Email this site to a contact

 

The Business Model of the unscrupulous landlord in 21st century England

Business Model - Home

 

The following represents my view of the business model in operation in the residential leasehold sector. I have named it 'The Business model of the unscrupulous landlord in 21st century England'

The shorter description is: "Methods used for ripping-off leaseholders"

As it is essentially a summary of the events in my case, in parts reinforced by the experience of numerous other leaseholders I am in contact with, the focus is on the methods used for getting leaseholders to pay service charges for works that are not due and payable - with the additional payoff of getting some flats at below market price due to the resultant situation.  

(I know from other leaseholders that other models demonstrating 'methods used for ripping-off leaseholders' can be drawn-up e.g. when leaseholders want to exercise their 'right to buy the freehold - e.g. see My Diary 11 November 2006)

While, in the case of service charges for works, there are of course variations in the events and their sequence, sadly, the following model is, for the main part, reflective of the practices used by many of the players in the English residential leasehold property sector.

Examples are provided in support of the statements for the benefit of the visitor to the site who has not read other sections on this site. (Unless you are one of the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders who have had a similar experience, in all likelihood, you would find many of the claims impossible to believe without the supporting evidence. And even more so if you are from overseas)

Please NOTE: As emphasised throughout this site (e.g. My Diary 6 May 2008 ; home page # 15 , # 4.17 , # 4.18 , # 4.22 , # 4.23 , # 4.24 , # 14 ) NONE of my complaints have been upheld

Please note also that, as I have stated on numerous occasions throughout this site: I am NOT a lawyer. (My knowledge is essentially self-taught from books, first-hand experience, as well as desk research).

Sections

 

 

.(A) The foundation and lifeblood of the business model

The business model relies on beating leaseholders into submission by using the barbaric ploy of placing leaseholders in a state of FEAR

e.g. my fellow leaseholders ; comments # 13 , # 6 , # 15 ; press articles
  • FEAR of losing their home, and hence the major part of their financial wealth (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.2 ; Portner and Jaskel # 3 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.19 ; Stan Gallagher # 15)
  • FEAR of bankruptcy (Portner # 3)
  • FEAR of ending-up with corrupt lawyers, and of having the professions lash back at them for 'daring' to challenge them, catch them at their own game, and complain against their method of operating (My Diary 6 May 2008 ; point # 28, below ; RICS # 11 , # 12 ; Portner and Jaskel)
  • FEAR of ending-up in court (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 5 ; Martin Russell Jones # 26 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.18.5 ; Elderly Resident), and FEAR of the potential impact on personal credit rating, on employment prospects
  • FEAR of being unable to sell their flat if they expose their case in the public domain (home # 4.19), as well as
  • FEAR of prosecution if they 'dare' to go public (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors # 11 , # 12)
  • FEAR of others being also subjected to scare, bullying, intimidation and harassment tactics (e.g. my website Host, and my ex. employer - Introduction, home page)
  • FEAR of secondary retaliatory actions [ADD]
  • FEAR of ending-up with a police record and of having actions taken against them if they 'dare' to report harassment / lead to the perception of being 'troublesome' (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1, # 2 , # 6 ; My Diary 7 June 2008 ; whistleblowers (not leasehold related) ; [ADD])

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. It's a 'free for all' - a bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruptiion - and there is absolutely nowhere leaseholders can turn to for help. 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"

Why are they "protected"?

The power of money...

...that talks louder than deeds.

Also, status, dictate, etc.

And 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 ; points # 29 and # 30, below)

(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')

•  Leaseholders' ignorance of their common law rights and statutory rights, and the general public's fear of legal matters - make them 'easy prey' for the scare tactics used by rogue landlords and their aides. The endless amendments and additions to landlord-tenant legislation further add to leaseholders' feeling of incompetence...

•  ...combined with no public funded support in place to assist them, other than (in my view, intentionally) ill-equipped Citizens Advice Bureaux - thereby forcing leaseholders towards the very expensive private sector for assistance. (LEASE has good knowledge of legislation, but my first-hand experience is that, being a government department, you get the 'party line')

This is the second major element of the foundation of the business model, as it makes leaseholders more 'amenable' to their 'advisers' argument of 'making a commercial decision' through striking a deal...to the benefit of all - at the expense of the leaseholder.

•  A system that provides assistance to abusive landlords and their aides in using and abusing leaseholders at will

•  Legislation that is heavily biased towards landlords - with changes that would make a difference, held on the back-burner (that way they can be 'fed' to the media as evidence that the government is 'doing something about it'), while others further play into the hands of crooked landlords

•  Courts and tribunals where only 'professionals' (regardless of their profile) have a voice

•  Inequality of arms as landlords tend to employ expensive counsels to fight the leaseholders, and then charge the costs to the leaseholders - often with the 'blessings' of tribunals and courts

•  Professions that are motivated solely by their own interests, free to do exactly as they please, without fear of sanction - due to self-regulation

•  The police which - at best - will not intervene in landlord-tenant disputes, including those involving criminal actions by landlords and their aides (fraud, theft, blackmail, harassment, intimidation, etc.)

In other words: an ideal environment for institutionalised corruption or, as a visitor to my site wrote (# 17) "organised crime".

Back to list

(B) The business model in detail

(1) Selection of property with high payoff potential; planning and costing of enhancements and additions

Key considerations are, of course, 'location' and the ability to develop the block of flats leading to a potential pay-off of, for example, £5 million (US$8.5 million) comprising of £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) for a new penthouse flat and an estimated £0.90 million (US$1.6 million) for three other new flats: first , second , third , as well as additional gains from getting other flats in the block 'on the cheap'

Planning and costing of enhancements and additions to the block are immediately set in motion.

The preparation includes securing planning applications which, three years later, can go through an amendment , followed by another amendment two years later. (If leaseholders raise these as evidence of an intention to undertake the works, they are vehemently denied - including to tribunals (e.g. point 19 ; point 4-1.4 ). Meanwhile, leaseholders can suffer harassment and intimidation for daring to speak up )

These preparations can also come in handy for scaring-off leaseholders with impending massive service charges (e.g. 18 December 2000 , 11 January 2001 ), as well as dissuading them through threats of action from contemplating the purchase of the headlease

Back to list

(2) Leaseholders who are 'easy targets'

The majority of leaseholders are 'easy targets' due to their lack of knowledge of the leasehold system and of their rights - aided by an environment of complex and ever changing legislation, as well as a supporting infrastructure that benefits greatly from keeping the system in place.

(People's misunderstanding of the leasehold system is apparent when they (British and foreigners alike) say that they " bought a flat ' (apartment). If it is a leasehold flat, they have not. They have only bought a lease. This misconception is understandable when you consider that leasehold flats in the U.K. are among the most expensive in the world - where flats are generally bought in perpetuity)

Most leaseholders do not even tend to read their lease (which can vary greatly), partly due to the frequently convoluted text and partly because they view it as 'something legal, best left in the hands of a solicitor'...more often than not to their demise.

The 'ideal' leaseholder profile:

•  On a salary making them easy targets for bullying, blackmail, intimidation and harassment as they will not have the funds to employ advisers - and have no where else to turn to (e.g. solicitor letter to me v. 10 days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder)

•  Foreigners because they are totally clueless (no offence meant) about the leasehold system as, in their country, you buy a flat in perpetuity and are your own master - and you most definitely do not pay service charges without proper justification (e.g. Resident M to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)

•  Leaseholders who use the flat as a second home: living overseas will force them to employ solicitors, etc. to represent them; the rapidly mounting costs will lead them to 'cave in' to the demands fairly quickly   (e.g. Leaseholder C ; Leaseholder M ; LVT 8.1.2 ; Other Residents )

•  Leaseholders who 'bought' the flat for investment purposes:   their tenants provide a lever as they are easy targets for harassment and intimidation (e.g. Leaseholder F )

'Profiling' of individual leaseholders is gathered through 'insiders' befriending leaseholders. It can also entail listening at doors, going through the rubbish/garbage bins, intercepting private mail (including 'dipping' into the postman's bag (which is a criminal offence) if he has left it in the entrance to save carrying it up several floors while delivering the mail), having leaseholders followed (e.g. My Diary 26 October 2003 ; 1 June 2005 , 16 May 2006 , 25 October 2007), installing bugging devices, etc., etc.

Back to list

(3) Selection of sidekicks / enforcers who share the same philosophy / modus operandi

'Hand-picked' team of greed ridden 'professionals' comprising of surveyors, lawyers, builders, etc. who will stop at absolutely nothing to ensure the successful execution of the scam - including breach of legislation (e.g. filing a false court claim, and another example)

Back to list

(4) 'Mates' are brought into the deal through bogus 'notices' of 'first refusal'

Under statutory requirements, a change in the ownership of the headlease / freehold requires issuing a notice of 'first refusal' to the leaseholders.

A pretence at going through the motion leads to issuing 'notices' that rely heavily on the 'bag of tricks' to dissuade leaseholders from contemplating the offer: the threat of impending litigation is one of the favourites (e.g. 13 December 2000).

To make sure leaseholders 'get the message', it can be followed by additional correspondence (e.g. 25 January 2001 ), as well as appalling harassment and intimidation of the person driving the leaseholders response to 'the offer' (e.g. Head of Residents Association ; 13 December 2000 "Notice")

The 'notice' is usually sent to coincide with a holiday period with the objective of curtailing leaseholders' ability to reply within the statutory set time. The 'favoured' time is just before Christmas (e.g. 22 December 1999 ; 13 December 2000 ). (A notice sent around this time of year is a telltale sign of an intention to breach leaseholders' rights / rip them off).

Capitalising on leaseholders' lack of experience, omissions / errors can be included - with ulterior motives.

If leaseholders are not tricked by the false claims / threats and manage to overcome the hurdles, at the last post the 'notice is withdrawn from 'under their nose' - using the 'just in case' fall back measure that had been factored in at the time of issuing the 'notice' (e.g. appendix not supplied )

Meanwhile, the change in ownership nonetheless takes place - and hence, in breach of leaseholders' statutory rights (e.g. change at 1 June 2001)

The 'upside' during that time is that landlord and aides have 'a good laugh' seeing the lessees trying to organise themselves - and spending money. The more money they spend, the better. Among others, it will put quite a few lessees off from taking part in another joint action - which, of course, works to the benefit of the landlord and his aides.

Relying on the knowledge that they have carte blanche to do as they please, landlords and solicitors will even issue bogus notices.

Back to list

(5) The Land Registry provides a helpful hand by registering titles regardless of the impact on leaseholders' leases

If the experience has proved to be a 'close shave', next time round leaseholders are not given 'first refusal ' (1.1MB). (It amounts to committing a criminal offence, under section 10A(1) of the L&T Act 1987, but that's of no concern as there is no fear of sanction).

Meanwhile, the Land Registry obligingly registers any title regardless of the implications on the leaseholders' lease - and in spite of previous decisions to the contrary.

Who cares! There are only 'insignificant' leaseholders, with limited financial means and no influential connections - there to be used and abused by the dearly beloved, sacrosanct landlords - and leaves the leaseholder to sort out the mess it created , repeating the same message.

Back to list

(6) Opposition to the scam is eliminated by getting rid of the residents association

Harassment and intimidation tactics can be used to get rid of the residents association in order to eliminate all opposition and the possibility of leaseholders acting as a group (e.g. 18 December 2000 ; 14 January 2001 and covering note ; 16 January 2001 ; 29 January 2001 ; 30 January 2001 ; 31 January 2001 and witness to some of the events)

This tactic is based on the anticipation that leaseholders will then have no/little contact between each other, leaving the field wide open for coercion by spinning different stories to individual leaseholders (e.g. Resident F ; 5 August 2003 )

Leaseholders who attempt to set-up another association are shot down in flames (e.g. email 30 January 2002 )

Back to list

(7) A rehash of the 'real survey' is set in motion by issuing a 'notice' for the appointment of a surveyor to conduct a 'condition survey', taking step to ensure that it will be the landlord's surveyor

A notice of an intention to appoint a surveyor is sent just before... yes! Christmas! (e.g. 21 December 2001 ), greatly increasing the probability of the landlord having his selected surveyor to undertake the survey.

Leaseholders who manage to respond within the severely curtailed timeframe can nonetheless be told that they missed the deadline in spite of having stated that they replied within the deadline (e.g. email 30 January 2002) (= an expedient way of avoiding compliance with section 20(4)(e) of the L&T Act 1985)

Outcome: landlord's surveyor is appointed.

Landlord's surveyor goes 'heavy' on the terrible state of the building, placing strong emphasis on all of the most expensive items affected by the plans (e.g. roof, lift and boiler), describing them as having "come to the end of their useful life" and, consequently, in "urgent need of replacement" (e.g. February 2002 (2.3MB))

Of course, these false claims will continue on being repeated at every opportunity (e.g. 26 March 2002 ; 16 December 2002 ; 4 March 2003 ) - including the claim of "urgency" (e.g. 30 January 2002 ; 20 January 2003 ; 4 March 2003 )

The appalling state of the building can actually be the case, due to lack of repair and maintenance while the setting-up of the scam was in motion (e.g. stating on 7 June 2001 that " works are now overdue" and not starting the works for another three years ; admitting that repairs had not been carried out for nine years, point 38 - thereby in breach of repair covenants)

Back to list

(8) Steps are taken to ensure that leaseholders cannot get free advice

Key to the success of the scam is to get leaseholders to spend, spend, spend on 'advisers' (as they have nowhere else to turn to). The more they spend, the greater the likelihood that they will 'cave in' to the extortionate service charge demands - by 'striking a deal'.

Citizens Advice Bureaux can be threatened if they 'dare' to assist leaseholders. The sky is the limit on the extent of threats and intimidation tactics that can be used (e.g. blackmail and intimidation ; harassment and intimidation (points 31 and 32)) (amounting to criminal offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Theft Act 1968 - s.21 Blackmail)

Back to list

(9) The ground for the impending extortionate service charge demand is prepared through an initial communication making false claims about the nature of the works required and by giving a very broad cost range

The 'managing' agents send a letter to the leaseholders quoting a very wide ranging cost band (e.g. 26 March 2002 "...the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million (US$1.8 million) + VAT and fees. The tendering contractors may produce a price which is significantly more or less." ) and concurrently stresses the "urgent" need for the works (e.g. 26 March 2002 )

Aside from the fact that the cost is several times that of previous major repair and maintenance works, considering that an experienced surveyor ought to be able to pin down the cost within a relatively narrow band suggests that this letter will be used at a later stage, along the line of "but we did warn you a few months ago!"

It is also part of the strategy of getting leaseholders to sell - at a loss - given the impending service charge. (Leaseholders who sell will, in all likelihood - unknowingly - do so to an accomplice of the landlord, allowing them to subsequently sell the lease on the flat at the current market price, splitting the bounty between them e.g. Block sale of flats).

Back to list

(10) It is time to send the extortionate service charge demand - which can be in breach of both, the terms of the lease and statutory requirements

Once the set-up plans are completed (ownership control, work plans, control over individual leaseholders through the dissolution of the residents association and curtailment of their access to free advice), it is time to send the extortionate service charge demand...during the holiday period.

It is referred to as a ' notice ' i.e. implying that it is compliant with regulatory requirements, as well as the terms of the lease - which, obviously, given the above, it is not (e.g. points 73-81 (1.1MB); not containing a breakdown of costs ( point 14 ) ( point 2.11 ); inappropriate tendering process ( points 14 and 15) (# 6 ) ; non-compliance with the terms of the lease , etc.)

However, as the majority of leaseholders are ignorant of their rights and have not familiarised themselves with their lease, they are not in a position to argue with authority, leaving them to do the equivalent of trying to battle against a tank by throwing tomatoes at it.

A pretence at compliance with statutory requirements takes the form of leaving a practically unpriced copy of the specification of the works with the porter - who carefully notes who has looked at it so that it can then be claimed to a tribunal (e.g. 20 January 2003 ; # 3 ), as well as used in reply to leaseholders (e.g. 16 December 2002 )

Back to list

(11) Shortly after sending the service charge demand, an application is filed in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. As it is a fallback measure, it is not communicated to the leaseholders

While some leaseholders might not even have received the service demand due to the holiday period, an application "to determine the reasonableness of the service charge demanded" is nonetheless filed in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

This move appears to be a fallback measure in case the bullying, intimidation and coercion tactics that are about to be unleashed on rebellious leaseholders do not yield the desired effect, as leaseholders are not informed of this application, and the tribunal 'conveniently' sits on it for more than two months before contacting 'some' of the leaseholders ( # 10.1 )

Back to list

(12) Repeated requests for detail of costs are ignored by the landlords' agents

Landlord's agents i.e. 'managing' agents and solicitors ignore repeated requests for detail of costings - especially from leaseholders who do not have the financial means to employ advisers (e.g. 11 August 2002 , 16 September 2002 ; 17 October 2002 ), although it can be indiscriminate ( 3 August 2002 ; 3 September 2002 )

The exception appears to be if the request comes through a certain type of solicitors (e.g. 21 October 2002 ) (Probably the type of solicitors who play by the 'proper and correct' rules. They do exist! The challenge is finding them)

Landlord's agents can also engage in the game of sending the leaseholder from ' pillar to post '

Back to list

(13) Instead, 'managing' agents and landlord's solicitors bully leaseholders into paying the unlawful service charge by threatening them with forfeiture and legal proceedings..."with costs"

Heavy reliance is placed on leaseholders' ignorance of their rights by using blackmail and scare tactics intended to cause alarm and distress by misrepresenting the correct legal position with the aim of frightening the leaseholders into paying ( points 82-100 ; # 5 , )

The 'managing' agents can threaten proceeding "if payment is not made now" (e.g. 20 September 2002 ; 24 September 2002 )

Shortly afterwards, reinforcement comes in the shape of the landlord's solicitors who resort to the tactic of threatening to "forfeit the lease" (see Definitions) as well as "communicate with" the leaseholder's "mortgagee" (e.g. 7 October 2002 ) for not paying " the perfectly proper service charges that are due from you." (e.g. 4 February 2003 ; 5 August 2003 ) (The threat of forfeiture is a commonly used tactic (e.g # 7.19 ; # 15 ) by rogue solicitors - in law firms of all sizes - to obtain payment of monies not due and payable)

Attempts to dissuade leaseholders from contemplating the possibility of challenging a potential court action are made by claiming that judges will hold non-payment of the (fraudulent) service charge demand against the leaseholders (e.g. 21 October 2002 ). Actually, this can indeed happen (see later on)

The landlord's solicitors can issue the threat of prosecution while acknowledging being "aware that their client has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" (e.g. 21 October 2002 ) - hence admitting willingness to commit abuse of process of court by pursuing the same action - simultaneously - under two separate jurisdictions - that are part of the same judicial system (e.g # 2 , # 6.1 )

Back to list

(14) The tactic works as some leaseholders 'cave in' at the mention of the threat of prosecution - even though the sum is not due and payable

The main reason for 'caving in' is the expense of employing advisers - with no firm indication as to what the ultimate cost might be (which is precisely what the business model relies on). This concern is made worse if the leaseholder's permanent residence is overseas (e.g. email from a leaseholder to the tribunal).

Other concerns inducing leaseholders to 'cave in' can include the fear of the impact of a court claim on their credit rating (even though they know that the sum demanded is not due and payable); the need to report it to a regulatory body (if they work in sectors such as e.g. financial services) - and the ensuing humiliation (e.g. point 1.6 ), etc.

Back to list

(15) Others 'cave in' by being falsely told that they are the "only objector" and / or that "everybody else has paid"

Because the residents association has been disbanded, leaseholders will frequently be told by the landlord's aides that:

•  Nobody has objected to the service charge demand (e.g. 20 August 2002 ; 20 September 2002 ) even though this is not true (e.g. 3 August 2002 ; 11 August 2002 ; 3 September 2002 ; 24 September 2002 ; 19 October 2002 ; 28 October 2002 ). (also # 14 , # 15 and # 8.1.2 )

An example of a variation on this includes claiming that nobody else has objected to the appointment of an external party (e.g. 26 March 2002 ), while stating - on the same date - to a leaseholder " you were the only objector " . In the process, claiming that the objection was received after the deadline - in spite of having stated otherwise previously (e.g. email of 30 January 2002 ; document stating the deadline for reply)

•  Everybody else has paid (e.g. 1 November 2002 ) even though: (1) 28 days later, the landlord's solicitors file a claim (1.1MB) in court against 11 leaseholders representing the majority of the flats; (2) numerous leaseholders / their solicitors are challenging the demand e.g. 3 September 2002 ; 24 September 2002 ; 19 October 2002 ; 28 October 2002 )

The lie can continue on being made (e.g. 16 December 2002 ) - even after the leaseholders have received the claim on which they can see that the majority of the flats are listed. Evidently, the landlord's aides assume that leaseholders are blind / illiterate.

Back to list

(16) If a leaseholder is proving particularly 'troublesome', the local police can be called upon to give a 'helping hand', shortly followed by a scurrilous and threatening letter from the landlord's solicitors

While the police does not come to the assistance of leaseholders (e.g. Evening Standard article of 3 December 2003 ), if some 'insignificant' leaseholder is proving 'troublesome', the 'friendly' local police can be called upon to add to the scare tactics (e.g. 27 January 2003 ; My Diary 20 March 2007)

Lack of response from the leaseholder triggers a scurrilous and threatening letter from the landlord's solicitors (e.g. 4 February 2003 )

By 'amazing coincidence', both letters are sent just before the first day of the tribunal hearing.

If the leaseholder continues to show defiance by not acknowledging the letter from the police and, in addition, happens to have caught the landlord and his aides with their 'pants down' by unexpectedly turning up at the tribunal hearing with an army of advisors, the police fires another letter (e.g. 6 February 2003 ) (day after the first day of the tribunal hearing)

Ignoring the request to "call" the police, the leaseholder opts to instead write (e.g. 11 February 2003 ), requesting a response 'in writing'.

'Mysteriously', the leaseholder never receives a reply from the police. (And if it has backed down such as e.g. on 20 March 2007, the leaseholder reporting events in the public domain can trigger a message that "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" through, 'amazingly', the leaseholder's employer).

Back to list

(17) Recalcitrant, rebellious leaseholders are concurrently treated to an extensive arsenal of other harassment, intimidation and bullying tactics for 'daring' to challenge the service charge demand

Examples:

•  Making false accusations (e.g. Kensington & Chelsea police , 27 January 2003 ; 4 February 2003 ; My Diary 20 March 2007)

•  Making anonymous phone calls to leaseholders' home and their place of work; throwing hard objects at their windows late at night; pressing their door bell in the middle of the night (e.g. crime report ; summary of events )

•  Malicious leaks in their flat (e.g. My Diary 11 March 2002 ; 8 August 2005 (photos) ; 18 August 2005 (photos) ; 20 July 2007 (photos), or narrowly missing their flat: 6 February 2007 (photos) )

•  Lack of maintenance of the internal and external area (1.6MB) around their flat (which are the landlord's responsibility), as well as lack of concern for health and safety (see also Photo gallery )

•  Hosing of their windows in the early hours of the morning (e.g. My Diary 6 September 2005 ; 4 October 2005 ; 7 April 2006; 4 September 2006)

•  Having them followed on a daily basis (e.g. My Diary 26 October 2003 , 30 March 2004 , 1 June 2005 , 16 July 2005 , 5 August 2005 , 26 August 2005 , 4 January 2006 , 15 January 2006 , 16 May 2006 ; 30 July 2006 , 25 October 2007), as well as threatened (e.g. My Diary 19 April 2006 ; 1 August 2006 ) (NB: if you doubt that, consider: (1) the overwhelming amount of damning 'black on white' evidence I have against numerous parties on this website; (2) Britain is a surveillance society which, among others, employs 'an army' to snoop on people - even to check their dustbin (trash can); (3) I know of several other leaseholders who also reported being under serveillance for several months; (4) Last, but not least: knowing the reaction I am going to get from the majority of people, it is certainly not in my interest to report this).

•  Using family members / accomplices to make calls to the leaseholders in an attempt to frighten them (e.g. My Diary January-February 2004 ), show them that they are constantly under watch / being observed, followed (e.g. My Diary 19 July 2005 ; 25 December 2005 )

•  Using other leaseholders to join in on the act, perhaps by using follow-on action to the extortionate service charge demand as lever (see Ex. Leaseholder K ; My Diary 25 March 2002 )

•  Having spy cameras installed (e.g. My Diary From April-May 2005 ) which, among others, facilitates briefing of the [despicable scums ] [Note] due to follow the leaseholders the minute they leave the block (e.g. My Diary 16 May 2006 )

•  Changing the lock on the main door to the building by giving them very little notice (e.g. My Diary 22 July 2005 ) and ignoring their request for extra keys (never received)

Back to list

(18) As the coercion and bullying tactics are not working, the fallback measure, the application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, is kicked into action - relying on the 'landlord-friendly' tribunal to achieve the objective of getting an 'official seal of approval' for the service charge

Leasehold Valuation Tribunals provide an ideal forum to landlords and their agents for getting an 'official seal' of approval for the proposed expenditure.

The key factor taken into consideration by the landlord-his aides in filing the application is the fact that leaseholders cannot recoup their costs, thereby acting as a very strong deterrent to leaseholders to challenge an application by the landlord (point # 6 ; # 8.2 )

Even when leaseholders' grievance is recognised as justified, they can still be stung with heavy punitive costs (e.g. Issue 18 of the Leaseholder, C.A.R.L. ) and /or be left in a position of having to spend yet more money for another set of hearings (e.g. LVT - My 20C application and # 9 )

In addition, contrary to the claims made that LVTs "provide an affordable local solution...without the need for representation." (e.g. Head of LVTs, The Times , 3 October 2004), this is definitely not the case (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal )

Other 'helpful' activities by LVTs to landlords and their aides can include:

•  Sitting on a landlord's application for two months before informing leaseholders, and waiting another two days to inform them of a pre-trial hearing - thereby leaving leaseholders with a low probability of being able to attend at short notice. (As discussed above, the two-month period allowed the landlord's aides to engage in coercion and bullying tactics in the hope of getting the leaseholders to pay monies that are not due and payable)

•  Selectively informing leaseholders of the action - on the instruction of the landlord's agents; consequently, breaching the rights of the leaseholders who have not been informed (e.g. LVT # 8.1.3 , # 10.1 , # 10.2 )

•  Among those 'lucky enough' to be informed of the application, some are intentionally not supplied with the highly material appendices to the application (priced specification, etc) (e.g. LVT # 8.1.3 , # 8.1.4 , # 10.3 )

•  Ignorance of non-compliance by the landlord - its agents of the directions set by the tribunal - even though there are strict rules on this (second page of the directions ; # 2 , # 8.1 , # 8.1.2 , # 10.4 )

•  Because tribunals (like the courts) tend to have ears only for the landlord's 'professional' representatives, tribunal panel members (who are predominantly surveyors) happily accept the claims from the landlord's 'managing' agents and surveyor that all the necessary information has been supplied to the leaseholders (e.g. 8 October 2002 , 20 January 2003 ) even though they have - on file - substantial correspondence to the contrary from leaseholders (e.g. # 8.1.2 , 19 October 2002 ; 20 October 2002 ; 22 October 2002 ; 28 October 2002 ; 25 November 2002 ; ). Hence, by implication, tribunals (like the courts) tend to view leaseholders as liars.

Of course, care is taken by the 'managing' agents to ensure the tribunal is supplied with the information.

•  Consequently, a leaseholder's request for a postponement of the hearing is refused (# 2 , # 8.1.3 ) - even though the reasons are very clearly stated ( 12 January 2003 ) (and the tribunal has extensive supporting evidence from other leaseholders) (# 8.1.2 )

•  When, to the great annoyance of all concerned, the leaseholder unexpectedly turns up on the first day of the hearing with a barrister, a surveyor and a solicitor (My Diary 5 February 2003), 'the game' comes to an end: a postponement is finally granted "In the interest of justice" ( point 16 ) (# 3 , # 8.1.3 )

Back to list

(19) The false claims previously made to the leaseholders are repeated and further embellished during the tribunal hearings, as well as being accompanied by equally false claims to discredit the leaseholders challenging the application

(19.1) Using the 'managing' agents to do this - Examples

•  Vehemently asserting that the information has been supplied and claiming that the only reason the leaseholders are challenging "the perfectly reasonable demand" is because they do not want to pay it (e.g. 16 December 2002 )

•  Repeating the same lie to the tribunal (e.g. 20 January 2003 ) (proof of lie: point 14 )

•  Claiming rapid deterioration of all the major items that will be affected by the plans for expansion (e.g. 20 January 2003 ; points 19, 27 and 35 ) - and attributing these to the leaseholders' challenge of the application under the excuse that it prevents "repair" works from taking place.

•  Leaseholders can be also be portrayed to the tribunal as callous and inconsiderate by making-up other equally fictitious, scurrilous claims (e.g. point 27 )

Back to list

(19.2) Using the landlord's surveyor to do the same thing - Examples

•  Claiming that the required information was sent to leaseholders (e.g. point 2.10 ) (Evidence against: envelop at the end of the pack)

•  Communicating outrage to the tribunal in relation to leaseholders' claim of non-provision of the information required under statutory requirements and under the terms of their lease (e.g. point 2.11 ) (v. self admission to the contrary under point 2.04 )

•  Claiming that the challenge by the leaseholders is totally unwarranted and will only lead to the outcome of increasing costs unnecessarily (e.g. Section 5 ; Brian Gale # 4) (leading a leaseholder to hand out a reply to the LVT )

•  Denial of the intention to undertake works other than those allowed under the terms of the lease e.g. point 4 -1.4 "I am able to categorically state the specification makes NO provision for the building of a penthouse flat" ; point 19 "regarding the penthouse...subsequently found that it was not a viable proposition"

As can be seen in this pack (2.3MB), Major works and photos - the above were false claims, or put simply: LIES .

Back to list

(19.3) Getting the landlord's counsel to join in on the act - Example

•  By having him claim at the start of the tribunal hearing that "the reason [the leaseholder has] been challenging the service charge demand is because [he./she] did not want to pay it" (i.e. is dishonest and in breach of the covenants in the lease)

If only one leaseholder is left 'facing the music' in the tribunal because of being deserted by the others (who are running scared as they have been 'hit' by the court claim before the tribunal hearing ), or have not been informed of it (LVT # 8.1.3 , # 10.1) the opportunity is taken by the landlord (e.g. point 50 ) and his aides (e.g. point 5.02 ) to portray the leaseholder as being the "only objector" to the service charge demand (e.g. Brian Gale # 4 , # 4.1 )

Of course, the tribunal conveniently ignores the fact that it has been informed - with evidence in support - that the landlord has filed a claim against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats.

Mysteriously, one year - AFTER - the tribunal hearings, the managing agents sing an entirely different tune by communicating to the lessees that "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees..."

Back to list

(19.4) Not wanting to be left out, the landlord comes out of hiding from behind his puppets to add his contribution during the hearings

He piles on the scare tactics during the hearings - thereby adding to the intimidatory actions over previous days: from the 'friendly' local police, and from his solicitors. Frustrated that it has not achieved the objective, he writes a letter to the tribunal ahead of the next hearing, in order to discredit the leaseholder (e.g. point 50 )

Back to list

(20) Although the landlord has lost a battle, the tribunal takes steps to ensure that he has not lost the war

While the report by the tribunal can be very damming of the specifications and costs, the war is not lost as, at the 11th hour, the tribunal can make what amounts to a U-turn by not including a summary of its determination on the global sum demanded - thereby failing its remit " to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account"

The first request for a summary to be included is refused on the ground "that the tribunal does not have the power to re-open a decision"

When the reply highlights that including a summary does not amount to "re-opening a decision" - "rather it is about your tribunal completing an unfinished report" - and reiterates the request, it is yet again refused on the grounds that "this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons" (YES: to the leaseholders to challenge the service charge demand!)

Escalating the request to a higher level leads to the same 'get lost ' reply (Prescott # 1.4 ).

Of course, the benefit to the landlord of NOT having a summary included in the report means that leaseholders who did not attend the hearings will find it next to impossible to use it to challenge the service charge demand. This is in spite of the fact that the tribunal's determination applies to the WHOLE block i.e. to every leaseholder in the block (e.g. point 64, page 15 , 21 July 2003 ; 9 August 2003 )

In tandem with this, the summary of the case placed on the LVT's website is factually inaccurate , and will remain as such - as the request to have it amended to reflect the true situation is refused

The game plan in not including a summary also relies on the fact that leaseholders have been forced to incur massive professional fees during the tribunal hearings (as professional representation has proved to be necessary), thereby reducing the probability of their spending yet, another considerable amount of money to get a professional assessment of the tribunal's determination - and will consequently give up. And if the lessees take-up the challenge? Who cares! The taxpayer picks-up the cost of the tribunal.

Another 'little bit of help' to the landlord comes in the shape of a prominent ( placed on the first page ) categorical statement that a price increase will take place - TWO weeks AFTER - the tribunal signs its report and, in the process, blames the leaseholders for this.

Of course, this is also picked-up in the summary accessible to the public, as this information will be extremely helpful to the landlord and his aides as justification for demanding more monies - by communicating this to other leaseholders who opted to not challenge the original extortionate service charge demand (They will not know any better as the tribunal has not issued a summary of its decision on the "reasonableness of the global sum demanded" )

Thanks to the poisoned chalice from the tribunal, the leaseholders' battle with the landlord's aides rages on for another year, this time, in the courts.

Back to list

(21) The court claim has been filed because the courts can be the landlord's other allies by 'mysteriously' turning 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to all the evidence supplied - and let the landlord's lawyers 'run the show' (in the same way that the 'managing' agents are 'running the show' in the tribunal) (Each 'tribe' has its arena)

During the pre-trial hearing, the tribunal clearly communicates to the leaseholders - in the presence of the landlord's party - that it only has jurisdiction over " service charges that are still unpaid " (page 5). In other words, the tribunal tells the leaseholders to NOT PAY the service charge until it has issued its determination, and it has therefore been implemented.

Getting concerned that things are not running as smoothly as anticipated, to frighten and coerce the recalcitrant leaseholders into paying, the landlord ignores the instructions given by the tribunal to the leaseholders and asks his solicitors to draw-up a claim against all of them - for the original sum demanded.

The claim is endorsed by a 'Statement of Truth' from the 'managing' agents that the sum claimed is "due and payable". UNBELIEVABLY, the court accepts the claim and proceeds with it, issuing charging orders, judgments etc. against the leaseholders - in spite of the fact that it is in very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as "Managing agent who manages property or investments for the party cannot sign a statement of truth" and that "a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth”.

For good measure, the landlord also attaches a lease to the claim that has a very convenient clause ( (2)(2)(c)(i) ) as it states that "The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year...shall be a fair proportion ( to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor )." - and FALSELY claims ( point 5 ) that this lease is representative of all the leases in the block (it most definitely is not ) (CKFT # 6.7 ) (WLCC # 3 )

Back to list

(21.1) The court wrongly lets the landlord's aides file just one claim against all the leaseholders

(In my non-lawyer opinion), to allow the landlord to file just one claim (1.1MB) against all the leaseholders is wrong as it implies that they are jointly and severally liable for the claim - which they are not - as they are merely liable for the percentage of the total charges, as specified in their lease (WLCC # 1 )

The upside to the landlords is that it costs only £500 (US$880) to file the claim.

Back to list

(21.2) ( Like the tribunal ) the court turns 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to an abuse of process of court and, when challenged, puts the responsibility on the leaseholders to sort out the situation

Although it amounts to an abuse of process of court (e.g. 12 December 2002 ; 9 April 2003 ; CKFT # 6.1), as well as places the leaseholders in a situation of double jeopardy (same action pursued simultaneously under two separate jurisdictions), the court turns 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to this (e.g. my EIGHT documents to West London County Court), eventually replying to the leaseholder that it is up to the leaseholder to seek agreement from the landlord's solicitors to stop the action (WLCC # 4 ) = the leaseholder is sent from 'pillar to post' and is evidently expected to police the conduct of solicitors

The same request for assistance to the tribunal , leads to the "not our problem" reply.

Not surprisingly, given this 'Wild West' environment, more leaseholders end-up paying the unjustified and consequently, unlawful service charge demand - taking the 'I made the commercial decision pill' so freely handed out by legal 'advisers' to make leaseholders feel better.

Back to list

(21.3) In spite of being informed that the same action is being pursued in the tribunal, the court plays an active part in making some leaseholders pay - BEFORE - the tribunal has issued its determination

For the remaining brave leaseholders who are still fighting the fraudulent claim, the court helps the landlord secure, among others, judgements against some of them BEFORE the tribunal has issued its determination (e.g. 23 May 2003 ; 1 April 2003 ;   29 June 2004 ; 23 August 2004 - point 11)

It does this in the full knowledge that leaseholders have been told by the tribunal to NOT pay the service charge until it has issued its determination (e.g. my EIGHT documents to West London County Court)

As well as doing it against the tribunal's determination: ".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..." ( point 64, page 15 )

In the process, the court turns 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to all other information supplied against the claim not only from leaseholders acting in person (e.g. 22 June 2003 , 15 July 2003 ; 9 August 2003 ) , which it clearly views as non-entities, it also ignores correspondence from the tribunal - on which it has been copied (e.g. 21 July 2003 ).

Of course, it also turns a blind eye to the documents filed by the landlord's aides which it could use to question / challenge the action (e.g. an application for hearing claiming that amendments have been made since a previous hearing when, in fact, comparison of a document supplied with the application with that supplied for a previous hearing , clearly shows that this is not the case. In this instance, it also ignored the blatantly obvious evidence that leaseholders could only be charged on the basis of a fixed share of a global sum that has to be the same for all) (WLCC # 9 )

In fact, it happily accepts anything and everything from a member of 'the tribe' i.e. lawyers (e.g. 3 September 2003 ).

Hence, a repeat of what happened with the tribunal where the dominant 'tribe' are surveyors.

The court can keep on turning 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence (e.g. 22 July 2004 ) until the very end (e.g. order against the last valiant leaseholder)

Back to list

(22) The courts can also provide extensive hands-on help to landlords in harassing and tormenting leaseholders by sending them notifications / orders that do not concern them, drawing-up orders that will keep the action going in spite of knowing that agreement has been reached, acceding to the landlord's requests for hearing with amazing haste, etc.

Examples

.  Wrongly insisting that a charging order concerns a leaseholder (Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1 )

.  Wrongly informing the leaseholder of being the defendant in a trial ( summary of events ) (LFT