Noëlle Rawé, victim of leasehold fraud and

Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, of (then) Brian Gale & Associates, Reigate, Surrey , RH2 9BS, is Andrew Ladsky's surveyor. He admitted during the tribunal hearings that Ladsky was a prior client.

Like the rest of Andrew Ladsky's 'puppets', Brian Gale has demonstrated that he will do anything for his client or, to be more precise, for financial gains: lie in 'expert witness' reports to a tribunal; lie to leaseholders; make malicious, libellous, scurrilous claims against me - in 'expert witness' reports.

The first I heard of Brian Gale was in the 21 December 2001 letter from Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for Jefferson House, Basil Street, London SW3 - that the intention was to appoint him to - it was claimed - undertake the "condition survey" of the block. (See Business model for the reason for my using 'it was claimed').

As can be seen in the attachments to the 21 December 2001 letter, Mr Gale (as well as other contractors) sent his tender to "The Office" at Jefferson House. Why? MRJ does NOT have an office there, and the lease does not allow use of the property for commercial purposes. The reason is that the true addressee was Andrew Ladsky (see Advisors: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Portner and Jaskel; Headlessors; Owners identity # 1 ; Directorships)

Sections

(1) The "condition survey" by Brian Gale, MRICS = the start of the implementation of the scam

(2) Brian Gale, MRICS, made FALSE claims to the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in his 13 December 2002 "Expert witness" report

(3) Brian Gale, MRICS, also made FALSE claims in his 24 February 2003 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - in the process making defamatory, libelous comments against me

(4) There was a concerted effort in particular between Andrew Ladsky and Brian Gale to try to influence the tribunal by claiming that I was the only leaseholder challenging the costs - because I was the only leaseholder who went through the whole process

(4.1) These were lies - as evidenced by the glaringly obvious

(5) The outcome of the 17 June 2003 so-called 'determination' by the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, LVT/SC/007/120/02, (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund), or nearly 70% in the global sum demanded

(6) In its 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 so-called 'determination', (ref #992 on the LVT database) the LVT was highly critical of the specification drawn-up by Brian Gale, MRICS e.g.

(7) What had Brian Gale, MRICS, said about the specification?

(8) How to assess Brian Gale's performance in relation to the works?

(8.1) Brian Gale, MRICS, CONTINUED TO MISREPRESENT the nature of the works undertaken to the very end

(9) Consider that Brian Gale has the letters 'MRICS' after his name. And consider the reason behind his actions:

(9.1) But no point wasting my time reporting Brian Gale to his trade association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

(1) The "condition survey" by Brian Gale, MRICS = the start of the implementation of the scam

Mr Gale completed the "condition survey" in February 2002.

In her 26 March 2002 letter, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:

"The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million (US$1.8 million) + 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 (see my lease), these comments added to my alarm bells: either Mr Gale was exceptionally inexperienced, or Ms Hathaway 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 Major works for detail)

In her 15 July 2002 letter, she informed lessees that the cost of the works would be £736,206 (US$1.3 million). She also wrote

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification." (NB: More signs of the intended scam)

This was followed by Steel Services =Andrew Ladsky et.al.'s application of 7 August 2002 to the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT). It led to a pre-trial hearing on 29 October 2002 at which directions were set (LVT # 1). It resulted in Mr Gale issuing an "Expert Witness" report, dated 13 December 2002 .

The report was delivered to me post 18 December 2002 and, therefore, after the deadline set by the LVT which was 17 December. As can be seen from the envelop at the back of the pack, the stamp was not franked.

Contrast this with the fact that Hathaway had sent a fax to the LVT, dated 1 December 2002 , stating:

"I understand that you have already received our expert report direct" .

What a team!

Back to list

(2) Brian Gale, MRICS, made FALSE claims to the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in his 13 December 2002 "Expert witness" report

There are several points of note in Mr Gale's 13 December 2002 "Expert witness" report to the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. (NB: The LVTs are part of the English legal system). Among others, one is the statement under Section 4 -1.4 -

"I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat"

In fact, when the works started in September 2004, so did the construction of the penthouse flat (Photo gallery), resulting in the following outcome:

Jefferson House July 2002

Jefferson House September 2005

See also the February 2002 photographs taken by Brian Gale of the back of Jefferson House (2.4MB) at the time he undertook the 'condition survey' , as well as extracts from his report - in particular noting his "remedies" relative to the "defects" he identified - in which he wrote that

"...the roof coverings will need to be replaced and provisions made to cover any additional works may become apparent."

