The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
Trapped in my leasehold flat with no avenue open to me for justice and redress - and protection
|
Welcome to leasehold-outrage.com
The banner - The 'black on white' evidence in support• "£7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle" - see Planning applications , Owners identity , Block sale of flats engineered by • "surveyors" - see Mr Brian Gale , Martin Russell Jones • "and lawyers" - see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , Martin Russell Jones # 16 , # 18 , # 22 , # 25 ' # 26 , # 43 with the assistance of • "courts" - see West London County Court , Wandsworth County Court , Lord Falconer of Thoroton • "tribunal" - see Leasehold Valuation Tribunal , Mr John Prescott • "accountant" - see Pridie Brewster , Martin Russell Jones # 37 , # 38 , # 39 • "police" - see Police , Head Residents Association , Elderly Resident , Resident K
See My Diary - 'NOTE AT DECEMBER 2007' for further evidence in support of my claims in the banner to the site: PORTNER AND JASKEL - AND - WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT went into 'SILENT MODE' from the end of September 2007 - prompting me (in addition to other factors) to head my 27 December 2007 response to the 20 December 2007 reply from the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Service with "Confirmation of collusion". Note at FEBRUARY 2008: A combination of (1) updating my website after a seven-month silence; (2) my complaint against West London County Court; (3) taking my protest to the street - finally led to a 'sign of life' from the court (see My Diary ) and from Portner and Jaskel in February 2008 (see My Diary )
This site is a relaunch following the threat of libel action against my website host on 3 October 2006. As can be seen, pressure to have my site closed down since its relaunch on 25 December 2006 has FAILED. The desperate attempts have included, in March 2007, getting Kensington and Chelsea police to imply that I had 'committed a crime' - without providing evidence in support - as well as brand me as a "Nazi". Kensington & Chelsea police backed down as a result of being challenged by my website Host. Other acts of revenge: (1) The threat of bankruptcy and of taking the flat away from me ; (conduct regarded as 'acceptable' by the Law Society of England and Wales ) (2) Filing (another!) fraudulent claim against me in February 2007 - BOTH carried out by Portner and Jaskel. ... followed by a lot more... and eventually leading to the claim against me being dropped in June 2008 (3) Another malicious leak followed by another in July 2007 (photographs) My name is Noëlle Rawé (sometimes shown on documents as Ms Noëlle Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé). I am the leaseholder of a flat in Jefferson House, Basil Street, London SW3, for which the freehold owners are given as Jefferson House Limited (?) In January 2006, another 'layer' was added in the form of a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises Limited, leading to Steel Services (*), my 'headlessor', or 'landlord', becoming a 'lessee' of Lavagna Enterprises (?) - (in the process, being unable to fulfil (1.1MB) major covenants in my lease ). (*) Change in situation in 2007; details unknown - see Portner and Jaskel # 3 , # 6.1 , # 15 All three state incorporation in the British Virgin Islands . A key driver of activities has been Mr Andrew Ladsky who resides in the block (described in e.g., the Sunday Times as " a millionaire property developer ") (website printscreen)
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, please, bear with me. Read the next page or so and then decide whether you want to continue reading. Alternatively, as a first step, please see this letter I sent to media organisations in September 2006 which provides a brief overview. • 3. Reduced to launching this website
• 5. Summary evidence in support of the last part of my claim: 'no protection' • 6. The root cause of everything captured on this site • 7. Making the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing that a system was in place to help me in time of need • 8. The system actively helps crooked landlords to exist • 10. My situation is desperate • 11. I do not have £300,000+ (US$530,000) to spend on 'buying justice' • 14. Privacy and MY RIGHT TO BE HEARD • 15. Anyway, why should the individuals mentioned on this website have anything to worry about? 1. The basis of my caseThe basis of my case, I nicknamed ' project nightmare ' ('project sunshine' since the relaunch), is that when, in July 2002, Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS of Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for the block, sent me an invoice for £14,400 (US$25,400) as "contribution towards major works" for the block, I 'dared' to ask the question: "what are you going to spend it on?" - as the supporting letter to the demand had no breakdown of costs and none had been separately supplied (subsequently confirmed during the tribunal hearing - point 14 - and 'admitted' by Mr Brian Gale of Brian Gale Associates, Steel Services / Mr Ladsky's surveyor - point 2.04 ). This demand was preceded by Mr Brian Gale's February 2002 'condition survey' (2.4MB) detailing the "works required" As can be seen from the photographs captured in this pack, Mr Gale's interpretation of his recommended "remedies" in relation to the identified "defects" is fascinating to say the least. (The 2 May 2006 (2.3.MB) response from Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to my criticisms of his firm and of Mr Brian Gale was "Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it" ) As evidenced, among others, by my Witness Statement (which never made to the court - but by which I totally stand by) (see My Witness Statement and Piper Smith Basham # 7 , # 7.17 and # 7.17.1 for detail) I consistently agreed that repair and maintenance works were required to the block. (A fact recognised by Mr Lanny Silverstone , Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT), Mr Ladsky's solicitors ). Consequently, that I would need to pay my share (as, indeed, I did in the past). This is all I wanted to do: pay my just and fair share of the costs i.e. as per the terms of my lease - which is a legally binding contract - on both parties - landlord and leaseholder. I therefore persisted in wanting to get the answer to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question to ask i.e. acted as the majority of people would when asked to pay £14,400 (US$25,400).
2. Overall objective
3. Reduced to launching this websiteIt is an extremely sad state of affairs to be reduced to having to develop a website in order to achieve this objective. It is the outcome of living under the archaic, feudal leasehold system in this country - which is supported by an infrastructure that heavily favours landlords at the expense of leaseholders. It can be said that, in effect, landlords have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please. This will soon become apparent to you as you read this summary section. You will see that I have exhausted all potential avenues within my means - at very great cost to myself:
When I finally admitted to myself that the system was against me, instead of being there to help me, on 19 December 2003 , I accepted 'Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the major works (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). Although, legally, I did not even owe this sum, I did this in the hope of putting an end to this horrendous nightmare. Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004 . Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 .
Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously, I informed Ms Joan Hathaway that I had accepted the offer in settlement of my share of the major works and had paid £6,350 (US$11,200). Fourteen months later, in January 2006, I received another invoice from Martin Russell Jones, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. It has been followed in June 2006 with an invoice stating a " Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200). As with the prior invoices: no breakdown on the composition of the sum. (These invoices are fraudulent) Hence, what is the amount 'deemed' by the 'landlord' and his aides to be currently hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300)(?), £14,500 (US$25,600)(?), £5,625 (US$9,900)(?), £8,621 (US$15,200)(?) or all four combined i.e. £44,246 (US$78,000)(?) (NOTE : For update since then - see PORTNER and JASKEL and WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT - POST 2004) What else is going to be dropped on me tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, and so forth? I have no idea. It clearly depends on the 'landlord' and his aides will dream up. As I wrote to the then leader of the Conservative Party ,
If not, then, as I wrote, in November 2004 to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (in the context of the impact that this five-year ordeal is having on my health):
4. - Summary evidence in support of my claim: 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'4.1 - On-going harassment and intimidation since 2002The nightmare started six months before I received the £14,400 (US$25,400) demand when I challenged Martin Russell Jones on the true nature of the intended works pointing out that they had more to do with works that would be required as a result of a planning application to build a penthouse flat, than with repair and maintenance to the block. (see also Planning applications ) As can be seen in the extracts from Mr Brian Gale's February 2002 'condition survey' (2.4MB) detailing the "works required" , his identified "remedies", the photos he took of the back of Jefferson House at the time - and the photo I took three years later: I WAS RIGHT. Within 48 hours, I started to suffer on-going harassment, intimidation, as well as, on one occasion, assault ( crime report ; summary of events ). (Hence, treatment similar to that suffered by other leaseholders who 'dared' to challenge 'Steel Services'. Head Residents Association ; Elderly Resident ; Other Residents). (See the introduction to My Diary for some of the events directly involving Mr Ladsky) (SUBSEQUENT NOTE: SEE MY DIARY 13 APRIL 2008 for media reports of a couple being spied on by its local council, and councils employing an army of 850 'covert human intelligence sources' to spy on people ) This has continued to this day, and with 'renewed vigour' since 2005, as can be seen in My Diary . It details, among others: being followed (e.g. 26 October 2003, 1 June 2005, 16 July 2005, 5 August 2005; 17 August 2005, 26 August 2005, 25 December 2005, 4 January 2006; 15 January 2006, 23 January 2006; 22 March 2006; 24 April 2006; 16 May 2006, 20 June 2006; 22 June 2006; 26 July 2006; 27 July 2006; 30 July 2006; 2 August 2006, 19 August 2006, 23 August 2006; 8 September 2006, 25 October 2007), as well as threatened (e.g. 6 August 2005, 16 August 2005, 19 April 2006; 17 June 2006, 1 August 2006, 23 August 2006 ). Also, leaks in my flat (11 March 2002; 8 August 2005, 18 August 2005) and one which narrowly missed my flat on 6 February 2007 - and another one in July 2007 that definitely did not ; hosing of my windows in the early hours of the morning (6 September 2005, 4 October 2005, 7 April 2006, 4 September 2006); anonymous phone calls (19 Febraury 2002; early March 2002); electricity cut-off only in my flat (8 July 2006); building works immediately above my flat until 23h00, etc. It also includes lack of maintenance of the internal and external area (1.6MB) around my flat (which are Steel Services responsibility), as well as lack of concern for health and safety (see also Photo gallery ). These amount to criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as well as breach of my rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Right to respect for private life" and under Article 1 of the First Protocol, "Protection of property" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 4.2 - Use of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) by 'Steel Services' in an attempt to enforce the fraudulent service charge demand on Jefferson House's LeaseholdersBarely three weeks after sending the July demand which many leaseholders would not have had a chance to receive, on 7 August 2002, Ms Hathaway filed an application in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) (tribunal for service charge disputes - part of the English legal system) to "determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" i.e. £736,000 (US$1.3 million). (NB. Please note that this application was filed on behalf of 'Steel Services'. The evidence suggests that, at the time, Steel Services did not exist. See Owners identity and Jersey address for detail) In my view, it was done in the expectation of being able to 'steamroll' the application without opposition and thereby get the 'official seal of approval'. (The fact that leaseholders cannot recoup their LVT-related costs acts as a very strong deterrent to challenge an application by the landlord. In addition, even when the outcome is very damning for the landlord, preventing the landlord from putting its LVT related costs on the service charge requires leaseholders to spend yet more for another set of hearings. See LVT - My 20C application # 5 , # 8.2 and # 9 . See also Issue 18 of the Leaseholder ). The tribunal provided a 'helping hand' towards the achievement of this objective as it waited two months before informing the leaseholders that a pre-trial hearing would take place on 29 October 2002. (Even in its communication dated two days earlier , it had not referred to the pre-trial hearing). Many leaseholders lived overseas, a fact known to the tribunal as it had been provided with their address. In addition, as suggested by the letter from Piper Smith Basham to my then solicitors, not all leaseholders were informed of this action. (See also LVT # 10 ) At the hearing, attended among others by Mr Ladsky and Ms Hathaway , we (the leaseholders) were asked whether we had paid the service charge. We all replied that we had not as we had not been provided with a breakdown of costs. (Hence, among others, amounting to a breach of our statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985) (Under Section 20 of the Act a landlord must consult a leaseholder for works exceeding £250 (US$440) in value. It requires issuing a 'Notice' supplying a detailed estimate from at least two separate contractors. Among others, this is to allow leaseholders to get their own quote).
Many of us had repeatedly been asking for a breakdown of the costs. In my case, by then I had made four requests ( 11 August 2002 , 16 September 2002 , 17 October 2002 , 22 October 2002 ) to which the reply from Ms Hathaway had been the threat of prosecution. I conclude from this that Ms Hathaway has committed a criminal offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 21 - Blackmail, of the Theft Act 4.3 - Because I did not have legal representation, Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT), threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lenderAs to the reply from Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT , it was the threat to - illegally - forfeit my lease (i.e. losing my flat) and contacting my mortgage lender if I did not pay the £14,400 (US$25,400) immediately. I conclude from this that Mr Silverstone has committed the same above mentioned offences as Ms Hathaway. I also made two requests through the LVT ( 22 October 2002 and 25 November 2002 ) on which Martin Russell Jones was automatically copied. It was not until 36 hours before the LVT hearing on 5 February 2003 - and therefore seven months after the original demand that I received the priced specification. Evidence in relation to other leaseholders includes, for example, Leaseholder G's letter of 3 August 2002 and the 3 September 2002 letter from Leaseholder K's solicitors. It also includes letters from leaseholders to the LVT ( # 8.1.2 ) (also copied to Martin Russell Jones) e.g. 19 October 2002 letter from Leaseholder M, 28 October 2002 letter from Leaseholder K, 20 October 2002 email from Leaseholder C. As in my case, Ms Hathaway, threatened other leaseholders with proceedings As suggested by the letter sent by Mr Lanny Silverstone to a leaseholder's solicitors barely ten days after he had threatened to forfeit my lease , leaseholders who could afford to employ a solicitor were evidently treated very differently "We note you have made no proposal on behalf of your client to pay all or part of the interim service charge. We would be grateful if you would clarify whether your client does in fact have any objection to the cost of the major works." I give this letter as additional support to my position that Mr Lanny Silverstone has committed an offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 21 - Blackmail, of the Theft Act 1968 What none of us had noticed at the time of the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing is that, contrary to what it had stated in its 8 October 2002 letter, the LVT did NOT include a copy of the Appendix: "statement showing how the service charge is made up." (It was finally admitted at the 5 February 2003 hearing and led to a postponement of the substantive hearing to 13 March 2003 - point 16 ) Yet, when, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing, all the leaseholders were clamouring for a copy of the breakdown of costs, neither the Chair, nor the Clerk said anything about the copy they had had on file for more than two and a half months. We were handed a leaflet which, on page 5 , states that the tribunal "only has jurisdiction over services that are still unpaid " . In other words, we were specifically told by the tribunal to NOT PAY the service charge until the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had therefore been implemented - (in line with Landlord & Tenant legislation - and our lease) 4.4 -West London County Court allowed Steel Services-CKFT to proceed with a false claim against 11 leaseholders - in the full knowledge that the claim was in breach of the directions set by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
Allowing this claim to be filed is wrong, as it implies that we are 'jointly and severally' liable for the £304,000 (US$536,000) which we are not - as each one of us is merely liable for the percentage of the total charges - as specified in our leases. The Particulars of claim (1.1MB) state - under a Statement of Truth - that the lease supplied with the claim is the same for all the flats (apartments). This is not true . The lease supplied to the court ('apparently' for flat 23 ) states, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) "The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor)..." (Ms Hathaway did the same thing with the tribunal) To my mind, this is equivalent to saying: "Give your cheque book to the lessor who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice". I find it extremely difficult to believe that a leaseholder would agree to such outrageously unfair contract terms. Under the same Clause, my lease states " The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year. shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings...by the aggregate of the rateable value.of all the flats in the Building". As a result of my stating in my defence to the claim that the lease supplied was different from mine, two months AFTER it had written the claim against me - accompanied by a Statement of Truth - in a letter dated 23 January 2003 Mr Silverstone, CKFT , asked me to send a copy of my lease. (I did). Aside from being traumatised by receiving this court claim (which, of course, was the objective), I was also very confused considering the instructions I had been given by the tribunal (see My Diary 6 December 2002). It led me to bring the LVT action to the attention of West London County Court three times in December 2002 , requesting that the court action be stayed (i.e. suspended) until the completion of the action through the LVT. Namely, my letter of 10 December 2002 ; my defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002; my letter of 17 December 2002 (included with my defence to the claim).
Filing of this action in court by CKFT-Ms Hathaway while the same action was being pursued by the tribunal, i.e. under another jurisdiction (also part of the English legal system), amounts to an 'abuse of process of court' .Evidence that this is the case can be seen in the letter from the solicitors acting for Leaseholder D, to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , and this letter to my then solicitors. In reply to my request for the action to be stayed (suspended) West London County Court tells me in its 24 January 2003 letter that I need to "...inform the court whether the claimant agrees to the claim being stayed pending the LVT hearing" Considering that in reply to my letter of 17 October 2002 , Mr Silverstone, CKFT , wrote on 21 October 2002 , "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the LVT" . In addition, that in his letter of 7 October 2002 he had threatened to forfeit my lease unless I paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) immediately, it was abundantly clear to me that I did not stand a chance of achieving this. Hence, I did not do as suggested by the court. (See My Diary End January 2003 )
The evidence in support of this is:
4.5 - As there were 11 leaseholders listed on the 29 November 2002 claim (1.1MB) , it provides incontrovertible evidence ( "has obtained judgement" ) that West London County Court was instrumental in making SEVEN leaseholders pay BEFORE the Tribunal issued its determination, ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02(The LVT dated its report 17 June 2003, ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02 - (ref: #992 on the LVT database)). Hence, West London County Court totally ignored the fact that leaseholders had very specifically been told by the Tribunal to not pay - until it had issued its determination - and it had therefore been implemented . • Further evidence that judgement/s was/were secured through West London County Court before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued its determination can be seen from the fact that, in its notice of 21 March 2003 , the court - wrongly - informed me that I was the defendant in a Charging Order hearing due to take place on 4 April 2003 - AND the 2 April 2003 fax sent by CKFT to the court stating : "Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003..." (Note the date !) (see Lord Falconer # 1 , WLCC # 5 ) • In my 25 March 2003 letter to West London County Court I had - yet again - brought attention to the ongoing LVT action (by now for the fourth time ), as well as reporting - very clearly, I believe - that we, the leaseholders, had specifically been told by the LVT to not pay the service charge. (I even gave the name of the Chair at the pre-trial hearing). • In its 27 March 2003 reply, West London County Court nonetheless persisted in telling me that the action concerned me. At my wits end (see My Diary 24 March , 25 March and 30 March 2003 ), on 30 March 2003 , I sent a letter to the members of the LVT Panel - on which I copied the District Judge in West London County Court - and in which I again repeated what we had been told by the LVT. • 'Armed' with the correct terminology, on 1 April 2003 I phoned West London County Court saying, "there cannot be a Charging Order against me because there has not been a judgement against me" . • At this point, I was told, "No, the Charging Order is not against you, it is against other residents" (as captured in my 1 April 2003 letter to West London County Court ). (The fact that a Charging Order can only be issued once a judgement has been entered was also confirmed 'ever so kindly' by the Court Service in its 23 August 2004 reply under point 11) (See also Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1 and My Diary 1 April 2003 )
During the 24 June 2003 hearing, the judge told Mr Silverstone, CKFT, that he was "wasting my time and the court's time. The LVT report has just been issued. You need to give the Defendants time to review it" (leading the judge to award costs to me (and the other leaseholders present)) Consider the latter part of the judge's comment in light of the above. Consider also the LVT's 21 July 2003 reply to Mr Silverstone's letter of 17 July 2003 ,
In other words, while I ended-up being the only leaseholder challenging the application (and none of the other leaseholders have contributed to my £30,000 (US$53,000) LVT costs), it does not alter the fact that the determination applies to the whole block. Hence, 'Steel Services' cannot charge differentially, other than on the basis of individual leaseholders' fixed percentage share of the service charge - which must surely be obvious . Further evidence that the calculation of the service charges payable by individual leaseholders is based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied, is also found in: • Ms Hathaway's 30 August 2002 letter "The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease...There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts. The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..." • 'Steel Services'-Martin Russell Jones supplied these percentages with the application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearing (see CKFT # 6.3 , # 6.6 ; West London County Court # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10 ) 4.6 - The evidence suggests that Wandsworth County Court also ignored the 17 June 2003 determination by the Leasehold Valuation TribunalThe last, valiant leaseholder (5th Defendant) 'caved in' the following year in another court, Wandsworth County Court . However, as suggested by the evidence, on entirely different terms from those determined by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. Indeed, the 2 August 2004 Order from Wandsworth County Court states: payment of the sum of " £4,538 (US$8,000) being the balance of the sums claimed, plus " the Claimant's costs of these proceedings.", plus "the sum of £548 (US$970) to the Claimant being the interest due on the sums claimed"
So much for the LVT determination and 'Steel Services' not being entitled to charge leaseholders differentially AND my bringing the LVT determination to the attention of the judge in Wandsworth County Court, in my letter dated 22 July 2004 . In this letter, I state, " I provided a copy of the report to the Court, as well as a copy of my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the LVT determination. My letters to West London County Court of 22 June 2003 , 15 July 2003 and 9 August 2003 provide comprehensive details" (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton and West London County Court for detail of events that led me to write the 22 July 2004 letter to Wandsworth County Court). Demanding, by means of threats, monies not due and payable, amounts to criminal offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and S.16(1) of the Theft Act 1968. Given events, it is worth noting Labour's 1997 pre-election Manifesto "Victims of crime are too often neglected by the Criminal Justice system" As reported by the Daily Mail , 24 June 2006 , all that Mr Blair has done since is "stick to the same script" Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: are you beginning to see why I claim that there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island? 4.7 - The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal failed to perform its remitAs detailed, among others, under point 1 of its 17 June 2003 report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 - (ref: 992 on the LVT database), its 17 July 2003 letter, its 29 October 2002 directions, and this letter , the remit of the LVT is to determine the "reasonableness, or otherwise, of the global sum demanded" . The LVT failed to perform its remit , as its report does not include a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded - leading me to ask my surveyor to undertake the assessment. (My surveyor is a Chartered Surveyor and (a highly professional) member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)) I consequently hold the view that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has committed, among others, a breach of my rights under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to an effective remedy" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 4.8 - The impact of the determination by the tribunal was to reduce the global sum demanded by £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. contingency fund), from £736,000 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000)Based on my surveyor's assessment , the outcome of the LVT determination on the original global sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 excl. VAT and 11% management fees) was:
Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded . In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the global sum demanded was not considered reasonable .
And of course, of great assistance this was, as my battle raged on with 'Steel Services'. While I fully accepted the LVT determination, it did not as it kept challenging it - while not taking the step defined under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (Section 20). (It has never implemented the LVT determination). (Evidence that it kept challenging it can be seen, among others in CKFT's 21 October 2003 "offer" : "...our client has, once again (NB:!!!) , reviewed the revised apportionment." ) 4.9 - The Head of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals refused to address the failing of the tribunal - as did her 'head office', the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then headed by Mr John PrescottDue to this on-going battle, I contacted the head of the LVT, Mrs McGrath, on 6 September 2003 , requesting that a summary be included in the report. In her 12 September 2003 reply she refused, stating, "neither I nor the tribunal have the power to re-open a decision. The correct course of action for a party who is dissatisfied with an LVT determination is to appeal to the Lands Tribunal" . Note that this answer is totally off the mark (in addition to being misleading: an appeal must be lodged within three weeks of a determination by the LVT). I did not say that I was dissatisfied with the decision (I only pointed out the gaps). The Head of the LVTs continues: "On that basis it is not possible to either change the decision or to provide a supplement to it". In my reply , I argued that providing a summary of the decision did not amount to "re-opening a decision" - "rather it is about your tribunal completing an unfinished report" . This led to the second 'no' from the Head of the LVTs who stated in her 26 November 2003 letter "this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons" (YES! To other leaseholders to challenge the unlawful service charge... which would be most 'inconvenient', wouldn't it?).
(Because the summary of the case accessible by the public on the LVT website ( ref #992 ) in effect blames me for the LVT action, I also asked the Head of the LVTs to ensure that amendments were made to reflect a "factually accurate summary of the case" as "the current version is particularly misleading" . She claimed that it was not her department's responsibility, but that of LEASE. I had copied LEASE on my letter. No action was taken). So, there I was: with an open-ended report that had cost me c.£30,000 (US$53,000) (£28,000 (US$49,440) of professional fees for the hearings, plus £1,800 (US$3,200) to my surveyor for figuring out the impact of the determination on the global sum demanded. While the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (for which responsibility comes under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then headed by Mr John Prescott ) can, it seems, at times make just and fair decisions, there is a widespread perception among end-users that they tend to be particularly 'landlord-friendly' . My first-hand experience leads me to share this view. (See LVT points under # 8 ) 4.10 - The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal turned 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to 'Steel Services' - Martin Russell Jones non-compliance with the directions it had set at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing - opting to proceed with the hearingAmong other events with the LVT, I also add the fact that it turned 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to my highlighting that Martin Russell Jones was in breach of the directions set by the tribunal as the 17 December 2002 deadline had passed and it had not provided me with the required information. Consequently, I would be unable to meet the 7 January 2003 deadline set by the tribunal. (Note that Mr Brian Gale lied ( point 2.10 ) as he wrote that ".A copy of my Expert Report to the LVT.was sent, by first class post direct to Ms Dit-Rawé. " In actual fact it was hand-delivered post 18 December. As can be seen at the back of the report , the stamp on the envelop was not franked) I did not receive a reply. Yet, consider that the LVT had been provided, well ahead of the deadline, with one of the main documents I was due to be supplied with, a copy of Steel Services' 'expert report' before 1st December as indicated by the 1 December 2002 fax sent by Ms Hathaway to the LVT in which she states: "I understand you have already received our experts report direct" I wrote to the LVT on 12 January 2003 requesting a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing because I still had not been supplied with the necessary information. I copied the letter to Ms Hathaway. On the same day , I also wrote a letter to Ms Hathaway, repeating the same thing (and copied the LVT). The LVT denied my request. (See LVT # 8.1 ) In her 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT, Ms Hathaway opposed a postponement of the hearing claiming I had been provided with the information. During the 5 February 2003 hearing Ms Hathaway contradicted herself, leading the Chair to adjourn the first day of the substantive hearing to March 2003 "In the interest of justice" ( point 16, 17 June 2003 )
Hence, in the LVT, as in the courts, a leaseholder is not only automatically assumed to be guilty, when evidence of innocence is supplied, it is ignored because both only have ears for 'professionals'. Among others, I consider this as a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to a fair hearing (trial)" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 My view is that all concerned anticipated that I would be a 'push over' at the 5 February 2003 LVT hearing because they had never received communication on my behalf from a legal advisor.I view the treatment I received from the LVT in the weeks preceding the hearing (as detailed above) as further evidence in support of my claim. I could see / sense total disbelief, as well as great annoyance at the fact that I had turned up for the 5 February hearing with a surveyor, a barrister and a solicitor. The beginning of the hearing was decidedly 'frosty' (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for further detail, as well as My Diary 17 January 2003 and 5 February 2003 ) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: are you beginning to see why I claim that there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island? 4.11 - West London County Court evidently considered me as a non-entity - while Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - allegedly - continued to see me as fair game for bullying and intimidationIn a notice dated 12 June 2003 (ten days before I received the LVT report), West London County Court informs me that a hearing will take place on 24 June 2003 and that I must attend. There is no explanation whatsoever as to what this is about. I have no idea when the LVT report is due to be issued. (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 5.4 )
I assume that this notice was a follow-up to Mr Silverstone's application of 23 May 2003 . At the West London County Court hearing on 24 June 2003 , 10 minutes before seeing the judge, Mr Silverstone, CKFT , handed me three documents I had not seen previously. They included a " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " produced by Martin Russell Jones for which, in my case (and that of the other five leaseholders), the original sum demanded was reduced by just 24.19% - in my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) . He did not provide me with any supporting document as to how this reduction had been achieved. The remaining two documents are a " Draft Order and Case Summary " which, among others, state: "Majority of s/c expenditure approved. Where not approved, LVT said that because lack of sufficient detail in specification rather than because outside scope or not reasonable" . This is not true (as demonstrated earlier). In my 22 June 2003 letter to West London County Court, I pointed out, among others, that, by agreeing to CKFT's request for a hearing, the court was subjecting me to double jeopardy as I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. (see WLCC # 8 ) I also stated,
On 15 July 2003, I wrote to West London County Court "Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" , |
