Noëlle Rawé, victim of leasehold fraud and

• my suffering extensive harassment, intimidation, as well as, on one occasion, assault within days of my challenging Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) on the true nature of the works;

• Hathaway's denial in her 26 March 2002 letter to me that the proposed works were connected with the planning application ((NB: See proof of her LIES);

• Her 26 March 2002 letter to the leaseholders at Jefferson House:

"The surveyors (NB: Brian Gale, MRICS, part of the 'mafia') have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million (US$1.8m) + VAT and fees.

We would stress that this is a very rough indicative estimate and should in no way be relied upon as an exact figure.

The tendering contractors may produce a price which is significantly more or less than the price indicated above depending on numerous factors which contractors take into account when tendering"

Bearing in mind that the works that ought to be taking place were repairs and maintenance works, these comments added to my alarm bells. Either Brian Gale, MRICS, Andrew Ladsky's surveyor, was exceptionally inexperienced, or Joan Hathaway, MRICS, was preparing the ground in order to refer back to this letter at a later stage, along the lines of: "But we did warn you in March 2002.".

(See Home Page-Overview for evidence that I was justified in having these concerns)

I prepared a pack, dated 27 May 2002, I sent ahead of my meeting with Mr Portillo. In this, I explained the situation in which I and other leaseholders in Jefferson House were finding ourselves at the time - principally, an intention by the landlord to ask leaseholders for a very large sum of money for major works (NB: I WAS RIGHT!). In this, I also captured actions I hoped Mr Portillo would take.

It led Mr Portillo's Researcher (?) / Assistant (?) to phone me from the House of Commons to say that she was very impressed with the pack I had prepared. I thanked her and replied that I hoped to be equally impressed with his response.

During the 10-15 minute meeting, Mr Portillo told me that he did not think that he could help me, but that he would nonetheless think about it.

He obviously did not spend too much time 'thinking' as, in a letter dated 28 May 2002, i.e. written on the same day, he stated that he could not help and suggested that I "get legal advice" - a reply I coded as a euphemism for "Get lost!" (NB. No hyperlink to the letter, as it is 'lost' somewhere in my files. However, what I am quoting can be verified from the follow on correspondence - referred to below)

As I had heard that Mr Barry Gardiner, MP, was sympathetic to the plight of leaseholders, on 1st July 2002 I sent him a pack similar to the one I had sent to Mr Portillo.

In his letter to me of 29 July 2002 Mr Portillo wrote

"As you know, your letter of 1 July addressed to Barry Gardiner, MP, together with the comprehensive booklet you have prepared has been forwarded to me, as I am your Member of Parliament.

"I am very sorry that your worries in respect of Jefferson House continue"

"However, as you will know from my earlier letter of 28 May, as your local Member of Parliament, I do not see how I can assist you in your current situation but would suggest that the best way forward for you is, if you can, to obtain a sound legal opinion"

My conclusion on this is: second "Get lost! "

Mr Portillo did this a third time, in his 6 August 2002 reply to my 2 August 2002 letter, in which I again pleaded for his assistance. By then, I had received, from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, the "major work" service charge demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - being "my share" of the £736,206 (US$1.3m) demanded in Joan Hathaway's letter of 15 July 2002 - which showed a clear intent of asking for money at a later date. My claim that this demand was FRAUDULENT WAS SUBSTANTIATED.

Mr Portillo wrote:

"I have noted what you say in your letter and am sorry about the frustration you obviously feel in your current situation

However, I can only reiterate what I have already said, that the best way forward for you is, if you can, to obtain a sound legal opinion"

And if I cannot afford to "obtain a sound legal opinion"?

What do I do - as the INNOCENT VICTIM OF A SCAM?

Accept to be ruined by a 'sacrosanct' landlord and commit suicide?

With the benefit of hindsight and considerably more knowledge since, I recognise that:

• the title of my 27 May 2002 pack can seem exaggerated to somebody not familiar with my case (but I stand by it in terms of the tactics used by Andrew Ladsky et. al. and their aides);

• my 'wish list' of actions I expected of Mr Portillo includes some that are unrealistic.

Nonetheless, I consider that he could, at the very least, have made suggestions.

Instead, what I received were three "get legal advice" - in other words: three ' get lost '.

(And his successor, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, tried to do the same thing - but, second time round, I was determined to not let him get away with it)

My conclusion on this was that Mr Portillo was not going to 'rock the boat' on my behalf.

As Mr Barry Gardiner, MP, stated during his 8 January 2002 speech to the House of Commons:

"In the 118 years that have elapsed (since 1884). (of the) 31 different Bills dealing with leasehold reform. All but two of those 31 Bills have been defeated. Such has been the power of property and the landed classes in this country."

Three years later, I referred to events in my 6 April 2005 letter to Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative party. (This letter was in reply to the Tory propaganda at the time of the general election).

I did not even receive an acknowledgement. Just as well the Tory party positions itself as the "listening party" . (See Michael Howard for detail)

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I give this experience as another example in support of my claim in the introduction to the site that "as a leaseholder there is absolutely nothing there to help me".

MR PORTILLO HAS CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF HIS OWN DOING.