Evidently, such as the 'incidental' cost of building a penthouse flat and significant works to the flat below. Of course, as Mr Gale wrote in his February 2002 report

"...the roof had exceeded [its] modern life span" and there was "...water ingress" to "some of the properties" , "replacing the asphalt roof" "needed to be dealt with as a matter of urgency" .

By the way, it was so "urgent", that the works were started 2.5 years later in September 2004.

(3) Brian Gale, MRICS, also made FALSE claims in his 24 February 2003 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - in the process making defamatory, libelous comments against me

Further evidence in support of my claim that, in spite of six requests to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, between 11 August 2002 and 12 January 2003 (see Martin Russell Jones, as well as Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor), for a copy of the priced specification - I had NOT been supplied with a copy - came from Hathaway herself during the hearing. (LVT # 2 , # 3)

It is captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database) (see LVT Case summary for issue):

"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 Brian 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" .

Note however that, having made this statement, two pages later in his report, under point 2.11, Gale then becomes adamant that the priced specification was made available to the leaseholders. (That's the downside with lying: you've got to make sure that the story stacks-up... and need to have a very good memory!)

(See also LVT # 8.1.2 for other leaseholders who, likewise, stated that they had not been given a priced specification)

The outcome was a postponement of the first day of the substantive hearing to 13 March 2003, giving the reason stated under point 16 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report:

"In the interest of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment." (LVT # 3 , # 8.1.3)

The 13 March 2003 letter details directions that included an expert report from my surveyor, as well as from Mr Gale.

While I let my surveyor handle the specification part of Mr Gale's 24 February 2003 report, I concentrated on two sections in Mr Gale's report: "Section 2 - Chronology of events" and " Section 5 - Summary " which I can only describe as A PACK OF LIES. I submitted my 13 March 2003 reply to the tribunal.

Back to list

(4) There was a concerted effort in particular between Andrew Ladsky and Brian Gale to try to influence the tribunal by claiming that I was the only leaseholder challenging the costs - because I was the only leaseholder who went through the whole process

(NB: This was due in part to the collusion between the London LVT, Ladsky and his aides (LVT # 1 , # 2 , # 8.1.2 , # 10.1 , # 10.3), and because of the - FRAUDULENT - 28 November 2002 claim filed by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) in West London County Court - against 11 leaseholders, representing 14 flats) (Among others, this was an abuse of process of court) (WLCC Main Points)

In the case of Brian Gale, MRICS, under point 2.09 of his 24 February 2003 "Expert Witness" report, he described the outcome of the 14 November 2002 meeting (set-up by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, for the leaseholders - with a three-day notice - and contrary to the LVT directions) as

"...4 of the 5 objecting Respondents who attended the Pre-Trial Review on the 29th of October 2002 were now not objecting any further and had agreed to pay, or had paid."

(Some of the leaseholders who had attended the meeting nonetheless ended-up being listed on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim)

Under point 2.07 Gale also states that at the 14 November 2002 meeting, leaseholders had the opportunity to get a copy of the priced specification. By then, four months had elapsed since Hathaway's original letter of 15 July 2002, which included the demand for payment, dated 17 July 2002.

(Brian Gale, MRICS, also lied under point 2.10 as he wrote that "A copy of my Expert Report to the LVT...was sent, by first class post direct to Ms Dit-Rawé. " In actual fact it was hand-delivered post 18 December 2002. As can be seen at the back of the report , the stamp on the envelop was not franked)

In this same report, Brian Gale, MRICS, states:

2.03 - "At this stage [at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing], of the 35 flats within the block, 11 Lessees had already paid the relevant service charge, a further 10 had partly paid and had promised to pay the balance and were not in disagreement. Of the remaining tenants, only the 5 attending as Respondents had indicated any objection to payment of the service charge, reasonableness of the works or their cost" (See LVT # 1 , # 2 , # 8.1.2 , # 10.1 , # 10.3 - for the reason on the relatively low attendance by leaseholders)

5.01 - "I would like to draw to the attention of the Tribunal that I am advised by the managing agents that now some 31 of 35 tenants have paid, either in full or substantial contributions toward the cost of the proposed works"

5.02 - "It would therefore appear. that only one lone tenant continues to make any representation or objection of the 35 tenants"

5.04 - "The vast majority of the tenants in this block have been fully and completely consulted throughout all stages of the procedure, are in full and complete agreement and have paid substantially, or entirely, for the works and improvements (NB: !!!) to take place" .

(I wrote a reply to Mr Gale, dated 13 March 2003 , which was handed to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Panel by my Counsel on 28 April 2003)

In the case of Andrew Ladsky, this is captured under point 50 of the LVT report :

"It is noted that, apparently, the majority of the tenants wish all the works to be carried out. A letter from Mr Ladsky, the lessee of flats 34 and 35 dated 28 April 2003 stated:

"31 or 32 of the 35 tenants have paid their contribution towards the major works. They are, therefore, in agreement with both the scope and cost of the proposed refurbishment.

Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works, it must surely follow that if the overwhelming majority of lessees in the building are ad idem, some considerable weight must be given to their collective view.

It seems to me that it would be wholly inequitable for one lone tenant acting entirely unilaterally to be able to frustrate and delay the building works desired by the many"

Back to list

(4.1) These were lies - as evidenced by the glaringly obvious

In the case of Brian Gale's claim on the position after the 14 November 2002 meeting: barely two weeks later, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), filed a - FRAUDULENT - 28 November 2002 claim in West London County Court - against 11 leaseholders, representing 14 flats) (Among others, this was an abuse of process of court) (WLCC Main Points)

The claim includes some of the leaseholders who had attended the meeting.

Events which took place - AFTER - Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 "Expert Witness" report - and Ladsky's letter:

• The 23 May 2003 application sent by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to West London County Court for a Case Management Conference highlights ongoing action against four leaseholders

• Indications are that another leaseholder is not mentioned, Defendant number 9 as, when I went to West London County Court on 31 March 2004, initially I was told that a judgment had been entered against me on 18 March 2004. (Eventually I was told "No, the judgement is not against you, it's against Defendant number 9" (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2 ))

In addition, as stated in the last part of point 50 of the LVT report :

"On the last day of the hearing a legal representative for another lessee in the subject property attended to say that her client was also unhappy about the service charges demanded of the proposed works"

The "legal representative" was Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, who had written in a letter dated 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors

"...the landlord has intimated to the LVT that no other lessee is disputing the service charges demanded. That is clearly not the case."

Against the above, consider that ONE YEAR AFTER the claims made to the tribunal by Brian Gale, MRICS,, Ladsky and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, in her 26 March 2004 letter to "All Lessees", Hathaway wrote:

"Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees..."

(CKFT also used these false statements against me in its subsequent communication e.g. the 25 June 2003 letter to me from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT:

"...without going through the costly LVT process which has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project".

Another example is the 21 October 2003 'offer' sent by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, to my then solitiors:

"Your client's decision to challenge both the LVT decision and to continue defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building"

Please note that it is SS =Ladsky et.al. who kept challenging the LVT findings, NOT I - as evidenced by the statement in the 21 October 2003 'offer' "our client has once again (NB!!!) reviewed the revised apportionment dated 24 June 2003" (WLCC # 12 , # 10)

Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, also made the same libelous and ludicrous statements in his letter to me of 4 August 2004. I replied on 11 August 2004.

Like CKFT and Brian Gale, Barrie Martin evidently writes whatever Andrew Ladsky dictates, regardless of the glaringly obvious - and very damning - evidence and facts. Another prime example of this is his 2 May 2006 (2.3MB) letter

Back to list

(5) The outcome of the 17 June 2003 so-called 'determination' by the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, LVT/SC/007/120/02, (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund), or nearly 70% in the global sum demanded

Most 'conveniently' for 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky, the tribunal did not include a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded. (Thereby failing in its legal remit, defined under s.19 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985). (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 , # 6 and Mr John Prescott # 1.4 for further detail)

Based on my surveyor's assessment (*) , the outcome of the LVT determination on the original global sum demanded of £736,206.08 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and 11% management fees) was:

• Amount disallowed because improvements: £169,498 (US$299,000) (£129,958 (US$229,150) excl. VAT and fees) = 23% of the global sum demanded

• Amount for which the LVT could not make a determination due to lack of specification = £188,784 (US$333,000) (£144,745 (US$255,200) excl. VAT and fees) = 25.6% of the global sum demanded

• A view supported by the LVT, considering the terms of the lease ( point 59 ), as well as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors best practice ( point 62 ), that the reserve fund should be used as contribution: £141,977 (US$250,000) - or 19.3% of the global sum demanded. (NB: The LVT does not have the jurisdiction to enforce the use of the contingency fund)

Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded .

In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the global sum demanded was not considered reasonable .

( * ) NB:

(1) It is based on my surveyor's assessment of the LVT determination - given that the London LVT failed to perform its legal remit by not including a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded. (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, including the Head of the LVTs' subsequent refusals to have a summary included)

(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)

(2) In the £500,000 (US$882,000) I have included £141,000 (US$250,400) of contingency fund. My 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. (This is captured under point 34 of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination).

Back to list

(6) In its 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 so-called 'determination', (ref #992 on the LVT database) the LVT was highly critical of the specification drawn-up by Brian Gale, MRICS e.g.

• Point 44 - "The reports prepared on behalf of the Applicant and provided to the Tribunal were, in the words of [ ] , "a wish list" for refurbishment of the subject property to a high standard.

They do not seem to have been prepared on behalf of the Applicant having regard to its rights and responsibilities under the lease.

The Tribunal would normally expect alternative proposals to be costed and produced, in order to make a proper and considered judgement of the best way forward to meet the obligations of both the landlord and the tenants"

• Point 46 - "In this case the Tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail in the specification and in Mr Gale's evidence.

Works were not clearly identified, were not measured where they clearly could have been, and there was some element of duplication.

Some items were not specified at all, e.g. the types and capacity of the boilers"

• Point 47 - "The tenders could not be compared where there was no detailed specification and it followed that the Tribunal could not determine that costs were reasonable"

• Point 16.07 - "It would appear to the Tribunal from the above, and the evidence given by [ ] that his instructions were obviously client led rather than an independent opinion.

The specification is considered inadequate in that it is vague and lacked specific detail e.g. the provision to "remove and replace with new the boiler plant and all associated pipework.It is noted that initially, there was no breakdown of the specification until 7 March 2003"

• Point 38 - "Mr Gale also accepted that there were no boiler specification in the tender document which merely stated "to remove and replace with new the boiler plant and all associated pipework"

• Point 16.07 - "In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that it has sufficient information to make a proper judgement and therefore makes no determination in respect of the boilers.

This is an area which, in the Tribunal's view, alternatives and costings should have been explored"

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$207,000).

Very clearly, the lack of specification identified by the tribunal was not addressed by Mr Gale.

This is evidenced in Martin Russell Jones's letter, dated 21 September 2005 i.e. 2 years and 3 months after the LVT determination:" new pumps and a new control panel are required for the boiler ". (The fact that Martin Russell Jones sent me this "notice" suggests an intention to charge me for the costs).

• Points 19 & 20 - " [ ] C Eng MCI Bsc of [ ] Engineering consultants. said that the report on the condition [of the lift] at the time had been 'a wish list"

• Point 16.07 - "The recommendation of [ ] and Associates. to prepare a specification and drawings appeared to have been ignored by Mr Gale in his own specification.

The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work, and he conceded during the hearing that there may have been an element of duplication.

Page 11 - 16.25 and 16.26 - "It does not appear to the Tribunal that these costs in respect of repairs and maintenance were of such magnitude on their own so as to indicate that replacement [of the lift] was the only option.

Further the comment from [ ] that the maintenance contractor had failed to attend to check the lift for three months appears to indicate that there was no failure of the lift during that period, since otherwise, presumably, complaints would have been received from the tenants on an ongoing basis, and no firm evidence of this was produced"

"The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work."

"Further, no proper explanation has been given for the increase from £27,300 (US$48,300) to £60,000 (US$106,000) [for the lift] over a matter of months."

"the Tribunal is unable to make a determination on the specification, since it is considered inadequate"

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"

• Point 37 - "In respect of the provision for downlighters Mr Gale said: I agree that there is latitude for contractors to fit 25 or 50 units. We may have to tighten it up"

Examples of items in the 23% of the global sum demanded which the tribunal disallowed because "improvements" and therefore not chargeable to the lessees under the terms of the lease:

• Point 42 - "Mr Gale was questioned on the provision of £20,000 (US$35,300) in the specification in respect of the porter's desk.

He also accepted that there could have been a fixed, rather than a provisional sum for this within the specification and said "it was a time factor really". He acknowledged "there is no specification yet"

• Point 41 - "Mr Gale accepted that he had been "upping the specification" for the fire doors" .

As pointed out by the LVT in its report - under point 54:

• "Assuming that, on a proper construction of the lease, the services in issue are covered by the charging clause, this does not mean that the landlord enjoys carte blanche to incur costs."

While the penultimate sentence under point 64, on page 15 of the report reads

"...the Respondent and other tenants (NB: !!!) could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal..."

Back to list

(7) What had Brian Gale, MRICS, said about the specification?

In his 13 December 2002 "Proof of Evidence of Landlord's Expert Witness (Surveyor) Brian Gale" report addressed to the LVT, under:

• 3.02 - "I confirm that the Specification and Tender Document prepared by Brian Gale Associates. did not contain any known enhancement or improvement works."

• 3.04 - "I confirm that there was no inclusions within the specification or tender documentation intended to improve or enhance any future potential development of the site by either the freeholder or head lessee"

• 3.05 - "I confirm that, in my opinion, the extent of the works required is reasonable."

• 3.05 - "I confirm that. the cost of works detailed by Killby & Gayford on 8 July 2002 and totaling£564,467 (US$995,300) represents a reasonable assessment of the cost of carrying out all necessary works" . ( £736,206 (US$1.3 million) with management fee and VAT)

In his 24 February 2003 "Expert report/Proof of evidence", under:

• 5.03 - "Even if there were any justification (which is robustly denied) in the Expert Report of Mr Brock on behalf of this Respondent, to the amendment, or re-tendering, to revise agreed Schedule of Works, it should be noted that this will have significant and unacceptable consequences, not only on the other tenants, but to all parties concerned"

• 5.05 - "The proposed process by Mr Brock of the amending and re-tendering procedure would be time consuming, expensive and entirely prejudicial to the majority of tenants who, as stated above, have paid or substantially paid, and in any event are in agreement with the scope and extent of the works"

• 5.06 - "In this respect,(and aside from professional fees incurred in the contentious Tribunal proceedings) any cost savings from the original tendering procedure will, undoubtedly, be more than absorbed by the continuing delays and efflux of time"

• 5.07 - "The effects of inflation and increased costs from the contractors will outweigh any advantages of trying to trim back the extent of proposed works to gain advantage of the present situation. It should also be noted that any alterations (revision of tender and re-tendering etc) could well cost the tenants significantly more for no reason and for a less satisfactory finished product"

• 5.12 - "It is my honest opinion that any attempt to save a modest sum of money in the short term by curtailing the extent of the works or specification will, in the long term, be regretted. (The expression "penny wise - pound foolish" is entirely applicable in these circumstances, I believe)" (NB: Contrast this with the determination of the tribunal - as detailed above)

• 5.14 - ".Again, I confirm that it is my professional and honest opinion, that the works should proceed as tendered and priced."

Given events with West London County Court, I again draw your attention to the penultimate sentence under point 64, on page 15 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report:

"...the Respondent and other tenants (NB !!!) could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal..."

...as well as draw your attention to this pack (1.1MB) which, among others, contains my analysis of the 2002 and 2003 contributions paid by the leaseholders. (The ICAEW attached this information with its 29 August 2006 'response' to my complaint against its member, Pridie Brewster, accountants for Jefferson House. Needless to say that Martin Russell Jones and its client had NOT previously supplied me with this information - in breach of my lease, and of my statutory rights).

It is worth noting that Brian Gale's competence has also been under the spotlight - as evidenced by the High Court case, Wallace vs. Brian Gale Associates, 1994-1997

Back to list

(8) How to assess Brian Gale's performance in relation to the works?

I have one word: A CROOK! like his client, Andrew Ladsky, and other aides.

Brian Gale's remuneration was at 'least' 10% management fee added to the cost of the works.

Considering:

(1) the "defects" he had identified in his February 2002 survey - and the "remedies" i.e. works required, as can be seen in this pack (2.4MB) which contains extracts from his February 2002 and 13 December 2002 "Expert witness" reports, including photographs

(2) Brian Gale, MRICS, and Mansell's "Brief description of works" at the start of the works:

"General repair and refurbishment of the main structure of Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, to include cutting out of spalled and defective brickwork and replacing to match, replacing asphalt roofs, redecoration externally, redecoration of internal common areas, replacement of lift"

...the outcome is, to say the least, FASCINATING.

Jefferson House July 2002

Jefferson House September 2005

Very clearly, Mansell - Brian Gale, MRICS, have a VERY UNIQUE interpretation of "replacing asphalt roof"! Maybe it's a question of economy with words as they headed this "Brief description of work".

The scaffolding started to be put in place in the third week of August 2004. Nearly two years later, on 1 May 2006, the works were not completed. (See also the Photo gallery)

Consider Hathaway's letter of 16 June 2005

"The refurbishment of the front entrance is progressing well."

...against the evidence contained in this pack at June 2005 and one year later - at 1 May 2006. See the Photo gallery for additional evidence.

In addition to the lack of specification for, among others, the boiler, evidently not being addressed (as detailed above), in his 19 October 2005 letter, Brian Gale also admits to lack of proper supervision of the contractors, as he wrote:

"...if you could .inform me of any windows which stick. I will then draw-up a schedule of work which needs to be rectified to ensure that Mansells undertaken (sic) work properly which they have been contracted to do."

He sent a follow-up letter dated 16 March 2006, starting with

"The standard of workmanship undertaken by Mansells has not been acceptable."

On 29 March 2006 I captured my reply on the letter, stating, among others:

"Mr Gale's letter of 19 October 2005 suggested that he had NOT PROPERLY SUPERVISED the works. This letter confirms it"

"The 15 July 2002 demand to leaseholders included over £60,000 (US$105,800) of management fees for Mr Gale. He should not receive this payment"

Of course, Mr Gale replied, in a letter dated 3 April 2004, arguing:

"we have been administering the contract and checking the work undertaken by Mansells"

In my 29 March 2006 letter I also voiced criticism at Martin Russell Jones. The 2 May 2006 (2.3MB) reply I received 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, (i.e. Andrew Ladsky) - is hilarious . You need to look at it to believe it.

Among others, considering the overwhelming body of evidence (e.g. in the above pack of 2 May 2006, as well as in this pack (2.4MB)), note the gall in the last sentence

"Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it"

(I assume there is a link with my 30 April 2006 reply to Portner and Jaskel, and that this is the best that Ladsky can do... for the time being) (See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 for detail)

Back to list

(8.1) Brian Gale, MRICS, CONTINUED TO MISREPRESENT the nature of the works undertaken to the very end

In relation to his 19 October 2005 letter, please note how Gale continues to misrepresent the works undertaken:

"...Mansells, the contractors undertaking the works.have now completed the external redecoration" .

"The external redecoration" ?

• How about the construction of the penthouse flat?

• How about the conversion of flats resulting in the addition of three other flats?

These works resulted in 39 flats v. 35 flats at the start of the works (see e.g. Major works and surveyors). (For evidence of 35 flats at the start of the works see, for example, point 7 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report).

Back to list

(9) Consider that Brian Gale has the letters 'MRICS' after his name. And consider the reason behind his actions:

Ladsky et. al. and their aides - among others, Brian Gale - deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this: the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE .

(This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc.

In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)

Jefferson House July 2002

Jefferson House September 2005

To be more precise :

( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)

Back to list

(9.1) But no point wasting my time reporting Brian Gale, MRICS, to his 'trade association', the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

In light of my experience with the RICS following my complaint (1.1MB) against Martin Russell Jones, there is clearly no point my writing to the RICS to complain about Brian Gale as it can be guaranteed that it would return a verdict of : 'no malpractice'.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I assume that this section on Mr Gale, in addition to the section on Martin Russell Jones, have seriously undermined your confidence employing a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Mercifully - in spite of their trade association - some surveyors do act in the utmost professional manner e.g. my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock, LSM Partners

ANDREW LADSKY ET. AL. ; BRIAN GALE, MRICS ; JOAN HATHAWAY, MRICS, MRJ ; BARRIE MARTIN, FRICS, MRJ - AS WELL AS THE RICS AND THE LONDON LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL - CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .