Email this site to a contact

 

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

Business Model - Home

 

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:

 

If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

 

Introduction

This page 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 - in very sick, "fantastically corrupt" Britain.

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 apartments at below market price due to the resultant situation.  

(I know from leaseholders in other blocks 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. My Diary 11 Nov 06).

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. See examples of media reports (Overview Note 9).

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).

My overall message is: stay well clear of that feudal, masonic hellhole, bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption, greed, amorality, cruelty and viciousness...

...- and quote (in addition to my experience) (Case Summary) the following (among many others):

Your home is meant to be a place of refuge, where you can feel safe and protected.

Under leasehold, it more often than not, means a place of sheer, utter hell, a 'concentration camp' in which you are at the constant mercy of greed-ridden, sadistic, extremely cruel and vicious sociopaths / psychopaths - who know they have carte blanche from the state to do whatever they want.

In this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, not only does the state actively assists them and protects them in their criminal activities (punishable by custodial sentences) by totally ignoring legislation, court and tribunal rules, regulations, etc....

...- it also assists them by issuing and / or changing legislation to facilitate the exploitation and oppression of leaseholders - leaving leaseholders in a permanent state of fear from not knowing their rights (unless they are prepared to research constantly the sector to identify changes).

If you 'dare' object to that mafia ripping-you off - operating as a fully integrated team with the state - they will persecute you until they destroy you, by attacking you from every quarter possible.

Any 'new system' e.g. the First-tier tribunals, claimed to have "more power" and "new rules", and positioned, as previously - (and falsely) - as "providing an easier and cheaper access to justice"...

- will turn out to be no more than a reincarnation of the old version: the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (1) - BECAUSE:

  • - leading them to be populated predominantly by individuals who ignore the rule of law, in the knowledge that they will not face any kind of sanction;
  • (4) = An environment in which a tribunal that operates as per the rule of law would most definitely not fit in (2)

BUT: Their being promoted by the state, and the legal sector, as a 'new, improved version' will fool leaseholders who are new to the game (e.g. through the 'Right to Buy' scheme, the number of leaseholders is growing on a daily basis) - ensuring that the money-counting machines will remain active.

(And, of course, these 'new schemes' (another example of a waste of taxpayer money: "a new code of ethics for the police, and college of policing") provide civil servants with 'justification' for their salary, bonuses, expenses, etc.).

(1) Other example: the Financial Conduct Authority and its predecessor the Financial Services Authority.

(2) Adding credence to my conclusions - see the Jan 14 Indy articles that report on police's findings of "corruption of the criminal justice system et.al. by Freemasons".

 

Please NOTE: (typically) none of my - legitimate - complaints against any of the parties were upheld (e.g. # 28, below; Overview # 7).

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

 

(A)- THE FOUNDATION AND LIFEBLOOD OF THE BUSINESS MODEL

The business model for the residential leasehold sector relies on beating leaseholders into submission - by using the very cruel, sadistic ploy, of placing them in a permanent state of FEAR.

(e.g. my case: Summary, Overview Note 4 ; my fellow leaseholders ; comments # 13 , # 6 , # 15 ; media and other reports)

FEAR of losing their home through forfeiture (copy of definition) (= fraud tool), and hence the major part of their financial wealth (Overview # 1 , # 10 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.19 ; Stan Gallagher # 15)

FEAR of bankruptcy (= fraud tool) (Overview # 10)

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 criminal landlords and their aides.

Legislation that is very heavily biased towards landlords, endless amendments, additions, and even changes by the judiciary, add further 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 (in 2002-03) was that you got the 'party line'). (Now, it perceives itself at the service of landlords).

FEAR of ending-up with corrupt lawyers (justified), and of having the professions and their so-called 'regulators' lash back at them for 'daring' to challenge them, catch them at their own game, and complain against their method of operating (also well justified: point # 28, below ; Overview # 7).

FEAR of ending-up in court (well justified: kangaroo court) where only 'professionals' (regardless of their profile) have a voice (Overview # 2 , # 3 , # 11 , # 12 ; PSB/Watton # 7.18.5 ; Elderly Resident),...

and FEAR of the potential impact on personal credit rating, on employment prospects.

FEAR (well justified) of tribunal, courts and their 'regulators' turning against them / siding with the landlord and his aides (kangaroo court ; criminal psychological harassment ; examples of other leaseholders' experience).

FEAR of being liable for large legal and other costs (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) # 3 ; Stan Gallagher # 4.1 , # 5 ; PSB/Watton # 7.6 ; # 7.18.2;

Andrew David Ladsky asking at the tribunal hearing: " Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 [US$441,000] of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to the hearing?" (v. the tribunal's findings, and his subsequent "offer").

FEAR of being unable to sell their apartment if they expose their case in the public domain (Overview Note 4), as well as

FEAR of prosecution if they 'dare' to go public (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors # 11 , # 12).

FEAR - from many quarters - of ongoing persecution, harassment, victimization, abuse, blackmail, intimidation, of being defamed, etc.

(Comments # 13 , # 6 , # 15 and # 17 ; my fellow leaseholders ; a notorious landlord (referred to on pg 1)

FEAR for their life (My Diary home ; Persecution # 1(2) ; Head Residents Association;

Other Residents ; leaseholders in another block).

FEAR for their health (Medical treatment ; My Diary Nov 03 ; Dec 03 ; 19 Jun 05;

Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 4 , # 5 , # 5.1).

FEAR of others being also subjected to scare, bullying, intimidation and harassment tactics (QB # 6(1)).

FEAR of ending-up with a police record and of having actions taken against them if they 'dare' to report suffering harassment / lead to the perception of being 'troublesome'

(equally well justified: Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police ; Overview # 17 ; whistleblowers (not leasehold related)).

Etc., etc., etc.

What kind of people can do the above? Obviously: extremely sick, amoral, evil, despicable, vermin.

As to' why they do it?'

 

 

G R E E D

 

2. Because they know they have carte blanche to do exactly as they please.

Like so many other sectors, the residential leasehold sector is totally unregulated.

Hence, under this 'free for all' policy: an ideal environment for institutionalised corruption or, as a visitor to my site wrote (# 17) "organised crime" (a conclusion I wholeheartedly endorse).

This sector has turned into a bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption.

3. They also know that there is absolutely nowhere leaseholders can turn to for help.

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"?

Profile of the main players,

= 'the Establishment' and its insatiable greed',

= 'the Brotherhood'.

Hence: FEAR and other criminal psychological harassment tactics are what keeps the residential leasehold system firmly in place - and growing (Overview Note 4 ; points # 29 and # 30, below).

(In this country, control of people through 'fear' (and surveillance: overall ; in my case) has reached that of a police state: extremely frightening e.g. being put in jail "for stealing a gingerbread man"; darkly comic e.g. the 'dustbin police' ; ending-up in jail over an apple core ; ending-up with a criminal record for forgetting to swipe a bus card).

However, the impact of the recession is forcing leaseholders to 'come out', as they find it increasingly more difficult to "hand over the baton" e.g. The Observer article of 5 Apr 09 "Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof".

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 apartments leading to a potential pay-off of, for example, c.£7 million (US$12.3m), comprising of £3.9 million (US$6.9m) for a new penthouse apartment, and an estimated £0.90 million (US$1.6m) for 3 other new apartments ('Major works'): first , second , third - as well as additional gains from getting other apartments 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, 3 years later, can go through an amendment, followed by another amendment 2 years later (Planning applications). (If leaseholders raise these as evidence of an intention to undertake the works, they are vehemently, and repeatedly denied - including to a tribunal (e.g. 04.03.03, para.19 ; 13.12.02 "Expert Witness report", para.4-1.4). Meanwhile, leaseholders can suffer harassment and intimidation for 'daring' to speak up).

Preparations can also include scaring-off leaseholders with impending massive service charges (e.g. 18.12.00 , 11.01.01), as well as dissuading them through threats of action from contemplating pursuing the 'offer' of purchase of the headlease.

Back to list

(2)- Leaseholders who are 'easy targets'

As discussed under A, above, the majority of leaseholders are 'easy targets' due to their lack of knowledge of the leasehold system, and of their rights.

(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 apartment, they have not. They have bought only a lease, for 'x' number of years = paying rent, in advance, for' x' number of years. This misconception is understandable, when you consider that leasehold apartments in the U.K. are among the most expensive in the world - where apartments are generally bought in perpetuity).

Most leaseholders do not tend to read their lease (which can vary greatly), partly due to the frequently convoluted text (e.g. mine, I read umpteen times, trying to make sense of it), 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 nowhere 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 residential leasehold system as, in their country, you buy an apartment in perpetuity and are your own master - and you most definitely do not pay service charges without proper justification (e.g. Resident M (19.10.02) to the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal).

•  Leaseholders who use the apartment 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 (20.10.02) ; Leaseholder M (19.10.02) ; LVT # 1.4 ; Other Residents).

•  Leaseholders who 'bought' the apartment for investment purposes: their tenants provide a lever, as they are easy targets for harassment and intimidation (e.g. Leaseholder F (01.11.02) / Other Residents).

'Profiling' of individual leaseholders to determine whether they can be 'a mark' - is gathered through 'insiders' befriending leaseholders. In 'Stasi' Orwellian Britain, It can also entail:

  • going through the rubbish/garbage bins;
  • intercepting private mail (including 'dipping' into the postman's bag (a criminal offence under the Postal Services Act 2000, s.83 and s.84) if he has left it in the entrance to save carrying it up several floors while delivering the mail); or, much easier: getting the state to do it;
  • 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, accountants, builders, etc. who will stop at absolutely nothing to ensure the successful execution of the scam - including breach of legislation, of court rules, of codes of conduct, etc. - because, as stated earlier: they know they can do it - without fear of sanction.

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 Dec 2000 "Notice").

To make sure leaseholders 'get the message', it can be followed by additional correspondence (e.g. 25.01.01), as well as appalling harassment and intimidation of the person driving the leaseholders response to 'the offer' (e.g. Head of Residents Association ; 13 Dec 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. 22.12.99 ; 13.12.00). (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 (14.05.01)).

Meanwhile, the change in ownership nonetheless takes place - and hence, in breach of leaseholders' statutory rights (e.g. change at 01.06.01 / Directorships # 2).

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 gang of racketeers.

Relying on the knowledge that they have carte blanche from their 'regulator' to do exactly as they please, landlord 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'. (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 (28.03.06), regardless of the implications on the leaseholders' lease - and in spite of previous decisions to the contrary (18.04.06).

Who cares! There are only 'insignificant' leaseholders, 'Proles', pieces of dirt, 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 (04.04.06), repeating the same message (Headlessors # 10).

(NB: See also Land Registry's help to landlords in the context of domiciliation in offshore jurisdictions: BVI # 2(4))

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 opposition to the scam, as well as the possibility of leaseholders acting as a group (see page for letters and extracts).

Assistance in doing this is provided by the landlord's flunkies in the local police who, instead of taking action against the landlord for his criminal actions, "advise" the Head of the Residents Association, "off the record, to fold her tent and go" (18.04.02).

The tactic of getting rid of the residents association 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's 01.11.02 letter to me ; 05.08.03 letter 'from' the 'managing' agents that "the majority have paid" - preceded, and then followed, by other letters in the same vein).

Leaseholders who attempt to set-up another association are shot down in flames, and persecuted (30.01.02 emails ; police # 1)

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. 21.12.01 ; Overview # 1), 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" (26.03.02), in spite of having previously stated that they replied "within the deadline" (e.g. 30.01.02 email) (= an expedient way of avoiding compliance with section 20(4)(e) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985).

Outcome: landlord's surveyor is appointed (21.12.01).

However, there can be the 'reassuring' note in the letter (21.12.01) that "Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund."

Landlord's surveyor goes 'heavy' on the 'terrible state' of the building e.g. roof, lift and boiler, (the latter 2 being affected by the plan to - actually - add other apartments - describing them as having "come to the end of their useful life" and, consequently, in "urgent need of replacement" (Feb 02 survey).

Of course, these false claims will continue on being repeated at every opportunity - including the categorical denial that 'the major works' include, among other, the construction of a penthouse apartment and associated works for which, of course, the leaseholders are NOT liable (e.g. letters of 26.03.02 ; 16.12.02 ; 04.03.03) - including the claim of "urgency" (e.g. 30.01.02 ; 20.01.03 ; 04.03.03) (extracts from main letters).

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 07.06.01 that " works are now overdue", and not starting the works for another 3 years (02.08.04); admitting that repairs had not been carried out for 9 years, 04.03.03 para.38 - thereby breaching the lease's 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 'advisors' (as they have nowhere else to turn to for help). 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' assist leaseholders. The sky is the limit on the extent of threats and intimidation tactics that can be used (e.g. 14.11.01 blackmail and intimidation ; 01.12.xx harassment and intimidation (paras 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). (NB: In my 'non-lawyer' opinion - but: it is obvious).

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. 26.03.02 "...the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million (US$1.8m) + 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. 26.03.02).

Aside from the fact that the cost is c.10 times that of previous 'major repair and maintenance works' (which, it can be concluded safely: were already a rip-off), 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'... in relation to which, 3 months previously, leaseholders were informed - by a firm of chartered surveyors - that "sufficient funds are available in the reserve fund" = IT STINKS OF FRAUD!

(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 apartment at the current market price, splitting the bounty between them e.g. Block sale of apartments).

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 (17.07.02) extortionate 'service charge' demand (of £736,000 (US$1.3m) (Overview # 1) during...yes! of course! 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. paras 73-81 of my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS against MRJ ; not containing a breakdown of costs (para.14, 17.06.03 LVT report ; para.2.11 of 24.02.03 Brian Gale's report) ; inappropriate tendering process (paras 14 and 15, 24.02.03 report from my surveyor ; Gale # 6) ; non-compliance with the terms of the lease (my 19.12.03 letter to CKFT, 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 - including, of course, the false claim that it was "priced" (e.g. 20.01.03 letter - a lie subsequently exposed during the hearing) - as well as used in reply to leaseholders (e.g. 16.12.02).

Back to list

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

While some leaseholders might not even have received the 'service charge' demand due to the holiday period and/or because they live overseas, 3 weeks later, an application (07.08.02) "to determine the reasonableness of the service charge demanded" is nonetheless filed in the tribunal.

This move is a fallback measure, in case the bullying, intimidation, blackmail and coercion tactics that are about to be unleashed on the 'rebellious' leaseholders do not yield the desired effect, as leaseholders are not informed of this application - including by the tribunal that 'conveniently' sits on it for more than 2 months (10.10.02) before contacting "some" of the leaseholders (Overview # 2 ; LVT # 1.1 , # 1.2 , # 3).

Come on! Mustn't give 'the Proles' / "the Oiks" /"the Great Unwashed" / "the Lobbyists" a chance to fight back!

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. 11.08.02 , 16.09.02 ; 17.10.02), although it can be indiscriminate (e.g. 03.08.02 ; 03.09.02).

The exception appears to be if the request comes through a certain type of solicitors (e.g. 21.10.02 letter from CKFT to a Resident's solicitors). (Probably the type of solicitors who play by the 'proper and correct' rules. They do exist! The challenge is finding them).

Copying the standard English public sector's approach, the landlord's agents can also engage in the game of sending the leaseholders 'from pillar to post' (e.g. CKFT's 21.10.02).

Back to list

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

To scare the leaseholders into paying, heavy reliance is placed on their ignorance of their rights - by using blackmail and scare tactics intended to cause alarm and distress - by misrepresenting the correct legal position (e.g. 02.02.05, paras 82-100 of my complaint against MRJ to the RICS; CKFT # 3).

The 'managing' agents can threaten "prosecution if payment is not made now" (e.g. 20.09.02 ; 24.09.02).

Shortly afterwards, reinforcement comes in the shape of the landlord's solicitors who resort to the tactic of threatening to "forfeit the lease" (copy of definition), as well as "communicate with" the leaseholder's "mortgage lender" (e.g. 07.10.02) - for "not paying the perfectly proper service charges that are due from you." (e.g. 04.02.03 ; 05.08.03).

(The threat of forfeiture, "the weapon of mass destruction", is a commonly used tactic (e.g. 'my' advisors who "approved" of its use against me: PSB # 7.19 ; Gallagher # 15) by criminal solicitors - in law firms of all sizes - to obtain payment of monies not due and payable - as intended by the legislators, in behind the scene agreement with the players. So, why not use it?).

Attempts to dissuade leaseholders from contemplating the possibility of challenging the demand in court are made by claiming that judges will hold non-payment of the (fraudulent) 'service charge' demand against the leaseholders (e.g. 21.10.02). Actually, this can indeed happen (see below, # 21).

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. 21.10.02). Hence, admitting willingness to commit abuse of process of court, by pursuing the same action - simultaneously - under 2 separate jurisdictions - that are part of the same judicial system (e.g. CKFT # 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 advisors - 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. 02.10.02 e-mail 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, as was my case) - and the ensuing humiliation (e.g. 20.12.04, para.1.6 of my complaint against CKFT to the Law Society), etc.

Back to list

(15)- Others 'cave in' by being told falsely 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 racketeers that:

•  "Nobody has objected to the service charge demand" (e.g. 20.08.02 ; 20.09.02) - even though this is not true (e.g. 03.08.02 ; 11.08.02 ; 03.09.02 ; 24.09.02 ; 19.10.02 ; 28.10.02 ; also MRJ # 14 , # 15 ; LVT # 1.4 ).

•  "Everybody else has paid" (e.g. 01.11.02 letter from a Resident to me) - even though:

(1)- 28 days later, the landlord's solicitors file a 29.11.02 claim in court against 11 leaseholders, representing the majority of the apartments;

(2)- numerous leaseholders / their solicitors are challenging the demand e.g. 03.09.02 ; 24.09.02 ; 19.10.02 ; 28.10.02 ; LVT # 1.4).

The lie can continue on being made (e.g. 16.12.02) - even after the leaseholders have, 2 weeks previously, received the claim on which they can see that the majority of the apartments are listed. Evidently, the landlord's gang of racketeers assume that leaseholders are blind / illiterate.

An example of a variation on the blatant lies includes claiming that "nobody else has objected to the appointment of [an external party]" (e.g. 26.03.02), 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 30.01.02 and 21.12.01 letter stating the "deadline for reply").

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. in addition to my case: my fellow leaseholders ; Evening Standard article of 3 Dec 03), if some 'insignificant' leaseholder is proving 'troublesome', the landlord can call on his private army of henchmen at the local police to add to the scare tactics (e.g. 27.01.03 letter ; Overview # 16).

Lack of response from the leaseholder triggers a scurrilous, threatening letter from the landlord's solicitors (e.g. 04.02.03 ; police # 2 - Background).

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

If the leaseholder 'dares' to continue to show 'defiance' by not acknowledging the (laughable) letter 'from' the police (= 'the Brotherhood') and, in addition, happens to have caught the landlord and his gang of racketeers with their 'pants down' by unexpectedly turning up at the tribunal hearing with an army of advisors - his police Masons' flunkey fires another letter (e.g. 06.02.03) (day after the first day of the tribunal hearing).

Ignoring the request to "call" the police, the leaseholder opts to instead write, requesting evidence in support of the accusations - "in writing" (e.g. 11.02.03).

'Mysteriously', the leaseholder never receives a reply from the police. (And, if the police has backed down (Overview # 16), the leaseholder reporting events in the public domain (this website) can trigger a message - through, 'amazingly', the leaseholder's employer, that: "The police is not going to pursue it. Isn't that good news?" ).

Back to list

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

Examples:

•  Making false, highly malicious, vicious accusations against leaseholders to the police (that obligingly captures everything in so-called "crime reports" - without evidence or challenge, while adding to it liberally (Overview # 13 , # 16).

•  Operating as a fully integrated team with Her Majesty's police and spy services, having the leaseholders dogged, hounded, persecuted on a daily basis, as well as threatened - including making a death threat: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - repeating 'the message' on 14 Jun 14.

(NB:I know of several leaseholders who also reported being under surveillance for several months).

•  Use of plants to act against the leaseholders.

•  Making anonymous phone calls to leaseholders' home and their place of work; assaulting them; throwing hard objects at their windows late at night; pressing their door bell in the middle of the night (e.g. police # 1 - background).

•  Malicious leaks in their apartment (e.g. My Diary 11 Mar 02 ; 8 Aug 05 (photos) ; 18 Aug 05 (photos) ; 20 July 07 (photos) or, due to the leaseholder's good luck, narrowly missing their apartment: 6 Feb 07 (photos)).

•  Hosing of their windows in the early hours of the morning (e.g. My Diary 6 Sep 05 ; 4 Oct 05 ; 7 Apr 06; 4 Sep 06 ; 9 Jan 09).

•  Banging on their windows in the middle of the night (e.g. My Diary 22 Feb 13).

•  Urinating in front of their windows (e.g. My Diary 13 Mar 09).

•  Cutting off the electricity in their apartment (e.g. My Diary 8 Jul 06 ; 8 Mar 09), as well as water (My Diary 21 Aug 05).

•  Cutting off the hot water and heating in their apartment for: 5 days during the Easter break (e.g. My Diary Easter break 2003); for 3 days, starting on Christmas day, and for several days afterwards (e.g. My Diary 8 Mar 09).

•  Changing the lock on the main door to the building by giving them very little notice (12.07.05) (e.g. My Diary 22 July 05), and ignoring their request for extra keys (26.07.05) (never received).

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

For other examples see e.g. Criminal psychological harassment ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Back to list

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

The tribunals provide an ideal forum to landlords and their agents for getting an 'official seal' of approval for the proposed expenditure i.e. fraud.

The key factor taken into consideration by the landlord and his gang of racketeers in running immediately to the tribunal to file an application (# 11, above), is the fact that leaseholders cannot recoup their costs, thereby acting as a very strong deterrent to challenge an application by the landlord (My Diary 2011 - Intro ; LVT's 29.10.02 directions, para.6 / LVT # 5.2).

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).

In addition, contrary to the claims made that tribunals "provide an affordable local solution...without the need for representation." (e.g. then Head of then LVTs, The Times , 3 Oct 04), this is definitely not the case. (See the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal).

See Overview # 2 for a summarised version of actions that can be taken by a tribunal to assist a Rachman landlord and his gang of racketeers in ripping-off leaseholders (more detail under summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law).

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

= LIES from the landlord's 'managing' agents (LVT # 2.2), his surveyor, and landlord himself (Gale # 2), that all "the necessary information has been supplied to the leaseholders" (e.g. 08.10.02 , 20.01.03) even though they have - on file - substantial correspondence to the contrary from leaseholders

(e.g. LVT # 1.4 , 19.10.02 ; 20.10.02 ; 22.10.02 ; 28.10.02 ; 25.11.02). 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 it claims to have provided to the leaseholders (e.g. 01.12.02).

'Consequently', a leaseholder's request (12.01.03) for a postponement of the hearing is refused (LVT # 2) - even though the - legitimate - reasons are very clearly stated (and the tribunal has extensive supporting evidence from other leaseholders: LVT # 1.4).

When, to the immense fury 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 Feb 03), 'the game' comes to an end: a postponement is finally granted "In the interests of justice" (17.06.03 LVT report, para.16 ; LVT # 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

(NB: Snapshots of the lies under LVT # 5.4)

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

•  'Managing' agents asserting most vehemently that "the information has been supplied" (LVT # 2.2), 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. 16.12.02 / LVT # 3).

To add to the bullying and scare tactics, and because a leaseholder's letter to the tribunal (25.11.02) was 'not liked', the letter also states:

"We should like to observe and point out to the LVT that during the entire period of our management of the building, which has been over many years, you have frequently not fulfilled your service charge obligations under the terms of your lease. We do feel this is a matter of some relevance to the LVT."

Of course, forgetting the fact that the 'managing' agents were the cause of the events. (02.02.05 complaint to RICS).

•  Repeating the same lie to the tribunal that "the information has been supplied to leaseholders" (e.g. 20.01.03 ; LVT # 2.2 , # 3) (proof of lie: 17.06.03 report, para.14).

•  Claiming "rapid deterioration" of all the major items that will be affected by the 'plans for expansion' i.e. construction of a penthouse, addition of 3 other apartments, and related requirements

(e.g. 20.01.03 ; 04.03.03, paras 19, 27 and 35) - and attributing this "deterioration" to the leaseholders' challenge of the application (# 11, above) - under the excuse that "it prevents repair works from taking place".

•  Claiming that "only 5 people have not paid" (e.g. 04.03.03, end of letter).

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..." (26.03.04).

•  Further bashing of the 'terrible' leaseholders can also take the form of portraying them to the tribunal as callous and inconsiderate - by making-up other equally fictitious, scurrilous claims against them (e.g. 04.03.03, para.27).

Back to list

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

•  Landlord's surveyor claiming falsely that "the required information was sent to leaseholders" (e.g. Brian Gale 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report, para.2.10 ; Gale # 2).

•  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. Gale's 24.02.03 report, para.2.11) (v. self-admission to the contrary under para.2.04 ; Gale # 2).

•  Claiming that the challenge by the leaseholders "is totally unwarranted and will only lead to the outcome of increasing costs unnecessarily" (e.g. 24.02.03 report, section 5 ; Brian Gale # 7) (leading a leaseholder to hand out a (13.03.03) reply to the LVT - demonstrating the lies).

•  Categorical denial of the intention to undertake works "other than those allowed under the terms of the lease" (e.g. 13.12.02 Gale "Expert Witness" report, para.4 -1.4: "I am able to categorically state that the specification makes NO provision for the building of a penthouse flat" - Gale # 7).

Denial that is, of course, backed up by another of the gang members, the 'managing' agents (e.g. 04.03.03, para.19 "regarding the penthouse...it was subsequently found that it was not a viable proposition").

Back to list

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

•  Having the landlord's counsel claim, at the start of the tribunal hearing that "the reason [the leaseholder has] been challenging the service charge demand is because [s/he] did not want to pay it" (= is 'dishonest', and 'in breach of the covenants in the lease') (e.g. LVT # 5.4(4)).

Back to list

(19.4)- Not wanting to be left out, the landlord comes out of hiding from behind his gang of racketeers to add his contribution

If only one leaseholder is left 'facing the music' in the tribunal, due to being deserted by the others (who are running scared as they have been 'hit' by the court claim - conveniently issued just before the tribunal hearing), or have not been informed of it (LVT # 1.2 , # 3)...

... - the opportunity is taken by the landlord (e.g. 17.06.03 report, para.50) and his racketeers (e.g. 24.02.03 Gale's "Expert Witness" report, para.5.02) to portray the leaseholder as being the "only objector" to the 'service charge' demand (Brian Gale # 2).

Of course, the tribunal conveniently ignores the fact that it has been informed (09.12.02) - with evidence in support - that the landlord has filed a claim against 11 leaseholders representing 14 apartments.

In fact, Rachman landlord and his racketeer surveyor play a double act during the hearings.

As can be seen from the 'survey', Major works and photos - the above were packs of lies from a mafia bunch of greed-ridden, amoral, evil vermin racketeers.

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 (17.06.03) can be very damming of the specifications and costs, the landlord has not lost the war as, at the 11th hour, the tribunal can make what amounts to a U-turn...

- by not including a summary of its findings on the global sum demanded - thereby failing to perform its legal remit "to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account" (LVT # 4.2).

The leaseholder's first request (06.09.03) for a summary to be included is refused (12.09.03) - on the spurious ground "that the tribunal does not have the power to re-open a decision" (Overview # 2).

When, in reply (06.10.03) the leaseholder 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 (26.11.03), on the grounds that (LVT # 7): “It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons”

= An absolutely unbelievable and outrageous answer - in the light of the tribunal's statutory remit (LVT # 4.2). (YES: "additional reasons" to the leaseholders to challenge the 'service charge' demand. In fact: £500,000 worth of "reasons"!).

Escalating the request to a higher level leads to the same 'Get lost!' (06.10.03) 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 (many because, deliberately prevented) will find it next to impossible to use it to challenge the demand.

This is in spite of the fact that the tribunal's findings apply to the whole block i.e. to every leaseholder in the block (e.g. 17.06.03 LVT report, para.64, pg 15 ; 21.07.03 LVT letter to CKFT ; my 09.08.03 letter to a judge ; WLCC # 6).

In tandem with this, the so-called 'summary of the case' placed by the tribunal on its database, accessible by the public - is factually inaccurate (28.10.06) - and will remain as such - as the request (09.11.03) to have it amended to reflect the true situation is refused (26.11.03) (Overview # 2 / LVT # 7). Anything to assist a 'dear' 'brother' landlord!

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 findings - 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 'bit of help' to the 'brother' landlord comes in the shape of a prominent (placed on the first page of the LVT report) categorical statement, that a (6%) price increase will take place - 3 months post signing the report "due to the leaseholder challenging the application" (LVT # 7 ; Overview # 2).

Of course, this is also picked-up in the so-called 'summary of the case' that is accessible to the public, by being placed on the database.

Objective? Because this information will be extremely helpful to the Rachman landlord and his gang as 'justification' for demanding more monies - by communicating this to other leaseholders who opted to / could not challenge the original extortionate 'service charge' demand.

(They will not know any better, as the tribunal has NOT issued a summary of the impact of its findings on the "reasonableness of the global sum demanded" ).

This so-called 'summary of the case', also provides the gang of racketeers with a great opportunity to add to the criminal psychological harassment - by firing a salvo of malicious letters to the leaseholder (summary # 1.2). Come on! The boys and girls need to continue having their fun!

Thanks to the poisoned chalice from the tribunal, the leaseholders' battle with the gang of racketeers rages on for another year, this time, in the courts.

Back to list

(21)- The court claim has been filed because the judiciary can be the landlord's other allies by, likewise, '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 'run the show' in the tribunal) (Each 'tribe' has its arena)

During the pre-trial 'hearing', the tribunal very clearly communicates to the leaseholders - in the presence of the landlord and his party (29.10.02 tribunal Directions) - that it only has jurisdiction over "service charges that are still unpaid " (pg 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 i.e. reflected in the demand.

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 racketeer solicitors to draw-up a claim (29.11.02) against all of them - for the original sum demanded (29.11.02 Particulars / WLCC # 1) (Overview # 3)...

...in the process committing an abuse of process - to which, both, the court, and the tribunal, of course, turned a blind (# 21.2, below).

The claim is endorsed by a 'Statement of Truth' by the 'managing' agents that the sum claimed is "due and payable".

Also unbelievably, in spite of the fact that it is in very serious breach of the Rules, the judiciary accepts the claim and proceeds with it, issuing charging orders, judgments (WLCC # 6) , etc. against the leaseholders.

But, by now, it has been established that the law of the land is there to be ignored (Summaries for (1)- court: Events ; Breaches of the law ; (2)- tribunal: Events ; Breaches of the law).

For good measure, the landlord also attaches a lease to the claim, that has 'a very convenient clause' ((2)(2)(c)(i)) which states: "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 (29.11.02 Particulars, para.5) that "this lease is representative of all the leases in the block" - which it most definitely is NOT (Overview # 3 ; CKFT # 6.7 ; WLCC # 3).

Of course, the judiciary also turns a blind eye to this (WLCC # 3).

(NB: By then, the gang of racketeers had already done the same thing with the application to the tribunal. So: why not with the court as well?)

Back to list

(21.1)- The court wrongly(?) lets the landlord file just one claim against all the leaseholders

A question mark after 'wrongly', because, while under CRP (Rule 7.3), one claim can be filed against more than one defendant - (in my non-lawyer opinion), to allow the landlord to file just one claim (29.11.02) 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 a fixed the percentage of the total charges (WLCC # 1).

(As discussed under Lord Falconer of Thoroton / HMCS 'Customer Service', while it resulted in a mega mess, the main benefit was that it provided the mafia with the opportunity to inflict further criminal psychological harassment).

The other upside to the landlord is that it cost only £500 (US$880) to file a £303,794 (US$535,700) claim against 14 apartments.

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. letters from 2 solicitors: 12.12.02 ; 09.04.03 ; CKFT # 6.1), as well as places the leaseholders in a situation of double-jeopardy (same action pursued simultaneously under 2 separate jurisdictions) - the judiciary turns 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to this (e.g. my 8 documents to West London County Court).

Eventually, several weeks later (to ensure the leaseholders really sweat out, and will therefore give up), the court replies (24.01.03) that it is "up to the leaseholder to seek agreement from the landlord's solicitors to stop the action" (WLCC # 2(1))

= The leaseholder is (typically) sent from 'pillar to post', and is evidently expected to police the conduct of solicitors.

The same request (09.12.02) for assistance to the tribunal, leads to a: "not our problem" reply (11.12.02) (LVT # 02).

Unsurprisingly, in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than 'Wild West' environment (at least there was a sheriff), the mafia achieves its objective, as more leaseholders end-up paying the unjustified and consequently, illegal 'service charge' demand - by taking, as expected, the 'I made the commercial decision pill' , so freely handed out by legal 'advisors' 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 judiciary plays an active part in making some leaseholders pay - before - the tribunal has issued its report

For the remaining brave leaseholders who are fighting the fraudulent claim (above), the judiciary helps the landlord secure, among others, judgements against some of them before the tribunal has issued its report (e.g. 23.05.03 application for case management hearing ; WLCC # 5 , # 6)...

...and in spite of the blatantly obvious evidence that leaseholders could only be charged on the basis of a fixed share of a global sum - that is the same for ALL (WLCC # 6).

The judiciary also does this in the full knowledge that leaseholders have been told specifically by the tribunal to NOT pay the 'service charge' until it has issued its report (e.g. my 8 documents to West London County Court).

And, of course, against the tribunal's conclusion: ".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..." (17.06.03 report, para.64, pg 15).

While the turning of blind eyes and deaf ears to the abuse of process of court, by both, the judiciary and the tribunal, already demonstrated collusion (# 21.2, above), the conclusion is that the judiciary feels free to do the above - in the knowledge that its mates in the tribunal will issue a report that will fall right into the hand of their 'Lord and Master', 'the brother' landlord (WLCC # 8).

In the process, the judiciary 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. 22.06.03 , 15.07.03 ; 09.08.03), which it very clearly perceives as non-entities who do not have the right to have rights - it also ignores correspondence from the tribunal - on which it has been copied (e.g. 21.07.03 ; WLCC # 9).

Of course, it also turns a blind eye to the documents filed by the landlord through his gang of racketeers, it could use to question / challenge the action (e.g. a 06.08.03 application for a summary judgment hearing, claiming that, "since the previous hearing, the sums owed by individual leaseholders have been revised"...

- 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: CKFT # 6.6 ; WLCC WLCC # 10).

And, of course, the judiciary knew that it was not true - as it had been issuing the Orders.

In fact, the judiciary happily accepts anything and everything from a member of 'the tribe' i.e. lawyers - whose client is a member of 'the Brotherhood'. (Note that the judiciary can also change legislation 'inconvenient' to landlords).

Hence, a repeat of what happened with the tribunal where the dominant 'tribe' are surveyors (summaries: Events ; Breaches of legislation).

The judiciary can keep on turning 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence (e.g. 22.07.04) - until the very end (e.g. 02.08.04 Order, from Wandsworth County Court, against the last valiant leaseholder on the claim).

If the leaseholder is, yet again, dragged through the courts by her / his criminal landlord - with the help of his equally criminal lawyers (Overview # 11)? That's an opportunity to repeat the show with their mates in the court - because 'it's such fun' persecuting the 'little people' - by abusing power.

And, if the leaseholder is the one who is forced to file a claim because of the appalling conduct of the police and its so-called 'regulator (Overview # 18(1)), then the judiciary's daggers are sharpened to a razor blade finish, with the aim of annihilating the leaseholder (Overview # 18(2)).

Back to list

(22)- The judiciary 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.

'It's a lot of fun' persecuting the 'little people' - by abusing power.

Examples:

(Summaries for the court: Events ; Breaches of the law)

•  Insisting wrongly and repeatedly, over a period of 10 days, that a charging order (21.03.03) concerns a leaseholder (Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1).

•  Over several weeks, wrongly, and deliberately claiming (23.07.04) that a leaseholder is a defendant in a trial (09.06.04) - having ensured that the leaseholder is kept in the dark, by not supplying the recording of the hearing (s/he was deliberately made to miss) for another 2 months (summary of events ; LFT # 5.1 , # 5.3).

•  Wrongly informing a leaseholder that a judgement has been entered against her/him (my 29.06.04 letter to Lord Falconer ; 23.08.04 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service') (LFT # 2).

•  Deliberately ignoring instructions (02.04.04), leading the leaseholder to miss a hearing (18.05.04), and then insisting during a subsequent visit to the court that "no hearing took place" (my 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Falconer) (LFT # 3 , # 5.2).

•  Sending a 'notice of hearing' (12.06.03) - without any explanation, and doing this before the leaseholder receives the necessary information (17.06.03) - who did not know when it was due to be released (WLCC # 7 ; LFT # 5.4).

•  Agreeing to a hearing (23.06.03) - in spite of the fact that the leaseholder has communicated to the judge having leave of appeal to another jurisdiction (22.06.03) (WLCC # 8).

A combination of: (1)- the total lack of information in the 'notice of hearing' (12.06.03) ; (2)- sent before the leaseholder has received the necessary information (17.06.03) ; (3)- the unbelievably short amount of notice, (4)- puts the leaseholder at a great disadvantage .

= Just what the landlord 'brother' ordered as, the greater the number of hearings, the greater the likelihood that the leaseholder will 'throw in the towel'. Nonetheless, a token gesture can be made by throwing a few crumbs (24.06.03) at the leaseholder - while, nonetheless, concurrently, setting-up a hearing for 'summary judgment' (WLCC # 8).

•  Judges not reading even the skeleton argument before 'a hearing', leading them to take directions entirely from lawyers as to what they should do (e.g. transcript of the 28 May 04 hearing ; WLCC # 13 ; LFT # 3).

•  Giving 'freebies' to the fraternity, such as ordering that "an action be stayed" (28.05.04) (open to further proceedings) (WLCC # 13) - even though the judge knows that the action has been settled (23.08.04) (LFT # 4).

In the process, the judge also gives a little bit of 'friendly advice' (28.05.04 transcript) to the member of 'the tribe' for securing the deed with the 'troublesome' leaseholder (LFT # 3).

Etc., etc. (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for detail).

(YEP! That's what David Cameron, then PM, described as "Britain having a well regarded legal system". My reply is: It can only be by the criminals it assists and protects).

Back to list

(23)- If, in spite of the ongoing harassment, tormenting and persecution from all quarters, the leaseholder has not given in by the time the tribunal issues its report,...

a salvo of threatening letters is fired (concurrently with the filing for hearings) - in an attempt to coerce the leaseholder into striking a deal, thereby doing away with the need to implement the tribunal's findings

The coercion tactics to strike a deal comprises of blaming the leaseholder for the resultant situation - including to the court (as has already be done with the tribunal: # 19, above) - and the use of the sine qua non of the 'Business Model of the Unscrupulous Landlord in 21st century England ': the threat of "costs" - if the leaseholder does not comply.

It amounts to, among others, committing criminal offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act s.21 Blackmail. But, it is clearly of no concern because, as with all the other breaches of legislation, regulations and codes of conduct - there will not be any sanction.

Examples, from Andrew David Ladsky's racketeer solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - using the standard, off-the-shelf formula:

25.06.03:

"It is our view and that of our client that to continue with enormously expensive legal proceedings make no sense whatsoever.

It seems to us pointless to continue to waste further money.

The net result of the proceedings is that substantial sums have been expended by all parties on legal costs"

"...the costly LVT process [# 18, above] has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project [# 20, above].

We should, therefore, strongly urge you to meet with our client."

 

17.07.03:

"We also take this opportunity to repeat our offer to attend a round table meeting in an effort to resolve this matter"

 

21.07.03, to the tribunal:

"... the costs of any further hearing or submissions are likely to be disproportionate and unnecessary"

 

24.07.03:

"Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court [# 21, above] has to deal with the determination of this issue..this is a matter which could be dealt with between the parties at a round-table meeting.

We note your failure to respond to our repeated invitations.

In the circumstances, we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to any subsequent issue as to costs"

 

07.08.03, to 'my' solicitor of a few hours:

"...we have made numerous offers to meet with your client in order to try and resolve this matter by negotiation. She has declined to accept those offers.

We shall contend that this is a relevant matter in relation to the question of costs"

 

21.08.03:

"...In readiness for the hearing [CKFT # 6.6], we enclose, by way of service, our client's statement of costs"

 

21.10.03 - The 'PART 36 offer' from Steel Services = Ladsky

"...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building...

If the offer is rejected and your client is held liable at the trial."

 

The threat of "costs" is also used as part of the 'revenge' and 'retribution' tactics for 'daring' to not surrender under the criminal psychological harassment regime:

e.g. 26.05.04:

"...Your advisor informed you of the consequences of refusing to agree the Order...

we will be seeking an order for our client's costs."

 

During that time, the 'managing' agents communicate to the other leaseholders that the 'hooligan-like', minority of 'recalcitrant' leaseholders, who "are delaying the implementation of the works"...

.. - "are being dealt with by the landlord's solicitors who are actively taking action against the lessees in default in order that their payments are forthcoming" (05.08.03).

Back to list

(24)- The fireworks-like firing of applications for hearings leads the so-far unrepresented leaseholder to appoint a solicitor - unknowingly falling into a 'mega' trap

Being treated, by the tribunal, as a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, had forced the leaseholder to employ, at very great cost, a 'small army' of advisors.

Seeing that the same situation is being repeated in the court, in terrible anguish about spending more of her / his life savings, the leaseholder opts to appoint a firm of solicitors, in the understandable expectation that this will help to finally obtain fair and just treatment in the courts i.e. justice.

However, being new to the game, the leaseholder is not aware of the widely shared understanding between many leasehold property lawyers (whose clients are predominantly landlords, as they often manage to charge all their costs to the leaseholders), that landlord-tenant disputes are generally settled through 'striking deals' - on the "strong advice" (13.11.03) of the lawyers who 'believe' that "it is [their] duty to do so".

Consequently, at the time of appointing the solicitors, the leaseholder communicates (21.08.03) the objective of wanting the dispute to be settled justly and fairly - that is to say, as per the terms of the leaseholder's lease and statutory rights i.e. not through 'striking a deal'.

When the reply (04.09.03) from the solicitors states that "the landlord's solicitors called saying that in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals", the leaseholder communicates the same message: NO! (09.09.03) - while reiterating the reasons, and thinks nothing more of it than the solicitors wanting to confirm the position.

Having paid several thousand £s in fees, as events unfold, the leaseholder realises that the game plan IS to lead her / him to 'strike a deal'. From then on, the daggers are out: the leaseholder WILL be made to strike a deal.

It starts off with: "Com'on, look at what you have spent so far. It's nearly as much as they are asking you to pay. It does not make any sense. Best you settle Dear, make a commercial decision. Strike a deal"

Many leaseholders 'cave in' (contribution paid by apartments) due to the rapidly mounting costs (the foundation of the business model) - thereby encouraging further this practice - that has practically become the norm.

(Hence the persecution of the leaseholders who 'dare' to fight back - as the crooks and their henchmen perceive themselves as 'being wronged' i.e. as being 'the victims').

When the answer is still 'NO', because the leaseholder simply cannot understand why a deal should be struck given that s/he has a mutually binding legal agreement with the landlord that sets out the nature of the liability for service charges - supported by legislation - the 'machinery' is cranked-up another gear.

Everybody jumps on the bandwagon - on both sides i.e. leaseholder's 'advisors' (Gallagher-Summary of events) and landlord's gang of racketeers - by blaming the leaseholder for being 'unreasonable' and, by implication, for being 'the cause' of the mounting costs (e.g. Gallagher's 11.10.04, paras 5 and 4(8)).

Of course, in the process, all very conveniently forget that the Rachman landlord and his gang of racketeers are entirely responsible for everything that has happened (my 29.08.04 reply to Gallagher, para.60).

(In the situation where, from Day 1, the leaseholder agreed (CKFT's 25.06.03) that works needed to be carried out, but was not prepared to write a blank cheque (my 19.10.03 Witness Statement / Witness Statement # 2).

Having seen the leaseholder's Witness Statement (thanks to his collusion and conspiring with the leaseholder's advisors), realising that the leaseholder is intent on going all the way to trial if necessary, the landlord opts to make 'a Part 36 offer' (21.10.03) (Overview # 3). Although £8,000 less than the original demand, legally, the amount is still not due and payable.

Of course, in the process, the landlord and his racketeer solicitor take the opportunity to continue making false, libellous claims - as well as break all the rules (my 19.12.03 acceptance ; paras 170-173 of my 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society against CKFT).

The cabal now gets into full swing - evidently with the shared understanding that the whole arsenal will be used to force the leaseholder to 'strike a deal'.

Back to list

(24.1)- The threat of 'costs' is used as the key lever for coercion

The threat of 'costs' is used incessantly as a means of coercing the leaseholder into submission (Summary of events ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton 19.09.03 ; para.3.3 of my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham/Watton ; para.45 of my 25.03.05 reply to Bar Council).

It can entail the barrister employed by the leaseholder, telling the leaseholder, in no uncertain terms, that s/he is in a "very weak position...with no technical defence to the claim" (Gallagher's 09.06.04, para.29(5)),...

and is 'consequently' "at risk for the landlord's cost if the case goes to trial" (12.11.03) (Summary of events).

The leaseholder is warned that, if this advice, (of course, given under a "duty of care" ) is ignored, s/he will be made to repent when "...in the likely event that the defence fails, render a final bill for the costs of the litigation and remind the client that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given" (09.06.04, para.66).

Note that, when subsequently challenged (in the context of the leaseholder's complaint) on the rationale of the arguments, it led to:

"I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs"

(Gallagher's 11.10.04, para.6 ; my 25.03.05 reply to Bar Council). Unbelievable - when you consider what took place: Summary of events.

Back to list

(24.2)- A variety of outrageous claims can be made to undermine the leaseholder's confidence in her / his case - Examples

(NB: The following is also covered under Gallagher-Summary of events).

•  The outcome of the tribunal hearings that reduced the original demand of £736,000 (US$1.3m) (# 10, above) by £500,000 (US$882k) (incl. the contingency fund) - is described as "a mixed bag" (Gallagher's 09.06.04, para.21) i.e. would not stand-up in court. (Unbelievable!)

(This position was not maintained, when subsequently challenged by the leaseholder - as it led to "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants": Gallagher's 11.10.04, para.4(1) ; my 25.03.25 to Bar Council, paras 33, 37 and 38).

(Note also that the landlord subsequently said to the police that: “This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly”).

•  The landlord 'cannot be faulted', as there has been "substantial compliance with legislation" (11.10.04, para.3(2)) (thereby self-contradicting a previous statement of "inadequate specifications and inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered" (09.06.04, para.58)).

•  Holding against the leaseholder:

  • turning down 'opportunities to strike a deal' (09.06.04, paras 15 and 66);

- conveniently overlooking the fact that the leaseholder had followed the very specific direction from the tribunal to NOT PAY the 'service charge' - until it had issued its decision, and it had therefore been implemented (# 21, above) (my 25.03.05 to Bar Council, paras 34 and 35)...

- and that the only reason the leaseholder had ended-up paying part of it, was because of the kangaroo court environment (as well as recognising from Day 1 that works were required).

•  Dismissing the leaseholder's request to be provided with the year-end accounts, on the grounds that it "can only complicate matters" (12.11.03 ; 25.03.05, para.19) - even though non-provision amounts to: (1)- a breach of the lease ; (2)- a criminal offence (council's letter to landlord of 25.06.04 ; K&C council # 2 ; 25.03.05, para.20).

•  The leaseholder, yet again re-emphasising her / his position (07.11.03), as well as stating that the 'Part 36 offer' (21.10.03) (Overview # 3) does not comply with legal requirements (13.11.03), can be shot down in flames by stating that "it is not a realistic assessment of the strengths of the parties' respective position" (12.11.03) (subsequently followed by back-tracking on the claims - as evidenced by the above examples).

To coerce the leaseholder into believing the outrageous claims, it can be emphasised that "it is the correct advice, being given under a duty to do so" (09.06.04, para.64) - and that it is done from a position of extensive experience (Gallagher's book on LVTs) - which is very clearly not put into practice (11.10.04, para.8 v. 31.10.04, para.13).

Reality: threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = fraud tools - and, as demonstrated by my experience (Case summary) , there is A LOT of vermin in the legal sector - that knows that it is free to do whatever it wants - without fear of sanction.

Back to list

(24.3)- Steps are taken to prevent the 'rebellious' leaseholder from inputting into the reply - as it says 'amen' to everything

(NB: The following is covered in detail in my Comments attached to Stan Gallagher's 13.11.03 'draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance').

Criminal psychological harassment tactics are used to keep the leaseholder under intense pressure (my 17.06.04 letter to Law Society) while the deadline for the reply to the 'Part 36 offer' (21.10.03) (Overview # 3) looms (My Diary 11Nov 03 , 12 Nov , 13 Nov).

The end game is to prevent the 'rebellious' leaseholder from having the opportunity to input into the reply, because it falls right into the hand of the landlord by: (1)- saying 'amen' to everything (my 25.03.05 to Bar Council, paras 52, 55, 56 and 79) ; (2)- not voicing any criticisms against the 'dear' landlord (25.03.25, para.46).

Among others, the reply (13.11.03) might barely acknowledge breaches of the leaseholder's lease (My Diary 28 Oct 03 ; PSB # 7.8 ; Gallagher's 09.06.04, para.55 ; my 29.08.04 to Gallagher, paras 23, 19, 49 and 123 ; my 25.03.05 to Bar Council, paras 29, 40, 52, 55, 66-70)...

...as well as breaches of statutory requirements (25.03.05, paras 20, 43 and 44)..

... - as some 'advisors' interpretation of requirements can be rather 'unique' (another Gallagher case).

The reply can also ignore the very damning findings from a tribunal (25.03.05, para.16) (which, as quoted above, under # 24.2, can be described as "a mix bag").

Furthermore, the consent order (13.11.03) can be drafted in such a way as to leave the door wide open to the landlord to continue with the action (25.03.05, para.52).

Consequently, barely 20 minutes after e-mailing to the leaseholder (13.11.03), the 'draft consent order and notice of acceptance' (which the leaseholder has never seen before) (my 16.03.04 complaint to Law Society against PSB, paras 68-73), another e-mail arrives, stating that "the reply will be sent to the landlord's solicitors in the next 10 minutes" (13.11.03) (PSB # 7.11).

When the leaseholder manages, against all odds, to return his / her comments within the hour (13.11.03), the follow-on reply claims that the feedback "[was] received too late" and that, in any case, "the reply [was] as per the leaseholder's instructions" (14.11.03) (my 16.03.04 complaint, para.74 ; My Diary 14 Nov 03).

Delighted with this outcome, the landlord's solicitors ask for "endorsement of the consent order" (19.11.03).

Back to list

(24.4)- False claims are then made that "the leaseholder agreed to the reply that was sent"

(NB: The following is covered in detail in my Comments attached to Stan Gallagher's 13.11.03 'draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance. And, under my 19 Oct 02 Witness Statement # 1).

It leaves the outstanding issue of the fact that the leaseholder has NOT given her / his agreement to the reply that was sent (# 24.3, above). This leads the leaseholder's solicitors to request it (24.11.03) (10 days after sending the reply to the landlord's solicitors) - and the leaseholder to reply "No, I am not endorsing it" (26.11.03).

In spite of having sent the request for endorsement, and of the barrister concurring with the fact that the leaseholder has NOT given her / his agreement to the reply (09.06.04, para.80), the solicitors nonetheless claim otherwise - on 3 subsequent occasions (12.12.03 ; 18.12.03 ; 21.01.04) (my 16.04.04 complaint, paras 97-102 and 108 ; PSB # 7.13 # 7.13.1 ; my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement).

The coercion can include the criminal psychological harassment game of withdrawing support (12.12.03) - in an attempt to beat the leaseholder into submission (my 16.03.04 complaint, paras 103, 112).

Back to list

(24.5)- When the criminal psychological harassment tactics backfire - by leading the leaseholder to take back control of her / his case - it throws the arrogant cabal into disarray

(NB: The following is covered in detail in my Comments attached to Stan Gallagher's 13.11.03 'draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance. And, under my 19 Oct 02 Witness Statement # 1).

When a totally unexpected spanner is thrown in the works by the leaseholder taking back control of her / his case (19.12.03) (My Diary Dec 03), it leaves the arrogant cabal totally stunned that its criminal psychological harassment tactics (# 24.4, above) have failed to bring the leaseholder into submission ...

...- and trying to figure out the next move - in order to close the deal made with the Rachman landlord and his racketeer solicitors (my 16.03.04 complaint to Law Society against Piper Smith Basham, paras 104, 106).

After 6 weeks, the leaseholder's solicitors come back crawling (21.01.04) - while still claiming that the leaseholder has given her / his consent to the reply (# 24.3 and # 24.4, above) (my 16.03.04 complaint, para.112 ; PSB # 7.13.2 ; my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement).

The landlord's solicitors who have not acknowledged receipt of the correspondence from the leaseholder (19.12.03) remain in the wing to see what will happen.

As there is no contact from the leaseholder, one week later - and therefore 5 weeks after the receipt of the leaseholder's reply - the solicitors write claiming that they "have now located the correspondence" (27.01.04) sent by the leaseholder - even though:

(1)- the 'Special Delivery Next Day' letter had very clearly been delivered; (2)- the leaseholder had, 3 weeks later, asked another firm of solicitors to send a full copy of the correspondence (16.01.04) (my 20.12.04 complaint to Law Society against CKFT, paras 185-188 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; PSB # 7.13.3).

Back to list

(24.6)- My views on what motivates this 'vulture-like' behaviour to get leaseholders to strike a deal

•  The lawyers do not need to spend time reading, understanding, assessing and consequently taking into consideration material evidence (lease, report by the tribunal, defence to the claim, exchange of communication between the parties, etc.)... while cashing in £000s.

•  The reply does not need to criticise the 'dear landlord' and his aides - as they 'ever-so-kindly' extended the opportunity to 'strike a deal'.

•  Landlord usually ends up with more money in the coffers that there should actually be.

•  By not proceeding to a trial, no embarrassing official evidence ends-up in the public domain.

(See Overview Note 4 for further detail).

Back to list

(24.7)- Leaving ALL with just one obligation...

...for next time round

To the Reader of The Times newspaper, who wrote (My Diary 14 Apr 06):

"My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!"

SO DO I ! And, to this, I add the police.

Back to list

(25)- As the landlord 'does not like' the findings of the tribunal, on the same day that closure is obtained on the last (valiant) leaseholder listed on the fraudulent court claim, the 'managing' agents announce the appointment of another contractor - in complete disregard of legislation and, of course, of the tribunal's findings

Examples:

On the same day that the last (valiant) leaseholder 'capitulates' in court (04.08.02) (appearing, as with the others, to be seriously ripped-off: Wandsworth County Court # 2), the 'managing' agents send a letter to "All the Lessees", announcing "the appointment of a new contractor" (02.08.04) (Overview # 5).

(For good measure, this letter can be preceded by another one that continues to make false claims about the true nature of 'the works' (14.07.04).

This is done in spite of the fact that, in breach of statutory requirements, a notice has NOT been issued (as the original so-called "notice" (15.07.02) (Overview # 1) has been invalidated through, among others, very damning criticisms by the tribunal of the specification (17.06.03)) (Brian Gale # 5 , # 6).

Unlike the original so-called "notice", this letter deceptively omits to communicate the full cost - which turns out to be only 9% less than the original demand (when, in fact, based on the tribunal's findings, it should be 68% less).

However, as there has been failure to comply with legislative requirements - the actual amount that can be asked, is only a tiny fraction of the original demand (Overview # 5).

(NB: Note that, in 2013, a senior judge took steps to ensure that a landlord could not be placed 'at a disadvantage' by "seriously breaching the (then) legislative requirement").

Back to list

(26)- Having extinguished the main fires, the lynching of the 'rebellious' leaseholder/s continues through libellous accusations, and by sending immediately even higher - and equally fraudulent 'service charge' demands

Examples:

•  Capitalising on the 'very convenient' 'summary of the case' obligingly supplied by the tribunal (# 20, above) - libellously blaming leaseholders:

•  Within 3 months of agreeing, with the leaseholder, a settlement (28.05.04) of the 'service charge' through a Consent Order endorsed by the court (01.07.04) (Overview # 3), a new 'service charge' demand (21.10.04) is sent - for the same amount as the original amount disputed - without any detail.

•  It is followed, 3 weeks later, by an even higher demand (16.11.04) (Overview # 6) - all with the hope that the leaseholder will again go into battle, that will entail spending £000s more on professional fees, etc... - until the leaseholder is ruined = annihilated.

(Landlords have the financial staying power, as ALL their costs of fighting the leaseholders will, one way or another, end-up on the service charge for the block - amounting to a double whammy for the leaseholders). (The accountant might prove of assistance on this, and other costs).

(And the tactics work: 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = fraud tools).

•  The unexpected filing of a complaint by the leaseholder against the landlord's solicitors (20.12.04 to the Law Society) and 'managing' agents (02.02.05 to RICS) (snapshot RICS # A), leads to a one year respite.

•  At that point, another invoice follows - mysteriously - for a significantly lower amount (09.01.06) - even though the 2 previous invoices have not been paid. However, to keep the leaseholder on tender hooks, no reference is made to the previous 2 invoices.

As with the previous 2 invoices, there is no detail as to the composition of the sum (Overview # 6). No worries, as NO sanction will ever be taken - in this totally unregulated, free for all environment.

As the leaseholder is still throwing punches (e.g. complaint against the accountant), another invoice (30.06.06) follows - equally as fraudulent as the others.

•  If the leaseholder 'dares' to criticise (29.03.06) the 'managing' agents and landlord's surveyor, it leads to the swift reply of "Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it" (02.05.06). (Impudence is not in short supply in this sector!).

Further, more than 3 years later, it leads to their trade union (RICS) clearly encouraging the 'managing' agents to issue "proceedings for defamation" against the 'rebellious' leaseholder - AND the trade union also resorting to criminal psychological harassment tactics - by "threatening the leaseholder with defamation proceedings" for 'daring' to expose its 'true colours' in the public domain.

Back to list

(27)- The desperation to annihilate the 'rebellious' leaseholder is such that it can even lead to issuing bogus 'notices of first refusal'.

When the leaseholder does not give up and goes public with the detail of the case, the henchmen come out in force - hell-bent to 'go for the 'kill'

In spite of the landlord's accommodating 'brothers' in the courts, filing of another fraudulent claim against the leaseholder appears to be perceived as too much of a gamble when the leaseholder has a massive amount of black on white evidence against all the parties.

In desperation, a scheme is dreamt-up whereby a bogus 'notice of first refusal' (30.04.06) (Notices # 3) is sent to the 'rebellious' leaseholder - with a relatively low offer price to induce action.

Operating on the basis of unlimited arrogance and belief of superiority, the underlying assumption is that the leaseholder can be easily tricked and will not see through the game. (My Diary 18 Feb 06 ; Portner and Jaskel # 1). And, if the leaseholder does - as with everything else - there is no worry about sanction - as the so-called 'regulator' will not take any action.

When the scam backfires in a big way, as the action has led the leaseholder to unearth valuable information that ought to be used against the landlord and his gang of racketeers (17.05.06 to ICAEW), another - equally fraudulent - invoice is sent, for an even larger amount (my 12.07.06 to ICAEW) - as punishment. Of course, yet again: with no explanation on the composition of the sum.

Come on! It's a no-lose situation - as the only option is for the leaseholder to go back on the merry-go-round of lawyers, tribunals and courts... and we know what happens on this merry-go-round - in this "fantastically corrupt", very sick Britain.

Unless, of course, the leaseholder becomes self-reliant, through crash-learning of the law, and takes the criminals head-on (Overview # 10 , # 11), as well as exposes the detail of the case in the public domain, in a desperate attempt to get justice and redress, after battling - in vain - for 5 years (Overview # 8).

But, as leaseholders are not expected to do that, it unleashes an army of henchmen hell-bent to 'go for the kill'. And, the more the leaseholder fights back, the greater the blind determination to 'go for the kill' - by whatever means.

Back to list

(28)- If some leaseholders are still kicking and screaming, filing complaints left, right and centre for malpractice, they are of no concern as, in a 'self-regulated' environment, the professions are not going to bite their own hand

The players in the sector have no concern whatsoever about sanction, knowing that the complaints department of their 'trade association' (of which, I understand, they pay most of the salaries through membership fees) will dismiss all serious complaints (acknowledging the remainder for the sake of demonstrating that 'self regulation works!').

As the saying goes: 'Who pays the piper calls the tune!'

In addition, the lawyers and surveyors are, of course, the 'kings and queens' of the tribunals and the courts.

It is also the opportunity for the professions to lash back at 'the troublemakers' for 'daring' to challenge a cosy, clubby arrangement / not complying with the well established business model.

Examples:

•  Complaint against solicitors (20.12.04) (summaries of evidence against solictors: Events ; Breaches of the law) - dismissed by the Law Society in the first reply (08.02.05) and, when challenged (19.02.05), in the second reply (17.03.05) (summary # 2.5) - as well as by the (then) Legal Services Ombudsman.

•  Complaint against another firm of solicitors (28.02.07) dismissed (30.03.07) by the Law Society (summary # 2.6).

•  Complaint against barrister (05.04.04) (Summary of events) dismissed by the Bar Council (27.01.05) which, when challenged (25.03.05), engages in a fascinating display of U-turns and pirouettes (30.03.05) (summary # 2.4)...

...- playing a double act with the (then) Legal Services Ombudsman (01.04.05) - which, when challenged (02.04.05), also makes U-turns (08.04.05) - and ultimately dismisses the complaint (30.08.05).

At the end, the Bar Council 'dutifully' reports the barrister's feeble and laughable excuse (22.06.05) that "only a three-week period had been spent on the case" (03.06.05) - a point that it is also 'dutifully' picked-up by the (then) Legal Services Ombudsman.

•  Complaint against surveyors (02.02.05) dismissed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (04.11.05) (summary # 6.2).

•  Complaint against accountant (19.07.05) dismissed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (29.08.06) (summary # 6.1) which, in addition to putting the onus on the leaseholders to perform the role of the accountant, gives as - insulting reason (that 'smells' like an input from the landlord): "...the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs should they wish to do so".

Fascinating! Indeed, if the leaseholders were that "willing to contribute towards the extra costs" : how come they ended-up being listed on the court claim? (# 21, above) (Good of the Institute to confirm that leaseholders have paid "extra costs").

In fact, whoever the leaseholders complain against: ALL the complaints are automatically dismissed - (summaries of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints) - communicating the very loud message:

Shut up you piece of dirt! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

Or, as succintly summed-up by Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, to a taxi driver:FUCK OFF AND DIE!(Source: The Guardian)

Back to list

(29)- Exit by the leaseholder...

... = opportunity to cash in 'outstanding chips', as well as for further rip-off

Remember that 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = fraud tools'.

When the leaseholder wishes to sell (or dies following the criminal psychological harassment tactics), it is more 'jackpot ' time, as the leaseholder is so desperate to get out of the prison, or, as I call my block, 'the concentration camp', s/he will settle more or less whatever is asked...

...as any challenge requires going back on the merry-go-round of lawyers, tribunals and courts...

...and the leaseholder has now learnt to her / his very great cost that, in "fantastically corrupt" Britain, embarking on this road again, will most definitely NOT lead to justice and redress.

Among others, at the time of selling the lease, the leaseholder must pay the landlord's professional fees. This provides another opportunity for the predators to rip-off leaseholders

Comment # 15 ; "Unregulated admin fees hit leaseholders as they try to sell", Guardian, 6 Jul 12;

"Leasehold sales are bedevilled with ‘extortionate’ charges and game-playing, says the Conveyancing Association", Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, 3 Aug 16...

...- which can also include the payment of bribes e.g. "Referral 'bribery' review needs to dig deeper", Mail On Sunday, 24 May 10

(= Copying e.g.: (1)- some of the Lords and MPs; (2)- the police; (3)- other state as well as private sectors ; other examples)

WHY? Because as with everything else: it is unregulated - see Lawyers home page for the sham claims by the Law Society intended to con the punters.

(NB: In 2007, a leaseholder told me that he was asked to pay £5,000 (U$8,800). 'Apparently', the City law firm used by the landlord "charged £1,000 (US$1,800) per hour". Believe that? Bunch of crooks!).

Back to list

(30)- And the cycle is repeated with another 'lot' of unsuspecting leaseholders

As the leaseholders flee by selling the lease on their apartment (at times at a discount due to their situation and, because of this, most probably, and unknowingly, to a landlord's accomplice - allowing landlord and accomplice to split the bounty) - the process can start all over again with the new leaseholders as, of course, they have not been informed of the prior history.

Or, depending on what has been achieved, the approach will be 'exported' to another block of apartments (Comments # 11 and # 12 ; RICS # 8 , # 12).

Back to list

(30.1)- Com'on! It worked last time so, of course it's gone work again next time...

...because nothing is going to REALLY change e.g.

(1)- In 1997, pre being elected, New Labour published 'An End to Feudalism'. Not only did it not do anything, 11 years later, in 2008, it opted to retain the residential leasehold sector as it is.

(2)- Housing Act 2004, Chapter 34 - Section 163, states that sellers would need to prepare a Home Information Pack at the time of selling their home, which includes, among others:

"Information in public registers that is relevant to the property."

"Information concerning service charges and other taxes and charges affecting the property"

In the light of my experience (Case summary), consider what I would need to write!

'Maybe' I would also be expected to include other information available in the public domain on the landlord and his gang of racketeers e.g. Court of Appeal case - TSB Bank v Ladsky (as Andrew David Ladsky was also a director of the defendant company ; High Court case against Brian Gale, Ladsky's surveyor) (?)

Does that make you want to buy the lease on my apartment?

As these types of events are common occurrences in the residential leasehold sector, it would be the end of the leasehold system i.e. the end of landlords, as well as the end of a very good source of income for lawyers, surveyors and other parties in the rest of the food chain.

So, no surprise that these plans were scrapped (fully? / in part?)... to the relief of the then head of the Law Society, as can be seen from her comment in the The Times article of 25 Jul 06 "I'm not sure what problem these proposals are meant to fix. They're a tax on house sales that will cost money and achieve nothing".

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, the above summarises my reasons for saying that criminal landlords and their equally criminal aides exist not only because the system allows them to exist, it actually actively helps them to exist.

Back to list

(31)- Does the residential leasehold sector use a 'monopoly type' game for training purposes?

 

In 2006, I wrote: After spending over 2,500 hours of my life over the last 17 months to develop the contents of the site, as this is my last section, and my last line, I will finish on a light hearted note...

...maybe the English residential leasehold sector has a monopoly type game for training purposes...

Re-start process

Select property

Docile lessees

Choose sidekicks

Bring in mates

Register titles

Eliminate association

Fake survey

Go past jail

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No free advice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fraudulent claims

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top