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
My name is Noëlle Rawé (sometimes shown on documents as Ms Noëlle Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé). I am the leaseholder (definition) of a flat in Jefferson House, Basil Street, London SW3. There are several offshore companies associated with the ownership of Jefferson House. They appear to be domiciled in a variety of offshore jurisdictions: British Virgin Islands, Panama and Gibraltar. Hence, jurisdictions that allow owners to hide their identity - making a mockery of leasehold legislation. However, it is clear that the key driver of activities is Mr Andrew Ladsky (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors # 7) (described in e.g., the Sunday Times of 9 October 2005 as " a millionaire property developer ") (website printscreen). The article refers to events in the 1990s). Indications that there are others hiding behind him - see Directorships Being 'paper' companies, they are manipulated in monopoly board game style (Headlessors, incl. # 7) and, combined with the total lack of regulation of the residential leasehold sector - result in my not knowing, at any one point in time, who controls my home - as detailed under e.g. header 5 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, points 39-62 - and covered under Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners Identity ; Directorships. (From my contacts with leaseholders in other blocks: a common situation under this archaic, feudal system) (New Labour, pre 1997 election 'An End to Feudalism'; press articles ; 'Who owns Britain?' ; the 'Great Estates' ; examples of new entrants).
I hoped that the site would put pressure on resolving my situation, leading me to close it within days, at most a few weeks after its launch. It soon became clear that, in spite of my five years of first-hand experience of sheer, utter hell (e.g. snapshot in My Diary 15 May 2008), I had underestimated the arrogance, moral depravation and lack of common sense / intelligence in the residential leasehold sector and its supporting infrastructure - and their ‘carte blanche’ to do exactly as they please, in total disregard of legislation, regulations, codes of conduct… …as my site triggered an ever growing ‘lynch mob’ absolutely intent on 'making me pay' for 'daring' to expose the detail of my case in the public domain – and, as a consequence of this, expose their / their friends’ incompetence / malpractice / corruption - which is not a revelation as these have and continue to be raised by some politicians e.g. re. legal sector , re. residential leasehold sector example 1 , example 2 , example 3 ; concerned professionals ; the media ; pressure / action groups e.g. 'Campaign Against Bias and Maladministration in the Local Government Ombudsman Service' (LGO page) ; Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold ; Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, etc.
It is fascinating to observe how, having the guts to take the moral stance and stand by your principles, stand-up for your rights and speak out against injustice and malpractice - turns you into a pariah and lines you up for punishment. I think you will agree that it speaks volumes for the current state of affairs in this country. (One thing to note about the three whistleblowers: (like me - in part) all suffered victimization at the hands of the public sector: (1) the police; (2) social services; (3) a nationalized bank. Obviously, the government - which issued legislation to protect whistleblowers - considers itself to be exempt from it). Of course, what the ‘lynch mob’ very conveniently overlooks is that the root cause for launching my website are the actions by Mr Andrew Ladsky and his ‘advisors’ (My Diary 11 March 2007 ; home page # 4.14 , # 4.15 , # 4.16 )... a case of the cabal closing ranks with the criminals against the victim. WHY? The usual answer: the root of all evil: MONEY. The residential leasehold sector is part of a gigantic web of symbiotic relationships with a multitude of interests such as e.g. positioning for 'a rewarding share' of the government's multi-billion £ consultancy projects = upset some of the troughs, and you end-up with a domino effect of enemies. (In case you are thinking / have been told, in order to secure your cooperation to act against me, that the treatment I am being subjected to is due solely to my exposing chapter and verse of my case on this site, I highlight: (1) the treatment I (and my fellow leaseholders) suffered over the previous five years (see next paragraph); (2) to my knowledge, visitors to my site who sent me a comment have not exposed their case in the public domain ; (3) nor have other leaseholders I know - before the outcome of their experience (e.g. My Diary 11 November 2006 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 4) ; (4) and ditto re. those who contacted C.A.R.L. (http://www.carl.org.uk) - reported in the 'Letter to the Editor' section of each of the newsletters). In the first five years prior to launching the site I (and my fellow leaseholders) had been subjected to an arsenal of fraudulent, harassment, bullying, blackmail, intimidation and defamation tactics, initially to force me to pay the full amount demanded, and subsequently, to force me to strike a deal - and ‘make me pay’ for 'daring' to challenge the 17 July 2002 service charge demand for the 'major works' (Challenge by my fellow leaseholders e.g. Martin Russell Jones # 32 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.2). (I was vindicated as the original sum demanded of £736,207 (US$1.3 million) was reduced by £500,000 (US$881,700) (including the contingency fund) i.e. nearly 70% less (e.g. Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 ; Major works ; Brian Gale). But, the LVT made a U-turn at the 11th hour (LVT # 6) - resulting in: (1) an incomplete report and a 'very convenient' Case summary being placed on the LVT database (LVT # 7) which, I guess, helped secure full payment from the majority of the leaseholders (Pridie Brewster # 18) ; (2) a continuation of the battle, in court, with CKFT (West London County Court # 9). (The signs were there from the start (LVT # 8.1 , # 8.1.3 , # 8.1.5 , # 10 ; WLCC # 2 , # 3 , # 4 ) - but, my then blind trust and faith in 'the system' led me to block them out). (Other leaseholders also share my overall assessment e.g. My Diary 22 November 2008 ; Comments ; 'Letter to the Editor' in the C.A.R.L. newsletters). A similar, highly vicious, barbaric arsenal has been set in motion with the aim of closing down my site, as well as ‘make me pay’ for ‘daring’ to go public...after FIVE years (!!!) of crying out for help (and home # 13). Evidently, we, leaseholders, are meant to suffer abuse in silence - a conclusion I arrived at a long time ago. The first attack, three weeks after the launch of my site, was the threat of libel action by Mr Andrew Ladsky, through Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel LLP, against my website host on 3 October 2006 – by making libellous, scurrilous accusations against me (Portner # 2) The site was closed down on 6 October 2006. I took the opportunity to add more 'fortifications' to it and, having found my wonderful current website Host in October 2006, I relaunched the site on 25 December 2006. In October 2006 and subsequently, Mr Ladsky contacted my (ex.) employer on numerous occasions, making some of the same outrageously libellous, scurrilous claims against me - and a lot more e.g. his 26 March 2007 letter in which, to secure the assistance of my employer, his tactics include: of course, FALSE claims and accusations; highlighting parties covered on my website with which my employer has a working relationship; threatening defamation proceedings. (NB: He also did this in 2002 - out of revenge for my communicating to various parties that Steel Services was a non-existent company as it had been "Struck-off the (British Virgin Islands) register for non-payment of the licence fee" - Owners identity # 2) (detail in e.g.My Diary 15 May 2008) Concurrently, starting in January 2007, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn harassed my current website Host over a period of several weeks, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website – by yet again making highly libellous, scurrilous - unsupported - claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 5 February 2007) Frustration at being unable to force my website Host to close down my website, led Mr Ladsky to ask Mr Hershkorn to send me a malicious letter dated 16 February 2007, threatening me with “bankruptcy proceedings, forfeiture” (taking the flat from me) and “costs” if I failed to "immediately pay £8,937" (US$15,800) to a company I had never heard of (Portner # 3 ) When that failed to achieve the objective, Mr Ladsky asked Mr Hershkorn to file a fraudulent claim against me in West London County Court, on 27 February 2007 for that amount, plus "interest and costs" (Portner # 6 ). (I knew that the claim was fraudulent – and I was proven right as, after a 16-month battle with Portner and West London County Court, upon receiving my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, on 6 June 2008 “ALL of the claim" against me was dropped: My Diary 7 June 2008 ; 3 June 2008 ; Portner from # 29 - and under point # 33, the preposterous, laughable excuse given for dropping the claim). And the battle with the 'mafia' continues: My Diary 11 November 2008 The ongoing harassment of my website Host by Mr Hershkorn and his malicious letter of 16 February 2007 led me to write a letter of complaint against Portner and Jaskel LLP to the Law Society on 28 February 2007 asking for "appropriate action against your member" Of course, none was taken (Portner # 4 and # 5) ( = continuation of my previous experience - and, considering events in relation to the 2007 claim = further confirmation of my conclusion of a 'CLAN') (I really, really wish I had seen the Daily Telegraph article in 2001) Nonetheless, my complaint to the Law Society led Mr Hershkorn to back-off, and Mr Ladsky to take-up the harassment of my website Host himself, by making several threatening phone calls to my Host - repeating the same libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations, and the same threats - thereby continuing with his 'standard approach' - see also Elderly Resident Still unable to force my website Host to close down my website, in his rage at being exposed for what he is, Mr Ladsky asked 'his friends' at Kensington & Chelsea police to provide 'some assistance' by implying to my website Host that I had ‘committed a crime’ – without providing evidence in support – and, in the process, branded me a “Nazi” (emails of 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007). Kensington & Chelsea police backed down as a result of being challenged by my website Host (My Diary - 20 March 2007) (Three days after I gave prominence to the events on my website, the message that "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" was communicated to me through my employer. By then, five weeks had elapsed since the 20 March 2007 email. Why is it that the police did NOT contact ME about my website: before, during or after its emails?) (See why I cannot thank my website Host enough for its support?) There was also another malicious leak in February 2007 that narrowly missed my flat, followed by another one in July 2007 – that most definitely did not (photographs) At the end of 2003, when I finally admitted to myself that I was dealing with a system that is heavily biased towards landlords, and for the sake of my health (home # 4.14), I gave in "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end" by accepting the £6,350 (US$11,200) 'offer' (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) original demand) - which, legally, I did NOT owe (WLCC # 12 , # 13). But, the sociopaths I am dealing with, led by Mr Ladsky, opted to pull me back down into the residential leasehold hell hole in 2004 out of revenge for 'daring' to challenge the 17 July 2002 service charge demand (My Diary 11 March 2007; Martin Russell Jones # 18 ; My Diary Mid-December 2007) Second time round, I am no longer prepared to let a bunch of criminals walk all over me and steal from me - no matter what. While I am NOT the criminal; I AM THE VICTIM - my life has been totally ruined, and I have lost a very great deal. So, might as well fight like a demon to the very end...hoping for a miracle...before I end-up on the pavement - being a 'great' advertisement for this country; more specifically: the ruling class. My determination to fight like a demon to the death - hoping that, at a minimum, my horrendous, very traumatic experience will be a trigger for change...
What kind of people can do that? Obviously: very, very sick, morally depraved, despicable, beneath contempt scums. As to' why they do it?' Because they know they have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please. (This is obvious from my experience since 2002, that of my fellow leaseholders and other leaseholders, including visitors to my site). It's a 'free for all' - a bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption - and there is absolutely nowhere leaseholders can turn to for help under this system described by a politician in November 2008 as"one of the most secretive, unaccountable system of government anywhere in the world". (See My Diary 6 May 2008 for a brief overview of my complaints against various parties - and the outcome). These, and my cries for help to MPs, including party leaders, and all the way to the Prime Minister (PRIOR to launching this website) resulted in the same outcome - (when I received a reply!): GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! ... except from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the previous Tenancy Relations Officer at Kensington & Chelsea housing (My Diary 6 May 2008 ; 5 November 2002) Where can you go from there to get help? NOWHERE. There is NOWHERE to turn to - except God. You either walk away, full of resentment and anger for having suffered injustice, and frequently, loss of a large part of your life savings...or, you set-up a website, as I have done - in the hope of putting pressure on resolving your situation and, failing that, of being a trigger for change - in the meantime, being of help to others who, like you, are going through absolute, sheer, utter hell. As a visitor to my site wrote (# 17) "If you complain you are accused of threatening "Them" and if they threaten you, they are protected"
The implementation of the business model also relies on FEAR... among others - (which I also view as a factor for the complete silence from consumer and Human Rights groups in relation to what is going on in the sector). (I and other people I know have approached both types. When we received a reply it was: "We don't deal with leasehold matters"). Hence: FEAR is what keeps the residential leasehold system firmly in place - and growing (home # 4.19 ; Business model # 29 , # 30) (Control of people through 'fear' (and surveillance: overall; in my case) is on the increase in this country - down to the level of the darkly comic e.g. the 'dustbin police') As I keep fighting back for justice and redress (My Diary 7 June 2008) - becoming increasingly stronger from my self-taught legal knowledge (My Diary 29 April 2006 , 18 March 2007 , 3 June 2008 ; My 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) (the parable of the horse :-) ) - and because I see through their ploys, the fury fueling the revenge grows bigger by the day, leading to an ever growing recruitment for the ‘firing line’ facing me. (As a visitor to my website wrote (# 16) "I think the parties concerned must be extremely worried...") And, quite clearly, none of my relationships, whether governed by very long standing friendship, professional codes of conduct (including medical) (yes!), legislation or regulations are 'off-limit' in this recruitment – and nor is there a limit as to what they are prepared to do to discredit / cover-up the evidence, and 'make me pay' for going public e.g. My Diary 7 June 2008 [ADD] - leading me to wonder who is/are ‘the key driver/s’ of the vendetta against me that leads people to betray me and act against me [ADD]. Considering the extent of the collusion: clearly very powerful individual/s. What is the root cause for ALL that has and continues to take place? Mr Ladsky et.al. deciding that I (and my fellow leaseholders) should pay for the costs of adding a penthouse flat and three other flats to Jefferson House - costs for which I (and my fellow leaseholders) are NOT liable. In My Diary 3 October 2006 I wrote "What will be the ultimate true price of these flats?" For the avoidance of doubt, I emphasise: I have done NOTHING WRONG. I am NOT the criminal. I AM THE VICTIM. Yet, I am treated as though I am the criminal, while the criminals are treated as though they are the victims (e.g. RICS # 12 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 , # 3 ; [ADD]) NB: While there are laws: (1) to protect whistleblowers: Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; (2) granting "freedom of expression": Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ; (3) granting people the right, out of moral or social duty to inform others: Fair comment; Common law privilege - like the rest of my so-called 'rights', I am clearly not meant to exert them - nor, considering their experience, are others e.g. My Diary 7 June 2008 - whistleblowers ; other websites e.g. Dunblane Unburied ; Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers. While I feel unbelievably betrayed and conned, at least, I have the consolation of knowing that I am helping others - see Comments - which, on its own, must be a cause of extreme anger against me as, key to beating leaseholders into submission, is to have them isolated, ignorant of their rights - and power (knowledge is power, and, united, leaseholders have power e.g. the case of the 78 pensioners). While I wish that in 2002 I knew what I know now - even though I am now heading towards the pavement: I have no regrets. If the choice is being the person that I am v. being like those who have and continue to act against me (Advisors to Jefferson House ; My Diary 6 May 2008 and Fear ; My Diary 7 June 2008 # 1 and # 2 ; home ; [ADD]) - there is no contest.
• 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 Jefferson House, 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 5 February 2003 tribunal hearing - point 14 of the 17 June 2003 determination - 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" at Jefferson House. 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 19 October 2003 Witness Statement (which never made to the court - but by which I totally stand by) (see My 19 October 2003 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, in his 25 June 2003 letter). 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, and as per my statutory rights. 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 , "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end", 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 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 1). (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). (NB: I informed the courts of the LVT action a total of 8 TIMES ! )
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: |
