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 |
Double-crossing - with the seal of approval of the Bar Council and Legal Services Ombudsman - who, in turn, has the seal of approval of the Lord Chancellor
|
Mr Stan Gallagher & Bar CouncilAn overview of this section has been placed under the Abbreviations/Definitions section 'Bar Council Code of Conduct - 303 (a) See my comments to Gallagher's "draft consent order and notice" (NB: Mr Gallagher is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) See also My Diary 22 November 2008: threat of forfeiture, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS As in her 3 October 2003 letter, Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, had suggested that counsel advice would be required in relation to the court action and I did not want the barrister (who had been selected by Piper Smith Basham to 'act for me' at the 26 August 2003 hearing) (West London County Court # 11 , My Diary 26 August 2003 ), I undertook research that led me to identify Mr Stan Gallagher. I made this choice as I had heard that Mr Gallagher tended to act for lessees (information that proved to be incorrect). I communicated my choice to Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, on 19 October 2003 . Two days later, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) sent the 21 October 2003 'offer'. From liaising with Piper Smith Basham, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and its client realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered the 21 October 2003 'offer'. It should be noted that the expectation that I would 'strike a deal' with 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. had evidently been the game plan all along, as evidenced by Ms McLean's letter of 4 September 2003 (i.e. from the very beginning of my relationship with Piper Smith Basham),
This is further evidenced by events with Ms McLean in relation to my Witness Statement (Piper Smith Basham # 7 , # 7.17 ). To which must be added, among others, the false claim that I had given my consent to the reply sent by Mr Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (as detailed in the section on Piper Smith Basham # 4, # 7.13 , as well as in My Diary : 14 November 2003 ). I opted to have Mr Gallagher advise me in relation to the 'offer'. Ms McLean, my surveyor, Mr Brock and I met with Mr Gallagher on 28 October 2003 to discuss the reply to the 'offer'. Ahead of this meeting, Ms McLean sent a brief to Mr Gallagher, dated 27 October 2003 . In this brief, she refers to the 22 August 2003 brief she sent to the barrister in relation to the 26 August 2003 hearing. Other documents referred to in the briefs include, among others, my 17 December 2002 defence to the WL 203537 claim - and Particulars of claim (1.1MB), my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement, the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database) , my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the LVT determination. The subsequent communication I saw from Mr Gallagher was an email he sent to Mr Twyman at 17h09 on 12 November 2003 and two emails on 13 November 2003: one at 10h12 and the other sent at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft reply and draft consent order . If you have read the section on Piper Smith Basham (and/or My Diary for year 2003), you already know the events in relation to the reply to the 'offer' and that I was extremely dissatisfied with the approach taken and outcome. It led me to take back control of my case in December 2003 in order to send my own reply to the 'offer', dated 19 December 2003 - an action which, very clearly, 'the troops' had not expected me to take (My Diary December 2003 , Piper Smith & Basham # 7.17 and sub-points , CKFT # 6.8 ) Unavoidably, this section on Mr Gallagher duplicates parts of the Piper Smith Basham section. Main sections
My complaint against Mr Gallagher is that the reply he wrote to the 'offer', consisting of a notice of acceptance and a consent order did not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting. Also, that he provided unbalanced, biased advice and misrepresented events in order to endorse his actions. As in the case of Piper Smith Basham, my complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher was motivated by the need to have a defence if Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor issued proceedings against me for alleged breach of contract. Initially, I wrote a complaint to Mr Gallagher on 20 January 2004 . In his email of 23 January 2004 , Mr Gallagher replied:
In light of this, I sent to Mr Arden the 20 January 2004 complaint I had sent to Mr Gallagher, stating in my covering letter of 26 January 2004 "Please, consider the enclosed letter as having been addressed to you, rather than to Mr Gallagher" . Ten weeks later, I had not received a reply. I knew from the post office that the letter had been delivered on 27 January (see 26 January 2004 letter). It led me to file a complaint against Mr Gallagher with the Bar Council on 5 April 2004 . I headed my complaint with
It generated a 14 April 2004 letter from Mr Michael Scott, Complaints Commissioner, Bar Council, to Arden Chambers asking whether it was going to deal with my complaint. Mr Scott wrote,
To this letter, Mr Carter, Arden Chambers, replied on 23 April 2004 that he "would be happy to deal with my complaint" . This was followed by a 28 April 2004 letter to me from Mr Scott
I replied to Mr Scott on 3 May 2004 : • "I do not accept your proposed course of action for the following reasons: (1) (Aside from not being my problem), Arden Chambers were perfectly clear as to the procedure for handling complaints - as indicated in Mr Gallagher's email of 23 January 2004. • By writing the letter of complaint to Arden Chambers and giving them a very generous amount of time to reply, I have more than amply complied with your professional body's complaints guidelines. I therefore now expect your Office to deal with my complaint now which includes taking into consideration the fact that Arden Chambers did not reply to my complaint - contrary to your professional body's guidance" In spite of the evidence supplied, Mr Scott still continued with his 'theme' in his letter to me of 6 May 2004 :
Note the ". giving you two rungs of the ladder, so to speak" - which I viewed as amounting to coercion . By then, four months had gone by since I had filed my complaint with Arden Chambers. It took another two months before I received a reply from Mr Gallagher. Although his reply is dated 9 June 2004 , I only received it on 3 July 2004. (The delay appears to have been caused by Piper Smith Basham as evidenced by the following documents: 25 June 2004 letter from the Bar Council to PSB; 30 June 2004 reply from Piper Smith Basham). The outcome was that it took FIVE MONTHS for me to receive a reply to my complaint from Mr Gallagher . My 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply took-up most of my evenings and weekends in July and August. During this period, in addition to the fight I was having with the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham, I was also in battle with Kensington & Chelsea housing department in relation to getting the year-end accounts for Jefferson House. (See Council & LGO, as well as Document library). The outcome was that, contrary to my initial expectation, I wrote to the Bar Council on 27 July 2004 that I needed more time to respond. In its 17 August 2004 letter, the Bar Council, had the audacity to write
As I wrote in my 29 August 2004 reply,
This was followed by a reply from Mr Gallagher on 11 October 2004 and one from me on 31 October 2004 (with an addendum, dated 2 November 2004 ). It took a further three months for the Bar Council to issue its decision dated 27 January 2005 . Note the double standard: what the Bar Council and Mr Gallagher did v. the Bar Council chasing me for a reply after six weeks (17 August 2004 letter) The 27 January 2005 decision from the Bar Council was:
It also states, "The Committee however, may be prepared to look at the matter again if you have some additional evidence in support of your complaint which was not included in the letters you have already sent" . To this, I replied (point 78, 25 March 2005 ) "Your Office has already been provided with ample evidence and has opted to disregard it" . In its reply, the Bar Council also stated
In light of this, I opted to escalate my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman on 25 March 2005 . In her reply dated 30 August 2005 , the Legal Services Ombudsman wrote:
(See the end of this section, as well as Legal Services Ombudsman for further detail) In light of these two replies, I should therefore describe the following key points in my complaint against Mr Gallagher and, indeed, my one-line summary for this section, as ' MY ALLEGED ACCUSATIONS' against Mr Gallagher. Although I am not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against Mr Gallagher - and I do not believe that it requires being a genius to see it. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, even if, like me, you are not a lawyer, I believe that, having read the rest of this section you will agree with my conclusion. As outlined previously, I had a detailed exchange of correspondence with Mr Gallagher. My 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council provides a good summary as I comprehensively cross-referenced my reply to previous correspondences. B - Summary of Mr Gallagher's positionMr Gallagher's position which came to light in correspondence - post the 28 October 2003 meeting - is summarised below. It is drawn from: • an email he sent to Mr Twyman at 17h09 on 12 November 2003 • and two emails on 13 November 2003, one at 10h12 and the other sent at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft reply and draft consent order , as well as • his 9 June 2004 initial reply to my complaint which represents follow-up comments / explanations for his advice / position / actions. Introduction - My evidence in support of my complaint (1) " The service charge demand was an "interim demand" "
(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
(6) Mr Gallagher advised that the offer be "accepted subject to tweaking"
(10) My complaint of coercion by Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman were dismissed by the Bar Council (and the Law Society) (11) Mr Gallagher could give himself a 'pat on the back' for a 'job well done' as the reply "had been accepted and he could not therefore understand why I refused to endorse it" (14) My complaint that I suffered an enormous amount of stress, anguish, torment and distress as a consequence of Mr Gallagher's actions (15) Other factors I considered should have been taken into consideration by Mr Gallagher 'my adviser' (16) The Bar Council's 27 January 2005 assessment of my complaint was: (18) And the 'PIECE DE RESISTANCE'... C - My evidence in support of my complaintThe reminder of this section considers each of the above points in relation to Mr Gallagher's position by drawing on the content of the following: • the email he sent to Mr Twyman at 17h09 on 12 November 2003 • the two emails he sent on 13 November 2003, one at 10h12 and the other sent at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft notice of acceptance and draft consent order • his 9 June 2004 initial reply to my complaint • my 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher's reply of 9 June 2004 (which had additional supporting appendices ) • his response of 11 October 2004 • mine of 31 October 2004 ( with, due to an error, an addendum, dated 2 November 2004 ) • my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council's decision of 27 January 2005 The subsequent exchange of letters (covered in detail under the Legal Services Ombudsman section) was: • From the Bar Council, letters of 30 March 2005 and 3 June 2005 and my reply of 22 June 2005 • From the LSO, the 1 April 2005 letter and my reply of 2 April 2005 ; letters of 8 April 2005 , 7 July 2005 and the 30 August 2005 decision. In the first section header in the summary of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher I wrote:
At this point I will add, to the above ' allegedly ' - and let the evidence speak for itself. As an introduction, at the 28 October 2003 meeting, I felt a palpable lack of support for my case from Mr Gallagher (as well as Ms McLean who spent a substantial part of the time focusing on the negatives - placing strong emphasis on the potential cost implications of my proceeding to trial and losing the case - instead of ensuring that I receive a balanced view. While I do not recall Mr Gallagher endorsing Ms McLean's opinion at the time, one of my ' alleged' accusations (supported by material evidence) is that Mr Gallagher subsequently aligned himself with Piper Smith Basham. As captured under points 30-32 of my 5 April 2004 complaint, feeling that they were both forgetting the circumstances of my case,
I also stated that, among others, what had happened was a breach of my Human Rights (Article 8 - "Right to respect for private life"; The First Protocole - Article 1 - "Protection of property". (Ms McLean captured some of my comments in her 28 October 2003 attendance notes) In fact, I could have added : "In the process, also committing criminal offences against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Malicious Communications Act 1988" (1) The service charge demand was an "interim demand"In her 15 July 2002 covering letter demanding payment of the sum of £14,000 (US$25,000), Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, wrote that the "sum.may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification or to problems encountered while the works are in progress" In the 29 November 2002 Particulars of claim (ref WL 203537), drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and filed by Ms Hathaway, the demand is described as an "interim payment" . More than a year later, Mr Gallagher endorsed this position at the time of the reply to the 21 October 2003 'offer' in his 17h09 email, 12 November 2003:
He continued to maintain this position "an interim demand" (point 5, 9 June 2004 ) and under point 3(1) of his 11 October 2004 reply in which he made two assertions:
NB: Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS (1.1) Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean ignored my lease - as well as the fact that the lease supplied with the claim against me, ref WL 203537 (1.1MB), is materially different from my lease - amounting to claiming obligations on my part that are falseIn a landlord-tenant dispute of this nature, it is PARAMOUNT to consider the terms of the lease. An element of my complaint is that during the 28 October 2003 meeting, Mr Gallagher (and Ms McLean # 7.8 ) were ignoring the terms of my lease. (My Diary 28 October 2003 ) The first point to note is that Mr Gallagher (and Piper Smith Basham) ignored the fact that the lease supplied to the court with the claim is materially different from mine on a critical aspect. The Particulars of Claim (ref. WL 203 537) (1.1MB) drawn by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and filed in court - under a Statement of Truth - by Ms Hathaway... NOTE in 2007 : See My Diary 9 March 2007 re. the issue under Civil Procedure Rules of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent'. The fact that West London County Court proceeded with the claim amounts to a very serious breach of CPR....state
This is NOT the case as:
(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 )
I highlighted this in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim
- of which Mr Gallagher WAS SUPPLIED with a copy. (Capturing this in my defence, led to a 23 January 2003 letter from CKFT requesting a copy of my lease. I complied with the request) (CKFT # 6.7 ) I had also highlighted this to Ms McLean in my 21 August 2003 letter, one of the briefing documents I wrote at the time of appointing Piper Smith Basham
Ms McLean did NOT reply to this (Piper Smith Basham # 7.8 ) I hold the view that Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean have therefore turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's breach of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 - A solicitor has a "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice" (CKFT # 6.7 ) I give this as example of evidence that, from the start, the game plan was to get me to strike a deal with 'Steel Services' While Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean claim to be specialists in landlord-tenant disputes, it was I - the client - who brought up the need to consider the terms of my lease. I did this by taking from my file a copy of the 21 September 2003 letter I sent to Ms McLean, from which I read some of the extracts. I felt they were both uneasy at my bringing this up. Of course, in the same way that this was not picked-up by the Bar Council, it was not picked-up by the Law Society in relation to my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham and my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor Mr Gallagher's position is based on: Clause (2)(2)(h) of my lease "The lessee shall if required by the lessor with every half yearly payment of the rent.pay to the lessor such sum in advance and on account of the service charge as the lessor or its agents shall from time to time specify at its or their discretion to be a fair and reasonable interim payment" My counter arguments - and evidence in support - are: (1.2) The 15 July 2002 demand positioned as an "interim demand" purports to be a Section 20 Notice. It is NOT as I was not provided with detailed costing at the time of the original demand.Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must consult a leaseholder for works exceeding £250 (US$440) in value - and this is done by means of a notice:
As I captured under point 8 of my 29 August 2004 reply, "It was not until 36 hours before the LVT hearing on 5 February 2003 - and therefore 7 months after I received the original demand for payment of £14,400.19 (US$25,400) (dated 17 July 2002 ) - that I was provided with a priced specification" The evidence is contained in the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database), under Point 14 -
Point 16 of the LVT report states -
The same damning evidence is also contained in Mr Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 report to the LVT, under point 2.04: ".the un-priced or priced Specification.has been. freely available for all lessees to view" . (Point 46, 25 March 2005 ) (See also LVT # 2 , # 3 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 , # 10.3 , # 10.5 ) (1.3) It was a demand for FULL PAYMENTThe 17 July 2002 demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) was a demand for full payment, being 1.956% of the £736,206 (US$1.3 million) demanded in the 15 July 2002 letter - based on the Killby & Gayford's overall sum. While this letter states that "the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification or to problems encountered while the works are in progress" , the 7 August 2002 application by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones to the LVT was for "determination of the reasonableness of the global sum demanded for the works" (LVT # 4 , # 6 ) The sum quoted by Killby and Gayford referred to ALL the works. This contractor responded to the specification produced by Mr Brian Gale. (Point 24, 29 August 2004 ) The works / nature of the works detailed in Mr Brian Gale's specification are so comprehensive that they amount to a total overhaul of the block: new roof; new lift; new boiler plant; new carpet throughout; new doors; new entrance; new lighting; new area for the porter; total repainting internal and external; installation of mechanical ventilation; replacement of some windows; re-pointing, etc. (Parts of the specification stem from lack of proper maintenance and upkeep of the block over a period of 12 years - and therefore in breach of the lease) (point 24, 29 August 2004 ) The LVT's legal remit, defined by s.19 of the L&T Act 1985 is captured under point 1 of its 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report
And further confirmation that the LVT's legal remit was to consider the GLOBAL SUM for the works , is also found in: • The LVT's 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing directions "The application is for the Tribunal to determine the reasonableness of the refurbishment and repairs work proposed by the applicants at a cost of 736,206.09” • The LVT's reply 21 July 2003 to Mr Silverstone, CKFT, letter of 17 July 2003
• This led Mr Silverstone to reply on 21 July 2003
• Ms McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:
And Mr Andrew Ladsky and his 'puppets' were fully knowledgeable of this, as evidenced by the following: • The letter that Mr Andrew Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the LVT report :
• The 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Ms Hathaway (but I believe to have been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky ) is also quite clear on this point:
• In her 20 August 2002 letter Ms Hathaway asks that:
This "payment" is the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) - which is 1.956% of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) Among others, the list of the percentage contribution for each flat was attached to the 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal. (1.4) ...and it was an extortionate demand as the impact of the LVT determination was to reduce the original demand by nearly 70% (includes use of contingency fund)As evidenced by the LVT report, the 15 July 2002 demand was highly unreasonable: Based on my surveyor's assessment (as the LVT failed to provide a 'global' assessment, thereby failing to perform its legal remit ), the outcome of the LVT determination, in relation to the original global sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,400) 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 sum demanded was not considered as reasonable . (point 48, 29 August 2004 ) See also section on Mr Brian Gale which contains extracts from the LVT determination (*) In the £500,000 (US$882,000) I have included £141,977 (US$250,400) of contingency fund. My then Counsel raised it as an issue during the hearing as Steel Services / Martin Russell Jones had not used it as contribution towards the costs - and were refusing to do so, in spite of, among others, having stated this in the 7 June 2001 letter. (This is captured under point 34 of the LVT determination). (But it subsequently did in my case - see the 21 October 2003 'offer'. I believe this to be because, among others, I had the 7 June 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway) (CKFT # 6.3 ) Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force Steel Services to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2 (2)(e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the LVT report), under points 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code. Surely, this report makes it abundantly clear that further demands for the major works would be totally unjustified.It was a demand for FULL payment - and a highly extortionate one at that. (1.5) At the earliest, works would have only been completed well into the following yearThe works would have been taking place beyond June 2003, time by which, under the terms of my lease and of Section 21(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, Steel Services had to issue the year-end accounts given that the year-end for Jefferson House is December. Under points 24 and 25 of my 29 August 2004 I provided an explanation in support of my claim that the works would not have been completed before June 2003. This included the fact that the application to the LVT was filed by Ms Hathaway on 7 August 2002 . (Hence, barely three weeks after the 15 July 2002 demand which many leaseholders would probably have not received by then due to living overseas / the holiday period. It also means that, when Ms Hathaway sent her 20 August 2002 letter to the leaseholders stating a start date of "early October" - the application had by then been filed just seven working days previously). In filing the application, Steel Services was, in my opinion, relying on being able to 'steamroll' the application through the LVT with little opposition (in part because many leaseholders live overseas) and thereby get the 'official' seal of approval. (Evidence in support of this is the fact that the claim, WL 203 537, was filed in West London County Court exactly one month after the LVT had told us, i.e. the leaseholders, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, to NOT pay the service charge until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had therefore been implemented). (The LVT signed its report seven months later , on 17 June 2003 ) However, even if Steel Services had succeeded in 'steamrolling' its application, the earliest at which it could have obtained its 'official seal of approval' would have been in Q1 / early Q2 - of 2003 i.e. after the year-end for the accounts. As it turned out, my position on the duration of the works has been amply vindicated given that the works were started in August 2004 and were still taking place in May 2006 i.e. nearly two years after being started - and therefore FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL DEMAND - as can be seen from the photos of the corridor taken on 1 May 2006 . See also Photo gallery for other evidence on the duration of the works, including broken step (1.6MB), filth around my flat , floor of the entrance corridor (not to mention the lack of concern about health & safety ) Under point 3(1) of his 11 October 2004 reply Mr Gallagher wrote
I pointed out (point 6, 31 October 2004 )
Mr Gallagher knew that the works had NOT been started . Indeed, he captured this under point 29(6), 9 June 2004 - "(my) surveyor and (I) had expressed concern that the major works (which at that stage remained outstanding)." (Regarding the latter part of my reply: the last leaseholder 'capitulated' on 2 August 2004 . On the same day , Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, announced the appointment of a new contractor, Mansell, and the start of the works). (1.6 ) The 2001 year-end accounts do not reflect the demandIn her 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" Ms Hathaway had written: "It is planned to commence the internal refurbishment in the Autumn (i.e. of 2001) with the external refurbishment to follow on next Spring" . In her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean wrote, "I agree that the 2001 accounts do no include future costs..In any event we have not yet received the accounts for the year 2002 and no doubt we can address that situation as and when it arises" My lease may be a bit of a hard read in some parts, but it does not require a PhD to understand it - including the sections which I view as relevant. In fact, these are quite clear and easy to understand. My lease states (point 26, 29 August 2004 ):
The demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) was dated 17 July 2002 (and the covering letter, 15 July 2002 ). As can be seen from the 2001 year-end accounts for Jefferson House, they do NOT include costs the lessor "shall expect to incur at any time after the end of the relevant financial year. by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings." (points 30 and 123, 29 August 2004 ) In addition (as I captured under point 49 of my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher):
(Ms Hathaway filed a claim (WL 203537) (1.1MB) against me in West London County Court for £14,400 (US$25,400). The impact of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) reduced the sum to £4,615 (US$8,135). Hence, in filing the claim under a ' Statement of Truth ' Ms Hathaway and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor who produced the claim - breached Clause (2)(2)(j) of my lease) In addition, I also draw your attention to:
(NB: I highlighted this clause in my 21 August 2003 letter to McLean "This is an important point as clause 2(2)(c)(ii) of my lease provides that the landlord must use its "best endeavours" to keep the annual service charge at the "lowest reasonable figure" ) And, of course, to this must be added the fact that Steel Services made me an ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) (+ interest !)
Consider as well - as can be seen in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 West London County Court hearing - the comment Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, made about me
'Helpfully', the judge then offered to have the action against me 'stayed' (open to further proceedings) - as can be seen in the court order of that date. (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4) (1.7) In addition to breaching covenants in my lease, the service charge demand also amounts to a breach of my statutory rights under Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985Section 19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 states:
Mr Gallagher, the "property expert" did not take into consideration this breach of my rights when he wrote the reply to the 'offer'. WHY NOT? Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (2) Consequently, I did not need to be supplied with the year-end accounts and, in any case, my asking for the accounts would "only complicate matters and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms"Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 Opting to endorse Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones's positioning of the service demand as an "interim demand" Mr Gallagher consequently dismissed my request to be provided with the 2002 accounts because
He continues,
As detailed above, contrary to the terms of my lease, the original demand was NOT reflected in the 2001 accounts i.e. they do not include "costs the lessor shall expect to incur at any time after the end of the relevant financial year by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings." . Yet, in her 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, had stated an intention "to start the works in the Autumn" (This intended future expenditure was not reflected in the 2000 year-end accounts ) In addition to the clauses in my lease detailed earlier on, I also draw attention to the following:
(see Pridie Brewster, the 'accountant' for Jefferson House ) In her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean wrote,
In light of this attitude, I sent a 9 October 2003 letter to Martin Russell Jones requesting the accounts - IN VAIN ! (Martin Russell Jones # 37 ) (I finally obtained a copy two years later - of course after more battles: this time with Kensington & Chelsea Housing and the Local Government Ombudsman ) (2.1) Mr Gallagher's position amounts to endorsement of breach of covenant in my lease, and of my statutory rights - under which non-compliance amounts to committing a criminal offence.Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 (Aside from the fact that the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease), one year three months had passed since the original demand. I HAD to be issued with the year-end accounts, not only under the terms of my lease, but also, as emphasised by Kensington & Chelsea Housing to Martin Russell Jones in its 25 June 2004 Section 21(1) request, Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. The letter also highlights Section 25 of the Act that non-performance results in committing a criminal offence . As I captured under point 3 of my 31 October 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher, he knew that the 2001 accounts did not include "provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings" - and also knew that - 10 months after the year-end - I had not received the accounts for 2002. Yet in his email of 13 November 2003 , he described my request (in my 7 November 2003 fax) as
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
Mr Gallagher wrote
My reply to Mr Gallagher was: "For whom?" (point 123, 29 August 2004 ) To which I will now add : WHY DID MR GALLAGHER TAKE THIS POSITION? And likewise: why did Piper Smith Basham endorse it? (PSB # 7.9 ) (NB: I finally obtained a copy of the 2002 accounts in February 2005 (i.e. three year later!) through the intermediary of the Local Government Ombudsman. The accountants, Pridie & Brewster, certified the 2002 accounts stating " that the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents". I consider this to be incorrect (See Pridie Brewster for further detail - including # 18 for what I discovered subsequently: 9 out of the 14 flats on the claim were made to pay the full amount ) As I continued arguing the point, under point 3(3) of his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote:
The first point to make about this is that I (and the other leaseholders) had specifically been told at the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing to NOT PAY the service charge - as evidenced by page 5 of the booklet that we were handed at the time (the Court of Appeal case, Daejan Properties v. LVT) That aside, I find this statement shocking and view it as an endorsement of abuse of my most basic rights (in addition to the endorsement of breach of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights). Under point 68 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, I wrote
Under point 26 I wrote
While under point 40, I captured "Your Committee has opted to ignore the fact that this exorbitant service charge demand was in breach of the terms of my lease e.g. Clause 2 (2) ( c) (ii) which states Lessor's duty to " maintain the annual service charge at the lowest reasonable figure consistent with the due performance and observance of its obligation herein" .." As detailed in the previous section, under point 3(1) of his 11 October 2004 reply Mr Gallagher wrote "As Ms Rawé notes in her response, the works had not been completed when the LVT made its determination. Consequently, I remain of the view that there was no viable contractual defence to the claim against Ms Rawé" (2.2) The works were started more than two years after the original demand was sentThe works were started only once Mr Ladsky et. al. had secured closure in the courts with the last valiant leaseholder (WLLC # 14). As can be seen, the Wandsworth County Court order is dated 2 August 2004 . On the same date, i.e. 2 August 2004, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, sent a letter announcing the start of the works. The 'so-called' " Description of the works " placed in the entrance, states the start date at September 2004. The works were still taking place in May 2006 - as can be seen in the Photo gallery ('So-called' because when compared with the evidence. See the compilation in this pack (2.4MB) highlighting the on-going lies and deceit). (See also Mr Brian Gale ) Mr Gallagher knew that the works had not been started . Indeed, he captured this under point 29(6), 9 June 2004 , "(my) surveyor and (I) had expressed concern that the major works (which at that stage remained outstanding)." The assessment by the Bar Council was:
As Mr Gallagher had described my wanting to be provided with the 2002 accounts as "a counter offer" under point 19 of my 25 March 2005 reply I wrote
I also pointed out that
While under point 67 I highlighted:
I followed this by capturing - yet again - clauses in my lease which clearly demonstrate that the approach and method used by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones-Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor breached my lease and added,
I highlighted that my not being provided with the accounts amounted to a breach of my statutory rights (point 20, 25 March 2005 ) I also drew attention to the fact that, having finally managed to obtain a copy of the 2002 accounts in February 2005 "Not surprisingly, they vindicate my conclusion that SS-MRJ had something to hide in not providing me the 2002 accounts by the time of the 21 October 2003 offer. They do not provide detail of "future costs, expenses and outgoings" - Clause 2 (2) (e) and Clause 2 (2) (f)." (point 21, 25 March 2005 ) (See also Pridie Brewster ) Under point 29 I wrote "In light of the above - in relation to my request for a copy of the 2002 accounts at the time of the 21 October 2003 offer - I again ask the question:
I AM STILL ASKING THIS QUESTION Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :Mr Gallagher "did not view that there was a technical defence of merit to the claim " (29(5), 9 June 2004) Having "reconsidered this conclusion in the light of the complaint" Mr Gallagher stated he "stood by it" (29(5), 9 June 2004 )
An 'alleged' accusation in my complaint (point 2.2 in the summary) against Mr Gallagher is that he (and Piper Smith Basham )
Mr Gallagher replied
(3.a.1) Mr Gallagher was unable to highlight one valid example to substantiate his comment that the determination was "a mix bag" - which, very tellingly, was the only thing he had said about the determination in his 29 page replyProof that the LVT determination was most definitely NOT "foremost" in Mr Gallagher's "mind" at the 28 October 2003 meeting - and subsequently - is that in his initial reply he stated that the LVT determination was "a mix bag" (point 21, 9 June 2004 ) To me, this creates a perception that, overall, there was not much substance in the determination i.e. the LVT found relatively little to fault Steel Services. (Definition from The New Collins Concise English dictionary of "mixed bag": "Inference: something composed of diverse elements" ) To this I replied, (point 72, 29 August 2004 ), "Really? In what way? " It led me to provide comprehensive highlights from the LVT's, as well as my surveyor's report (points 32-47, 29 August 2004 ) and a summary of the impact of the LVT determination (point 48) on the global sum demanded and, consequently, my share of it. (See above 1. "The service charge demand was an "interim demand" for a summary) Mr Gallagher's comment also prompted me to say (under point 72)
In response to my challenging his comment, Mr Gallagher replied, (point 8, 11 October 2004 )
As can be seen : Mr Gallagher is NOT replying to my question (The point about the LVTs lack of jurisdiction over the use of contingency funds (captured under point 34 of the LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination, ref #992 on the LVT database) does not in anyway impact on its very damning findings - which, as it happens, under point 34, criticises 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. for not using the contingency fund). While the LVT determination does not (unfortunately) include a summary (see Leasehold Valuation Tribunal section), I do not believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would describe it as a "mixed bag ". (I also draw attention to the fact that the LVT determination fully supports my surveyor's 24 February 2003 assessment of the specification). Mr Gallagher also responded to my comments in another part of his reply (point 4(1), 11 October 2004, starting off with a 'red herring' : he states that he "was not instructed to advise on an appeal" . He continues: [his]
(3.a.2) All that was expected of Mr Gallagher was to recognise the findings from the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database)Mr Gallagher then adds (point 4(1), 11 October 2004 ):
To which I replied (point 17, 31 October 2004 )
Please note the "At the time" in Mr Gallagher's response... ...and consider that my 29 August 2004 reply to him did NOT include any new information to what he had been supplied with - which included, among others: • copy of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (re #992 on the LVT database) • a comprehensive face-to-face discussion with my surveyor on the findings, who stressed, not only the very damning findings captured by the LVT, but also the fact that the 'so-called' "revised costs" provided in July 2003 by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor did not properly address the LVT determination , and they were still not properly addressed at the time of the 'offer' Please note that my surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners is a Chartered Surveyor, member of the RICS. To which I will add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity. • a copy of my 7 November 2003 letter in which, among others, I once again highlighted that the lack of specification identified by the Tribunal has not been addressed, stating that I calculated this as amounting to an overcharge of £1,735 (US$3,000) relative to the ' offer '. (3.a.3) In Mr Gallagher's eyes a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) of the global sum demanded (inc. contingency fund) "is not likely to carry much, if any weight on the court proceedings"Please note that Mr Gallagher "DID NOT CONSIDER" that a reduction of nearly 70% (including use of the contingency fund) of the claim filed against me, following the LVT determination, was
One of the major items on which the LVT said to be unable to make a determination was the boiler due to lack of specification. Please note that the sum demanded for the boiler was £89,824 (US$158,000). Therefore, with the addition of VAT and management fees the total amount is £117,153 (US$206,600). The addition of other items for which the LVT said to be unable to make a determination brought the total to £190,000 (US$335,000), or 25% of the global sum demanded. (See Mr Brian Gale) A Section 20 Notice was NOT issued following the LVT determination (as evidenced in my surveyor's assessment ). (Martin Russell Jones # 29 , # 28 ) Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must consult a leaseholder for works exceeding £250 (US$440) in value - and this is done by means of a notice:
Hence, a detailed specification must be drawn-up before a Section 20 is issued. Considering my 1.956% of the service charge, the cost of the boiler alone greatly exceeds £250 (US$440). The reason a notice was not issued is because Mr Ladsky et. al. had no intention of implementing the tribunal's determination, opting instead to bully , intimidate and coerce the leaseholders into getting them to pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 , # 6.1 , # 6.3 , # 6.6 ) (Martin Russell Jones # 25 , # 26 ) (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS (NB: Further evidence that the lack of specification for the boiler was not addressed can be seen in Martin Russell Jones 's letter of 21 September 2005 - i.e. two years and three months after the LVT determination - stating that new pumps and a new control panel are required for the boiler. The fact that Martin Russell Jones has sent me this notice implies an intention to charge me for this) Having made the above statement (point 4(1)), later on in his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote
ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE! Consider (as detailed earlier on), what Mr Gallagher had stated in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 to my complaint
(3.a.4) Consider also the horrendous pressure I was put under to accept the 'offer' e.g.
Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 As I captured in my reply (point 25, 31 October 2004), my responses led to
Please, consider also the pressure I was placed under by Ms McLean to accept the 'offer'. For example, during the 28 October 2003 meting with Mr Gallagher, on two occasions, she repeated what she had already told me 2-3 times previously:
Please, note that: • Ms McLean had attended the last day of the LVT hearing on 28 April 2003; had a copy of the LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) and of my surveyor's assessment , as well as my letters to the court (15 July 2003 , 9 August 2003). • In her 23 June 2003 letter to my then solicitors she wrote "There would seem to be a fairly substantial reduction in the sums claimed by the applicant." . While in her 9 April 2003 letter, also to my then solicitors - (which was therefore before the LVT had issued its determination), she wrote, "...we have spoken to a surveyor whom we had instructed. His preliminary view is that the service charges seem high." • Contrast this with what Ms McLean wrote in her 28 October 2003 attendance note:
(I remarked on the "seemed" in my 30 October 2003 letter Ms McLean) (Contrast this as well with the compilation of some of the evidence contained in this pack (2.4MB)) Please, note also that Ms McLean knew full well that Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones had not redrawn the specifications following the LVT determination. This is further evidenced by the following: Her 4 September 2003 letter
Her 3 October 2003 letter
(Piper Smith Basham # 7.4.3 , # 7.7 ) In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 37), I wrote
At which point, I captured the evidence I had previously highlighted / supplied. I also stated
While under point 38 I highlighted Mr Gallagher's comment (point 4(1), 11 October 2004 ) that
Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
(3.b.1) Mr Gallagher has a rather unique interpretation of Section 20 requirements - and a Lands Tribunal case (which is very similar to mine) supports my viewHaving
Mr Gallagher
Compare this against point 58 of Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply:
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 Lands Tribunal case (website printscreen) - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view I have argued the following: • "The "procedure" adopted by Steel Services and Martin Russell Jones is in breach of Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (point 9, 29 August 2004 ) as Section 20(4)(b) states "A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of those tenants or shall be displayed in one or more places where it is likely to come to the notice of all those tenants" (point 10, 29 August 2004) • It was not until 36 hours before the LVT hearing on 5 February 2003 - and therefore seven months after I received the original demand for payment of £14,400 (US$25,400) that I was provided with a priced specification (point 8, 29 August 2004) • Proof that I was not supplied with a priced specification is captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report
While point 16 states "In the interest of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment." (point 12, 29 August 2004 ) To this must also be added that the same damning evidence is contained in Mr Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 report to the LVT, under point 2.04:
Hence, the residents were asked to part with sums of money as high as £64,500 (US$113,700) (in the case of one resident) with no evidence whatsoever as to the composition of the costs (point 13, 29 August 2004 ) (See also Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 1 , # 3 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 for evidence from other leaseholders stating they had not received a priced specification ; Martin Russell Jones # 14 ; CKFT ) (My Diary c. 17 January 2003 , 5 February 2003 ) • Section 20(3)(a) of the L&T Act 1985 requires that "At least two estimates shall be obtained." (point 14, 29 August 2004 ). I then quoted extracts from the 17 June 2003 LVT determination, for example: The LVT's overall assessment
Please note also the tribunal's comment about the lift (under Page 11 - 16.25 and 16.26 )
This ended-up being excluded due to my being conciliatory - as captured by the tribunal "However, the Respondent has agreed £27,300 (US$48,200) and this sum is therefore allowed" As to the findings from my surveyor (which were endorsed by the LVT), he wrote, under point 6.13 of his 24 February 2003 report- "The services section of the works under the specification (Section 16.0) does not represent a "quantitative" breakdown of items of works that contractors are able to cost on a like for like basis" . (point 34, 29 August 2004 ) Considering that he had been provided with a copy of the LVT report and had had a lengthy discussion with my surveyor, Mr Gallagher is of the view
And this, in spite of having previously stated (point 58, 9 June 2004 )
ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE! As previously stated, I view Mr Gallagher has having a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? My 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council included: • Point 46 - "Compliance with a statute can only be in full, or in excess of it. And certainly not, as was the case, very significantly less than the stated requirements" • Point 43 - "Your Committee has opted to ignore the fact that SS had not implemented the LVT determination. Yet, it made claims of having done so at the 24 June and 26 August 2003 hearings. This was certainly not the case as the sum had been reduced by only 24.19% (from £14,400 to £10,917) - thereby misleading the court. And it still claimed this in its 21 October 2003 offer stating in the opening paragraph: "Our client maintains that, as a result of the LVT decision it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917" (US$19,250) Non-implementation of the LVT determination amounts to not only a fundamental breach of my lease, it also amounts to breach of S.20 (3) of the L&T 1985 Act • Point 44 -
(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
One of the arguments over which I had a 'running battle' with Mr Gallagher related to his claim that my "surveyor's calculations had demonstrated that this sum (i.e. the 'offer') could not be bettered" . He had captured this in his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003. When I received this email the following day (it had been forwarded to me by Mr Twyman, Piper Smith Basham), I was at work and therefore unable to reply as comprehensively as I would have liked (see My Diary 13 November 2003, as well as events on 11 November and 12 November). Hence, in my 12h26 email I could only manage to state
However, I pointed this out to Ms McLean in my fax of 20 November 2003 (3.c.1) It is NOT true . My surveyor neither stated nor demonstrated thisAs I explained in my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher (under points 2.3 and 50 and 51) (and repeated under e.g. points 82 and 127, 29 August 2004 ), the evidence against Mr Gallagher's claim is: • "Firstly, in the revised costs sent by CKFT with the offer, the lack of specification identified by the Tribunal, for items amounting to £144,746 (US$255,230) (or £190,000 (US$335,000) with VAT and management fees), had not been addressed. • Secondly, the boilers account for a large part of the £190,000 (£117k) (US$206,300) for which the LVT said to be unable to make a decision. As my surveyor stated during the LVT hearing (point 26, 17 June 2003 ), he is not a qualified engineer and therefore could not comment about the boilers - other than say that the specifications are so vague that it is impossible to determine the type of boiler required - and hence the costs (as he captured under point 13 of his 24 February 2003 report) (assessment endorsed by the LVT under points 16.07, 38, 44 and 46 of its 17 June 2003 report) • The third reason is that my surveyor: (1) did not draw-up the specifications for the remaining items (for which the Tribunal said to have no/insufficient specification); (2) did not put them out to tender to three contractors (i.e. Section 20 Notice) - and nor did I ask him to do it " Having stated in his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003 that my surveyor "had demonstrated that this sum could not be bettered" , in his 9 June 2004 reply (point 29(4)), this changed to "had said":
Furthermore, what he claimed my surveyor "had said"
He also added
As I replied (point 127, 29 August 2004 )
In his 11 October 2004 reply (point 10) Mr Gallagher wrote
My reply (point 29, 31 October 2004) was:
Also under point 10 of his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote:
I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that, in claiming that my surveyor "had demonstrated", which he then changed to "had said" this, Mr Gallagher would consequently not have to trouble himself with any of the detail of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database). And, probably more importantly, nor need to capture 'embarrassing evidence' against Mr Ladsky et. al. in the reply. I suggest that, among others, the following comment from Mr Gallagher substantiates this point: His "advice was limited to the likely impact of the LVT's determination on the related, and then on-going county court proceedings. I therefore did not enter into a detailed analysis of the merits of the LVT decision" (point 4(1), 11 October 2004 ) As well as this one (relating to my complaint about the reply written by Mr Gallagher):
I also highlighted under point 38 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, Mr Gallagher's comment that
and wrote:
In the same letter of 25 March 2005 to the Bar Council (point 41) I wrote
(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
(3.d.1) I hold the view that the 'offer' fails to meet the requirements defined by Lord WoolfCawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor defined the 21 October 2003 'offer' as a "Without prejudice Part 36 offer" . Given events at the 28 October 2003 meeting with Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean, I undertook desk research (My Diary 11 November 2003) and identified a ruling by Lord Woolf on the requirement for the working of Part 36 offers in the Ford v GKR Construction Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 802 case . Among others, the ruling states:
In my 13 November 2003 fax to Mr Gallagher (and Mr Twyman) I communicated my findings, and assessment, that the 'offer' was in breach of Civil Procedure Rules as I had not been provided with the information necessary for me to assess whether to accept the 'offer'. Indeed, the LVT determination had not been implemented and a Section 20 Notice had not been issued. (I had repeated this several times to Piper Smith Basham e.g. my letters of 21 August 2003 , 3 September 2003 , 12 October 2003 and 7 November 2003) In addition, the recognition by Ms McLean, in her 4 September 2003 letter...
...and in Ms McLean's letter of 3 October 2003
the fact that Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones had not implemented the LVT determination can be seen from the following: • Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT sent an application for a case management hearing to West London County Court, dated 23 May 2003. Please note that in this application he states that his firm " has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following" - hence BEFORE the tribunal issued its report In its 12 June 2003 notice, West London County Court informed me that a hearing was scheduled for 24 June 2003. (This was therefore sent to me one week BEFORE the LVT signed its report (17 June 2003 ) and, consequently, before I had received a copy of the report). • At the West London County Court hearing on 24 June 2003, Mr Silverstone, handed me in the court's waiting area, JUST 10 minutes before seeing the judge, a Draft order and Case summary, neither of which I had seen before. (West London County Court # 7 ) (My Diary 24 June 2003) One of these documents states "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 absolutely not true. • With these documents, he also handed me a schedule of " Major works apportionment, revised" on Martin Russell Jones headed paper. Relative to the amount on the claim, ref WL 203537 - Particulars of claim (1.1MB) , the sum demanded of me (and five other leaseholders) has been reduced by 24.19%. This falls very far short of the LVT determination (as I explained e.g. in my 15 July 2003 letter to West London County Court). Mr Silverstone did not supply me with any documentation, or indeed explanation, as to how this reduction had been achieved . In any case, a Section 20 Notice has not been issued following the 17 June 2003 determination - and has NEVER been since. (CKFT # 6.4 ) In my letter of 15 July 2003 to West London County Court - of which Mr Gallagher was supplied with a copy - I wrote
and detailed the main points of my surveyor's assessment of the LVT's determination. I also wrote
As can be seen, I copied Mr Silverstone, CKFT on this letter. This led Mr Silverstone to send me a letter, dated 17 July 2003, with which was enclosed "Part III" of the specifications for the works with "Revised price" written as heading (Included in the hyperlinked pack). My surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the document handed to me at the 24 June 2003 hearing i.e. " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised ". Hence, it still fell very far short of the LVT determination. In addition - as can be seen - there was no supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at (consequently amounting to, yet again, a breach of my statutory rights). (NB: This hearing should not have been allowed to take place because, as I stated in my 22 June 2003 letter to West London County Court, I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. (My Diary 16 June 2003 , 17 June 2003 , 22 June 2003 , 24 June 2003 ) The judge reprimanded Mr Silverstone for "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" and led her to award costs to me (and the other leaseholders present)) (West London County Court # 7 ) • The 6 August 2003 application for a hearing (signed under a Statement of Truth by Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT) states that
The document attached to the application, " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised ", demonstrates that the sum demanded has been revised down by 24.19% 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 (which was the total number of flats 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. It also follows that Ms Ayesha Salim's introductory paragraph in the 21 October 2003 ' offer '
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor 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?Furthermore, consider also that I have NOT acknowledged any of the invoices sent by Martin Russell since October 2004. Considering that they and their client have turned "intimidatory litigation into an industry" - how come that they have not taken action against me? (Well... at least, not yet!) (3.d.2) Neither Mr Gallagher, nor Mr Twyman provided me with any feedback on identifying thisTherefore, in my 13 November 2003 and 7 November 2003 letters I wrote, among others
I included this as part of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher (points 1.4, 1.5, 4.6, 44 - 48). Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply (point 46) was
To this I replied (point 103, 29 August 2004 )
As I wrote under (point 64, 29 August 2004 )
(I, likewise, asked the same thing under point 67 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society in the context of my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham. And I did this as well under point 174 of my 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ) Mr Gallagher also wrote (point 3(4) 11 October 2004 )
I pointed out (point 13, 31 October 2004 ), that the proceedings should not have been allowed to take place as they amounted to an abuse of process of court given that the same action was being pursued simultaneously under two separate jurisdictions: the LVT and West London County court. This point had actually been made by Ms McLean BEFORE I became a client in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors (Piper Smith Basham # 1 ) (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 , # 6.1 ) (West London County Court # 2 ) I also highlighted that: • At the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing residents had been told to not pay until the Tribunal had issued its determination • Once the Tribunal had issued its determination, Steel Services should have implemented the determination (re-drawing the specifications; tendering and consultation) • The fact that Steel Services did not appeal to the Lands Tribunal (which was the proper channel to follow) means that it accepted the LVT determination - following its own application to the LVT. • Yet, it kept challenging the LVT determination as it changed the amount demanded on several occasions - and did so without explanation, as well as non-compliance with the consultation proceedings detailed in the 1985 Act. Among others, it did not address the determination by the LVT that proper specifications were required for the services section in order to arrive at correct costings. (I would stress that, unlike Steel Services, I fully accepted the LVT determination) (NB: The fact that 'Steel Services' kept challenging the LVT determination is evidenced in the 21 October 2003 ' offer ' "Our client has once again (NB!!!), reviewed the revised apportionment dated 24 June 2003." ) In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 49), I wrote
WHY IS IT THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE REPLY, NEITHER MR GALLAGHER NOR MR TWYMAN PROVIDED WITH ANY FEEDBACK ON IDENTIFYING THIS RULING BY LORD WOOLF? Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
(3.e.1) As can be seen in the following statement, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that I was not prepared to make a deal
These so-called "invitations", written by Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, can more accurately be described as bullying, scare and intimidation tactics (combined with misrepresentation of events) in an attempt to force me to strike a deal = use of FEAR tactics: • 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" Firstly, as explained above, the LVT determination had not been implemented (and has never been implemented). Hence, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact I had obeyed the tribunal's instructions given to me at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to not pay the service charge demanded until it had issued its determination and it had therefore been implemented - in line with statutory requirements and the terms of my lease. I captured this under point 30 of my 31 October 2004 reply:
(3.e.2) Secondly, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact I have strong moral principles that prevented me from being treated differently from the other lessees i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease:Clause 2(2)(c)(i) of my lease makes it abundantly clear that there is a set and equitable manner for the allocation of the service charges among the leaseholders:
In her 30 August 2002 letter (in reply to mine of 11 August 2002) Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones stated:
These percentages were supplied by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones with the 7 August 2002 application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to the court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, for the 24 June 2003 hearing and the 26 August 2003 hearing. (See also my analysis of the contributions paid by other leaseholders, which is based on the list supplied to me by the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 correspondence. My analysis is contained at the back of the letter) Further evidence that leaseholders cannot be charged an amount 'dreamt up' by Mr Ladsky et. al. / their aides : • Mr Silverstone wrote to the LVT on 17 July 2003
• To this the LVT replied on 21 July 2003
This clearly demonstrates that the LVT views the calculation of the service charges payable by individual lessees as being based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied - as the norm/ understands the terms of the lease as such - which, of course, it is. And pre my becoming a client, Ms McLean KNEW that this was the case - as evidenced in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors:
I had very clearly stated my position to West London County Court in my 9 August 2003 letter, (on which I had copied Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor) ( Mr Gallagher (and Piper Smith Basham) were supplied with a copy of this letter).
My response to Mr Gallagher is contained, among others, under point 160 of my 29 August 2004 reply. In relation to Ms McLean, not only had I also supplied her with a copy of my 9 August letter to the court, I had also had an exchange of correspondence with her on this subject. In my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean, following a conversation with her, I wrote:
But, as can be seen in Ms McLean's letter of 4 September 2003 , she and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were not giving up on the idea:
Note the "incidentally". This made it the second time in the space of three days that Ms McLean was trying to push me into making a deal with Mr Ladsky et. al. I replied as follows on 9 September 2003
It should be noted that Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean are not alone in, as suggested by the above, endorsing breaches of leases (and of statutory rights), the courts can do this as well, including ignoring the directions given to defendants by another jurisdiction, as evidenced by the following (see also my 8 documents to the courts): • In its 23 May 2003 application for a Case Management Conference to West London County Court , Mr Silverstone wrote: "As you are aware we are solicitors for the Claimant. The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following". The list states the 1st , 2nd , 5th and 7th Defendant • As there were 11 leaseholders listed on the 29 November 2002 claim, it provides incontrovertible evidence ( "has obtained judgement" ) that West London County Court was instrumental in making seven leaseholders pay before the LVT issued its determination. (The LVT dated its report 17 June 2003 ). 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 been implemented . Further evidence that judgement/s was/were secured through West London County Court before the LVT 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 the court I had - yet again - brought attention to the ongoing LVT action, 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. In its 27 March 2003 reply, the court nonetheless persisted in telling me that the action concerned me. At my wits end, on 30 March 2003 , I sent a letter to the members of the LVT Panel - on which I copied the District Judge 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 the 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 the court). (West London County Court # 5 ) (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) ( Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1 ) (NB: Between December 2002 and March 2003 I wrote four letters to West London County highlighting the LVT proceedings and consequently requested that the action be stayed. (West London County Court # 2 , # 4 ; section D ) I had also referred to the LVT proceedings in my defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002 . As just explained, in two of my letters, 25 March 2003 and 30 March 2003 , I had made specific reference to the fact that the LVT had specifically told leaseholders to not pay the service charge demanded) • Consider events as well in the context of point 64, on page 15 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report:
During the 24 June 2003 hearing, the judge told Mr Lanny 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)) (West London County Court # 7 , # 8 ) 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 "It is not the duty of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness , or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant " In other words, while I ended-up being the only leaseholder challenging the application (and none of the other leaseholders have contributed to my £32,000 (US$56,400) LVT costs), it does not alter the fact that the determination applies to the whole block. In addition, I also draw your attention to Section 20(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that the above amply supports the statement I have made in various sections of this site that, in the case of a service charge dispute of this nature, the business model heavily relies on leaseholders being made to strike a deal with the landlord - in breach of the terms of their lease and of their statutory rights. Furthermore, can you see why in the introduction to the site, I stated that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Can you also see why I have summarised the section on 'Lawyers, courts and LSO' as "The Wild West"? In my 25 March 2003 reply to the Bar Council (point 25) I again emphasised that
I concluded this point with
(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
(3.f.1) In his accusation Mr Gallagher overlooked the fact that I had paid this amount - even though I did NOT owe it - and, by implication, he held against me the fact that I had obeyed, for as long as I could, the directions given to me by the tribunalMr Gallagher considered that I was at "risk" because
He continued to maintain this position:
The first point to note is that I PAID £2,255 (US$4,000) I DID NOT OWE . At the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing, we (the leaseholders) were asked by the Chair whether we had already paid the service charge demanded. We all replied that we had not for the reason that we had not been supplied with details of costings at the time of the demand, nor since. (See LVT # 8.1.2 and Martin Russell Jones # 14 for letters from other residents) At this point, the Chair specifically told us that if we paid, the Tribunal would not be able to help us. We were handed a leaflet 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5 states the following:
In other words, the message communicated to me (and the other leaseholders) by the Tribunal was that we had to wait until the Tribunal had issued its determination - and it had been implemented - BEFORE we made a payment . Yet, precisely one month after we were told this by the Tribunal, on 29 November 2002 , the claim was filed in court against me (and 10 other leaseholders). The first day of the substantive LVT hearing took place three and half months later, on 13 March 2003 . The last day was five months later, on 28 April 2003 . The Tribunal signed its (very damning report) seven months later on 17 June 2003 . As explained previously, under (4) The "Part 36 Offer" was "not a pre-action offer" the LVT determination had not (and has never since) been implemented. (Martin Russell Jones # 16 , # 17 ) Consequently, the reason I had not initially made a payment is very simple: I obeyed the instructions of the Tribunal (point 9, 31 October 2004). What a MONUMENTAL MISTAKE that turned out to be!(3.f.2) And Mr Gallagher positions himself as an expert on LVTs - including writing a book...Consider that under point 23 of his 9 June 2004 reply Mr Gallagher had taken pains to emphasise
(I highlighted this under point 9 of my 31 October 2004 reply) Against this statement by which, very clearly, Mr Gallagher positions himself as an expert on litigation in the LVT, consider what I had been told by the Tribunal - and given in support of this direction. Mr Gallagher 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" Consider also, as demonstrated earlier on, that a Section 20 Notice was NOT issued following the LVT determination (and has never been since). But then, as referred to earlier on in relation to the Lands Tribunal case (printscreen) - which is very similar to mine - Mr Gallagher tends to have a rather unique interpretation of section 20 of the L&T Act 1985 The conclusions from this are that Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that:
I captured this under point 30 of my 31 October 2004 reply:
Please, note also that under point 10 of my 31 October 2004 reply, I drew attention to the fact that, in my 29 August 2004 reply (point 55), I had extracted the content of my 25 March 2003 letter to the court, in which I related that the Tribunal had specifically told us to not pay the service charge. While under points 11 and 12 of my 31 October 2004 reply, I re-emphasised the points comprised under points 54, 57, 59, 61 and 79 of my 29 August 2004 reply which contain extracts of my seven letters to the courts bringing attention to the LVT action. (As can be seen in the appendices supplied, I provided a copy of some of these letters to the Bar Council) In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 34), I wrote:
While under point 35, I wrote:
Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Why did I nonetheless pay £2,255 (US$4,000) - I did not legally owe (considering the terms of my lease and my statutory rights)? This is explained in the next point. (3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
(3.g.1) Yet again, Mr Gallagher overlooked the facts of the caseIn Mr Gallagher's opinion, another point he considered to be against me "consider the fact that. summary judgement had already been entered on part of the claim" (point 66, 9 June 2004 ) The facts I wish to point out: • Ms Ayesha Salim's letter to me of 5 August 2003 that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor had "made an application to West London County Court for summary judgment against you" • That the application filed by Ms Salim, dated 6 August 2003 was for the full amount of what she claimed (under a Statement of Truth) that I owed i.e. by then her client's 'dreamt-up' amount of £10,917 (US$19,250) ( Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised ) as she wrote:
As previously discussed (under (4) ' The "Part 36 Offer" was "not a pre-action offer" ), this was NOT TRUE • As I explained earlier on, I had made my position to Ms McLean very clear: I was not prepared to 'strike a deal' I wanted to enforce the terms of my lease and my statutory rights. I had communicated this to her, not only by providing her with a copy of my 9 August 2003 letter to the court, but also in the exchange of correspondence I had with her - which included my 21 August 2003 letter (hence, before the hearing). • Prior to seeing the judge, a conversation took place between Ms McLean, counsel and Ms Salim (I did not join this conversation). 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 the demand was not compliant with the terms of my lease as it was not supported by certified accounts - as explained previously ) • During the meeting with the judge, Ms Salim's explanation for the fact that her application referred to the full amount ("...the Claimant asks the court to enter summary judgement...") when, in fact, now, the sum proposed was less than what she claimed in her application, she replied: "it was a clerical error" . And this was accepted by the judge without the blink of an eyelid. (Evidence in support: (1) On 28 August 2003 , I sent a copy of Ms Salim's 5 August letter to Ms McLean; (2) To this, she replied on 1 September 2003 "I note the documents enclosed and in particular the correspondence from CKFT in relation to the application for summary judgement. The matter has now been concluded on the 26th August and I am not sure as to its relevance now." (3) My reply of 3 September 2003 was "I included it in case it became relevant at a later stage. (My not having it on 26 August was probably not important given the Judge's acceptance of, in my view, CKFT's lie that "it was an error" ) • To induce me to make this payment, Ms McLean and counsel had 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. In any case, I had always recognised that works were needed to the block and that consequently I would need to pay my share - as evidenced by my Witness Statement. I therefore agreed to do this, paying the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) (slightly less than my own calculations) (I have never determined how Ms McLean and Ms Salim arrived at this amount) (See also West London County Court # 11; My Diary 26 August 2003 ) As I pointed out under point 137 of my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher
NB: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS (4) Given Mr Gallagher's assessment that I was in a "very weak position" I consequently "could not ask Steel Services to pay for my costs" . In fact, I should be very grateful that Steel Services had made me an offer without costs.NB:Consider that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS Given the circumstances of my case, I considered that Steel Services ought to pay for my costs. (After the 28 October 2003 meeting, I saw another solicitor (My Diary 4 November 2003) who endorsed my position). I communicated this to Mr Twyman, under point 6 of my 7 November 2003 letter. (I had previously stated this as my objective in my 28 August 2003 and 3 September 2003 letters to Ms McLean). As detailed earlier on, Ms McLean had started to put pressure on me to accept the 'offer' i.e. 'strike a deal' the minute the 'offer' was received by placing strong emphasis on the risk of my being liable to pay Steel Services' costs if the matter proceeded to trial. In fact, as also detailed earlier on (under (5) "I had refused opportunities to strike a deal" ), Ms McLean's intention that I would end up striking a deal is evident from the time I appointed Piper Smith & Basham. In particular, her letter of 4 September 2003 in spite of my letter of 21 August 2003 , and also in spite of the fact she had a copy of my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County court. Please, note also that I had again reconfirmed my position to her my letter of 9 September 2003. (4.1) The threat of the 'costs', combined with an assessment that I was in a "very weak position", became the 'major weapon' at the time of the reply to induce me to accept the 'offer' - as evidenced by the following:
Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 In the summary of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher, I wrote (point 4):
In his 9 June 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher defended his position most vehemently - while placing very strong emphasis on 'the costs' - and my 'very weak position':
HOW ABOUT THAT FOR THE USE OF FEAR TACTICS?!... and considering that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS Consequently, that he
Seeing these comments, and in particular the one about the "life-line" made my blood boil, leading me to write a seven-page reply. It started under point 106 of my 29 August 2004 response with:
It took-up seven pages because I captured the harassment, intimidation and bullying that I, other residents, as well as Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau had suffered (See Police, Head Residents Association, Notices by landlord, Elderly Resident, Other residents and Nucleus). I concluded the reply under point 118 stating:
What Mr Gallagher also brought to the fore (point 66, 9 June 2004 ) are the following (which are discussed in earlier parts in this section):
Leading Mr Gallagher to state:
(5) As "the balance of risks was all against me", if I did not accept this "life line" and the matter proceeded to trial, I would live to repent / learn my lesson when "in the likely event that the defence fails" I would be faced with a "final bill" and be "reminded that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given"Subsequent note: I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 NB: consider the evidence that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS Should I stubbornly persist with my position, going against my 'advisers' recommendation:
HOW ABOUT THAT FOR THE USE OF FEAR TACTICS?! (5.1) My reply included asking: "Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?"These are some of the points in my 29 August 2004 reply: Under point 135, in reply to his comment about the "disastrous outcome" that would have awaited me (point 66 above):
While under point 67, I captured the following:
What was Mr Gallagher's response in his 11 October 2004 reply? Well, aside from taking offence in relation to my above question
his reply was (point 6):
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, please, compare the first sentence of Mr Gallagher's reply with his above comments at the time of the 13 November 2003 reply to the 'offer' and in his 9 June 2004 initial response to my complaint. (see above # 3.a.2 , # 3.a.3 , # 3.a.4 , # 4.1 ) Secondly, please note how Mr Gallagher continues to hold against me the fact that I refused to 'strike a deal' i.e. was refusing to breach the terms of my lease - wanting to abide by my moral principles and integrity to pay my just and fair share of the costs. (see above # 3.e.2 ) Like a parrot, the Bar Council merely repeated the contents of Mr Gallagher's correspondence, in the process ignoring the evidence against Mr Gallagher - as I highlighted in my reply (point 33, 25 March 2005 ):
In support of this, under points 25 and 33 of my 31 October 2004 reply I had captured Mr Gallagher's comments in his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003 and in his 9 June reply (as detailed above). Under point 33, 25 March 2005 , I also wrote: "Leading me to state in my 29 August 2004 reply: "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me?" While, under point 45, I wrote
Under point 15 of his 9 June 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher also aimed to communicate that ' I' was the unreasonable party in this case as, in my 9 August 2003 letter to the court I
To which I replied (point 60, 29 August 2004 )
(*) NOTE: Visitor to the site, please note that I was right about this : an invoice for £14,500 (US$25,600) , dated 21 October 2004 , was followed by an invoice for £15,500 (US$23,350) three weeks later, dated 16 November 2004 (no justification was provided with either) This is in spite of the fact that, following the ' offer ', I paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) for the major works through a consent order endorsed by the court on 1 July 2004. As can be seen in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing, my cheques had been cashed. (CKFT # 6.4 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4 ) I view these invoices as an act of vengeance for my challenging the service charge demand. I do NOT owe these sums - and therefore did not pay them (See Pridie Brewster) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, you would think that somebody with two brain cells, facing somebody like me - who had nonetheless paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) that was not due and payable - would have backed-off. Such is the profile of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides - and the extent of their arrogance and greed...as well as their 'justified' belief in the supporting infrastructure of lawyers, courts, tribunals, surveyors, accountants, local councils, etc. - as evidenced in the summarised outcome of my complaints: My Diary 6 May 2008) To point 60 of my 29 August 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher's response was:
As explained previously, I hold the view that Mr Ladsky et. al. made me the 'offer' when they were made aware that I was prepared to fight their false claim all the way to trial - which they did not want. NB: I was vindicated on this view: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS . The objective of the court action was to bully and coerce me (and other leaseholders) into paying an amount not due and payable. Typically, this tactic works. Indeed, as leaseholders incur ever-increasing costs fighting the landlord they end-up, either of their own volition, or under increasing pressure from their 'advisers' making a 'commercial decision' i.e. pay the landlord - thereby preventing progression to a hearing. (NB: Please note that, while I did not acknowledge the 21 October 2004 and 16 November 2004 invoices - and hence did not pay them - they have since been followed by an invoice dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900), and one dated 30 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. The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase £2,995 (US$5,300) over the 9 January 2006 invoice, which states a half-yearly service charge in advance of £815 (US$1,435). 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). Hence, ALL of these invoices are fraudulent (Pridie Brewster # 12 ) 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)? Who knows, considering the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides - as can be seen from some of the evidence compiled in this pack (2.4MB)... ...and this pack (1.1MB) which proves that what Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones have done is make the majority of leaseholders pay the full amount of the original demand of 15 July 2002 - in breach of the lease - and of their statutory rights) (See also Pridie Brewster) (My analysis contained in the above pack is based on the list of contributions supplied to me by the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 letter) (See Portner and Jaskel LLP and West London County Court for update: the 2nd fradulent claim in February 2007) Other points of note about this 9 January 2006 invoice (which further demonstrate the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Ladsky et. al and their aides), are that it includes "half yearly service charge in advance - to 23 June 2006" based on a document headed " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " from which I conclude that the sum was 'somehow' arrived (I do understand the calculation). This document claims that the £76,167 (US$134,300) of expenditure is attributable to "All flats" . This is fraudulent given that Steel Services no longer has control of the last floor of Jefferson House . (See Headlessors, Owners identity and Pridie Brewster) ) My 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council included (point 26):
I still hold the view that I am justified in expecting to be compensated for ALL my costs, as I incurred them through no fault of my own.Indeed, ALL stem from the fact that I 'dared' to ask the following when presented with the £14,400 (US$25,400) bill in July 2002: "What are you going to spend it on?". (I did this in the context of agreeing that works needed to be carried out - as recognised by Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT . A position I have consistently maintained throughout). And I then 'dared' to pursue an answer to my question. The Bar Council 's 27 January 2005 assessment of what Mr Gallagher had done was
HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (6) Mr Gallagher advised that the offer be "accepted subject to tweaking"In the summary of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher, under point 2, I wrote
At this point I will add, to the above ' allegedly ' - and let the evidence speak for itself. At the time of the reply, Mr Gallagher wrote the following:
I received the 12 November email on the morning of 13 November. As I captured under point 55 of my 5 April 2004 complaint, the contents of his email worry me greatly, as does his assessment in his email of 10h12 . However, (as I wrote under point 60 of my complaint)
Bearing in my mind that I am at work, and consequently do not have the time to reply as comprehensively as I would like, at 12h26 (on 13 November), I send an email to Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman, writing among others:
I hear nothing until sometime after 15h30 when I see that Mr Gallagher has sent an email at 15h32 to which he has attached the draft notice of acceptance and draft consent order . I get absolutely livid and experience unbelievable stress from panic (My Diary 13 November 2003 ). It is the first time I see these documents. Mr Gallagher wrote:
I am at work and due to be making a presentation shortly. (See below for my complaint about the use of coercion tactics) The concerns I had about Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean's attitude during the 28 October 2003 meeting, the worries I had on seeing Mr Gallagher's emails of 17h09 and 10h12 - added to events with Mr Twyman, Piper Smith Basham, during the week preceding the reply - proved to be justified as: what is written does not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting. (7) Mr Gallagher considered that he had "tweaked the notice of acceptance", "reflecting what had been agreed"(7.1) The Notice Of Acceptance drafted by Mr Gallagher does not challenge a single statement in the ' offer '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" (US$19,250) Among others, it also blames me for the LVT proceedings ".and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building..." . (NB: As captured under point 64 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database), "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered" ) The document drafted by Mr Gallagher makes no reference to the fact that the lack/insufficient specification identified by the LVT has not been addressed . This point had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting, as evidenced in Ms McLean's attendance note
The only thing that Mr Gallagher wrote about the LVT determination is
Mr Gallagher's subsequent explanation was (point 58, 9 June 2004 )
As I wrote (point 126, 29 August 2004 )
In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 52) I again drew attention to the contents of Ms McLean's attendance note and highlighted Mr Gallagher's claim that "it had been agreed, but then this proposal fell away" There is no reference to the specific terms of my lease, as the only comment made by Mr Gallagher reads:
In response to my criticism that what he wrote was, among others, incomprehensible, Mr Gallagher replied (point 55, 9 June 2004 )
Mr Gallagher also stated
Under point 1 of my 31 October 2004 reply I again pointed out that what Mr Gallagher had captured in relation to my lease in the 13 November 2003 notice of acceptance
(7.2) Two points which, it was agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting were not worth mentioning, make-up 50% of the contents of the letterDuring the 28 October 2003 meeting, instead of considering, what I viewed as the relevant points, Mr Gallagher launched into a discussion on the rateable value and the arbitration clause in my lease . He then dismissed both points as not worth pursuing. This is captured in Ms McLean's attendance notes of 28 October 2003 "Counsel then said that there were various matters that we could raise by way of argument for example the rateable value apportionment, the fact that the lease referred to having the matter referred to arbitration etc etc. Whilst those were arguments that we could run he thought that the likelihood of success would be limited" When I read the following in Mr Gallagher's email of 17h09 email, 12 November 2004 "The agreed strategy was for me to settle 1. a covering letter raising a number of technical and ultimately unmeritorious points, the purpose being to distract attention from the tweaking exercise" it did not register with me that there had been a change of plan subsequent to the 28 October 2003 meeting - to which I was not party. Points 2.1, 26 - 33 and 64 in my 5 April 2004 complaint relate to the fact that Mr Gallagher had included his assessment of the arbitration and valuation clause in the notice of acceptance. Under point 92 of my 29 August 2004 reply, I described this as "unobjectionable padding" . (8) Mr Gallagher considered that he had "tweaked the consent order" , "reflecting what had been agreed"(8.1) As demonstrated by the 'black on white' evidence Mr Gallagher did not do thisThis is the consent order drafted by Mr Stan Gallagher:
What had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting is, as captured in Ms McLean's attendance note , that the reply would state:
In his 9 June 2004 reply (point 29(7)(ii)) Mr Gallagher wrote
I pointed out (point 89, 29 August 2004 )
In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council I again drew attention to the above under points 39 and 52. Payment of interest At the 28 October 2003 meeting, it had been agreed that I would NOT pay the interest demanded (£143) (US$250) . This is not captured in Ms McLean's attendance note of 28 October 2003. However, before the reply was sent by Mr Twyman (without my consent) I captured it in my 7 November 2003 letter to Mr Twyman (under point 5, stating, "As discussed on 28 October" ). I also wrote it on the documents I faxed Mr Twyman and Mr Gallagher at 16h39 on 13 November 2003 ). As I pointed out (point 86, 29 August 2004 ), "I would not have written this if it had not been said" 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 (point 88, 29 August 2004) Post 13 November, I re-iterated the position to Ms McLean in the following exchange of correspondence of 18 November 2003 , 20 November 2003 and 23 November 2003 . As I noted in my letters, it is clear from, among others, what she wrote in her 18 November 2003 letter that an 'off-line' communication subsequently took place between Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher resulting in a change of position. I was not party to this agreement. I give the above as evidence against the following claims from Mr Gallagher that:
In her 18 November 2003 letter, Ms McLean tried to diminish the importance of my accepting to pay the interest charge demand on the grounds that it was "a small amount" - which Mr Gallagher also emphasised in his reply to my complaint (point 52, 9 June 2004 ):
Under the same point, he also wrote "At a practical level, my advice was that the modest amount of interest payable under the terms of the offer (£143) (US$250) should be paid so as to not lose the offer" As I pointed out in my reply to Mr Gallagher (point 88 29 August 2004 )
(NB: Consequently, I likewise disproved (point 73, 30 November 2004 ) Mr Skuse, Piper Smith Basham, who claimed in his reply to my complaint "In order to reach a settlement with the claimant it was better to agree to pay the interest ") (Piper Smith Basham # 7.3 ) Under point 11 of his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher stated
Under points 120 and 121 ( 29 August 2004 ) I challenged Mr Gallagher's assessment starting with
After which I detailed Steel Services' various attempts to make me pay an amount not due and payable, starting with a demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) and concluded that, as each attempt failed,
In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council I wrote (point 54)
(9) My overall conclusion on the reply written by Mr Gallagher - and sent by Mr Twyman without my consent - is that, evidently, my 'advisers' did not consider...
...etc, etc, etc, qualified as sufficient reasons to challenge the offer.WHY NOT?NOTE in 2007 : To which can also be added, under the Civil Procedure Rules, the issue of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - see My Diary 9 March 2007(10) My complaint of coercion by Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman were dismissed by the Bar Council (and the Law Society)Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton ) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 In my complaint to the Bar Council (point 5, 5 April 2004) I claimed that Mr Gallagher had
As an introduction, I draw your attention to the following: • The deadline for the reply to 'Steel Services' 'offer' was Thursday 13 November 2003 • A week earlier, at lunch time on Thursday 6 November, I left a voicemail for Mr Twyman that I would have a letter, containing my response, hand-delivered to him the following day. (This was done at 9h00). In this letter of 7 November 2003 , I state that I wish to review the draft. • I again repeated this in the fax I sent first thing on the morning of 13 November 2003 . • I repeated this for the third time in my email of the same day, at 12h26 Sometime after 15h30 on 13 November, I see that Mr Gallagher has sent an email at 15h32 to which he has attached the draft notice of acceptance and draft consent order . In this email, he refers to a 16h00 deadline. This is the first I hear of this. As I discovered subsequently, it is not true. 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 Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor faxed the 'offer' at 17h43 on 21 October 2003. (It is the witness statement that its client, Mr Ladsky did NOT send that was due to be "served/exchanged by 4.00 pm on 21 October 2003" - as evidenced by the 26 August 2003 WLCC Order) Please bear in mind that I am at work. It is the first time I see these documents and they are extremely important to me. In addition, as it happens, I am due to be making a presentation to a group. ( My Diary 13 November 2003 ) As I am reading the documents sent by Mr Gallagher, I receive an email from Mr Twyman, sent at 15h53 Hence, 21 minutes after Mr Gallagher's email. He states
In the next 10 minutes? I view this as the pressure tactic having gone into overdrive. (See Piper Smith Basham for events during the five days preceding the day of the reply which amounted to lack of contact and advice) (My Diary 6 November 2003 , 7 November , 11 November , 12 November , 13 November ) Given the unbelievable pressure under which I was placed, while I am at work - 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 meeting with Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher, would be included in the reply. (NB: It is only much later on that I noticed that, as drafted, the consent order leaves the door wide open to Steel Services to come back and ask me for another contribution for the major works, and so on, and so on). As you can see under Piper Smith Basham , subsequent events comprised of: • Mr Twyman lying about the time at which I faxed back my comments, claiming I sent them one hour later than I had done; • Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming in its 25 August 2004 reply that I "had already seen the draft of the tweaking that would be engrossed in the reply" ; • Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming that I had given my consent to the reply that had been sent by Mr Twyman. A fact I was able to disprove, not only with Ms McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 , but also with Mr Gallagher's reply of 9 June 2004 , under point 80. (NB: In spite of the evidence, Piper Smith Basham continued to insist - in THREE subsequent letters - that I had agreed to the reply, as can be seen in Ms McLean's letter of 12 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 and that of Mr Skuse, dated 18 December 2003 ) Considering the decision of the Bar Council, Law Society - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Please, consider also (below) what happened with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor when I sent my 'own' version of the notice of acceptance and consent order (in monetary terms, the difference was only £143 (US$250) vs. its keenness to have what Mr Gallagher had written endorsed immediately ( 19 November 2003 ) Under point 75 of his 9 June 2004 Mr Gallagher stated
Consequently, in his 15h32 email of 13 November 2003 to Mr Twyman, Piper Smith Basham,
I replied (point 171, 29 August 2004 ) that "I reject this explanation" . A barrister who claims to be so experienced is not sure of the time at which a reply could be sent!? In reply to the Bar Council 's comment ( 27 January 2005 )
I wrote
The Bar Council also stated that the outcome was due to my
To which I replied (point 76, 25 March 2005 )
(11) Mr Gallagher could give himself a 'pat on the back' for a 'job well done' as the reply "had been accepted and he could not therefore understand why I refused to endorse it"Mr Gallagher rejected my assessment that the conference of 28 October 2003 had been a "complete and utter waste of time" as "It led to the agreement of a strategy that, not only involved accepting a settlement offer that should have been accepted, but also the tweaking of the offer in a way that the claimant in turn accepted ." (point 85, 9 June 2004 ) Mr Gallagher stated
Furthermore, overall, Mr Gallagher was of the view that he could give himself a 'pat on the back' for a job well done. Indeed, he claimed ". the strategy that I advised on worked: the tweaked offer was accepted." ( point 78, 9 June 2004 ) Obviously, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor was very keen to have this Consent Order endorsed by the court - as evidenced by Ms Ayesha Salim's 19 November 2003 letter to PSB ".endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court." ... ...and its client was certainly very pleased with it (My Diary Latter part of November 2003) As I pointed out (point 52, 25 March 2005 ) Mr Gallagher boasted in his 9 June 2004 reply: ". the strategy that I advised on worked: the tweaked offer was accepted."
Under the same point I highlighted:
(NB: See also Piper Smith Basham : Ms McLean's letter of 12 December 2003 vs. her 21 January 2004 letter and my assessment that she had a 'last ditch' attempt at concluding the deal - whatever this was. As suggested by her five-week delay in replying to my 19 December 2003 correspondence, Ms Ayesha Salim , CKFT, was waiting 'in the wing' for the outcome of Ms McLean's letters ) In monetary terms, the only difference relative to the ' offer ' was the £143 (US$250) of interest for which I stated I could not agree to this demand. Obviously, what Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's client was objecting to was the content of my Notice of Acceptance in which I highlighted the breaches of my lease and of my statutory rights. Mr Gallagher claimed (point 12, 11 October 2004 ) that ".the draft consent order that I settled (the tweaking exercise), if entered into, would have protected Ms Rawé from any further demands for payments in respect of the major works to which the county court claim related, namely, the then current round of major works that Mr Brock (Ms Rawé's surveyor) was very concerned could be the subject of a major cost overrun" (NB: Considering the compilation of pre and post evidence compiled in this pack (2.4MB), the concern about the 'overrun' proved to be, to say the least, an understatement ) Mr Gallagher criticized the consent order I had written once I took back control of my case claiming (point 12, 11 October 2004 ) that it ".affords no protection against further charges in respect of the current round of major works. I therefore do not understand why Ms Rawé has entered into a consent order in these terms, yet complains about the terms of the draft consent order that I drafted on instructions" ` In reply to this I point out that it took six months of fighting with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, namely Ms Ayesha Salim, before I obtained a Consent Order endorsed by the court. (See West London County Court ) Evidently, Mr Ladsky et. al. did not like my consent order any more that they liked my Notice of Acceptance. (Indeed, the transcript of the 'cosy' 28 May 2004 West London County Court hearing (there was only Ms Salim and the judge) makes very interesting reading). (While I nonetheless received a service demand for £14,500 (US$26,000) on 21 October 2004 (hence, three months after the consent order had been endorsed) - without any explanation, which was followed a month later by another invoice for £15,500 (US$27,300), dated 16 November 2004 - likewise with no explanation, I attribute this to an act of vengeance for, among others, my having challenged Mr Ladsky et. al.'s 7 August 2002 application to the LVT. I did not acknowledge these invoices and therefore did not pay them. More than one year later, I received an invoice dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. The £5,625 (US$9,900) invoice includes 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 Owners identity and Pridie Brewster for detail) This invoice 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 explanation as to the composition of the sum. The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase £2,995 (US$5,281) over the 9 January 2006 invoice, which states a half-yearly service charge in advance of £815 (US$1,435). 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). 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)? Who knows considering the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides - as can be seen from some of the evidence compiled in this pack (2.4MB)) - and in this pack which demonstrates that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones made the majority of leaseholders pay the full amount of the original 15 July 2002 demand. See Portner and Jaskel LLP and West London County Court for update: the 2nd fraudulent claim in February 2007 (12) Furthermore, Mr Gallagher knows what he is talking about as he has "considerable experience of these types of disputes", including "litigation in LVTs" as he was "writing a book on this subject on which he would be pleased to expand"Under point 54 of his 9 June 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote
Mr Gallagher certainly took pains to emphasise that he is an 'authority' on landlord-tenant disputes and has "considerable experience" - thereby implying that he knows what he is talking about Indeed, as he highlighted, he was in the process of ".writing a book for Sweet & Maxwell on litigation in the LVT and would be pleased to expand on (this)" (point 23, 9 June 2004 ) (As stated earlier on, Mr Gallagher 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") Well, (as previously stated), I view Mr Gallagher as having - among others - a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view (13) In conclusion, Mr Gallagher rejected my claim of malpractice against him, as he did not consider himself "guilty of any professional misconduct"He considered that what he did was as per the legislation and I could not therefore hold it against him. Indeed, Mr Gallagher concluded his 11 October 2004 reply by stating:
My reply to this was (point 79, 25 March 2005 ):
(14) My complaint that I suffered an enormous amount of stress, anguish, torment and distress as a consequence of Mr Gallagher's actionsIn relation to my complaint that, as a result of his actions Mr Gallagher had caused me
The Bar Council's 27 January 2005 reply was
To which I replied (point 74, 25 March 2005 )
Visitor to the site, I give as evidence the fact that I have numerous witnesses - including medical evidence - to the state I was reduced to, especially in November and December 2003. A state that was very easy to see by ALL as I lost nearly one stone (5kgs) in one month because I could barely eat (I was already thin) and, for weeks, had great difficulty sleeping due to extreme anxiety. (My Diary 13 November 2003 ; November 2003 , Christmas 2003 ) (15) Other factors I considered should have been taken into consideration by Mr Gallagher 'my adviser'In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council ( point 46), I drew attention to the fact that
I then captured all of the following : • Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, letter of 7 October 2002 threatening to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) immediately. Proof I raised this during the 28 October 2003 meeting is captured in Ms McLean's attendance notes . (NB: Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL) (NB: At the 28 October 2003 meeting, Ms McLean's reply was "I write this kind of letter every day!" . Please note that I had given Ms McLean a copy of this letter (with numerous other documents) several weeks previously. Please note also that in her letter of 25 September 2003 Ms McLean had stated, in relation to my raising the issue of Mr Silverstone's letter of 7 October (in my 25 September 2003 email) :
I highlighted that to "threaten forfeiture prior to issues being determined by a court or a tribunal is illegal, stating that it is a fraudulent act as the intention was to frighten me in order to extort monies not due and payable. (It is also an abuse of position)" - and gave as evidence: Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 renders it "illegal to make threats which are calculated to cause alarm, distress or humiliation" (Subsequent note: I have changed my mind since. See my note under the extracts ) Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 - Section 4A makes it a ".criminal offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress with intent by using threatening words" (Subsequent note: I have also changed my mind since as a result of re-reading parts of the Act - as it only applies to threats made "in a public place"). • The fact that Mr Gallagher knew that CKFT filed the claim against me while its client was concurrently pursuing an action in the LVT (and knew about it ) - amounting to CKFT placing me in a situation of double jeopardy. Consequently, acting against the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Ch. 41, s. 17 to act appropriately "in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice" • The fact that the action by CKFT also breached another part of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which states that the courts expect ".litigation to be started as a last resort after attempts have been made to settle the dispute by negotiations or other means. " . The section of the Act also states that the overriding objective of the rules is: ".to enable the courts to deal with cases justly. Rule 1.1(2) states that dealing justly with a case includes (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing." . I commented that " Placing me in a situation of double jeopardy cannot be regarded as my being placed "on an equal footing" . • Mr Gallagher knew that the reason I ended up challenging SS application in the LVT was because, despite my numerous - legitimate - requests for a priced specification this evidence had not been supplied. Not only did I say this at the 28 October 2003 meeting, Mr Gallagher had been supplied with a copy of my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement which makes this very clear. He also had a copy of the LVT report which, under point 14, states "Ms Hathaway maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification. but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version" . (The same damning evidence is found in Mr Gale's 24 February 2003 report, under point 2.04: ".the un-priced or priced specification.has been. freely available for all lessees to view" ) • Therefore, it amounted to another breach of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which states that "The courts expect litigation to be started as a last resort after attempts have been made to settle the dispute by negotiations or other means.. The courts also expect parties "to have exchanged information (a 'cards on the table' approach): for claimants to provide to defendants detailed letters of claim (letters before action) to which defendants are expected to respond also in detail" . Not only were my legitimate requests for details of the costs ignored, the follow-up by SS was the filing, one month after my request to CKFT, of the claim against me (and 10 other residents) in West London County Court . (NB: As evidenced in Mr Silverstone's letter of 21 October 2002 , CKFT knew that its client was pursuing an action through the LVT. As evidenced by the 29 October 2002 directions from the LVT, its client Mr Andrew Ladsky had attended the meeting, a meeting at which I (and the other leaseholders) had specifically been told to not pay the service charge until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented) Rule 1.1.(2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 states that "dealing justly with a case includes: (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing" . Denying me access to the information I am entitled to have under the terms of my lease, and as per my statutory rights, and to then proceed to issue proceedings against me most certainly cannot be regarded as my being placed "on an equal footing" . • Mr Gallagher had been supplied with CKFT's application and supporting documents ( draft order and amount claimed ) for the 24 June 2003 , and its application for the 26 August 2003 hearings. He knew, on the basis of the LVT determination and of my surveyor's assessment , that the claims made to the court by CKFT were false. Thereby amounting to a breach of the CPR rule of "enabling the court to deal with a case justly" (as well as amounting to contempt of court). • The filing of just one claim against 11 residents , implying that we were jointly and severally liable for the claim. Under the terms of our leases we are not jointly and severally liable for the service charges, as each one of us is merely liable for the percentage of the total charges - as specified in our leases. • Mr Gallagher knew full well (as he should) that CKFT's handling of my case broke all the rules - as evidenced by what he wrote in his 11 October 2004 reply : "I accept that it is possible that, given .the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" . (Still under point 46), I also captured the following:
I followed this by the example of my claim that Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had supplied false information under a Statement of Truth in the application for the 26 August 2003 hearing as, in reply to this, Mr Gallagher's wrote under point 7 of his 11 October 2004 reply:
After which I highlighted: Rule 21.21(4) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - "...no duty upon a solicitor to enquire whether the client is telling the truth. However, where the solicitor's instructions or other information are such as should put him or her upon enquiry, a solicitor must, where practicable, check the truth of what the client says to the extent that such statements will be relied on before the court or in pleadings (now statements of case) or affidavits" And Rule 21.01 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - "Duty to not mislead the court - Solicitors who act in litigation, whilst under a duty to do their best for their client, must never deceive or mislead the court" As well as: Practice Direction 22: "A false statement of truth with dishonest intent amounts to contempt of court)" . NOTE in 2007 : To which can also be added, under Civil Procedure Rules, the issue of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - see My Diary 9 March 2007As another example, I highlighted Mr Gallagher's comment under point 29(14) of his 9 June 2004 reply in relation to my reporting at the 28 October 2003 meeting that I had suffered harassment, intimidation and assault from Mr Ladsky. He wrote:
And his reply (point 4(7), 11 October 2004 )
(NB: Funny how Mr Gallagher initially had an opinion that I " did not have a viable claim against the landlord" and then changed tack claiming that it was only briefly discussed. I concluded from this that Mr Gallagher had not expected me to have a substantial amount of black on white evidence against Mr Ladsky) And that under point 22 of my 31 October 2004 reply I had written "Mr Gallagher is underplaying my reply to his point 29 (14)" and added
Following on from this (under point 47), I captured various sections of the Bar Council code of conduct. (16) The Bar Council's 27 January 2005 assessment of my complaint was:
In my 25 March 2005 reply (point 64) I stated
While under point 81, I wrote
I concluded my reply by highlighting my support of Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004):
And added,
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (17) Follow-up events: An amasing display of U-turns and pirouettes by the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman
As I stated in my 2 April 2005 reply, " there is absolutely nothing in the documents sent which could remotely lead to this conclusion" . I also highlighted
Given the evidence, I can only conclude that the Bar Council contacted the Legal Services Ombudsman with the aim of making a U-turn and evidently received a sympathetic ear. The outcome of my challenging the Legal Services Ombudsman led to a 8 April 2005 letter stating that it would investigate my complaint. (In other words, the Legal Services Ombudsman made a U-turn ) In my 22 May 2005 letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman (relating to my complaint against the Law Society) I stated that I was copying Which? (UK-based consumer group), as the Legal Services Ombudsman's initial handling of my complaint against the Bar Council had prompted me to contact them to add my support to their campaign for legal reforms. I did not copy the Bar Council on this letter Indications are that the Bar Council was informed of this by the Legal Services Ombudsman, as it sent me a letter dated 3 June 2005 claiming that it was in response, firstly to my 25 March letter (NB: it had already replied to this letter on 30 March (!!!) ) and, secondly, to my 2 April 2005 letter (my letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman on which I had copied the Bar Council). In this letter, the Bar Council made a second U-turn as it stated,
As I wrote back to the Bar Council on 22 June 2005 , given the two-month gap, I opted to conclude that the true objective of its letter was " an attempt to 'bury' - among others - the 30 March 2005 letter from your Office because of an assumption that I copied it to Which? " And also stated that I saw this letter as
In reply to the Bar Council caseworker's counter-claim that he had
I highlighted he outcome of the Clementi Review (as I had already done in my 25 March 2005 reply). I also included extracts from an article in the Law Gazette of 1 April 2005:
(18) And the 'PIECE DE RESISTANCE'...
The only possible explanation for this statement (which was also 'dutifully' highlighted by the Legal Services Ombudsman in her 30 August 2005 reply) is a claim that this amount of time was insufficient for Mr Gallagher to give proper advice. (It was the first time that this statement was made). Given these events (and the Legal Services Ombudsman's replies to my complaint against the Law Society) the Legal Services Ombudsman 30 August 2005 reply to my complaint against the Bar Council came as no surprise. The penultimate paragraph states:
I opted to not waste anymore of my time replying to her letter. I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing the site, instead of wasting it writing a letter drawing attention to points and evidence I had already supplied. As they were not acknowledged the first time round, nor would they be the second time round. Instead, I have annoted a few comments on her reply. By then, my complaint to Arden Chambers, followed by my complaint to the Bar Council, the subsequent battle, as well as escalation to the Legal Services Ombudsman had cost me over 250 hours of my life. Hence: 250+ hours of my life down the drain! Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Also, I think you will agree with me that my visual for the home page of Lawyers, Courts & LSO is fair comment. (19) My conclusionsConsidering the events - and their sequence - which took place with Mr Gallagher, and concurrently with Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , I have come to the conclusion that my experience with Mr Gallagher is the result of my not accepting the standard 'off-the-shelf formula', dished out by SOME legal 'advisers' in this kind of situation - for people like me i.e. of limited financial means and with no influential connections. My assessment of the foundation of this formula is that, after cashing in a few thousand pounds from the leaseholder, the pressure starts mounting on the leaseholder for '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'" If this does not achieve the objective, the pressure mounts up attempting to make the leaseholder feel guilty by trying to make her / him feel responsible for prolonging the situation and, consequently, for being the cause of the costs incurred e.g. 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. My instructing solicitors agreed with me that the risk on costs was the primary issue. I maintain that they did so because it was a true reflection of the position" Mr Gallagher (point 4(8), 11 October 2004 ) "On the landlord's motives in making an offer to settle it may have been that the landlord too recognised that a trial would be disproportionately expensive" 4 September 2003 letter from Ms McLean " Incidentally, I took a call from CKFT today and, in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals" Mr Lanny Silverstone's 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" Mr Lanny Silverstone's 24 July 2003 letter to me: "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" Mr Lanny Silverstone's 25 June 2003 letter to me ".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." Key benefit of implementing this 'standard' approach to the legal 'adviser': no need to spend time reading, understanding, assessing and consequently taking into consideration material evidence (lease, LVT report, defence to claim, exchange of communication between the parties, etc.). 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
Instead, phone calls are exchanged with the other side and a few letters written to justify the fees. (Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that my claim of the 'key benefits' is supported by the evidence contained under the three firms) (See also Business Model) I was not prepared to 'shut up' and pay monies I did not owe.
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 / refusing to be 'snared by the hunters'. (Subsquent note in 2008 - My above assessment proved to be correct: in relation to the second fraudulent claim, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me by 'Rootstock Overseas Corp. / Steel Services / Sloan Development' aka Mr Andrew Ladsky, 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 ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7.17 , # 7.12.1 ; point # 15, above) - and the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 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 (home # 4.19) 'Unfortunately', in 2002-2004, it worked with the majority of my fellow leaseholders 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 # 6.3 , # 6.6 ; WLCC # 6 , # 5 , # 14 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). (NB: Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the scam: being persecuted (e.g. My Dairy 15 May 2008 ; home introduction ; being under surveillance) 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 though they are the victims (e.g. RICS # 12 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 , # 3 ; home introduction) - and laughing their head off (outcome of my complaints). I will again state that these events lead me to fully endorse Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)
And finally, at the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE ? Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): 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. In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)
To be more precise:
( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006) UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT? Mr GALLAGHER, THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . |
