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 |
The English injustice system... in the residential leasehold sector
|
West London County Court - 2002-04
Introduction(SEE BELOW KEY POINTS OF NOTE , MY QUESTIONS , BREACH OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS , SECTIONS LIST) (NB: West London County Court (WLCC) is also covered in:
My first-hand experience with WLCC between December 2002 and July 2004 (see also Lord Falconer of Thoroton) - as the INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - was horrendous and extremely traumatic. I went through 20 months of absolute sheer utter hell with this nightmare, hell hole court. They were 20 months of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma. It destroyed my life. (NB: Other fellow leaseholders also complained of the treatment by WLCC. While I do not have evidence in support, what I can add is that, on one occasion, when I phoned the court in December 2003 to make sure the payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing had been registered, as the person was looking at the records, she said: "Oh, in November there is an entry: 'Has paid', but it does not say who has paid or how much they've paid" (See also Comment # 19 for the experience of a visitor to my site with this court) I was subjected to this treatment as a result of having a - FRAUDULENT - 29 November 2002 claim, ref: WL203 537, filed against me, and 10 of my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House, Basil St, London, representing 14 flats - BY Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA, on behalf of 'Steel Services' (SS) = Andrew David Ladsky et.al. (see Advisors to Jefferson House, Owners identity, Headlessors and Directorships) While I view events as being attributable in part to WIDESPREAD FAILURE by WLCC's parties to do their job i.e. FAILURE TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT BY FAILING TO IMPLEMENT THE RULE OF LAW, - as well as COLLUSION (like the LVT, the police, etc.) and RETRIBUTION for my 'daring' to stand-up and fight for my rights...
Sections(NB: Many of the documents referred to in this section are also listed under the 'Document library': Years 2002 to 2004)
(A) Brief overview(REMOVED) (B) Chronology of events(1) While Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) allow a claim to be filed against more than one defendant, it seems to me - in my non-lawyer opinion - that acceptance by WLCC of the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, filed by CKFT on behalf of 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky against 11 Defendants is WRONG - as it implies that we are jointly and severally liable for the claim - which we are NOT
(The upside to 'SS' of being allowed to do this by WLCC was that it only paid £500 (US$880) to file the FRAUDULENT claim against 11 of us) In my case, the £14,987.83 demand in the Particulars of claim are detailed as "Major works contribution" £14,400 (US$25,400) (the 17 July 2002 invoice following Joan Hathaway, MRICS, so-called 'notice' of 15 July 2002 of a global demand of £736,206 15 (US$1.3 million) - see London LVT # 4 for evidence of the massive FRAUD) - as well as several other items principally referring to electricity charges (see Martin Russell Jones for my endless battles with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, over service charges) As can be seen from my 17 December 2002 Defence to the claim, practically every other entry on the claim is wrong. They also include electricity charges for which I have never received an invoice - in spite of repeated requests to Hathaway; see MRJ # 21; # 47 (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) 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'? (2) WLCC proceeded with the claim IN SPITE of: (1) having absolute knowledge that it was an ABUSE OF PROCESS of court, as the SAME ACTION was being pursued concurrently in the London LVT - and IGNORED my repeatedly highlighting this abuse; (2) the fact that the statement of truth was signed by a non-recognised party(1) ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT (In addition to causing me extreme anguish and distress) (which, of course, was the objective - see My Diary 6 Dec 02), I was very baffled by the claim because, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial London LVT hearing - which took place as a result of SS' own application to the LVT of 7 August 2002 - we (the leaseholders) were very specifically told to NOT pay the service charge UNTIL the tribunal had issued its report - and it had been implemented. To reinforce the point, we were handed a leaflet by the tribunal. Called 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management', on page 5 it states:
(See London LVT # 1 and # 10.6 for detail... including of the collusion) As can be seen from the 29 October 2002 pre-trial directions, Andrew Ladsky (claiming that he was "just a resident"), with his puppets, Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS of MRJ, 'managing' agents for Jefferson House, and his other surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS, attended the hearing. Hence, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, endorsed the 29 November 2002 claim, filed by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) in the absolute knowledge that we, leaseholders, had specifically been told by the LVT to NOT PAY the sum demanded until it had reached a determination - and it had therefore been implemented. Yet, the Particulars of claim endorsed by Hathaway's statement of truth (see below, issue about that) that "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" - states that:
As detailed under the London LVT points # 3 and # 10.5, on 5 February 2003, the first day of the substantive hearing was set for 13 March 2003. Hence, relative to when the claim was filed, this took place three and a half months later, and the LVT 17 June 2003 report, ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02 (printscreen of website) was issued seven months later. I immediately brought the ABUSE OF PROCESS to the attention of WLCC:• My letter of 10 December 2002:
• My letter of 17 December 2002 (included with my 17 December 2002 Defence to the claim):
• My 17 December 2002 Defence to the claim, in which I wrote:
In support of my (non-lawyer) position that there was an abuse of process of court and that the action ought to have been stayed, I highlight the following from two law firms: Letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors in which she states:
Letter from solicitors acting for Leaseholder D, to CKFT, dated 12 December 2002 :
How many more of these letters are there?It was blatantly obvious that CKFT – an officer of the court – was committing some very serious breaches (see my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC)
(NB: Concurrently, I ALSO brought the abuse of process to the attention of Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs. She, likewise, turned a blind eye and deaf ear to it. See London LVT # 10.6) WHAT led the WLCC judges to conclude that they could turn a blind eye to the abuse of process of court by SS aka Ladsky et.al. and their puppets, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) – by accepting the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 – as they had absolute knowledge from my correspondence, that SS was concurrently pursuing the same action under two separate jurisdictions, both part of the English legal system: WLCC and the London LVT? (2) STATEMENT OF TRUTH SIGNED BY JOAN HATHAWAY, MRICS, MRJ WLCC proceeded with the claim IN SPITE of the fact that the statement of truth on the Particulars of claim was signed by Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, 'managing' agent for Jefferson House. Under Civil Procedure Rules PD 22 para.3.11 "An agent who manages the property…for the party cannot sign a statement of truth. Consequences of "Failure to verify a statement of case" - PD 22 para.4.1 "If a statement of case is not verified by a statement of truth, the statement of case will remain effective unless it is struck out, but a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth”. (NB: I only discovered this as a result of having the - FRAUDULENT - 27 February 2007 claim filed against me by Portner and Jaskel, in WLCC - as second time round, I made a point of familiarising myself with CPR. (See My Diary 9 Mar 07). Of course, in typical style, HMCS 'Customer Service' threw that back at me when I raised it in 2007 (WLCC-Post 2004 # 23) WHAT led the WLCC judges to conclude that they could allow SS-CKFT to breach CPR 22.4.1 that prevented them from “relying on the contents of the statement of case as evidence” – as the Statement of Truth was signed by Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ – a ‘managing agent’ acting for Jefferson House? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'?
