letter "The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease...There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts. The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..." • 'Steel Services'-Martin Russell Jones supplied these percentages with the application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearing (see CKFT # 6.3 , # 6.6 ; West London County Court # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10 ) 4.6 - The evidence suggests that Wandsworth County Court also ignored the 17 June 2003 determination by the Leasehold Valuation TribunalThe last, valiant leaseholder (5th Defendant) 'caved in' the following year in another court, Wandsworth County Court . However, as suggested by the evidence, on entirely different terms from those determined by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. Indeed, the 2 August 2004 Order from Wandsworth County Court states: payment of the sum of " £4,538 (US$8,000) being the balance of the sums claimed, plus " the Claimant's costs of these proceedings.", plus "the sum of £548 (US$970) to the Claimant being the interest due on the sums claimed"
So much for the LVT determination and 'Steel Services' not being entitled to charge leaseholders differentially AND my bringing the LVT determination to the attention of the judge in Wandsworth County Court, in my letter dated 22 July 2004 . In this letter, I state, " I provided a copy of the report to the Court, as well as a copy of my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the LVT determination. My letters to West London County Court of 22 June 2003 , 15 July 2003 and 9 August 2003 provide comprehensive details" (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton and West London County Court for detail of events that led me to write the 22 July 2004 letter to Wandsworth County Court). Demanding, by means of threats, monies not due and payable, amounts to criminal offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and S.16(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Given events, it is worth noting Labour's 1997 pre-election Manifesto "Victims of crime are too often neglected by the Criminal Justice system" As reported by the Daily Mail , 24 June 2006 , all that Mr Blair has done since is "stick to the same script" Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: are you beginning to see why I claim that there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island? 4.7 - The London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal failed to perform its legal remitAs detailed, among others, under point 1 of its 17 June 2003 report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 - (ref: 992 on the LVT database), its 17 July 2003 letter, its 29 October 2002 directions, and this letter , the legal remit of the LVT, under s.19 of the L&T Act 1985, is to determine the "reasonableness, or otherwise, of the global sum demanded" . The LVT failed to perform its remit, as its report does not include a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded - and the Head of the LVTs twice refused to include a summary (see point # 4.9, below) leading me to ask my surveyor to undertake the assessment. (My surveyor is a Chartered Surveyor and (a highly professional) member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)) I consequently hold the view that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has committed, among others, a breach of my rights under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to an effective remedy" - NOT comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 - and concurrent breach of mandate and breach of trust 4.8 - The impact of the determination by the tribunal was to reduce the global sum demanded by £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. contingency fund), from £736,000 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000)Based on my surveyor's assessment , the outcome of the LVT determination on the original global sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 excl. VAT and 11% management fees) was:
Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded . In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the global sum demanded was not considered reasonable .
And of course, of great assistance this was, as my battle raged on with 'Steel Services'. While I fully accepted the LVT determination, it did not as it kept challenging it - while not taking the step defined under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (Section 20). (It has never implemented the LVT determination - opting instead to appoint a new contractor - without consultation). (Evidence that 'it' aka Mr Andrew Ladsky kept challenging it can be seen, among others in CKFT's 21 October 2003 "offer" : "...our client has, once again (NB:!!!) , reviewed the revised apportionment." ) 4.9 - The Head of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals refused to address the failing of the tribunal - as did her 'head office', the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, headed by Mr John PrescottDue to this on-going battle, I contacted the head of the LVT, Mrs McGrath, on 6 September 2003 , requesting that a summary be included in the report. In her 12 September 2003 reply she refused, stating, "neither I nor the tribunal have the power to re-open a decision. The correct course of action for a party who is dissatisfied with an LVT determination is to appeal to the Lands Tribunal" . Note that this answer is totally off the mark (in addition to being misleading: an appeal must be lodged within three weeks of a determination by the LVT). I did not say that I was dissatisfied with the decision (I only pointed out the gaps). The Head of the LVTs continues: "On that basis it is not possible to either change the decision or to provide a supplement to it". In my reply , I argued that providing a summary of the decision did not amount to "re-opening a decision" - "rather it is about your tribunal completing an unfinished report" . This led to the second 'no' from the Head of the LVTs who stated in her 26 November 2003 letter "this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons" (YES! To other leaseholders to challenge the illegal service charge... which would be most 'inconvenient', wouldn't it?).
(Because the summary of the case accessible by the public on the LVT website ( ref #992 ) in effect blames me for the LVT action, I also asked the Head of the LVTs to ensure that amendments were made to reflect a "factually accurate summary of the case" as "the current version is particularly misleading" . She claimed that it was not her department's responsibility, but that of LEASE. I had copied LEASE on my letter. No action was taken). So, there I was: with an open-ended report that had cost me c.£30,000 (US$53,000) (£28,000 (US$49,440) of professional fees for the hearings, plus £1,800 (US$3,200) to my surveyor for figuring out the impact of the determination on the global sum demanded. While the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (for which responsibility came under the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, headed by Mr John Prescott ) can, it seems, at times make just and fair decisions, there is a widespread perception among end-users (see My Diary 22 Nov 08) that they tend to be particularly 'landlord-friendly' . My first-hand experience leads me to share this view. (See LVT points under # 8) 4.10 - The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal turned 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to 'Steel Services' - Martin Russell Jones non-compliance with the directions it had set at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing - opting to proceed with the hearingAmong other events with the LVT, I also add the fact that it turned 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to my highlighting that Martin Russell Jones was in breach of the directions set by the tribunal as the 17 December 2002 deadline had passed and it had not provided me with the required information. Consequently, I would be unable to meet the 7 January 2003 deadline set by the tribunal. (Note that Mr Brian Gale lied ( point 2.10 ) as he wrote that ".A copy of my Expert Report to the LVT.was sent, by first class post direct to Ms Dit-Rawé. " In actual fact it was hand-delivered post 18 December. As can be seen at the back of the report , the stamp on the envelop was not franked) I did not receive a reply. Yet, consider that the LVT had been provided, well ahead of the deadline, with one of the main documents I was due to be supplied with, a copy of Steel Services' 'expert report' before 1st December as indicated by the 1 December 2002 fax sent by Ms Hathaway to the LVT in which she states: "I understand you have already received our experts report direct" I wrote to the LVT on 12 January 2003 requesting a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing because I still had not been supplied with the necessary information. I copied the letter to Ms Hathaway. On the same day , I also wrote a letter to Ms Hathaway, repeating the same thing (and copied the LVT). The LVT denied my request. (See LVT # 8.1 ) In her 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT, Ms Hathaway opposed a postponement of the hearing claiming I had been provided with the information. During the 5 February 2003 hearing Ms Hathaway contradicted herself, leading the Chair to adjourn the first day of the substantive hearing to March 2003 "In the interest of justice" ( point 16, 17 June 2003 )
Hence, in the LVT, as in the courts, a leaseholder is not only automatically assumed to be guilty, when evidence of innocence is supplied, it is ignored because both only have ears for 'professionals'. Among others, I consider this as a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to a fair hearing (trial)" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 My view is that all concerned anticipated that I would be a 'push over' at the 5 February 2003 LVT hearing because they had never received communication on my behalf from a legal advisor.I view the treatment I received from the LVT in the weeks preceding the hearing (as detailed above) as further evidence in support of my claim. I could see / sense total disbelief, as well as great annoyance at the fact that I had turned up for the 5 February hearing with a surveyor, a barrister and a solicitor. The beginning of the hearing was decidedly 'frosty' (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for further detail, as well as My Diary 17 January 2003 and 5 February 2003 ) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: are you beginning to see why I claim that there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island? 4.11 - West London County Court evidently considered me as a non-entity - while Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor continued to see me as fair game for bullying and intimidationIn a notice dated 12 June 2003 (ten days before I received the LVT report), West London County Court informs me that a hearing will take place on 24 June 2003 and that I must attend. There is no explanation whatsoever as to what this is about. I have no idea when the LVT report is due to be issued. (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 5.4 )
I assume that this notice was a follow-up to Mr Silverstone's application of 23 May 2003 . At the West London County Court hearing on 24 June 2003 , 10 minutes before seeing the judge, Mr Silverstone, CKFT , handed me three documents I had not seen previously. They included a " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " produced by Martin Russell Jones for which, in my case (and that of the other five leaseholders), the original sum demanded was reduced by just 24.19% - in my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) . He did not provide me with any supporting document as to how this reduction had been achieved. The remaining two documents are a " Draft Order and Case Summary " which, among others, state: "Majority of s/c expenditure approved. Where not approved, LVT said that because lack of sufficient detail in specification rather than because outside scope or not reasonable" . This is not true (as demonstrated earlier). In my 22 June 2003 letter to West London County Court, I pointed out, among others, that, by agreeing to CKFT's request for a hearing, the court was subjecting me to double jeopardy as I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. (see WLCC # 8 ) I also stated,
On 15 July 2003, I wrote to West London County Court "Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" , and detailed the main points of my surveyor's assessment of the LVT's determination. It led Mr Silverstone to write to the judge "For current purposes we wish to record the fact that figures quoted in Ms Rawé's letter are wrong". (Thank you Mr Prescott and Head of LVTs for the poisoned chalice!) With his correspondence of 17 July 2003 Mr Silverstone enclosed "Part III" of the specifications for the works with "Revised price" written as heading. My surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the document handed to me at the 24 June 2003 hearing. Hence, it still fell very far short of the LVT determination. In addition, there was no supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at (consequently amounting to a breach of my statutory rights). Yet again, in my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County Court (copied to CKFT), I pointed out that the LVT determination had not been implemented (and supplied copy of documents in support of my claim).
• 25 June 2003 ".the costly LVT process has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project. We should, therefore, strongly urge you to meet with our client." • 24 July 2003 "Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court has to deal with the determination of this issue..this is a matter which could be dealt with between the parties...we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to any subsequent issue as to costs" • 7 August 2003 letter to my solicitors (of a few hours): "...we have made numerous offers to meet with your client in order to try and resolve this matter by negotiation. She has declined to accept those offers. We shall contend that this is a relevant matter in relation to the question of costs " In relation to these letters, in my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County Court (copied to CKFT) I wrote, among others,
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, as you can see from the attachments, I was not writing to West London County Court in invisible ink - although, as I had done since receiving the - fraudulent - claim - and continued to do so over the following months - I wondered whether I was. It certainly had the same effect: none! So much for the claim that individuals can 'act in person' in court i.e. without legal representation. In light of my very comprehensive, first hand experience, I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that the only people who have a voice in court are lawyers - regardless of their profile.In her 6 August 2003 application for a hearing (signed under a Statement of Truth) Ms Ayesha Salim stated, "We CKFT intend to apply for an Order that (1) There be Judgement for the Claimant against the Second Defendant and Fifth Defendant under CPR Part 24.2 (2) The Defendants do pay the Claimant's costs of those proceedings. Because the Claimant believes that the...Defendants have no real prospects of successfully defending the Claim and the Claimant knows of no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at Trial" It also states, "Following the decision on 24th June 2003, MRJ issued a revised Major Work Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants" . The document attached to the application, " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised ", demonstrates that the sum demanded of me has been revised down by 24.19% to £10,917 (US$19,250) i.e. the same amount as for the 24 June 2003 hearing. (The only difference is that in this instance the document covers the 35 flats (apartments), which was the total number at the time). Consequently, given the glaringly obvious - supported by my surveyor's assessment of 31 July 2003 that the LVT determination had NOT been reflected in the document produced for the 24 June 2003 hearing (and, in any case, a Section 20 Notice had not been issued following the determination), it follows that Ms Salim's claim - under a Statement of Truth - was not true. (See CKFT # 6.6 ) While I had (successfully) represented myself at the 24 June 2003 hearing, my lack of knowledge of the legal terminology and procedure meant that I found the experience distressing. In addition, as West London County Court evidently viewed me as a non-entity, I decided that for the 26 August 2003 hearing I ought to have a solicitor representing me. It led me to appoint Piper Smith Basham . In addition to giving my 9 August 2003 letter to the court to Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, I had also confirmed in my 21 August 2003 letter that I was " not prepared to strike a deal .as it would allow them to get away with the need to redraw the specification, thereby leaving me exposed to further demands at a later stage.the LVT decision applies to the whole block." I also wrote , "I am also hoping that by doing this they will give up on the block as I am taking away their opportunity to illegally charge works to the residents". How naïve of me! This 'scam' (swindle) had been in the making for several years. On 26 August 2003, prior to seeing the judge, a conversation (I did not join) took place between Ms McLean, counsel and Ms Ayesha Salim. Given my position, it resulted in 'an understanding' to get me to pay the costs I had recognised in my 9 August 2003 letter to the court. (NB: Although bear in mind that under the terms of my lease and my statutory rights, I did not owe this amount). Further evidence that the 6 August 2003 application related to the full amount claimed can be seen in Ms Salim's letter to me of 5 August 2003 - as well in her 6 August 2003 application: "Accordingly, the Claimant asks the court to enter summary judgement against the Second and Fifth Defendants with an order for payment of the Claimant's costs of these proceedings" During the hearing, her explanation to the judge for the fact that her application referred to the full amount when, in fact, the sum now proposed was less than what she claimed in her application, she replied: "it was a clerical error" . The judge accepted this reply without the blink of an eyelid (as I captured a few days later in my letter to Ms McLean). (See WLCC # 11 and My Diary 26 August 2003) To induce me to make this payment, Ms McLean and counsel told me that, if I did not do this, it would be held against me. Considering the conduct of West London County Court to date, I believed them. As, in any case, I had always recognised that maintenance and repair works needed to be carried out, in spite of the breach of legal requirements, I agreed to pay the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) (slightly less than my own calculations). (In spite of repeated requests to Ms McLean, I never managed to determine how my 'advisers' had arrived at this amount - see Piper Smith Basham for detail). The directions from the 26 August 2003 hearing included the exchange of witness statements by 21 October 2003. As Ms McLean ignored my request for guidance on writing a witness statement, I undertook desk research and wrote my Witness Statement . It was hand-delivered to her on 19 October, with a covering letter explaining my approach. (See my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) 4.12 - My being intent on pursuing the action to trial if necessary led 'Steel Services' to make me an "offer" for £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) originally demanded)Two days later, on 21 October 2003, Ms Ayesha Salim faxed an "offer" at 17h43 to Piper Smith Basham. Hence, nearly two hours after the witness statements were due to be in court. To my knowledge, no witness statement was supplied. The offer was for £6,350 (US$11,200) vs. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). In 'true style', there is also a demand for £143 (US$250) of interest ( !!! ). This "offer" starts with "Our client maintains that as a result of the LVT decision dated 17 June 2003, it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917.27" In other words, the same amount claimed at the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearings. This is not true. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with CKFT and its client (as well as his other 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale) - do you believe that its client would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) if it had been the outcome of the LVT determination? The reply to the offer was discussed at a meeting on 28 October 2003 with counsel, Mr Stan Gallagher , Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham , and my surveyor who had assessed the contents of the "offer" ahead of the meeting. As evidenced in my surveyor's assessment , the LVT determination had not been implemented. There is no explanation as to how the reductions were arrived at. And, of course, contrary to my statutory rights, no Section 20 Notice had been issued. One of the major items on which the Tribunal said to be unable to make a determination due to lack of specification was the boiler ( points 38, 46 and 16.07 ). The sum demanded for the boiler was £117,153 (US$207,000) (£89,824 (US$158,000) excluding VAT and management fees). Furthermore, the need to replace the boilers had actually been questioned by the tribunal during the hearing ( points 23 and 16.07 ) The addition of other items for which the Tribunal said to be unable to make a determination brought the total to £190,000 (US$335,000). (Aside from the breach of the terms of my lease and of my statutory rights) I concluded that the "offer" amounted to an overcharge of £1,735 (US$3,000). I argued, among others, in my 7 November 2003 and 13 November 2003 letters to Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher that, given the LVT determination, "without detailed specification followed by tendering, it cannot be established what, if any of this amount, I am actually liable for under the terms of my lease" Evidence that the lack of specification for the boiler was not addressed can be seen in Martin Russell Jones' letter of 21 September 2005 - i.e. two years and three months after the LVT determination - stating, " new pumps and a new control panel are required for the boiler" . Supporting evidence that, in fact, the LVT determination was, in effect, ignored can be seen in the letter sent by Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, dated 2 August 2004 i.e. on the same day that the last leaseholder (5th Defendant) 'capitulated' in Wandsworth County Court (see point # 4.6, above). • Deceptively, Mr Martin omitted to do the calculations, including not mentioning the 11% management fee: the total sum demanded is in fact £669,937 (US$1.18 million) making a difference of only £66,269 (US$113,732) relative to the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) - or nine percent less (when in fact it should be less 68%). • He also states, "At this stage we will not require further monies from you." In other words, the intention is to come back and ask for further monies - which is exactly what happened in my case (as detailed previously). • Furthermore, he declares that the contract has been awarded to Mansell Construction Services. Mansell was not one of the contractors who tendered against Killby & Gayford (on which the LVT based its determination). Consequently, the 'so called' Section 20 Notice of July 2002 has been invalidated and a new one should have been issued. This has not happened. The implication under statutory requirement is that the contribution from EACH of the leaseholders should have been capped at £250. While I do not even know what works Mansell tendered for - I can see some of the outcome: the number of flats has grown from 35 to 39 , including the addition of a penthouse flat (2.4MB) (Photo gallery) - across the full area of what used to be the roof of Jefferson House (See Notices by landlord, 10 February 2006, for breach of Section 5 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 and consequent criminal offence under Section 10A (1) )
It follows from statutory requirements that of the £6,350 (US$11,200) Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones have had from me (for over two years), they can only spend £250 (US$440) on Mansell. 4.13 - Although their 'trade associations' disagree with me, I hold the view that my so-called 'advisers' most definitely did not act in my best interest - and I believe that my claim is amply supported by 'black on white' evidenceAs evidenced by Ms Lisa McLean's attendance note , it was agreed with Mr Stan Gallagher, at the 28 October 2003 meeting, that the reply would: • Firstly, state "that we were not happy that the specifications remain unchanged and the LVT had commented on the same fact, there had been no re -tendering of any sort, the matter had stayed with the same contractor etc etc..." The Notice of Acceptance drafted by Mr Gallagher makes no reference to this as he just wrote: ".your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings." Following my complaint to the Bar Council against Mr Gallagher, in relation to this point he replied: "The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works...there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered" (point 58, 9 June 2004 ) • Secondly, that "this payment was in full and final settlement of the current major works." The Consent Order drafted by Mr Stan Gallagher reads "the Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of £6,513.24, inclusive of interest, to be paid in 28 days in full and final settlement of the Defendant=s liabilities under this claim and in respect of the major works at Jefferson House to which this claim relates" I consider that what Mr Gallagher wrote is very different from what was agreed, in particular the fact that it states: "under this claim" and "to which this claim relates" . In the Particulars of Claim , the sum for the works is described as " Major works contribution " As drafted, I viewed the Consent Order as leaving the door wide open to Steel Services to come back and ask me for another 'Major works contribution', and so on, and so on. In reply to my complaint , Mr Gallagher wrote that what had been agreed was " To tweak the offer by stipulating that it was in full and final settlement of NKDR's share of the totality of the costs of the major works " ( 9 June 2004 reply, point 29(7)(ii)). As can be seen, this is NOT what he wrote. • Thirdly, it had been agreed at the meeting that I would not pay the interest demanded (£143) (US$250). This is not captured in Ms McLean's attendance note. However, before the reply was sent, I captured it in my 7 November 2003 letter to Mr Twyman. I also wrote it on the documents I faxed Mr Twyman and Mr Gallagher on 13 November 2003 . Clearly, I would not have written this if it had not been said. Contrary to what had been agreed, Mr Gallagher included the interest in the reply. Aside from the circumstances of my case, the main issue I had with the demand for interest was the implication that I had owed the sum demanded - which I did not. Correspondence with Ms McLean, post the 13 November 2003, suggests that an 'off-line' communication subsequently took place between her and Mr Gallagher resulting in a change of position (as I wrote in e.g. my 26 November 2003 to McLean). I was not party to this agreement. In reply to my complaint Mr Gallagher (point 52, 9 June 2004 ) and Piper Smith Basham ( 25 August 2004 ) argued that, "In order to reach a settlement with the claimant it was better to agree to pay the interest ". I proved them wrong by pointing out that, once I had taken back control of my case, I had exchanged a Consent Order that did not include the payment of interest. • Fourthly, it was agreed that Mr Gallagher's views on the rateable value and arbitration clause in my lease would not be included in the reply, "Counsel said there were various matters we could raise. Whilst those were arguments that we could run he thought that the likelihood of success would be limited" Yet, in the Notice of Acceptance drafted by Mr Gallagher, these two points make-up 50% of the contents. I view this as "unobjectionable padding" . I communicated the issue to Ms McLean e.g. in my 26 November 2003 letter. In reply to my complaint , Mr Gallagher boasted that " the strategy that I advised on worked: the tweaked offer was accepted." ( point 78, 9 June 2004 ). Obviously, CKFT was very keen to have this Consent Order endorsed by the court - as evidenced by Ms Salim's 19 November 2003 letter to Piper Smith Basham "...endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court." As I stated (point 52, 25 March 2005 ) " There was no 'tweaking' - as he just said 'amen' to everything . Of course his reply was received with open arms " At the time of the deadline for the reply, I was placed under an unbelievable amount of pressure to go along with what my 'advisers' had decided. (See My Diary from 4 November 2003 to the end of the year ) (This was a continuation of what had happened during - and since the 28 October 2003 meeting). (See Piper Smith Basham # 6.1 , # 7.6 , # 7.7 , # 7.8 , # 7.9 , and Mr Gallagher). Great emphasis was placed on the threat of my being liable for costs if the matter proceeded to trial: In my instructions of 7 November 2003, I had stated that Steel Services ought to pay for my costs (a view endorsed by another solicitor I saw after the 28 October 2002 meeting). Mr Gallagher's opinion was "I can only repeat my advice and that of Ms McLean that that if this offer is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs. ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003) In his initial reply to my complaint , Mr Gallagher most vehemently re-asserted this position e.g. • "it was unrealistic for NKDR to seek an order for costs in her favour: each party paying their own costs (to the date of the offer) was as good an order on costs as NKDR could possibly get (point 66, 9 June 2004 ) • The balance of risks on costs was not finely balanced, it was all against NKDR and my advice reflected that" (point 67, 9 June 2004 ) • [I] "was virtually certain to lose if the claim went to trial and costs would be awarded against her and certainly would not be awarded in her favour" (point 63(1), 9 June 2004 ) • Consequently, that he "and Ms McLean saw the offer, with its terms that each party pays its own costs as offering something of a life-line that NKDR would be ill advised not to accept . (point 49, 9 June 2004 ) • "Having reconsidered this conclusion for the purpose of preparing this response, I do not resile from in any way" (point 49, 9 June 2004 ) Should I stubbornly persist with my position, going against my 'advisers' recommendation, I would be made to repent / learn my lesson: • "in the likely event that the defence fails, render a final bill for the costs of the litigation and remind the client that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given" (Point 66, 9 June 2004 ) Why did Mr Gallagher hold this view? Because he "did not view that there was a technical defence of merit to the claim " (29(5), 9 June 2004 ) • He regarded the LVT determination as "a mix bag" (point 21, 9 June 2004 ). As a result my challenging his comment, in his second reply of 11 October 2004 , he wrote, "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" (point 8) He also wrote (point 4(1), 11 October 2004 ) "At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings" In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 38), I stated "At the time". I read this as an admission that Mr Gallagher had not acknowledged the evidence supplied to him. (Which is obvious) . I draw your attention to the Bar Council Code of Conduct "303 (a) and (b) and 5. Conduct of work - 5.2." • He held against me the fact that I had refused opportunities to strike a deal "consider the fact that NKDR had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions on settlement in the light of the LVT determination" (point 66, 9 June 2004 ); [I] "expressly rejected CKFT's offers of a round table." (point 15, 9 June 2004 ) In other words, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that I have moral principles and integrity that prevented me for striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease - and as per my statutory rights. • He maintained that my surveyor had "demonstrated" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003) , which he then changed to "had said that the offer could not be bettered ." (e.g. point 66, 9 June 2004 ) I was able to demonstrate (with evidence in support) that it was impossible for him to have said this and ended-up contacting my surveyor who concurred with me. • He held against me the fact that I " had only paid £2,255 (US$4,000) , it must be accepted that she is on risk for C's costs at least down to this figure at trial" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003). He repeated this on a number of occasions, including under point 8 of his 11 October 2004 reply "However, significant service charges remained payable and no payment into court or other offers to settle had been made by Ms Rawé. Hence my analysis that Ms Rawé was vulnerable on costs" (Earlier on, I detailed why I agreed to do this at the 26 August 2003 hearing - even though, legally, I did not owe this sum). In other words, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that I had obeyed - for as long as I could - the instructions given to me by a tribunal to NOT pay - until it had issued its determination and it had consequently been implemented. As I captured under point 13 of my 31 October 2004 reply:
Consider as well that under point 23 of his 9 June 2004 reply Mr Gallagher had taken pains to highlight that he was writing a book on litigation in the LVT. In other words, Mr Gallagher aimed to communicate that he is an authority on this matter. (He was indeed writing a book, ' Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: A Practical Guide' which states that it " Sets out all the powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the LVT ". While I have not read it, this suggests that Mr Gallagher ought to know "the jurisdiction of the LVTs" ) • Mr Gallagher also brought to the fore that "summary judgement had already been entered on part of the claim" (point 66, 9 June 2004 ) (see earlier on, 26 August 2003 hearing) • Having "briefly considered whether there may have been an arguable breach of the statutory consultation procedure for "service chargeable" works under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985" , Mr Gallagher "concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure " (point 3(2), 11 October 2004 ) Contrast this with what he had previously stated (point 58, 9 June 2004 ) "The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works." In addition to viewing Mr Gallagher's 11 October 2004 reply as an attempt to 'recover' from his 9 June 2004 'mistake' (triggered by my subsequent reply of 29 August), I also view him as having a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this 2005 Lands Tribunal case - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view) (website printscreen) Under point 6 of his 11 October 2004 reply he wrote "I accept that it is possible that given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs. (NB: Compare this with his above scare tactics at the time of the reply) However, my assessment was that there was no realistic chance that the landlord would be ordered to pay any of Ms Rawé 's costs: particularly as Ms Rawé had rejected the previous offer of a round table discussion. (NB!!!) In these circumstances I remain of the opinion that the landlord's offer of a compromise on terms that there be no order for costs was a life-line for Ms Rawé " (NB!!!) • In relation to stating in my 7 November 2003 instructions that I wished to be supplied with the 2002 year-end accounts, Mr Gallagher's reply was "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts... can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003). This was a breach of, not only the terms of my lease (by then 10 months had passed since the year-end for the accounts) but also of statutory requirements, as emphasised by Kensington & Chelsea Housing to Martin Russell Jones in its 25 June 2004 request. The letter also highlights that non-performance results in committing a criminal offence. In reply to my complaint that I should have been provided with the accounts, and that in the Notice of Acceptance written by Mr Gallagher, the only reference made to the terms of my lease reads "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease", Mr Gallagher wrote, "the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better" ( point 55, 9 June 2004). My reply to Mr Gallagher was "For whom?" (Point 123, 29 August 2004 ) (I finally obtained a copy of the 2002 accounts in February 2005 (i.e. three years later). The reason why my requests had been ignored became obvious. The accountants, Pridie & Brewster, certified the accounts stating " that the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents". I hold the view that this is incorrect given the LVT determination and considering the terms of my lease) (See Pridie Brewster for detail) • Mr Gallagher's position in relation to the 2002 year-end accounts appeared to also be connected with his endorsement of 'Steel Services' and its aides' position that the service charge demand was an "interim demand" He was relying on Clause (2)(2)(h) of my lease (He maintained this position at the time of the 'offer' i.e. one year and three months after the original demand...while concurrently claiming that my wanting to be supplied with the year-end accounts (which were overdue) "...can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms"). I put forward a number of arguments against his position. One included the fact that ALL the documents clearly communicated that the sum demanded was for ALL the major works e.g. point 2 of the LVT report. Another referred to the duration of the works - on which I have since been amply vindicated as nearly two years after the start of the works, they were still not completed (entrance at 1 May 2006 ) - (see also Photo gallery) and added (point 49, 29 August 2004 ):
(It follows as well that, in filing the claim under a ' Statement of Truth ' Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, and CKFT who produced the claim - breached Clause (2)(2)(j) of my lease) Under point 136 of my 29 August 2004 reply, I asked, "Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" to which he, of course, took objection "If para 75 of the response implies anything improper on my part, I strongly deny the implication" (point 9, 11 October 2004 )
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated at the beginning of this section that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? When I received Mr Gallagher's email of 17h09 , 12 November 2003, the following day ( Mr Twyman , Piper Smith Basham, had forwarded to me), I was at work and therefore unable to reply as comprehensively as I would have liked. Hence, in my 12h26 email I could only manage to state "I find some of the comments difficult to reconcile with events / facts" . I do not hear anything until after 15h30 when I see that Mr Gallagher has sent an email at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft reply and draft consent order . He refers to a 16h00 deadline. This is the first I hear of this. (As I discovered subsequently, it is nonsense. A 16h00 deadline only applies in the case of the courts. In this instance, office hours apply as evidenced by e.g. the fact that CKFT faxed the 'offer' at 17h43 ) As I have barely started to read the documents sent by Mr Gallagher, I receive an email from Mr Twyman, sent at 15h53 . He wrote, "I confirm safe receipt of Counsel draft and will be sending it to the other side as drafted save with removal of brackets at the end of the letter as he has advised in the next 10mins or so" In other words, Mr Twyman allowed just 21 minutes - while I am at work - for me to look at two documents I had not seen before . These documents were highly critical to me. Please note that on three separate occasions, over a 5-day period ( 7 November 2003 , 13 November 2003 9h26 fax and 13 November 2003 12h26 email ) I had stressed that I wanted to review the reply before it was sent. Given the unbelievable pressure under which I was placed (see My Diary), the best I could manage was to handwrite the following on the documents. I faxed them to Mr Twyman and Mr Gallagher at 16h29 - in other words, within less than one hour of receiving them. • On the draft consent order, next to 'interest': "On 28 October - Mr Gallagher said "no because works had not started" • On the 'without prejudice notice of acceptance' document: "+ Non-compliance with Section 20 for some items, as a consequence of which the LVT was unable to take a decision" i.e. the two points that had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting with Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher would be included in the reply. As you can see, because of the pressure under which I was placed during the last 24 hours to the deadline for the reply, I had relinquished on one of my key objectives: getting my costs back . The next day I received from Mr Twyman, what I view as an appalling letter attached to an email stating: "I sent you an email yesterday regarding transmission of Counsel's draft indicating that the same would be sent by approximately 4pm. In accordance with that direction understanding this to be you instructions." What Mr Twyman sent was definitely NOT my instructions. Incontrovertible proof that I had not agreed to the reply sent is: • Ms McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 asking me to " confirm that the consent order may be signed " - to which I replied on 26 November 2003
• Mr Gallagher capturing it in his initial reply to my complaint, as he wrote that he "simply (could) not understand why NKDR changed her mind and was not prepared to endorse the draft consent order " (point 80, 9 June 2004 )
In my complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham, I stated that it used what I view as bullying and intimidation tactics to coerce me into endorsing the reply it had sent to CKFT. (I also referred to events in my complaint against Mr Gallagher stating that I viewed the situation as having been engineered to limit the probability of my being able to input into the reply). I consider the above and the following as evidence in support of my claim. (See also section - My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) • In her 12 December 2003 letter, Ms McLean, wrote: "One final point to make is that whilst there is a current complaint against me personally and the firm it would not be appropriate for me to continue acting for you, our relationship having broken down" (Ms McLean was referring to my 2 December 2003 letter to Messrs Berns and Skuse) • While in her 21 January 2004 letter (i.e. six weeks later ), she wrote: "There is also of course the outstanding issue of the concluded agreement. Once again if you wish to discuss the matter with me at (sic) the telephone I am happy to do so" (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) What happened between the two letters is that, in mid-December 2003, I decided to take back control of my case and sent my 'own' version of the Notice of Acceptance to CKFT on 19 December 2003 . Ms McLean's strategy had backfired (as I captured under points 3.4, 103 and 104 of my 16 March 2004 complaint). Indeed, I view the 12 December letter as an attempt to bring me 'back into line' by withdrawing support - and thereby cause anxiety, fear and distress. ( No 'allegedly' here, as I believe that any reasonable, fair minded person faced with this evidence would endorse my view) Likewise here: I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that the 21 January 2004 letter was a 'last ditch attempt' at concluding the deal (see below for my conclusions). As to CKFT , it waited to see what would happen following the 21 January 2004 letter from Ms McLean. In fact, it allowed one week. At that point, Ms Ayesha Salim wrote in her 27 January 2004 letter "We have now located two of your letters dated 19 December 2003" i.e. five weeks later ! (Please note that I had sent the letter by 'special delivery next day' (as can be seen in the attached 19 December 2003 letter) and had received confirmation from the post office that it had been delivered. Please note also that the lack of response from CKFT had led me to get a firm of solicitors to send, on 16 January 2004 , a copy of the documents I had sent to CKFT on 19 December 2003. My reason for doing this was that, given CKFT's modus operandi, I could not exclude the possibility that it might claim it had received post from me on 22 December 2003, but that it was just an empty envelop). My conclusion on these events is that my taking back control of my case had 'thrown a spanner in the works', upsetting the game plan - and resulted in considerable disarray among the 'troops'. As you can see, in my 19 December 2003 correspondence I agreed to the terms of the ' offer ' - except payment of interest (£143) (US$250) - and included full payment with my reply . Consequently, with the previous payment , I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200) which, legally, I did NOT owe. Clearly, I do not consider that this reply gives me the justice and redress I believe I deserve. However, as I stated in my letter, I did this "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end" 4.14 - I had to abandon my moral principles as I was left with no other optionYes, I acted against the moral principles I had so far managed to upheld in spite of the horrendous pressure placed upon me but, considering events with all the parties - including West London County Court - as well as the fact that I had so far spent the best part of my life savings, principally on professional fees, what else could I do? In addition, by then, I was - literally - near collapse. The sheer, utter hell I had been made to go through since the 28 October 2003 meeting (to which must added prior events, including with Piper Smith Basham - in relation to my 20C application) had resulted in my losing five kilos (nearly a stone) in weight in the space of one month. (I was already thin). I could barely eat and had great difficulty sleeping due to extreme anxiety (My Diary 11 November 2003 ; 12 November 2003 ; 13 November 2003 ; November 2003 ; Christmas 2003 )
4.15 - Due to what can only be described as an act of vengeance, since my payment in court, Martin Russell Jones has been sending me very large, unsubstantiated - and clearly fraudulent invoices• The battle with CKFT continued for another six months (see West London County Court). I obtained a Consent Order that was endorsed by the court on 1 July 2004 • In spite of this, three months later I received an invoice from Martin Russell Jones, dated 21 October 2004 , stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,500 (US$25,600) - without any explanation whatsoever. I did not respond. This was followed by another invoice, dated 16 November 2004 i.e. three weeks later, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £15,500 (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever. I did not respond. I view this as an act of vengeance for my challenging the service charge demand. As well as, 'I think', my identifying evidence pointing to the conclusion that for a period of at least three months, Martin Russell Jones and CKFT claimed to be acting on behalf of Steel Services when in fact, the evidence suggests, it did not exist. (See Jersey address and Owners identity ) It has since been followed by an invoice dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. I again stress that I have not paid the previous two invoices. Another invoice followed in June 2006 stating a " Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200). As with the prior invoices: no explanation as to the composition of the sum. Hence, what is the amount currently hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300)(?), £14,500 (US$25,600)(?), £5,625 (US$9,900)(?), £8,621 (US$15,200)(?) or all four combined i.e. £44,246 (US$78,000)? What else is going to be dropped on me 'with the compliments of the 'landlord' and its aides'? What will they think of tomorrow? Sending me an invoice for £20,000 (US$35,000)? And what about the day after tomorrow? Will they wake up thinking that it would 'be fun' to send me an invoice for £30,000 (US$53,000)? £40,000 (US$70,500)? £50,000 (US$88,000)? More? (NOTE : For an update since then - see PORTNER and JASKEL and WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT - POST 2004 ) The £5,625 (US$9,900) invoice includes, among others, an advanced demand of £814 (US$1,435) for the first half of 2006. I assume it purports to be based on the "Steel Services estimated expenditure for year ending 31 December 2006" (I cannot determine how the sum was arrived at). Among others, this "estimated expenditure" is fraudulent as, since 31 January 2006, a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises Limited has been added, and controls the last floor. (See Headlessors, Owners identity and Pridie Brewster for detail) The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase of £2,995 (US$5,281) over the 9 January 2006 invoice. As can be seen from the 30 June pack , my half-yearly service charge BEFORE the addition of four new flats , including a penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of the top floor, and BEFORE the complete overhaul of Jefferson House, was £680 (US$1,200). (NOTE : For an update since then - see PORTNER and JASKEL and WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT - POST 2004 ) Aside from the fact that it would be morally very wrong to sell the flat given the profile of the owners of the block and their aides, by how much would have I to discount the flat given my current position? (Invoices, bogus accounts, plus a lease against which the landlord, 'Steel Services', can no longer perform some of the major covenants - as it no longer has control of the last floor) (Subsequent note: for update see Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Directorships) As I wrote to Mr Michael Howard "Why should I give [my flat] to Mr Ladsky et. al? Why should I give him 15 (?) 20 (?) years of my life savings - on top of the c. 12 years of my life savings his scam has so far cost me in professional fees and other expenses?"
As to the reader's comment that Martin Russell Jones "simply would not reply to any letters, emails or phone calls - they did not want to know" I have files full of examples of this. One relates to my asking for two extra keys, on 26 July 2005 , following a change of the lock on the main entrance door. As can be seen, I enclosed a self-addressed, 'special delivery' envelop (to prevent the usual lies). To this day, I have not received them. Hence, I only have one key (over which I had to battle - see My Diary - Friday 22 July 2005). It means that I cannot give a spare key to a friend in case of emergency i.e. I cannot call anybody to come to my aid, unless the person is prepared to break down the door. What is the probability that I am going to be taken back to court? To answer this, I will borrow a leaseholder's comment about his own landlord as I consider it also applies to Mr Ladsky et. al. with "vexatious litigants.that seem to have turned intimidatory litigation into an industry" I would say the probability is very high. Note at 14 August 2006: It looks as though this is being 'cooked' right now as I have received a " final application " which states a "Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200). (NOTE at 9 March 2007 : Sure enough! See Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004 ) An example that 'Steel Services' is turning "intimidatory litigation into an industry" can be seen from another ' dictate ', dated 16 March 2005, I received from Ms Hathaway. Yet again, it amounts to a breach of my lease - associated with the now familiar threat of legal proceedings. (The breach relates to Clause 5 (5) (b) as I detailed in my 30 March 2005 reply to her)
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I state that I am trapped in my flat with no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island? 4.16 - Complaints against Piper Smith Basham, Mr Gallagher and Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT)In 2004, I filed a complaint against Piper Smith Basham (supported by 136 enclosures ) with the Law Society and a complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher (supported by over 120 enclosures ) with the Bar Council. I did this mainly because Piper Smith Basham claimed I had given my consent to the reply sent by Mr Twyman to CKFT (see PSB # 7.13 ) and I was worried that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor would file a claim against me for alleged breach of agreement. Given its actions to date, I viewed this as a very strong possibility. (Not to mention the concern I had about the treatment I would receive in court). My rationale was, if this happened and I said in my defence that I had not agreed to the reply that was sent, I would be asked for evidence of this. While I had several documents to produce in evidence, least of all the fact that in her 24 November 2003 letter Ms McLean had asked me to confirm that "the consent order may be signed" (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement), I thought that filing a complaint would be another key element in my line of defence. At the end of 2004 I also filed a complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (supported by 132 enclosures ) . In spite of all that had happened since 2002, the triggers were the possibility of CKFT issuing proceedings against me for alleged breach of agreement, as well as the unjustified invoices for £14,500 (US$25,600) and £15,500 (US$27,300). Considering CKFT's method of operating, added to the fact that there appears to be nothing to stop its client from filing a false claim against me in court every day of the week, I thought that filing the complaint would stop further court actions - at least for a while.
Piper Smith Basham
Consequently, I opted to escalate my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman on 5 December 2004. (After some amazing events), (see Legal Services Ombudsman # 3 ) - five months later (NB!!!) - in a letter dated 12 May 2005 , my complaint was turned down on the grounds that I did not have a final decision from the Law Society . Nice set-up! Had I caved in for the purpose of escalating my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman (given that I am meant to have a "final decision" before doing this), I can guarantee (although cannot substantiate) that I would then have received the following reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman: "But you accepted their decision. So, what are you complaining about?" Moreover, this reply would have been most strongly put to the fore by the Law Society. It led me to ask the Legal Services Ombudsman, among others
As I was not prepared to go 'back on the wheel', wasting many more hours of my time (by then it had cost me c. 200 hours of my life ) , I did not go back to the Law Society. Mr Stan GallagherThe 27 January 2005 decision from the Bar Council to my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher was:
I escalated my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman on 25 March 2005 . The 30 August 2005 reply was:
Among others, consider the following comment made by the Legal Services Ombudsman on page 3 of her 30 August 2005 reply...
...against the fact that the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was to reduce the global sum demanded of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) by nearly 70%, down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (incl. contingency fund) I had very clearly detailed this outcome on several occasions, in each of the following: 5 April 2004 complaint to the Bar Council (points 7, 22, 23, 51, 82 and 86); my 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint (points 48, 32 - 37, 39, 49, 50, 52, etc); my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (points 16, 36, 38, 42, 43, 49) Mrs Manzoor WAS SUPPLIED with these documents, as well as supporting evidence. And she is of the view that a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) is an outcome that it is "largely favourable for your landlord" !!! Not only is it abundantly clear that Mrs Manzoor did not read / care to note any of the content of my correspondence, it is equally obvious that she did not read / care to note Mr Gallagher's replies to my complaint either. Had she done so, she would have seen the following:
I give this as an example of undeniable evidence that this Ombudsman has ignored my complaints.See Legal Services Ombudsman for the amazing display of pirouettes and U-turns by the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman
These battles with Mr Gallagher, the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman spanned 19 months from end January 2004 to end August 2005 - costing me over 250 hours of my life. Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT)The 8 February 2005 initial reply from the Law Society to my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT was:
In this reply, it rejected parts of my complaint claiming that they were matters for the court or the police. Consequently, they had nothing to do with the Law Society. In other words, I was being sent from 'pillar to post '. Continuing to implement the lesson I had learnt in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham , I invested another large of time for the purpose of replying to the Law Society (see My Diary Year 2004 ). I did this on 19 February 2005 , challenging many of its answers pointing out that many parts of my complaint fell under the remit of the Law Society . The 17 March 2005 reply from the Law Society was
(This led me to write in My Diary: "Got you Law Society!") As the Law Society claimed that parts of my complaint were matters for the court or the police, in referring my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman on 20 February 2005 , I related my experiences with West London County Court, Wandsworth County Court and Kensington & Chelsea police. Although I am aware that these do come under the Legal Services Ombudsman's remit, I felt that I had to provide an answer to the Law Society's comments. In particular, highlight that, given events, I was highly unlikely to get very far with these suggestions. (Of course, by doing this, I extended awareness of events - and, more importantly - of my views - to another government department). The 11 July 2005 decision from the Legal Services Ombudsman was
This battle added another c. 200 hours of my life 'down the drain' 4.18 - As their 'trade associations' do not consider that that there has been malpractice, I must refer to my complaints, overall, against all three as 'MY ALLEGED ACCUSATIONS'Although not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against all three - and I do not believe that it requires being a genius to see that. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - even if, like me, you are not a lawyer - I assume you have already arrived at this conclusion from having read this section so far. If you still have doubts, please see the section on each (Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor, Piper Smith Basham , Mr Gallagher) which provides very comprehensive detail of events, supported by extensive quotes from numerous source documents to which links are provided, as well as indicating the location of the verbatim quotes. I will add that since filing the complaints and the subsequent correspondence in the context of the complaints (only from Piper Smith & Basham and Mr Gallagher) I have not heard a word from any of them. Considering, among others that CKFT is 'litigation-happy', I view this as endorsement of my position. (They are definitely keeping away from me as, in spite of being Steel Services representative , for the another 'scam' (1.1MB), the so-called 'notice of first refusal' of 10 February 2006, Mr Ladsky used another firm, Portner and Jaskel - See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006. He has also used this firm to file another fraudulent claim against me - see Portner # 6 , or My Diary 9 March 2007 and 4 April 2007, as well as threaten me with bankruptcy - Portner # 3 - ... with the ultimate outcome, 16 months later, of dropping the claim against me - see Portner and Jaskel In relation to Mr Gallagher, I have not paid his fees. Having raised this in his initial reply to my complaint, he never followed it up. 4.19 - My conclusions on what happened with the lawyers is that I refused to be 'snared' by the arrogant, greedy hunters with a grossly inflated sense of self-importance and power - and PORTNER AND JASKEL is another one added to the listConsidering the sequence of events which took place with Mr Gallagher, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and concurrently with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Portner and Jaskel, I have come to the conclusion that my experience with them is the result of my not accepting the standard 'off-the-shelf formula' dished out by SOME legal 'advisers' in the residential leasehold property sector, in this kind of situation - for people like me i.e. of limited financial means and with no influential connections. (Some people might say that if I had had both, I probably would not have ended-up in this situation in the first place). I view the dominant Business model in operation in this type of situation (drawing on my own first-hand experience, as well as that of numerous other leaseholders I am in contact with) as resting on the expectation that an extortionate service charge demand will be resolved through 'striking a deal'. It starts-off by threatening legal proceedings (e.g. Martin Russell Jones' 20 September 2002 letter - MRJ # 26 , # 32 ; # 14) which can include the threat of forfeiture (e.g. CKFT's 7 October 2002 letter - CKFT # 1 , # 6.2) (and in 2007, the 16 February 2007 letter from Portner and Jaskel LLP in which it also threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings" - Portner # 3) (Some leaseholders 'cave in' by that stage e.g. email from a leaseholder ). If this does not achieve the objective, the pressure is escalated by filing a claim in court - with, generally, no intention of seeing it through - as the aim is to bully and coerce leaseholders into paying the sum demanded. It works as more leaseholders 'cave in' (e.g. Mr Silverstone's 23 May 2003 application). The remaining, more 'stubborn' leaseholders are faced with a succession of hearings (granted with much haste by the courts). Of course, more hearings = more costs = more pressure to cave in and 'strike a deal'. The 'oddball' like me who is not represented and refuses to strike a deal causes a problem. So, more of the 'artillery' is brought out 'to snare the prey': a salvo of threatening, malicious letters brandishing the favourite weapon, the threat of ' costs ' is fired in parallel with the court hearings (e.g. Mr Silverstone's letters of 25 June 2003 , 24 July 2003 and 7 August 2003 ). The prospects take an unexpected turn for the better when, as in my case, the 'oddball' decides to appoint a solicitor - being forced to do this as a result of being treated as a non-entity by the court (WLCC # 11) = a double act!. As the threatening letters and the hearings (e.g. 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 ) have not so far yielded the desired effect, the push into making a deal is immediately set in motion - as can be seen in the following. At the time of appointing Piper Smith Basham, in my 21 August 2003 letter I reiterated what I had written to West London County Court on 9 August 2003 : I was not prepared to strike a deal. Barely a week after the 26 August 2003 hearing, Ms McLean wrote in her 4 September 2003 letter:
I replied on 9 September 2003 "I maintain what I said: the situation is the result of Steel Services/Mr Ladsky and MRJ's doing - not mine (nor indeed that of the other residents).my position has remained unchanged: 'No' as this does not achieve my objectives " If the leaseholder does not yield to the admonition of 'making a commercial decision' "Com'on, look at what you have spent so far. It's nearly as much as they are asking you to pay. Best you settle Dear, make a commercial decision. Pay the landlord. Accept the 'offer'" , the leaseholder is blamed for being 'unreasonable' and, by implication, for being the cause of the mounting costs. Examples (in addition to Ms McLean's comment above): Mr Gallagher (point 5, 11 October 2004 ) "...the costs of the county court proceedings were likely to be out of all proportion with the sum in issue." And, under point 4(8),
(My reply to this (point 60, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Ladsky et al. i.e. Steel Services should have thought of 'the costs' before they attempted to defraud me of £10,000 (US$17,600) . I note with interest Mr Gallagher turning the table on me and his tendency to side with Steel Services, MRJ, CKFT and Piper Smith & Basham" ) From liaising with Piper Smith Basham, CKFT and its client realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement (in spite of not getting any help from my 'advisers') and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered the 21 October 2003 'offer'.
The other key benefit is that there is no need to criticise the 'dear' landlord and his aides. (E.g. Mr Gallagher , point 58, 9 June 2004 "The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works. there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered " .
Instead, phone calls are exchanged with the other side and a few letters written to justify the several thousand pound fees. (Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that the evidence contained under the three firms supports my claim of the 'key benefits') It is likely that a very high proportion of these 'scams' (swindles) is resolved by striking a deal in one form or another. I view the Business model used by rogue landlords and their aides as relying heavily on the fact that, for the majority of people, their home is the sum total of their financial wealth.
More often than not, the 'next time' will be the next unsuspecting leaseholder who purchased the lease on the flat as the previous owner paid the unwarranted demand for the sake of escaping with great haste. ('Handing on the baton' as some leaseholders told me I should be doing. Then, I guess that to quash potential feelings of self-loathing, you then take the 'I made the commercial decision pill' so freely handed out by legal 'advisers' to make you feel better). And the cycle repeats itself, every time yielding very considerable financial gains for all concerned - at the expense of the leaseholder. However, the impact of the recession is forcing leaseholders to 'come out', as they find it increasingly more difficult to "hand on the baton" e.g. The Observer article of 5 April 2009 "Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof" (NB: It can be said that there is a big industry 'feeding' on leaseholders, as it is not unusual for the cost of fighting off this type of swindle to be in excess of £40,000 (US$70,000) and can be nearer £100,000 (US$180,000), and sometimes even more. (So far, it has cost me in excess of £75,000 (US$133,000) of my life savings ). In other words, there is vested interest among many in keeping the archaic, feudal leasehold system going - and to 'not upset' the likes of my 'landlord') I was not prepared to 'shut up' and pay monies I did not owe.• I wanted to enforce the terms of my lease, as well as exert my statutory rights. • I wanted to comply with the instructions that had been given to me by a tribunal to NOT PAY (pg 5). • I wanted legal advisers to provide me with what I believed I had paid for: proper, unbiased, informed professional legal advice i.e. advice driven by the concept of 'fairness and justice'. • And I wanted to abide by my moral principles, my integrity: I wanted to pay my just and fair share of the costs for the major works. So, the machinery was cranked up to full gear: I would be made to strike a deal and I, the 'nobody' of limited financial means with no influential connections, would be made to pay for 'daring' to challenge the system / business model by refusing to be 'snared by the hunters'. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that it is fair comment for me to say this. (Subsequent note in 2008 - My above assessment proved to be correct: in relation to the second fraudulent claim filed against me by 'Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp. / Steel Services / Sloan Development' aka Andrew Ladsky et. al., on 27 February 2007, also in WLCC, the fact that I represented myself throughout the process, precluded the possibility of arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal advisers (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; points # 4.12 and # 4.13 above ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.12.1 ; Stan Gallagher # 15) - and the ploys and 'games' failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 11) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me. Outcome: after a 16-month battle with Portner and WLCC "ALL of the claim" against me was discontinued - as can be seen in the 6 June 2008 Notice of discontinuance (My Diary - 3 June 2008 ; 7 June 2008 ; 14 August 2008 and 26 August 2008 ; Portner and Jaskel # 29 ) This clearly proves that, in both instances, the claim was used as a TOOL FOR FRAUD - confirming my assessment of the tactic following the first fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002. 'Unfortunately', the majority of my fellow leaseholders 'caved in' in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim - as evidenced by the fact that 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ended-up paying the FULL amount of the service charge, and a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 6.6 , CKFT # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). (NB: Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the scam (e.g. My Dairy 15 May 2008 ; home introduction) I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately'). The worst part of it is that this kind of conduct is widely endorsed: My Diary 6 May 2008 - resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal' instead of the victim - while the criminals are treated as the victims (e.g. RICS # 12 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 , # 3 ; introduction) - and laughing their head off) (outcome of my complaints). Of course, I forgot, silly me: Portner and Jaskel, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton evidently, have the blessings of the Law Society. Well, unlike the Law Society, I view ALL as having VERY SERIOUSLY FAILED to discharge their professional duties (Portner and Jaskel # 4 and # 5 ; outcome of my complaints). (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18) In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience, I fully endorse Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)
The site Solicitors From Hell (http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk) paints a bleak picture. Judging from the website Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers (SACL) (http://www.sacl.info) (My Diary 5 October 2006) the situation looks as bad there. In My Diary 3 March 2007, I refer to the case of a Scottish lawyer who ended-up being ostracised by the Scottish Law Society, apparently, for taking on cases of injustice. The SACL site also provides links to other sites e.g. Dunblane Unburied (http://www.dunblaneunburied.tk) - referred to in My Diary 3 March 2007 Other examples: • Legal Bullies - http://www.legalbullies.co.uk • Unjustis - http://www.unjustis.co.uk (closed down) • Crooked Lawyers - http://www.crookedlawyers.com (Ireland) I also draw your attention to the following, in the Law Gazette of 1 April 2005:
Another firm of solicitors I can add to the list is PORTNER AND JASKEL. In light of the evidence - summarised in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) letter - I believe it is fair comment for me to say that this firm has - with malicious intent - provided me with false and misleading information in relation to its 10 February 2006 "notice of disposal by landlord" - an important legal document. (For a summary, see My Diary 24 February 2007. For detail see Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006; My Diary 18 February 2006 and 29 April 2006). Mr Ladsky has also used Portner and Jaskel to put pressure on my first ISP to close down my website (see My Diary 3 October 2006 ), and on my second, and current ISP, to do the same thing (see My Diary 5 February 2007 ; 11 February 2007 ). My ISP not caving in led this 'mob of hyenas' to take revenge by (so far!): (1) threatening me with bankruptcy in the name of a company I have never heard of if I did not pay the sum of £8,937.28 (US$15,800) (see Portner and Jaskel , My Diary "The 16 February 2007 letter"; 3 March 2007) (2) filing 'another' fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court (see also Portner and Jaskel ) Subsequent note: I was yet again vindicated as, after a 16-month battle, on 6 June 2008, Mr Andrew Ladsky dropped "ALL" the claim against me (My Diary 7 June 2008 ; Portner # 31 ) - and the evidence that it was a fraudulent claim: Portner # 29 , # 30 and # 33 When I launched the website, I wrote: Considering my very extensive first-hand experience with the Law Society, there is no point filing a complaint against Portner and Jaskel. The Law Society would ignore the evidence and conclude that there is no malpractice. For the same reason: no point contemplating the possibility of then escalating to the Legal Services Ombudsman. At 27 February 2007 I wrote: I have changed my mind. See Portner and Jaskel / My Diary 24 February 2007, including 'The 16 February 2007 letter' ; 27 February 2007 and 3 March 2007. Well, behind the cosmetic name changes, the 'fertiliser of malpractice', the Law Society, continues protecting its members at the expense of the public - see Portner and Jaskel # 4 and # 5 Looking to the future, comments by the head of the Law Society reported in The Times article of 25 July 2006 in relation to the setting up of a Legal Services Board with, it 'seems', some 'teeth', lead me to fear that we are going to end-up with a re-sprayed version of the existing system. 4.20 - West London County Court continued to cause me terrible anguish, torment and distress - thereby making me go through 20 months of absolute sheer, utter hell - and continues to do so
• When I visited West London County Court on 31 March 2004 to determine what movement had taken place on my file, it wrongly informed me that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March 2004 (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2 ). • Because it did not follow instructions , West London County Court made me miss the 28 May 2004 hearing. (See Lord Falconer # 3 ) • West London County Court captured in the 28 May 2004 order that the action against me be stayed (i.e. open to further proceedings) when, in fact, the court had the evidence (as confirmed by the Court Service ) that agreement had been reached - and it endorsed the Consent Order . As can be seen from the transcript , the judge admitted he had not read the document for the hearing. He consequently took directions from Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , as to what he should be doing. (See Lord Falconer # 3 and # 4 ) • In a notice dated 9 June 2004, West London County Court wrongly informed me that I was the defendant in a trial, scheduled for 17 August 2004 in Wandsworth County Court. Among others, this led me to write the 22 July 2004 letter (which summarises events). (See Lord Falconer # 5.1 ) Given the continuation of my nightmare with the courts (in addition to everything else!), by the end of June 2004 I was feeling so distraught by events, and yet again at my wits end, that, on 29 June 2004, I wrote a letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, primarily asking for his help. (I also copied Christopher Leslie MP (responsibility for the courts) and David Lammy, MP (Human Rights)). I took the opportunity to relate previous events with West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court and concluded my letter by asking whether what I had been made to endure was a reflection of the British justice system. The reply I received two months later (dated 23 August 2004 ) from the Court Service is defiant, arrogant, challenging, patronizing and dismissive . In other words, the type of letter I have now become so accustomed to receiving whenever I have turned to a government body for help. True, there are several apologies in this letter, but the majority are counter-balanced by excuses or patronising / challenging statements, as well as what I would describe as euphemisms for 'get lost'. And of course, no mention of compensation for the unbelievable torment, distress and anguish that West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court made me endure . (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for detail) The courts have cost me over 200 hours of my life...and many other costs. I hold the view that the courts have, among others, committed the following breaches of my Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 6 - "Right to fair hearing"; Article 13 - "Right to effective remedy" - NOT comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 - and concurrent breach of mandate and breach of trust And, in 2007-2008, West London County Court IS ATTEMPTING TO REPEAT THIS in relation to the other fraudulent claim filed against me by Portner and Jaskel (Snapshot in My Diary 11 November 2008). (After a 16-month battle with Portner and WLCC, "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 was dropped on 6 June 2008 (My Diary 7 June 2008 ; 3 June 2008) giving a preposterous reason (My Diary 14 August 2008 , 26 August 2008)
I also draw your attention to the 21 June 2006 speech by the Governor of the Bank of England in relation to the BCCI court case (pages 6 & 7) (NB: The highlights are all mine)
Talking to numerous leaseholders 'battling it out' in court with their landlord leads me to the conclusion that, as in my case, many of these cases should not even be entertained by the courts. Furthermore, I believe it is fair comment for me to say that my first-hand experience has led me to conclude that the courts provide at least the cue, and I would venture, endorsement of malpractice by legal advisers. Considering that, I, alone, sent seven letters informing the courts of the LVT action / outcome of its determination... ...can events with West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court in 2002-2004 be attributed solely to gross incompetence and gross mismanagement?Looking at what happened then, and in 2007-2008, (snapshot - My Diary 11 November 2008) I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would reply: Nop! there is more to it than that - a view shared by some visitors to my site e.g. # 164.21 - And a 'get lost' as well from the Land Registry - another department also headed by Lord Falconer of ThorotonAnother example for consideration relates to events with the Land Registry - which, like the courts and the Legal Services Ombudsman, comes under the Department for Constitutional Affairs i.e. Lord Falconer of Thoroton. As I detailed in my 28 March 2006 letter to the Land Registry, its granting of a title to Lavagna Enterprises on 15 December 2006 has led to highly material breaches of covenants in my lease. Its 4 April 2006 reply amounts to a ' get lost' , including the usual "get legal advice". I replied on 18 April 2006 that it was up the Land Registry to sort out the mess it had caused - not up to me. It led to the second 'get lost' . (See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 for detail). By then, the Land Registry had cost me c. 30 hours of my life . I saw no point adding to the waste of my time by replying, preferring to spend it on developing the site. 4.22 - My complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against Martin Russell Jones was also rejectedMy experience, in particular with the main contact at Martin Russell Jones, Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS but also with Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS since they took over the 'management' of Jefferson House in 1989 defies the imagination. In spite of this, I had not previously filed a complaint with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) , its professional body - best described as its 'trade association' - as many people had told me that (as with other professions' so-called 'self-regulatory bodies' in England ) it would be a complete waste of time. What changed my mind were the unjustified invoices for £14,500 (US$25,600) and £15,500 (US$27,300) combined with the fact that Martin Russell Jones actively supports its client in its tactic of "turning intimidatory litigation into an industry" . (See MRJ # 21 to # 26 ) My 2 February 2005 (1MB) complaint turned out to be the longest of all my complaints. It is comprised of a 19 page summary (1MB) supported by a 99 page document (with which I included a detailed contents page ), as well as 220 supporting documents . It is a long summary as I reproduced the sections, as appropriate, from the Service Charge Residential Management Code, detailing a summary of my complaint under each. I took the same approach with the RICS code of conduct. I did this to avoid any potential confusion as to what I was referring to... as it turned out: IN VAIN! The initial reply stated, "we are able to investigate allegations of professional misconduct to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" . It also stated that the "appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint is "through civil or criminal proceedings" . In addition, that the RICS has no "power to award any compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid" . In my 5 March 2005 reply, I challenged the RICS response to parts of my complaint, every time highlighting the Core Values and Principles comprised in the RICS code of conduct I considered to have been breached by Martin Russell Jones. Hence, to quote the RICS , ". breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" With my 21 March 2005 letter, I supplied a copy of Ms Hathaway's 28 February 2005 letter as further evidence in support of a point in my complaint that, "MRJ has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does not respect residents' statutory and common law rights." My first two chasers for a reply were on 18 April 2005 and 5 May 2005 . As more than three months had gone by since I filed my complaint, I followed this by a letter in which I listed what I perceived as 'obvious' conclusions from the lack of action by the RICS. Namely, that, as the RICS evidently approved of Ms Hathaway and Mr Martin's conduct, it followed that all the other RICS members who had been involved in my case were all in the wrong. In its 13 May 2005 correspondence, the RICS asked me to supply a summary, to which I replied that I had already done this. The 10 June 2005 reply throws back at me various parts of my complaint and, among others, states: "the ' Service Charge Residential Management Code' is not mandatory ...is classified as a Guidance Note.an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations" "The Management Code was approved by the Secretaries of State. . I believe this could be an explanation as to why the Code does not have the status of being a practice statement as the Secretaries approved it. It is therefore outside the control of the RICS" Hence, it is called a 'code' but it is not a code. For what purpose has it been "approved by the Secretaries of State" ? Decoration of the mantle piece? Please, consider this reply as well in the context of what the caseworker had written in his 1 March 2005 letter: "Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so" Continuing on its nonsensical journey, the RICS states that the " LVT can take the code into consideration when considering allegations that a member has not followed the recommendations of the code" , and that "the RICS will consider whether such criticism constitutes a breach of RICS regulations" . Hence, while the code is 'apparently' not mandatory, (1) the LVT can base its determination on it and (2) the RICS will then "consider whether there is a breach ". If the code is not mandatory, how can there be a breach? While this reply is a farce, more was yet to come. Indeed, in its 3 August 2005 letter, the RICS asked me to comment on a reply, (dated 27 July 2005; attached to the 3 August 2005 letter), it had received from Martin Russell Jones to a letter it had sent the firm - of which it did not provide me with a copy. For a while, I debated whether I should waste yet more of my time replying to his letter. Eventually, I opted to do this on 14 October 2005 . The RICS' 4 November 2005 reply was: To the comment in my 14 October letter, "You do not enclose a copy of your letter to MRJ. Yet, you expect me to "review the reply.and give [you] [my] comments.In your 1 March 2005 reply you wrote that you "will be approaching the members named for their comments on three specific matters and one general one". What points did you raise that led to the 25 July 2005 reply from MRJ?" Reply from the RICS: "I am dismayed to learn that it took you ten weeks to inform me that I had not included a copy of the MRJ's reply." (Unbelievable how the caseworker blatantly ignores the content of my letter) In relation to my re-emphasising some of the key points in my complaint (after which I had stated the documentary evidence I had already supplied to the RICS / the reference number in my complaint under which I had provided detail), the reply from the RICS was:
I concluded that this letter did not warrant a reply. (See Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for detail) This battle added another lot of 200+ hours of my life 'down the drain' Hooray for 'self-regulation'!! Contrast the RICS' reply with a disciplinary case, as well as another one featured on the RICS website in 2005, for which, for example, non-provision of an insurance certificate within six months of being requested was, 'apparently', on its own, ground for expulsion from the RICS membership. Of course, as Martin Russell Jones evidently has the full blessings of its trade association, the RICS, to behave as it does, it is no surprise to discover that it is repeating its 'formula' in other blocks - as evidenced by e.g. the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal case, LON/00AQ/LSC/2005/0258, 12 August 2006 (printscreen of website) which highlights: (1) claiming large amounts of expenditure unsupported by invoices, as well as overcharging for services; (2) failing to produce year-end accounts; (3) failing to issue a section 20 notice; (4) the use of solicitors to enforce payment of service charges (point 12) Why should Martin Russell Jones stop behaving as it does? It gets endorsement / support from all quarters - see Financial Services Authority ; Pridie Brewster and the ICAEW ; the courts (.e.g. # 1 , # 2 , # 3 ) the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and Kensington & Chelsea Council, and their then 'head office', the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (e.g. # 1.2 , # 1.4 , # 1.5 , # 1.6 , # 2 , # 2.3 ) The failures of the RICS self-regulatory processes were exposed in a recent report by Professor Sir Bryan Carsberg who found - to his "surprise" that
I hold the view that the RICS' reply to my complaint against Martin Russell Jones provides overwhelming evidence of this. As to perceptions from within the sector, the MD of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 June 2006 issue of the Estates Gazette (a major publication) as saying
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that I have a valid complaint against Martin Russell Jones. If you still have doubts, please see the section on Martin Russell Jones, which provides very comprehensive detail of events, supported by extensive quotes from numerous source documents to which links are provided. I will add that, like the lawyers, Martin Russell Jones has not come back to me following my complaint, and that since the autumn of 2004 I have ignored all of its correspondence. This includes the four invoices (first , second , third , fourth). I have ignored them because they are fraudulent. Considering its propensity to threaten leaseholders with prosecution (e.g. 20 September 2002 ; 24 September 2002), as well as that of its client and its other puppet, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , it is abundantly clear from their lack of action (in spite of the landlord-friendly courts and tribunals) that they know they do not have 'a leg to stand on'. Also, that I now have a massive amount of evidence against this firm and related parties. As Martin Russell Jones is also an estate agent (its website (in 2004) stated " Members of. the NAEA (National Association of Estate Agents)" , I also approached the Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents by copying it on the complaint I had sent to the RICS. In its 19 May 2005 reply it rejected my complaint because "...according to our records, Martin Russell Jones is not a member and your complaint is, therefore, outside the Ombudsman's terms of reference" = another pointless scheme as those likely to be found at fault are obviously not going to join. As with everything else, you discover it the minute you start 'scratching the surface'. 4.23 - My complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) against Pridie Brewster was, likewise, rejectedI have also had a drawn-out battle with the ICAEW in relation to the year-end accounts produced by Pridie Brewster for Jefferson House. Pridie Brewster has signed-off accounts for Jefferson House, stating "...the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents". This is incorrect given the 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) , and the lease. I copied Pridie Brewster on my 30 March 2005 letter to Ms Hathaway in which I raised the issue. It led Pridie Brewster to reply on 15 April 2005 : "...we were not made aware of the LVT determination of 17 June 2003 at the time that we were preparing our certificate... I will be unable to consider all the matters raised by you in relation to the determination and to the provisions of your Lease in time to provide a full reply before the deadline..." Aiming to help as best as I could, on 17 April 2005 , I replied to Pridie Brewster , supplying copy of 48 documents ( # 3 ) . The lack of response led me, after three months, to contact the ICAEW on 19 July 2005 , requesting its assistance. This was the start of - yet again - another battle with an English so-called 'self-regulatory' body - and a carbon copy repeat of my experience with all the others : 'fortress ICAEW' immediately embarked on an adversarial tone , ignoring all the evidence I supplied, and threw everything back at me (# 4 , # 5 ). Having wasted my time ( # 6 , # 7 , # 8 , # 9 ) , a letter from the ICAEW in 1999, to Mr Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L. , led me to 'have another go ' on 7 March 2006 ( # 10 ) , as the letter states :
Outcome: totally ignored by the ICAEW (# 11, # 20 ) As can be seen from the evidence contained in this pack (1.1MB) the majority of leaseholders at Jefferson House have ended-up paying an amount that is NOT due and payable. It led me to write what was, by then, my fifth letter to the ICAEW - intending it to be the last one. After repeating what I had said several times previously, I also highlighted that, given the covenants in the lease, Pridie Brewster has 'evidently' issued "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " - which is fraudulent, as Steel Services no longer has control (1.1MB) of the last floor of Jefferson House. Of course, the outcome is that invoices based on this are fraudulent ( # 11 , # 12 ) On the face of it the reply of 24 May 2006 looked 'promising' (# 13 ). However, the previous responses, combined with my now very comprehensive experience with the 'self-regulatory' bodies led me to the conclusion that I certainly should not 'hold my breath' ( # 15 ). And I was right! I view the concocted reply I received more than three months later, dated 29 August 2006 , as absolutely appalling - as well as insulting to me (and the other leaseholders) (see # 18 ) as it states: "the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs" If the leaseholders were so "willing", how come they ended-up having a claim filed against them? How do you answer that one ICAEW and Pridie Brewster?On the upside: thank you ICAEW for confirming that the leaseholders were made to pay "extra costs" i.e. monies that were not due and payable Among the several other points of note: the ICAEW expects me to perform the role of Pridie Brewster ( # 19 ) In other words : a reply in the 'same vein' as the Law Society and the Court Service which, evidently, expect me to police the conduct of solicitors and, it seems, run the courts (see WLCC (D) How the 'clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post' ; (E) Conclusions ) (On the upside: evidently, they all perceive me as being very talented! :-) I am open to offers) In my 17 May 2006 letter to the ICAEW, I asked:
Very clearly, in light of the replies, the answer to each of the above is : Yes, Yes and Yes No wonder leaseholders are getting ripped-off by crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides on a massive scale.
This battle has cost me in excess of 70 hours of my life (= two weeks full-time). Hence, another 70+ hours of my life 'down the drain' I had the same experience with the Local Government Ombudsman following my complaint against Kensington & Chelsea housing department. (Both comprised under the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, headed by Mr John Prescott ) This battle cost me another 250 hours of my life (= seven weeks, at 35 hours per week) . However, I did achieve a result. Rightly or wrongly, I believe because of intervention 'behind the scene' by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to whom I had sent a letter, dated 22 November 2004 . (This too, cost me a significant number of hours to write). (See Document library for detail of the correspondence I had to engage in with the above mentioned)
5. Summary evidence in support of the last part of my claim: 'no protection'My claim of having 'no protection' relates to events with the police. (NOTE: See My Diary 20 March 2007 for confirmation of this) In February 2002, I reported to Kensington & Chelsea police that I was receiving anonymous phone calls, as well as suffering harassment and intimidation from Mr Ladsky. (As the first form I completed at the station had apparently been lost, I had to complete a second one ). British Telecom (telephone service provider) confirmed that numerous calls had been made to my phone over a period of several days and supplied the police with the telephone numbers from which the calls were made. From there started a battle with Kensington & Chelsea police to get it to investigate the originator of the calls which, among others, led to explanations I view as simply ' not stacking-up ' (see Police for detail). In the context of reporting that I was suffering harassment and intimidation from Mr Ladsky, I had stated that other residents had also suffered the same treatment - which they had reported to Kensington & Chelsea police. On one occasion , a detective told me "nobody has ever complained against Mr Ladsky" . During the course of another conversation with the same detective, he stated / by implication admitted that two residents had complained of the same thing. In fact, two other residents, Resident A and Resident B had given me a copy of an identical letter they had received from Ms Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, in 2001, stating, "We are solicitors instructed by Mr Andrew Ladsky.Our client was visited by Md D Malam from the Chelsea police station." (As can be seen from the evidence contained under the Police section at least five residents, including myself have complained to the police against Mr Ladsky. They include the ex. Head of the Residents Association to whom, according to a leaseholder, Kensington & Chelsea police suggested that she " folds her tent and go " ). My challenging the police resulted in a 23 April 2002 letter from the local head stating,
When I escalated my complaint to Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, on 5 May 2002, the 11 July 2002 reply included, among others, that the police can act "only on the basis of established facts" And, and that I must "...appreciate that officers have to act with consideration for resource and time expenditure when investigating a case such as this" I concluded my 4 August 2002 reply by stating, "...my dealings with the police in recent months, have led me to totally - and for ever - lose my confidence in the British police" . (This was the reply ). What happened a year later only served to reinforce my feelings.
I laughed when I read the letter as I visualised the scene: a man, standing in a police station, saying, "Mr Policeman, a woman swore at me" . (Or was it just a phone call to Kensington & Chelsea police?) No way was I going to have communication with the police, other than in writing. I did not do anything, waiting to see what the next 'installment' would bring. A week later, I received another letter reiterating the request for me to call. I did not. Instead, I sent a recorded delivery letter asking for precise detail of the accusation - in writing. This was in February 2003. There has never been any 'official' follow-up since. Not surprisingly, the outcome of this experience has led me to conclude that there is no point my contacting the police for assistance. In my current situation, it is a major concern to realise that I have no protection - and is leading me to live under 'war time like' conditions: see e.g. My Diary 16 May 06, 1 Aug 06 , 2 Aug 06, 23 Aug 06 ), as well as (when I was working) occasionally staying in a hotel in order to be able to have a good night sleep, in a safe and secure environment (24 Mar 05 ; 28 Aug 05, 28 Apr 06, 8 Aug 06, 24 Aug 06). Among others, I 'escape' the 'watering of plants', more specifically, the hosing of my windows, in the early hours of the morning (6 Sep 05 at 04:55 a.m.; 4 Oct 05 at 05:30 a.m.; 7 Apr 06 at 01:00 a.m.; 4 Sep 06 at 02:45 a.m.; 9 Jan 09 at 03:45 a.m.), as well as men urinating in the area in front of my windows (13 Mar 09 at 00:25 a.m.) Furthermore, what is Kensington & Chelsea police going to accept from Mr Ladsky next time? Could I potentially find myself in prison because of a false accusation? While I will admit the probability of this happening as being small, it is nonetheless a probability. How far will the police go? (NOTE see My Diary at 20 March 2007 for the answer which - so far - includes branding me as "a Nazi" - as well as accusing me of having "committed a crime" ) In the meantime, I assume that the 2003 complaint filled against me by Mr Ladsky , which Kensington and Chelsea police said to have "fully recorded" , means that I now have a police record (??) Actually, given that, following his second complaint against me in March 2007, Kensington and Chelsea police has accused me of "committing a crime" - I most likely have at least one police record. At the date of the update of this page, I am still waiting for follow-up action. Perhaps the police will turn-up one day at 06h30 a.m. to smash down my door, drag me away, handcuffed, and lock me up in a cell - as it did with the Canadian Lady who had the unbelievable courage to speak-up in relation to the shooting of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes (see the outcome). After all, I share three of the key characteristics: a woman; of foreign origin - with the courage to be a whistle-blower. In light of my first-hand experience with the police, when, in reply to my complaint against CKFT, the Law Society stated that my "alleged criminal offences should be reported to the police", and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors took a similar line in reply to my complaint against Martin Russell Jones - I saw no point doing this. I captured this in my letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman. As a last point on this section, I draw your attention to the following. In August 2003, I sent an identical letter to a dozen various media (e.g. The Guardian ) in which I referred to my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police. In each instance, I copied various ministries, including the Home Office as it has responsibility for the police. Its 27 August 2003 reply stated that it had forwarded my letter to Mr Prescott's Office (i.e. housing) "for a suitable reply" (My questions: police; Home Office) (NB: In the same letter, I also referred to my experience with the courts. In its 1 September 2003 reply, Lord Falconer' s department, the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, stated that it had forwarded my letter to the ODPM (then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) because it considered "The issue raised is outside the remit of this department" (My hand-written comment on the reply reads: "In addition to the LVT, plus the police (Home Office letter of 27 August 2003), Mr Prescott also deals with the judiciary?" ) In April 2006, the Home Office started to come under fire from several quarters leading to the head being replaced. The new head was reported as saying that he viewed the Home Office as "not fit for purpose'' It led a journalist at the Daily Express to write (16 June 2006)
In light of my very traumatic, horrendous experience with West London County Court in 2002-2004 and post 2004, the Legal Services Ombudsman, and the Court Service ; the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, its Head , Kensington & Chelsea Housing, the Local Government Ombudsman and their 'head office' the ODPM, then headed by Mr John Prescott - as well as with the police : I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE with this journalist. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: can you see why I claim I have 'no protection' on this island? 6. The root cause of everything captured on this siteAt the end of the day, what is the root cause of everything captured on this site? 'Steel Services' and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this: the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE. (This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc.) (Subsequent note: in October 2007, the selling price for the penthouse flat was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)
As you read through, bear in mind that EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID, DONE AND WRITTEN BY THE VARIOUS PARTIES COVERED ON THIS WEBSITE STEMS FROM THIS. To be more precise: see this document . UNBELIEVABLE, isn't it? As I wrote to the then Leader of the Conservative Party, on 6 April 2005 ,
7. Making the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing that I had rights I had the right to demand - and that there was a system in place to help me in time of needTo this must be added the fact that I made the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing what we are all led to believe: that I had rights I had the right to demand and there was a system in place that would protect and help me in time of need. In relation to government departments, I believed this is what I was paying taxes for. Initially, it appears to be the case. You are told about this option and that option and great emphasis is placed on your statutory rights. You believe it. Of course you have rights. Why should you doubt it? In addition, you have your lease, a 'binding' contract 'agreed' - in law - between you and the landlord. So, you start going down the avenue in your quest for justice and fair treatment. What I found out initially reinforced my perception that indeed help was at hand. The "no, but, you need to do 'x' and 'y'" I heard along the way, disheartened me but also induced me to go down further and further in search of justice and protection of my 'so-called' rights. The information I obtained from government departments encouraged me to progress along the route.
(NB: What the LVT literature also fails to state is that LVTs have no jurisdiction to get a landlord to implement their determination. Hence, if, as in my case, the landlord and his aides decide to not implement the determination, the action must be pursued in court - which, of course, means considerably more costs. Not surprisingly, this additional hurdle acts as a strong deterrent to many leaseholders from pursuing their case. Outcome: victory for the landlord and his aides!) (Subsequent note - see My Diary 22 November 2008 for other leaseholders realising that they too were 'tricked')
• MPs - Others I wrote to numerous ministers, including the Office of the Prime Minister, by copying my August 2003 letter to the media. The reply was "The contents of your letter have been carefully noted" . I now view this as a euphemism for ' your letter has been binned '. I prepared a pack I sent ahead of my 28 May 2002 meeting with my then Member of Parliament, Mr Michael Portillo . With the benefit of hindsight and considerably more knowledge since, I recognise that: (1) the title can seem exaggerated to somebody not familiar with my case (but I stand by it); (2) my 'wish list' of actions I expected of Mr Portillo includes some that are unrealistic. Nonetheless, I consider that he could, at the very least, have made suggestions. Instead, what I received were three "get legal advice" (second 29 July 2002 and third 6 August 2002 ) - in other words: 'get lost '. Another example is the 1 July 2002 pack I sent to Mr John Prescott (in which I state that I have sent the same pack to the Ministers, Nick Raynsford and Sally Keeble). It led to the reply "get legal advice" i.e. ' get lost ' (I replied on 29 July 2002 ). I also sent the same pack to several other ministers and Members of Parliament, as well as a pack dated 1 July 2002 to Mr Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London. The 6 August 2002 reply was " can't help you" '. On 14 December 2004 , I wrote to Mr Charles Kennedy , the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, copying him on my 22 November 2004 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman as a means of explaining my case, as well as highlight the terrible suffering endured by leaseholders. Prior to this, I had copied him on my letter to various media, leading to the 22 August 2003 reply that he could not help me because I was "not one of his constituents". • Kensington & Chelsea Council, after a three-month battle with the tenancy relations officer, I turned to my Ward Councillor , asking for assistance. Her reply was a continuation of the pushback and included misinformation, which I pointed out . Lack of action led me to escalate my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman in September 2004 . Indications are that the caseworker did not like my pointing out that the same minister (under Mr John Prescott) was responsible for both, Local Government and the Local Government Ombudsman (my 27 February 2005 letter includes a summary of events with Kensington & Chelsea housing and the Local Government Ombudsman). (Subsequent note in September 2008: I am not alone in my dissatisfaction with the LGO - see 'Campaign against bias and maladministration in the Local Government Ombudsman Service' http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org EVERY TIME when I first approached a government department (tribunal, court, local council, police, Financial Services Authority, my MP, Ombudsmen), as well as organisations (namely Law Society, Bar Council, Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Institute of Chartered Accountants), I believed it would provide me with the help it claims to be there for i.e. that it would perform as per its remit.
(*) See Kensington & Chelsea Council While I am not a lawyer (but, with a victory to my credit :-) My Diary 7 June 2008), I have the mental ability to determine that, among others, I have been the victim of offences (often qualified as "criminal") under numerous U.K. Acts. These include: Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Human Rights Act 1998 : Article 6 - "Right to a fair hearing" ; Article 3 - "Prohibition of torture" ; Article 5 - "Right to security of person" ; Article 8 - "Right to respect for private life" ; Article 1 of the First Protocol - "Protection of property" ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 ; Defamation Act 1996 ; Fraud Act 2006 ; Theft Act ; Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 ; Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 ; Court and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 . All the authorities and institutions I have come in contact with have opted to put the blinkers on. No matter how hard I look: I can't find a note anywhere on any of these Acts stating that they exclude 'people like me'. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that none of the parties covered on this website can plead ignorance of the relevant facts, issues and evidence. (For example, see the end of the section on West London County Court which lists all the parties informed of events with the courts - BEFORE I launched my website). Throughout, I have been totally open and honest in communicating my views, especially when the pushback, misinformation, denials, dismissal, etc. started to kick-in, as I believe in complete transparency and honesty as being the only basis on which to address/remedy a situation. As can be seen, among others, in the sequence of an unbelievable amount of letter writing I had to engage in - in the process, going through more than 40 'BATTLES', I 'obediently' followed all the formal procedures and processes, and went through all the 'loops' I was asked to go through. WHY?
|