WLCC KNEW that the assertion made in the Particulars of Claim that
was NOT true – as I stated in my 17 December 2002 Defence “Part of my lease is different from that provided to the County Court”. The difference was highly material as the lease, ‘apparently’ for flat 23 states, under Clause (2)(2)(c)(i)
By contrast, in my lease, the same Clause (2)(2)(c) (i), states:
This amounted to a repeat of what SS = Ladsky et. al. and their puppet, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, had done with their 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal - as they supplied a lease, 'apparently' for flat 22, with the same clause as for 'apparently' flat 23 - FALSELY claiming that it was representative of all the leases. (see LVT # 8.1.4; Martin Russell Jones # 23) I do NOT believe that, unlike my lease, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) for flats 22 and 23 gives ‘the landlord’ carte blanche to charge the leaseholders whatever amount he sees fit - see point # 6, below My flagging-up, in my Defence, the fact that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine, led Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to send me a 23 January 2003 letter stating:
Please note that Silverstone did this two months AFTER filing the (FRAUDULENT) claim against me. (see also CKKT # 6.7) WHAT led the WLCC judges to conclude they could allow SS =Ladsky et.al. - CKFT to proceed with the claim in spite of having absolute knowledge that the lease supplied with the claim was NOT representative of my lease – as it includes a clause that imparts a highly material, false legal obligation on my part. (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'?
WLCC's 24 January 2003 reply to my highlighting that an abuse of process of court was taking place (point # 2, above) was:
Note that WLCC TOTALLY overlooked my letter of 10 December 2002 - sent more than SIX WEEKS previously. There I was - a Litigant in Person - sent from pillar to post: firstly by Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs to whom I had sent a 9 December 2002 letter bringing the WLCC claim to her attention - which resulted in a 11 December 2002 letter amounting to 'Get lost! We don't care!' (LVT # 10.6) - and now by the court – neither of which wanting to take any responsibility. I found it extraordinary that WLCC did not see that it had a role to perform as a result of being informed of an abuse of process of court - committed by an officer of the court - which is what a solicitor is. I view this as amounting to a breach of CPR's Overall Objective – Rule 1.4 “Court’s duty to manage cases”, including 1.2(a) “Ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing”; Rule 1.4.(2) “Active case management includes – (a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings” Aside from WLCC's failure to perform its function, I did not do as it suggested, as it was abundantly clear to me that I did not stand a chance of achieving this - given that: (1) In reply to my 17 October 2002 question (following his 7 October 2002 threat of forfeiture):
Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, replied on 21 October 2002 :
(2) In his letter dated 7 October 2002, Silverstone threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded by 10 a.m. on 14 October 2002. (3) In spite of the evidence I provided in my reply dated 17 October 2002, Silverstone nonetheless continued with his threats of prosecution in his 21 October 2002 letter - thereby, not only denying me my statutory rights, but also breaching the terms of my lease. Furthermore, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, – who signed the Statement of Truth – on the Particulars of Claim which state that “[I] have failed to pay the service charges… that are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant" had attended the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing (as can be seen on the document) – and therefore KNEW that we, leaseholders, had specifically been told to NOT pay (LVT # 1 and # 10.6). Adding to the unbelievable torment, anguish and distress is the fact that I was facing similar treatment by the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - see e.g. My Diary c. 17 Jan 03 ; End Jan 03 (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'?
WLCC sent me this 21 March 2003 Notice that a Charging Order hearing was due to take place on 4 April 2003. • I challenged this in my letter of 25 March 2003 addressed to "District Judge":
I concluded my 25 March 2003 letter by stating:
(NB : I wrote "in my case", as I did not know what other leaseholders were doing (e.g. they might have opted to instigate an action through arbitration - which is the manner stated in the lease under Clause 2(2)(g) for handling disputes. This point was actually emphasised by J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, Chair, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing as he told us (i.e. the leaseholders) that, because of this clause in our lease, the application by SS might actually not proceed to a hearing by the LVT. It was obviously agreed behind closed doors that the action could nonetheless proceed - in the expectation that the outcome would be 'a done deal'). • In spite of my 25 March 2003 letter, WLCC still persists in telling me, in its 27 March 2003 letter, that the 4 April 2003 Charging Order concerns me, as it states:
As I wrote, e.g. in my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, under point 26: "Until this false claim filed against me by the unscrupulous Claimant, Steel Services, landlord for the block, I had never had any dealings with courts in my life. I did not know what a ‘Charging Order’ was. This frightened me. I was in the most appalling state on reading this, trembling, and was actually physically sick" As i also captured in this letter (point 27) "I phoned the Court but, as I was not getting anywhere, I opted to write a letter on 25 March 2003 in which I yet again reiterated – among others – my request for the action to be stayed as the proceedings were still taking place with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) (see enclosed)" (my letter of of 25 March 2003) And under point 30 "I was in a frantic state. I desperately tried to find out the meaning of a ‘Charging Order’. I phoned your office, Lord Chancellor, but was not provided with an answer. I tried my then solicitor, but his reply was that I had asked him to advise me in relation to the LVT, not in relation to the Court. If I wanted advice in relation to the Court, he required £2,000.00 in advance. (By then I had already paid him £9,000.00 in fees!). Eventually, through my network of contacts, I determined that a ‘Charging Order’ could only be made against me if a judgment had been entered against me. I told my friend that, if that was the case, then I did know anything about it" • At my wits end, on 30 March 2003, I sent a letter to the members of the LVT Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - on which I copied the "District Judge" - stating, among others:
(NB: Note that I sent a total of SEVEN LETTERS + my Defence to WLCC raising the issue of abuse of process of court / the London LVT action) • After days of extreme anguish and distress (see My Diary 24 Mar 03 ; 25 Mar 03 ; 1 Apr 03), desperately trying to find out the information to challenge WLCC - and being literally minutes away from paying another £2,000 (US$3,500) to my then solicitor - when I again contacted WLCC - this time 'armed' with the appropriate terminology (obtained through my network) - I was finally told:
• I captured this in my 1 April 2003 letter addressed to the "District Judge", stating, among others:
• During my 1st April conversation with WLCC, I was also told that "It may nonetheless be of benefit for you to attend" . Not knowing what to expect, I asked my surveyor to accompany me. When we arrived at the court, we were informed that the hearing had been cancelled. (See also My Diary 4 Apr 03) A consent order relating to the 7th Defendant, dated 2 April 2003 , had been faxed to the court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT). (NB: What WLCC did in relation to this Defendant (among others!) is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING. Indeed this consent order states: "Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003..." The tribunal issued its report 4.5 months LATER! on 17 June 2003. Hence, as with other of my fellow leaseholders, WLCC BREACHED this leaseholder's statutory rights, as well as rights under the lease - point # 6, below)) In addition to my surveyor's fees of £600 (US$1,100), my going to the court on that day also cost me half a day off-work. WHAT led the WLCC judges to conclude that they could ignore the specific legal direction (supported by an LVT leaflet relating the Court of Appeal case, Daejan Properties v. LVTs) given to me (and my fellow leaseholders) by the Tribunal at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to NOT pay the ‘service charge’ UNTIL the Tribunal had issued its determination – and it had been implemented – by proceeding with the case? WHY did the WLCC judges behave like 'poodles', issuing a judgement against a leaseholder, and then a charging order, when they had absolute knowledge that, to demand payment from ANY of the leaseholders was, among others (points # 6 , # 8 , # 9, below), in breach of the directions issued by the tribunal? (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'?
• As evidenced by the 23 May 2003 application to WLCC by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, for a Case Management Conference:
As stated under point 64 of the 17 June 2003 tribunal report
WHAT led the WLCC judges to conclude that they could overlook the evidence supplied, and actively assist SS =Ladsky et.al. in – illegally – charging the leaseholders differentially - on a basis other than their fixed percentage share of a global sum which must be the same for ALL – and therefore assist SS in breaching the leaseholders’ statutory rights, as well as the terms of the lease - which is a legal contract? I do NOT believe that, unlike my lease, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) for flats 22 and 23 gives ‘the landlord’ carte blanche to charge the leaseholders whatever amount he sees fit – and WLCC KNEW this from documents supplied by Ladsky’s puppets to the court e.g. MRJ’s "Major Works Apportionment" supplied for the 24 June 2003 hearing, which covers 6 flats, and that supplied for the 26 August 2003 WLCC hearing, which covers all the 35 flats in Jefferson House (at the time). In EACH instance, the percentage share for EACH flat is very clearly stated – as is the (fraudulent) global sum from which the respective shares are calculated. (Difference explained by the fact that, in these documents, VAT has not been included in the global sum stated at the start of the documents – which brought the total to £736,217 – as captured in the 15 July 2002 demand). In its 29 August 2006 ‘response’ the ICAEW states that
To which my reply is:
Of course they were NOT “willing”: We had the equivalent of 'a gun held to our head': the - FRAUDULENT - 29 November 2002 claim. We had been denied our legal rights. We had been terrorised by MRJ and CKFT with threats of "forfeiture, proceedings, and costs" ; etc. - see Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18 ; CKFT # 6.3 , # 6.6 On the upside: the ICAEW has confirmed that the leaseholders were made to pay “extra costs” i.e. monies NOT due and payable.Hence, WLCC 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 (LVT # 1 and # 10.6). In addition to this, a Section 20 Notice had NOT been issued following the LVT 17 June 2003 so-called 'determination'. (London LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 7) - consequently, amounting to a breach of my statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985: section 20(3)(a) , Section 20(3)(b) , Section 20(4)(e) and section 21(5) - as well as, of course, a breach of the rights of my fellow leaseholders : section 20(4)
(See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) 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'? (7) Continuing to operate at the 'beck and call' of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - and hence, its clients, Andrew Ladsky et.al. - BEFORE the tribunal issued its report - West London County Court sent me a 12 June 2003 Notice of a hearing WITHOUT any information whatsoever as to what the hearing was aboutWLCC sends me a 'Notice of hearing', dated 12 June 2003, stating:
That's the sum total of it. NO EXPLANATION whatsoever as to what the hearing is about. (= Another example of the utter contempt and disdain by the WLCC judges and court staff) At the time of receiving the Notice, I had NOT received a copy of the LVT's so-called 'determination', ref: LVT/SC/007/02 (as it signed it on 17 June 2003). I consequently saw myself as - yet again - being hounded by the court. In fact, considering the treatment so far, I felt that 'persecuted' was by now a more appropriate description. Very clearly, the court did not care whether I had received a copy of the LVT report. A member of the 'clan' had asked for a hearing - therefore his wishes would be the court's command!
(Evidently, 'SS' was keeping in close contact with the LVT, as the LVT issued its report five days later - see London LVT # 4). In my 17 June 2003 letter to the District Judge I wrote, among others:
(The hearing nonetheless took place - see point # 8, below) (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'?
In my 22 June 2003 letter to District Judge Wright I communicated that I have "just received the LVT report.". I included highlights from the report, and stated, among others:
I had the letter biked over to the court on the 23rd . As, among others, I highlighted in my letter that I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal, I assumed that the judge would cancel the hearing. Therefore, as stated in my letter, I phoned the court on the morning of the 24th to ascertain the position...
At the 24th June 2003 hearing, JUST 10 minutes before seeing the judge, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, handed me three documents I had NOT seen previously. They included a "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " produced by Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) for which, in my case (and that of the other five leaseholders listed on the document), the original sum demanded was reduced by just 24.19% - in my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) (v. the £14,400 originally demanded in the 17 July 2002 invoice) . Silverstone did NOT provide me with any supporting document as to how this reduction had been achieved . The remaining two documents are a " Draft Order and Case Summary " which, among others, state:
As can be seen under London LVT # 4 and Brian Gale # 6 - this is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. But...
As a result of my 22 June 2003 letter, during the 24 June 2003 conference, District Judge Wright reprimanded Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, for
(By the way: how about wasting my time as well? Ha! but of course: who am I relative to a member of 'the tribe'?)
WHAT led District Judge Wright to conclude that ONLY my fellow leaseholders who attended the 24 June 2003 hearing “needed to be given the time to review the 17 June 2003 Tribunal report” – thereby breaching the rights of my other fellow leaseholders (7 of which had, by then, been bullied by the court action into paying monies NOT due and payable - point # 6, above) - and resulting in placing me in an extremely difficult moral position? WHAT led District Judge Wright to conclude that she could make me attend the 24 June 2003 hearing – in spite of my protesting beforehand that I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal, and her agreeing with me on this during the 24 June 2003 hearing - and thereby play into the hand of SS = Ladsky et.al. and their puppets, CKFT, whose objective in requesting the hearing was to add to the very extensive bullying and intimidation they had already subjected me to (and my fellow leaseholders) - in order to force me to strike a deal? (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, can you see why my summary reads...
Likewise, 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'? At least: District Judge Wright ordered that SS pays my costs for the day (and that of other leaseholders present) - and, obviously, refused Lanny Silverstone's demand that I (and the other leaseholders) pay his client's costs for the day. (This was captured in an Order dated 24 June 2003) (See also My Diary 24 Jun 03) (Aside from the issues about proceeding with this claim), given these events - in my non-lawyer opinion: the hearing should NOT have taken place. What 'SS' i.e. Ladsky et.al. wanted out of the day was the opportunity to put more pressure on me (and the other leaseholders) to pay what 'he decided' we should pay. And the court obliged. (Wasting taxpayers' money in the process). (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'?
In my 15 July 2003 letter to District Judge Wright, cc'd Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, I informed her that
and detailed the main points of my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the tribunal's 17 June 2003 so-called ‘determination’ - as the tribunal FAILED to perform its legal remit (London LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 7) I also wrote:
My letter triggered a 17 July 2003 letter from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, with which he enclosed “Part III - Revised price of the cost schedule”. My chartered surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the document, "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised", handed to me by Silverstone 10 minutes before seeing the judge at the 24 June 2003 hearing (point # 8, above). Hence, it STILL FELL VERY FAR short of my surveyor's assessment of the 17 June 2003 LVT report (See London LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 7) In addition - as can be seen - Silverstone did NOT supply ANY supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at (consequently amounting to a breach of my statutory rights). Silverstone also enclosed copy of a 17 July 2003 letter to District Judge Wright, in which he implied that I was a LIAR, as he wrote:
As the London LVT had ‘very conveniently’ for his client, FAILED to perform its legal remit (point # 8, above; London LVT # 4), it was Silverstone’s word i.e. Ladsky’s word against the assessment by my surveyor. And of course, Ladsky evidently carried a lot of weight among the WLCC judges – and by extension, his puppets. (THANK YOU John Prescott AND Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs for the POISONED CHALICE!) As evidenced by SS = Ladsky's 21 October 2003 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) (point # 12, below):
Ladsky et.al. and their mob kept on challenging the 17 June 2003 London LVT report - but without going through the proper channel: appeal to the Lands Tribunal. WHY?Because they had absolutely no intention of implementing the LVT findings - as evidenced by, among others - their LIES - in connection with the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearings... ...and because it was highly advantageous to stay with the 17 June 2003 report - as it - ILLEGALLY - does NOT include a summary of the determination (point # 8, above ; London LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 7) - thereby allowing Ladsky et.al. and their mob to spin their fabricated story to my fellow leaseholders and extort monies NOT due and payable from them e.g. point # 6, above Hence, the reason for the bullying, harassment and scare tactics by Silverstone to force me"to meet"with his client to strike a deal: letters from Silverstone of 25 June 2003 , 24 July 2003 and 7 August 2003 (CKFT # 5) And every time the greed-ridden vermin challenged the amount, it was done WITHOUT any explanation, and hence in breach of statutory requirements. (NB As captured in my 15 July 2003 letter to WLCC, cc'd Silverstone, I accepted the LVT determination. What I repeatedly challenged - IN VAIN (LVT # 7) - is the fact that the tribunal - FAILED - to perform its legal remit by NOT including a summary of its determination on the global sum demanded (LVT # 4 , # 6) In his 17 July 2003 letter to District Judge Wright, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, wrote that he was also contacting the London LVT
He provided me with a copy of his 17 July 2003 letter to the LVT - which states:
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: as you can see from the 17 June 2003 LVT report (discussed under LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 7) - it is NOT what the LVT has done. Hence: the London LVT HAS FAILED TO PERFORM ITS LEGAL REMIT... and this was seized upon, among other, in the WLCC forum, to bully 9 out of the 14 flats on the claim into paying the FULL AMOUNT (e.g. point # 6, above) Please, note also that Sheila Sanz's letter of 21 July 2003 WAS SUPPLIED to WLCC.
Further evidence of this is also found in Lisa McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:
Silverstone was fully cognisant of this - as evidenced by his 21 July 2003 reply to "The Chairman, Leasehold Valuation":
And so was his client, Andrew Ladsky, was fully knowledgeable of this, as evidenced by the letter he wrote to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal report :
As were Ladsky's other 'puppets', Martin Russell Jones, as evidenced by the 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Joan Hathaway, MRICS, (but I believe to have been written by Andrew Ladsky ) which states:
Contrast the above with the fact that THE MAJORITY of my fellow leaseholders were BULLIED into paying the FULL AMOUNT demanded (point # 6, above) WHAT led the WLCC judges to conclude that they could continue to treat me as a non-entity, turning a blind eye to the overwhelming ‘black on white’ evidence I supplied against the claim – and repeatedly ignore my communicating the fact that – in breach of my rights (and those of my fellow leaseholders) - SS had NOT implemented the tribunal’s 17 June 2003 ‘determination’ (London LVT # 4 , # 6, # 7) – an attitude that forced me to employ a solicitor and barrister for the 26 August 2003 hearing - in the hope that I would finally be heard? (This turned out to be in vain - point # 11) (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'?
In her 6 August 2003 Application for Summary Judgment against me (and one of my fellow leaseholders), Ayesha Salim, CKFT, FALSELY claimed - under a Statement of Truth - that we owed the 24 June 2003 "revised apportionment" amount, stating, among others:
This time, the "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised" issued by MRJ, listed all the 35 flats in Jefferson House at the time (see e.g. Major Works) – in EACH instance showing a reduction of 24.19% relative to the amount on the 29 November 2002 claim. It was the SAME reduction as on the document given to me by Silverstone, CKFT, on 24 June 2003 - in my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) (v. the £14,400 originally demanded in the 17 July 2002 invoice, and stated in the Particulars of claim) (point # 8, above) Consequently, given the GLARINGLY obvious (supported by my surveyor's assessment of 31 July 2003) that the London LVT so-called 'determination' (see LVT # 4, # 6 , # 7) had NOT been reflected in the document issued after the 24 June 2003 hearing (point # 9, above) - AND, in any case, a Section 20 Notice had NOT been issued following the LVT report - it follows that Ayesha Salim's claim - under a Statement of Truth - is NOT TRUE. Hence, in addition to a breach of CPR (CKFT # 6.6) , it amounted to, among others, a breach of my statutory rights. (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) In between this 6 August 2003 Application for Summary Judgment against me and the 24 June 2003 hearing, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, sent me three malicious letters (25 June 2003 , 24 July 2003 and 7 August 2003) in which he used bullying and intimidation tactics in an attempt to force me to strike a deal with his client, while Ayesha Salim, CKFT, sent me a 5 August 2003 letter stating that she had "made an Application to West London County Court for Summary Judgment against you" because "we have received no response from you" (See also CKFT # 5 , My Diary 9 Aug 03) Partly in reply to these letters, on 9 August 2003 I wrote a letter to District Judge Wright, WLCC, cc'd CKFT, stating, among others
I do not believe that I could be any clearer in labouring the point that SS could NOT charge the leaseholders differentially other than on the basis of their percentage share of the global service charge – which HAD to be the same for ALL the leaseholders. As I wrote, under point 67 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society in relation to my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham:
I wrote the same thing in relation to my 5 April 2004 complaint to the Bar Council against Stan Gallagher - under point 64 of my 29 August 2004 reply
The 'reply' to my 9 August 2003 - and 15 July 2003 letters to District Judge Wright - was an 18 August 2003 Notice of Case Management Conference & Application Hearing, stating that the hearing is due to take place on 26 August 2003. (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC)
Although I had represented myself at the 24 June 2003 hearing (and won) (point # 8, above), my lack of knowledge and experience meant that I found the experience quite distressing. This, added to my facing the WLCC wall of blind eyes and deaf ears since my first letter of 10 December 2002 (point # 2, above) led me to take a leap of faith and ask Piper Smith Basham (PSB) to represent me at the 26 August 2003 hearing - because: (1) it had / was representing some of my fellow leaseholders; (2) in April 2003, Lisa McLean had approached my then solicitor (used in connection with the LVT proceedings); (3) I met her on the last day of the London LVT hearings (PSB # 2) As can be seen from the section on PSB, it turned out to be a massive mistake.... ... which, just for that day, cost me: £881 in barrister fees; a £3,500 deposit to Piper Smith BashamWhile I supplied Lisa McLean with, among others (PSB # 2), a copy of my 9 August 2003 letter to WLCC (point # 10, above), in my 21 August 2003 letter to McLean, I made it very clear that I was not prepared to 'strike a deal' with Ladsky et. al.
I also added
(How naïve of me! This scam had been in the making for years) On 26 August 2003, prior to seeing District Judge Wright, a conversation took place between my ‘advisors’, Lisa McLean, PSB, and David Pliener, barrister, she had engaged 'to advise', and CKFT (PSB # 2) (I did not join the conversation) resulting in an ‘understanding’ to get me to pay what I had recognised in my 9 August 2003 letter to District Judge Wright (point # 10, above). They agreed on the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000). (This amount was different from what I calculated. I repeatedly asked McLean for an explanation and never received a reply). I agreed to pay the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) even, though, legally, I did NOT owe a single penny because the demand was in breach of statutory requirements defined under s.20(3)(a) , 20(3)(b) , 20(4)(e) and s. 21(5) of the L&T Act 1985, as well as in breach of covenants in my lease - as I had stated in my 17 December 2002 Defence to the claim. What prompted me to do this were:
In any case, I had always recognised that works were needed to Jefferson House, and that, consequently, I would need to pay my share - as evidenced by my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement - and as also recognised by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in his 25 June 2003 letter to me. During the hearing, Ayesha Salim's explanation to District Judge Wright for the fact that her 6 August 2003 application was for “the court to enter summary judgement” against me for the sum of £10,917 + (US$19,250+) when, in fact, the sum now proposed – to which she was agreeing - was only £2,255 – she said to District Judge Wright that "it was a clerical error". Filing of an application for “summary judgment” is a “clerical error”!! And this was accepted by District Judge Wright without the blink of an eyelid (My Diary 26 Aug 03) WHAT led District Judge Wright to conclude that she could turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the blatant lie by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, at the hearing? District Judge Wright did NOT challenge Salim on the claims contained in her application. This is in spite of my 22 June 2003, 15 July 2003 and 9 August 2003 letters in which I related the main points of the 17 June 2003 report - and to the latter, attached a copy of my 31 July 2003 surveyor's assessment of the LVT report (as the tribunal FAILED to perform its legal remit - see London LVT # 4 , # 6, # 7) In other words: I might as well have been writing in invisible ink. (See also My Diary 26 Aug 03) And YES! NOR did my ‘advisors’ who, among others, opted to ignore my brief of 21 August 2003, in which I referred to the content of my 9 August 2003 letter to District Judge Wright, highlighting, among others, “The LVT has made a determination on the reasonableness of the service charge for the block – as a whole – not just for myself…There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent – to ALL lessees…” (\But subsequent events demonstrated that Lisa McLean and CKFT were not going to give up on the idea of forcing me to strike a deal – by whatever means). (Evidence in support of my claim for what took place during the 26 August 2003 hearing - in addition to the 26 August 2003 Order : (1) On 28 August 2003, I sent a copy of Salim's 5 August 2003 letter to Lisa 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" ) (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) 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'? (12) My submitting my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement led SS = Ladsky et.al. to issue a 21 October 2003 ‘offer’ of £6,350 (US$11,200)After the 26 August 2003 hearing (point # 11, above), the battle continued to rage on, as my so-called ‘advisors’, Piper Smith Basham, quite clearly joined forces with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) to force me to strike a deal (PSB # 7.14) I continued to refuse to do this – saying that it was against the terms of my lease, in breach of my statutory rights and those of my fellow leaseholders; that SS-MRJ had a legal obligation to implement the 17 June 2003 (so-called)‘determination’ (see London LVT # 4 , # 6 , # 7) , etc. The 26 August 2003 Order (resulting from the hearing, point # 11, above) required:
On 19 October 2003, I had my 19 October Witness Statement hand-delivered to Piper Smith Basham. As detailed under the section My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement, it was clear that, in breach of CPR – which require simultaneous exchange of witness statements - PSB had sent / discussed my witness statement with CKFT / its client, as I never received one from SS =Ladsky et.al. Instead, at 17h43, two hours after the deadline for exchanging the witness statements, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, faxed, to PSB, a 21 October 2003 ‘offer’ by SS =Ladsky et.al. for £6,350 + plus £143 interest! It amounted to a REDUCTION of £8,000, or nearly 60% less than the original 17 July 2002 demand of £14,400 (included in the Particulars of claim) Salim's opening statement in the 'offer' reads:
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with CKFT and its client, Ladsky et.al. (as well as their other 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones and 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 London LVT hearings? Some way into the document, the 21 October 2003 'offer' states:
Re. "our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund..." This is VERY WRONG...
The deadline for responding to the 21 October 2003 'offer' (point # 12, above) was 13 November 2003. Against my moral principles, I decided to accept the 'offer' even, though, legally, I did NOT owe this amount – as I finally admitted to myself that I was facing a legal sector hell-bent on helping landlords – at least ‘certain landlords’ - line their pockets at the expense of leaseholders. And my ‘daring’ to stand-up for the rights I have been told I have the right to demand had, by then, led me to suffer horrendous, very traumatic and inhuman treatment – including by my so-called ‘advisors’ Well, that 'treatment' continued over the following weeks, because I refused to be conned by them, in collusion with Ladsky's mob. Details about the events surrounding the reply to the 'offer' are captured in my 16 March 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham, and in my 5 April 2004 complaint to the Bar Council against Stan Gallagher. See also My Diary for 2003: 28 October ; the whole of November, as well as - December 2003 and Christmas 2003 for the horror of what I went through. The main thing to say is that the reply sent by Piper Smith Basham to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor did NOT contain what I had agreed with Lisa McLean and Stan Gallagher. Consequently, I refused to endorse it. From that time until mid December 2003, I battled with Lisa McLean to get a substitute reply sent to CKFT. As I was getting nowhere, at this point, I took back control of my case. In my correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, I wrote in my 19 December 2003 Notice of Acceptance that I was accepting the offer but could not agree to the payment of interest (£143) (US$250). I highlighted that I was accepting the 'offer' in spite of the breaches of statutory requirements and the terms of my lease - which I listed - "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end". I also highlighted the breach with CPR in relation to the requirements for Part 36 Offers (Lord Woolf's ruling). I enclosed a cheque for £4,096 (US$7,200) (£6,350, minus the £2,255 already paid following the 26 August 2003 hearing - point # 11, above). Obviously, I did not view this reply as affording me the justice and redress I felt I deserved given the circumstances of my case - but, the very traumatic treatment I had been subjected to by WLCC and the lawyers meant that I was literally near collapse (My Diary Dec 03). I wanted out of the hell hole flat, I wanted to be rid of the evil, greed-ridden, criminal vermin controlling it. And at that point: I wanted out of this country as it no longer was the country I had opted to make my home for so many years. Therefore, my priority was to secure an outcome that would protect me from further demands for 'these major works'. As it turned out: IN MY DREAMS! My taking back control of my case threw a spanner in the works of the arrogant, self-regarding, self-serving, corrupt cabal, upsetting the game plan as it took Salim, CKFT, five weeks to acknowledge my letter (CKFT # 6.8 ; My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) - and kick-started another six months of battling with CKFT playing games, then in WLCC, and latterly with Wandsworth County Court. Other evidence in support of my 'threw a spanner in the works' conclusion is that, in her 19 November 2003 fax to Piper Smith Basham, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, wrote: "Would you please endorse the draft Consent Order and re-submit the same to us. We shall then submit it to the Court." The issue could not have been the £143 (US$250) of interest - which I very rightly refused to pay. It was what I had written in my 19 December 2003 Notice of Acceptance - which my so-called 'advisors' had so studiously omitted to include. As a result of putting pressure on Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (which included using a firm of solicitors to send, on 16 January 2004, copy of my 19 December 2003 correspondence to CKFT), Salim finally replied on 27 January 2004
(Note that, as can be seen from the receipt, I had sent my 19 December 2003 correspondence by 'Special delivery, next day' - and that the Post Office had confirmed delivery) In her 17 February 2004 letter, Salim states that her "...client is prepared to accept the sum provided. Accordingly, we are presenting your two cheques for payment." Lack of progress in obtaining a consent order from CKFT, combined with my finally accepting that WLCC would continue ignoring any correspondence it received from me, led me to seek advice from the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau. On 2 April 2004 the Citizens Advice Bureau wrote to WLCC:
My resorting to using the RCJ's CAB proved to be a good move, as it resulted in a 21 April 2004 Order from District Judge Wright ordering Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor to "file and serve pre-trial checklist", otherwise the claim will "be struck out" More exchange of correspondence took place, which included my rejecting CKFT's amendments to my draft consent order. Having falsely told me on 31 March 2004 that a judgment had been entered against me on 18 March 2004 (Lord Falconer # 2)... ...the persecution and collusion by WLCC continued, as it ignored instructions from the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau by sending the 18 May 2004 Notice of the 28 May 2004 hearing to the RCJ's CAB, instead of sending it to me - leading me to miss the 28 May 2004 hearing (the first one week break I had 'dared' to take in months) ...
But, District Judge Madge was determined to go out of his way to oblige Salim - as evidenced in the transcript of the hearing:
My hand-written comment on the transcript reads:
As you can imagine, I was in a terrible state when I discovered that I had missed the hearing, and when I received the 28 May 2004 Order (Falconer # 4 ; My Diary 28 May 04) Some of Ayesha Salim's comments - captured in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing - I did - eventually - managed to obtain (Falconer # 5.3), make very 'interesting' reading which, at the time, led me to conclude that Salim and her client, Ladsky et.al. saw the consent order as an irrelevant piece of paper, as well as an intention to demand more money from me at a later stage. I WAS RIGHT! (see below). In her 15 June 2004 letter, Salim wrote that she had sent the Consent Order "to the court for approval" and, with her correspondence of 14 July 2004, sent me a copy of the Consent Order endorsed by a 1 July 2004 Order issued by District Judge Ashworth, Wandsworth County Court. WHAT led the WLCC staff to conclude that they could continue to play into the hand of CKFT-SS =Ladsky et.al. by ignoring the instructions they had been given by the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau to contact me directly – opting to send the Notice of the 28 May 2004 hearing to CAB, instead of sending to me – resulting in my missing the hearing? WHAT led District Judge Madge to conclude that he could proceed with the 28 May 2004 hearing in spite of being informed by the RCJ’s CAB (21 May 04) that I would not be able to attend the hearing as I was out of the country – and that this was due to WLCC ignoring the instructions it had been given by the CAB to contact me directly? WHAT led District Judge Madge to conclude that he could issue an Order, dated 28 May 2004, that the action against me be “stayed” – in spite of being told by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, during the hearing (transcript of hearing) “There is nothing wrong with the consent order we received from her yesterday. I think that is fine.” – and thereby cause me to suffer, for more than two years afterwards, unbelievable anguish, torment and distress? (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court)
(For evidence that these invoices were, of course, BOGUS - and FOLLOW-ON INVOICES WERE EQUALLY BOGUS: see my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, points 132-138 under header # 13 ) Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously, I informed Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, that I had accepted the 'offer' from her client in settlement of my share of the major works and had paid £6,350 (US$11,200). ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH! I had given in once, I was not going to give in a second time. With hindsight, 'maybe' what I should have done was to go to WLCC / Wandsworth County Court and show the invoices v. the 1 July 2004 Consent Order. But, my experience over the last two years with both courts (and the tribunal) had been so horrendous and traumatic that I hoped to get better treatment from the ‘regulators’. IN MY DREAMS!I therefore filed a 2 February 2005 complaint with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones ; a 20 December 2004 complaint with the Law Society against CKFT ; sent a 19 July 2005 2005 'cry for help' to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales in relation to Pridie Brewster, accountant for Jefferson House, etc - leading me to go into battles spanning the following two years – all resulting in the same outcome: ‘GET LOST!’ (See My Diary 6 May 08 for an overview of my complaints; Document library for a list ) The 21 October 2004 and 16 November 2004 invoices were - 14 months later - followed by another invoice from MRJ, dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). It was therefore £10,254 LESS than the previous invoice of 16 November 2004. Yet again, NO explanation provided. I attribute the time lag to my filing the complaints - which 'took the wind out of their sails'... temporarily, as they knew that they had nothing to fear from their so-called 'regulators'. (For further detail on the - FRAUDULENT - demands, see my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, points 133 - 142, header 14.15) For subsequent events see Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004... ...the outcome sealed the proof that the threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS (14) In spite of WLCC having absolute knowledge that agreement had been reached with 'SS', it continued with the persecution and mental torture by sending me a 9 June 2004 Notice that I was the Defendant in a trial, before Circuit Judge, in Wandsworth County Court - and transferred my file to that courtI received a 9 June 2004 Notice of Transfer of Proceedings from WLCC which:
The Notice states:
The Notice does NOT provide any information whatsoever as to the reason for the trial. Having missed the 28 May 2004 hearing due to WLCC’s fault (point # 13, above) - or perhaps, more accurately ‘plan’ - I had no idea what had been said at that hearing – and therefore what was behind this Notice. What added to my unbelievable amount of anxiety and distress was District Judge Madge's 'freebie' to Salim in the 28 May 2004 Order that the action against me be "stayed" (point # 13) WHAT led the WLCC judges / staff to conclude that they could continue to subject me to ongoing mental torture by telling me in the 9 June 2004 Notice that my case “has been transferred to the Wandsworth County Court for listing for trial before Circuit Judge” – and provide no explanation whatsoever in the Notice - in the knowledge that, as they had made me miss the 28 May 2004 hearing (point # 13, above), I would have no idea as to what had led to the transfer? When I phoned WLCC to determine why I was due to be the Defendant at a trial, given that I had agreed a Consent Order with SS, the reply was “I don’t know, I can’t tell you because your file has been transferred”. I then phoned WCC. The staff claimed to not have received my file and therefore could not answer my questions. WHAT led WLCC staff to conclude that they could continue to subject me to ongoing mental torture by telling me, when I phoned to challenge the 9 June 2004 Notice, that they could not explain the reason for the transfer of my file to Wandsworth County Court, as my file was "in transfer"? WHAT led the WLCC court manager and other staff to conclude that they could continue to subject me to ongoing mental torture by ignoring my 20 June 2004 letter, as well as my phone calls to the courts in which I stressed the fact that I had agreed a Consent Order with SS (point # 13)? During these contacts, some of the staff, at both WLCC and WCC often displayed extreme arrogance, a patronizing, condescending attitude and, at times, coming across as though they were enjoying my anguish and distress. It felt as though the courts’ staff had been asked to inflict punishment on me. WHAT led the WLCC and WCC staff to conclude that, following issuing the 9 June 2004 Notice, they had free rein to talk to me in an extremely arrogant, patronizing, condescending tone - and evidently enjoy my anguish and distress? (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) What had and continued to be taking place with that nightmare, hell hole court since the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, was filed against me, could not be attributed solely to crass incompetence. The occurrences are too numerous, and the situations show a coordinated approach – leading me to conclude that it is part of an ‘extra service’ to ‘certain landlords’: in this case, revenge on behalf of Ladsky et.al. and their puppets for my ‘daring’ to challenge the 'service charge' demand - and 'daring' to challenge the judges, court manager and other court staff. (And this continued at a magnified level in 2007-08)(NB: In addition to proceeding with the claim in spite of an abuse of process of court; the statement of truth being signed by a non-recognised party (point # 2), etc - other events: (1) FALSELY informed me - and persisted - in telling me that the 4 April 2003 hearing concerned me (point # 5, above; Falconer # 1) ; (2) WRONLGY told me on 31 March 2004 that an 18 March 2004 judgment had been entered against me (Falconer # 2) ; (3) MADE ME MISS the 28 May 2004 hearings (point # 13, above ; Falconer # 3) and INSISTING that no hearing had taken place (Falconer # 5.2)) I headed my 20 June 2004 letter to WLCC “Yet again I am suffering extreme anguish and distress because of your Court’s carelessness” – and related events, including quoting from the 9 June 2004 Notice, in the context of which I wrote
I was desperate to get the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing to understand what was behind the 9 June 2004 Notice from WLCC. But, as I relate in my 8 July 2004 letter to the WLCC’s Court Clerk (in which I also chased a reply to my 20 June 2004 letter), more than one month after my 4 June 2004 application requesting that WLCC sends the tape of the 28 May 2004 hearing to my selected company for transcription, WLCC sent the WRONG tape to the company (Falconer # 5.3) WHAT led the WLCC staff to conclude that they could continue to subject me to ongoing mental torture by (1) waiting a whole month to action my request for the tape of the 28 May 2004 hearing to be sent to my selected transcribing company; (2) which turned out to be the wrong tape – thereby continuing to keep me totally in the dark as to what was behind the 9 June 2004 Notice, and therefore in a continuing state of horrendous anguish, torment and distress? (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) (See WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT for subsequent events - including with the 5th Defendant) (C) 'The English injustice system'I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person, considering the above events will understand why my summary for this section reads 'The English Injustice system'. Considering that, I - alone - wrote EIGHT letters to the courts (other leaseholders will have protested as well), can events with the courts be attributed solely to gross incompetence and gross mismanagement? My answer is: NO As detailed in the Document library - In total West London County Court, Wandsworth County Court and the Court Service (cry for help to Lord Falconer) have cost me over 200 hours of my life. In addition, over £10,000 (US$17,000) in legal fees... ...as well as an indescribable amount of torment, anguish and distress over a period of one year and nine months - and continued anguish for a long time afterwards as District Judge Madge captured in the 28 May 2004 order that the action against me be "stayed" i.e. open to further proceedings (point # 13) (See also my questions for the breach of CPR and statutes overlooked by WLCC) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this court) WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT, WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT AND LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . (D) How the 'Clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post'
The following represents the comments (in italics) I received from the Law Society in its 8 February 2005 reply to my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor. These comments are included because they make specific reference to the court. The numbers highlighted in bold typeface and their associated text, also in bold typeface - which precede the reply from the Law Society - are the points from my complaint to the Law Society. 1.1.1.2 Ignored evidence supplied - ".it would have been for you and/or your solicitors to bring your defence and supporting documents to the attention of the Court at the relevant time via the correct channels" • In filing my Defence to the court, I certainly expected the court to read it - and take action. • In my 22 June 2003 letter to the District Judge, I included highlights from the LVT/SC/007/20/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) :
To this I added a note in which I referred to the 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400. With the letter, I enclosed 8 pages from the LVT report. • In my letter of 15 July 2003 to District Judge Wright, headed
I specifically state that I disagree with the "revised amount of £10,917" (US$19,250) demanded of me by 'SS' and asked for the court's assistance
(I copied CKFT and Martin Russell Jones on the letter). • I wrote another letter to District Judge Wright, dated 9 August 2003 again reiterating my position and providing, in evidence (among my 16 enclosures) a copy of the LVT report (LVT/SC/007/120/02 (#992 on the LVT database), as well as of my surveyor's assessment (dated 31 July 2003 ) which clearly demonstrate that the sum still being demanded of me post the LVT issuing its report did not reflect its findings.
At this point I included precise details of the impact of the LVT findings LVT/SC/007/120/02 (#992 on the LVT database) on the sum demanded - which had the effect of reducing the original sum demanded by nearly 70% (London LVT # 4, # 6 , # 7) - followed by:
1.1.2.2. Demanded money that was not due - ".it was a matter for the Court to determine whether the sums claimed were due or not. The Court, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction has the relevant power to impose the necessary sanction on a party where there has been abuse of process" Well, IT CERTAINLY DID NOT! (points # 2 , # 4, # 6 , # 8 , # 9, # 10, # 14, above) • I also draw your attention to the following in the 23 August 2004 reply from HMCS 'Customer Service' following my 29 July 2004 letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 4
Note also, from the same letter, (paragraph 13)
• 1.1.3.3. Non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules - ( NB: In relation to my stating that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor-Steel Services' 'so-called' Part 36 offer of 21 October 2003 was not compliant with CPR as defined by Lord Woolf in the Ford v GKR Construction case). Law Society: " Such concerns need to have been raised with the Court which, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction can impose the relevant sanction, if deemed appropriate, upon the defaulting party" . I highlighted to my then solicitors (Piper Smith & Basham) and barrister (Stan Gallagher) that Lord Woolf's ruling applied as I had not been provided with the information necessary for me to assess the offer. (This was ignored. It forms part of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham and my complaint against Gallagher) I could not send to the court the Notice of Acceptance I had sent to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 19 December 2003 when I took back control of my case, as it took another five months for 'SS' i.e. Andrew Ladsky et.al., to agree on the wording of a Consent Order - but with no intention of implementing it. See Point # 13, above; CKFT # 6.4 If the 28 May 2004 hearing (at which the consent order was discussed) was the time for me to show / file my Notice of Acceptance of 19 December 2003 - and therefore raise the issue of the non-compliance of the offer with CPR - as defined by Lord Woolf - I missed it - thanks to WLCC's 'assistance' to SS (Point # 13, above ; Falconer # 3 ) Anyway, considering that
...it is clear that it would not have made any difference.
1.1.3.5. Obtained Orders before Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued report - "...should have been raised before the Court for it to determine the jurisdiction of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal over the Court's jurisdiction in respect of CKFT's client's claim" I communicated the LVT action to the courts a total of EIGHT times (all by 'Recorded' / 'Special delivery' post) - in very plain language, I believe. 1. My 10 December 2002 letter to WLCC:
2. My 17 December 2002 Defence to the WLCC claim, WL 203 537:
3. My 17 December 2002 letter to WLCC (included with my defence to the claim):
4. My 25 March 2003 letter to WLCC:
5. My 30 March 2003 letter to the LVT, cc’d WLCC:
6. My 17 June 2003 letter to WLCC:
7. My 22 June 2003 letter to WLCC:
8. One year later - as the horrendous nightmare was continuing (point # 14 , above; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2 , # 3, # 4, # 5 , # 5.1 , # 5.2 ) - I also repeated this in my 22 July 2004 letter to Wandsworth County Court
And, in some of these letters, as well as in others e.g. 17 July 2003 and 9 August 2003, I communicated to the courts that the reduction in the sum demanded of me fell very short of reflecting the LVT findings (LVT/SC/007/120/02 (#992 on the LVT database) • The 6 August 2003 Application for Summary Judgment against me (and one of my fellow leaseholders) filed by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, states:
It was NOT TRUE (as explained under point # 10, above). . I again draw your attention to paragraph 13 in the 23 August 2004 reply from HMCS 'Customer Service'
Also, to paragraph 12
1.1.3.6. Entered negotiations and at the same time claimed different amounts from others - ". parties to the litigation (residents) should have raised any of their concerns with the Court at the appropriate time" • Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, copied District Judge Wright on his 17 July 2003 letter to the LVT - AND the 21 July 2003 reply from the LVT which states:
• My 9 August 2003 letter to District Judge Wright, stating:
• The court opted to ignore the fact I had stated in my 17 December 2002 Defence to the claim that the lease supplied to the court with the claim was different from mine (point # 3, above) • I again draw your attention to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the 23 August 2004 reply from HMCS 'Customer Service'.
1.1.3.7. Failure to amend claim in light of Leasehold Valuation Tribunal report - " The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal report would have been brought to the attention of the Court or alternatively the Court would have known that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal was considering issues. Therefore, the alleged failure to amend the claim is not a matter that we can consider as it falls within the jurisdiction of the Court at the relevant time" In addition to my letters to WLCC of 10 December 2002, 17 December 2002 and 25 March 2003: • My 30 March 2003 letter to the London LVT Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - copied to the District Judge:
• My 17 June 2003 letter to the District Judge:
• My 22 June 2003 letter to the District Judge:
• I again draw your attention to paragraph 14 of the 23 August 2004 reply from HMCS 'Customer Service'.
1.1.3.8. Observe proper standards of work - ". all procedural/legal matters which were for the Court to address. For instance, if a party has failed to comply with court rules/procedures then it is for the Court by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction to determine those breaches and if appropriate, sanction the defaulting party " My letters of 10 December 2002 , 17 December 2002 , 25 March 2003 and 22 June 2003 to the court, as well as my Defence of 17 December 2002, and my 30 March 2003 letter to the LVT Panel, copied to the court. In these, I: bring the action in the LVT to the attention of the court, including stating that the LVT told leaseholders to NOT pay the sum demanded UNTIL it had issued its determination and it had therefore been implemented; request that the action be stayed, and equally plainly, state
I also draw your attention to paragraph 12 in the 23 August 2004 reply from HMCS 'Customer Service':
1.1.4.1 Breach of duty to Court - " CKFT were entitled to issue a claim as they did and you had an opportunity in your defence to raise any objection as cited at point (a), namely that you were told not to pay. lt would then be for the Court to determine whether the claim could be entertained or not" In addition to my replies under the previous points: • In my letter of 15 July 2003 to District Judge Wright, headed "Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the LVT" , I specifically state that I disagree with the revised amount of £10,917 (US$19,250) demanded of me by SS - and quote from my surveyor's assessment in support of this. • In my 22 June 2003 letter to the District Judge:
• For the last time, I again draw your attention to paragraph 12 in the 23 August 2004 reply from HMCS 'Customer Service':
(See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for further detail)
The conclusion which, I believe, any reasonable person would draw from the 'black on white' evidence is: Evidently, it is up to the public to police the conduct of solicitors... as well as that of the courts - considering the reply to my complaint from HMCS 'Customer Service' 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)
Do you also 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'? (F) The key parties cannot plead ignorance of the facts and eventsFair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, as you can see from the following, the key parties cannot plead ignorance of the facts and events in relation to WLCC and Wandsworth County Court - nor can they claim not being made aware of issues at an early stage. I have captured these events in varying details to numerous parties, in particular, in government. These include, among others: • My identical letter in August 2003 to a dozen media (e.g. to the Guardian ) on which, in each instance, I copied several ministers, including Lord Falconer of Thoroton. As done by the others, Lord Falconer's department, the (then) Department for Constitutional Affairs, stated in its 1 September 2003 reply that it had forwarded my letter to the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, headed by John Prescott - because it considered
(My hand written comment on the reply reads: "In addition to the LVT, plus the police (Home Office letter of 27 August 2003 ), Mr Prescott also deals with the judiciary?" • My 29 July 2004 letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton (on which I also copied Christopher Leslie, then minister for the courts, and David Lammy, MP, then with responsibility for Human Rights) • My 20 February 2005 covering letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman in the context of my complaint against the Law Society in relation to its handling of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor. Hence, another department under Lord Falconer of Thoroton. • Points 60-63 and 100-124 of my 11 November 2004 letter to the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea Housing, as well as highlights in my letter, also of 11 November 2004 , to the Chief Housing Officer, Kensington & Chelsea council (pages 3-5). Hence, a department then headed by Mr John Prescott, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. • As I had filed a complaint on 17 September 2004 with the Local Government Ombudsman against Kensington & Chelsea Housing, I also copied both of the above letters to the Local Government Ombudsman. Hence, another department, at the time, under Mr John Prescott. • My 22 November 2004 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Yet again, another government department. • My 6 April 2005 letter to Mr Michael Howard, then Leader of the Conservative Party. • My 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor • My 2 February 2005 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones For my other complaints, see My Diary 6 May 08 and, for the sequence, of my correspondence, see Document library # 3 Journalist from the Daily Express who wrote (16 June 2006)
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU! Your comment is absolutely 'spot on'! And Reader of The Times: I also agree with your Father. (G) At the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE . (This pack, as well as this pack 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? THE WLCC JUDGES AND COURT MANAGERS, LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON, CAWDERY KAYE FIREMAN & TAYLOR, STAN GALLAGHER, PIPER SMITH & BASHAM, THE LAW SOCIETY, THE BAR COUNCIL, MARTIN RUSSELL JONES, THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS, ETC., CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING |
