Email this site to a contact


Summary of my nightmare up to 19 October 2003 - and further proof of collusion and conniving between 'my' advisors, Piper Smith Basham/(Watton) and Stan Gallagher, and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), and its client, Andrew David Ladsky



(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: '' and click 'Add').



(NOTE, above, browser set-up)



This page covers the Witness Statement I wrote, and had biked over to Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham (PSB) (now Piper Smith Watton), 'my' then solicitors, on 19 Oct 03, as well as surrounding events.

My Wit.Stat is reproduced below (copy 19.10.03). (The name of other leaseholders is redacted to respect their privacy). The numbers included under the column headed 'Exhibit' refer to the document number in the List of Documents - Standard Disclosure.

I did this pursuant to the 26.08.03 Order from West London County Court (WLCC # 11): "Disclosure by 19 September 2003; Witness Statements to be served/exchanged on 21 October 2003 by 16h00"...

... - in the context of the fraudulent 29.11.02 claim, ref: WL203 537, filed against me (and 13 other apartments, at Jefferson House), by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), on behalf of 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky (Overview # 1 , # 2 , # 3).

(NB: I subsequently wrote other witness statements; see Notes 1 and 2, below)

Back to list


(1)- Events

My 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat never made it to the court, due to what can only be described as collusion and conniving between Lisa McLean at Piper Smith Basham and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and her client, Andrew David Ladsky.

For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events see my Comments on the 13.11.03 'Draft Notice and Consent Order'.

In my 12.10.03 letter to McLean, I wrote "I am going to draft my statement this week. Are there any rules on this? I also highlighted a few things I had determined from desk research, including the fact that the Witness Statement "has to be in my own words" , and asked, "Is there anything else that I should consider?"

In her 14.10.03 letter, McLean did NOT reply to my questions, only stating: "I look forward to receiving your draft statement". I saw this as another sign of her collusion with Ladsky.

The lack of response led me to consult various legal reference sources from which I determined the requirements for the production of a witness statement. In sending her my Wit.Stat., in my 19.10.03 covering letter, I gave precise detail of the approach I had taken.

What I did not know at the time, is that the exchange of witness statements must be instantaneous. I did NOT get a witness statement from 'Steel Services' i.e. Ladsky. (NB: He again failed to provide a witness statement, in the context of his next fraudulent claim against me - see Note 3, below)

INSTEAD, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, faxed this 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' to Piper Smith Basham - at 17h43 i.e. nearly 2 hours after the witness statements were due to be exchanged (court Order, above).

What very clearly took place is that McLean sent my Witness Statement to Salim i.e. Ladsky - which triggered the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' (CKFT # 4).

The trio had been concocting their scheme, while taking advantage of my ignorance - with McLean writing to me:

  • 03.10.03 letter: "the timetable [i.e. above 26 Aug 03 court Order] may need to be extended", and that she saw "no real problem in that" .
  • 14.10.03 letter: that she would be discussing an extension to the timetable with CKFT.
  • 24.10.03 letter: acknowledging receipt of my Wit.Stat. - NOT making any comment about it. I found this 'interesting', added to the fact that she referred to it in the same sentence in which she talked about 'the offer' = more sign of collusion.
  • She copied me on a letter, dated 27.10.03 (i.e. after receiving 'the offer'), addressed to CKFT, in which she suggested "exchange of Witness Statements by 12 December 2003".
  • 03.11.03 letter: she wrote that she had received "a letter [from CKFT] confirming the extension to the timetable for exchange of witness statements and expert's reports".
  • I was NOT provided with this. Nor was I provided with evidence that these changes had been communicated to the court and approved. I believe they should have been - see e.g. WLCC # 28 - further proving the collusion between Lisa McLean and Ayesha Salim, CKFT.

I did not hear anything from Lisa McLean about my Wit.Stat. until 7 weeks later, when I faxed her a letter on 12.12.03 reminding her that it was the date "agreed with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor for the exchange of Witness Statements" (her above letter of 27.10.03)

McLean's 12.12.03 reply was:

"Your statement has not (and would not have in any event in its current form) been sent to CKFT" .

An absolute and utter lie that provides further proof of collusion as:

  • 17.1 and 17.2 - Heading
  • 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4 - Body of Witness Statement
  • 19.1 - Format of Witness Statement - for which 19.1(7) states "give the reference to any document or documents mentioned either in the margin or in bold text in the body of the statement"
  • 20.1 and 20.3 - Statement of Truth

(Compare my 19.10.03 (winning :-) - Portner: # 29, # 31) and 03.06.08 Witness Statements)

In addition to her sweeping criticism of my Wit.Stat., in the same letter of 12.12.03, McLean also wrote:

"The matter is settled and there is simply no point or purpose to be gained in exchanging witness statements and even less point in having a hearing date" .  

McLean had absolutely NO grounds on which to take this position (PSB # 7.17), as the matter was definitely NOT "settled".

Indeed, contrary to what Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham, wrote, in his full of lies letter to me, of 14.11.03 - intended to cover-up his collusion and conniving with Andrew David Ladsky:

"I sent you an email yesterday regarding transmission of Counsel's draft indicating that the same would be sent by approximately 4pm.

In accordance with that direction understanding this to be you instructions." ...

... I DID NOT endorse the 14.11.03 reply Twyman sent to CKFT / Ladsky. This is evidenced by the following:

•  McLean's letter to me, of 24.11.03, asking me to "confirm that the consent order may be signed"...

• which I replied on 26.11.03:

"I am not endorsing a reply that does not in any way challenge the offer letter" (PSB # 7.12.1)

"It was your firm's responsibility to ensure it was captured in the letter and it is now your firm's responsibility to ensure that it is."

•  Stan Gallagher capturing, under pt 80 of his initial 09.06.04 reply, to my 05.04.04 complaint against him to the Bar Council, as he wrote that he

"simply [could] not understand why NKDR changed her mind [NB: As blatantly obvious from my correspondence: I did NOT "change my mind"] and was not prepared to endorse the draft consent order"

Piper Smith Basham continued to - falsely - insist in 3 subsequent letters that I had agreed to the reply sent by Twyman on 13 Nov, as evidenced by:

  • (3) that of Ian Skuse, dated 18.12.03.

In my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham, I stated that it used what I viewed as bullying and intimidation tactics to coerce me into endorsing the reply it had sent to CKFT. (Not for the 1st time - see e.g. snapshot under Malicious Communications Act 1988).

(I also referred to events in my 05.04.04 complaint to the Bar Council against Stan Gallagher, stating that I viewed the situation as having been engineered to limit the probability of my being able to input into the reply - Gallagher # 10).

See also my Comments on the 13.11.03 'Draft Notice and Consent Order' that discusses events in more detail). I consider the above and the following as evidence in support of my claim.

•  In her 12.12.03 letter, Lisa McLean, wrote:

"One final point to make is that whilst there is a current complaint against me personally and the firm it would not be appropriate for me to continue acting for you, our relationship having broken down"

(She was referring to my 02.12.03 letter to Berns and Skuse)


•  While in her 21.01.04 letter (i.e. 6 weeks later), she wrote:

"There is also of course the outstanding issue of the concluded agreement.

Once again if you wish to discuss the matter with me at (sic) the telephone I am happy to do so"

What happened between these two letters is that, in mid-Dec 03, I decided to take back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03), and sent my 'own' version of the Notice of Acceptance to CKFT, dated 19.12.03 (Overview # 3).

McLean's strategy i.e. that of the cabal - comprised of her, Twyman, Gallagher, Salim and Ladsky - had backfired (as I captured under pts 3.4, 103 and 104 of my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against PSB).

Indeed, I view:

  • (1)- the 12.12.03 letter as an attempt to bring me 'back into line' by withdrawing support - and thereby cause anxiety, fear and distress.

(They are ALL 'experts' at criminal psychological harassment see e.g. Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Theft Act s.21 Blackmail ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1984, etc.);

  • (2) the 21.01.04 letter as a 'last ditch attempt' at concluding 'the deal'.

As to the Ladsky mafia, it waited in the wings to see what would happen following the 21 Jan 04 letter from McLean. In fact, it allowed one week. At that point, seeing that McLean had failed, Ayesha Salim wrote me, in her 27.01.04 letter:

"We have now located two of your letters dated 19 December 2003"

= 5 weeks later! (CKFT # 6.8)

Please note that:

  • I had sent the letter by 'Special Delivery Next Day' (as can be seen at the back of my 19.12.03 letter), and had received confirmation from the post office that it had been delivered.
  • The lack of response from CKFT had led me to get a firm of solicitors to send, on 16.01.04, a copy of the documents I had sent to CKFT on 19 Dec 03.
  • My reason for doing this was that, given CKFT's modus operandi, I could not exclude the possibility that it might claim it had received post from me on 22 Dec 03, but that it was just an empty envelop.

My conclusion on these events is that my taking back control of my case had 'thrown a spanner in the works' of the racketeering cabal, upsetting their game plan - and resulted in considerable disarray among 'the troops' - as there had very clearly been an agreement that, come what may, my case would NOT proceed to a trial. I would be made to accept 'the offer'.

Hence, my Witness Statement could be ignored... and further proving that court claims = fraud tools.

(Pre and post events with CKFT, with the rest of the Ladsky gang of racketeers (see also Extortion), and the courts (Kangaroo crts) - add credence to my conclusion).

Back to list


(2)- My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement

Original version of my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement

(see, above, for surrounding events)

I, Noëlle Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé, in my capacity as lessee of flat 3, Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX, where I reside:

1 •  Introduction

2 •  The Claimant, Steel Services, lodged a claim against me on 29 November 2002. It included a demand of £14,400.09 for major works at Jefferson House, as well as an additional £587.64. As stated in my defence, dated 17 December 2002, there are errors in the details of this part of the claim, which comprises electricity charges, as well as other items. By my calculations, the electricity charges amount to £264.04.

Exhibit   #

3 •  Aside from the non-electricity items (which I have since settled), I refused to pay the sum of £14,400.09 for two reasons:   (i) because I believed it to be untrue;   (ii) despite my numerous requests, I was not provided with supporting evidence for the claim (also stated in my defence). The second point applies in relation to the electricity charges.

4 •  I have submitted a list of documents under the Court's directive 'Standard Disclosure of Documents' and will refer to some of these in my statement giving detail of the number under the 'Exhibits' column.


5 •  Major works - Sum of £14,400.09

6 •  I have consistently agreed that repair and redecoration works are required at Jefferson House.


7 •  Although there are number of major failings in the process used by the Claimant in demanding payment for the major works, such as, for example, (i) insufficient tendering of the contract (point noted by the LVT in its report); (ii) non-compliance with the terms of my lease (as I stated in my defence), my primary objection was the fact that I was sent a demand for payment of £14,400.09 with, as sole supporting evidence, a letter from the chosen contractor, Killby & Gayford, stating only the overall cost for the works. My second objection was the refusal by the managing agents for the block, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), to use the reserve fund as contribution towards the costs when, in fact, it had previously written to residents stating that it would do so.


8 •  The Claimant has argued that a copy of the priced specification was available at the porter's lodge from the time MRJ sent me their 17 July 2002 demand. I will demonstrate that this is simply not true.


9 •  The Claimant has also argued that, had I attended the residents meeting on 14 November 2002 (for which they gave me a three-day notice), I would have been able to obtain the information I required. Indeed, in Section 2 of his 24 February 2003 report to the LVT, the Claimant's surveyor, Mr Brian Gale, described the outcome of the meeting as:   ".4 of the 5 objecting Respondents who attended the Pre-Trial Review on the 29th of October 2002 were now not objecting any further and had agreed to pay, or had paid.". I will reply to this in two parts.



10 •  The first part, as I stated in my reply to Mr Gale (which was submitted to the LVT by my Counsel on 28 April 2003), is that I wish to point out that three weeks later, the Claimant filed a claim in West London Court against 11 residents representing 14 flats. Also, the fact that some of these residents (e.g. defendants number one and four on the Court's claim) had attended both, the 29 October pre-trial review and the November meeting. The reality is, as I heard from some of the residents who attended the meeting, like me, they had not been provided with a properly priced specification.



11 •  The second part is for the purpose of highlighting dates: the demand for payment of major works was dated 17 July 2002; the meeting where a copy of the priced specification is alleged, by the Claimant, to have been provided to residents, took place four months later.


12 •  Six times over a six-month period spanning 11 August 2002 to 12 January 2003, I requested - in writing - from the Claimant a copy of the priced specification. These include: four letters to the Claimant (11 August 2002; 16 September 2002; 17 October 2002; 12 January 2003), and two letters to the LVT which were copied to the Claimant (22 October 2002; 25 November 2002). I wrote a third letter to the LVT, on 18 December 2002, highlighting the fact that the deadline set by the LVT for the provision of information had passed and that I had not received anything from the Claimant. In fact, a copy of the priced specification was eventually hand-delivered to my flat just 36 hours before the 5th February hearing .








13 •  I knew that I was far from being the only resident saying that, contrary to MRJ's claim, a priced copy of the specification was never made available at the porter's lodge - nor given to residents - as I was copied on letters/emails from residents sent to the LVT.





14 •  The Claimant had attached a copy of the priced specification to its application to the LVT, dated 7 August 2002. The LVT sent me a copy of the application. The covering letter, dated 8 October 2002, stated that they ".enclose supporting documentation". These did not include the priced specification. At the 5th February 2003 hearing, the Clerk to the Tribunal (who should be praised for his honesty), admitted that "not all the residents were copied on the priced specification" . Among others, this evidence was taken into consideration by the Tribunal in finally agreeing to my request to have the hearing postponed, which the Chair said she did "in the interest of justice".



15 •  The consistent unwillingness on the part of the Claimant to provide me with a copy of the priced specification - despite all my attempts - led me to believe that there was something suspect with the specification.  This feeling was reinforced by five previous key events/ correspondence, in particular:


16 •  Firstly - Two years before the condition survey was carried out, Mrs [ ] , the person running the residents association, reported to the association's committee (of which I was a member) that Mr Ladsky intended to spend " much as £1 million refurbishing the block ...he feels that the reserve fund should be emptied and residents then should be forced to pay him for the extra costs that he deems would be necessary." . (Mr Ladsky, who resides in flat 35, was a member of the Applicant's party throughout the four-day LVT hearing).


17 •  Secondly - Shortly afterwards, Mrs [ ] reported to residents that "the minimum sum of £350,000 for carrying out the redecoration of the block was quoted by Mr Ladsky" .


18 •  Thirdly - Evidence that, in spite of adding an 11% management fee for managing the major works, MRJ were not controlling the process, as Mr Gale sent his 20 December 2001 submission for undertaking the condition survey of the block to "Steel Services Limited, The Office, Jefferson House" . (The letter from MRJ to residents is dated 21 December 2002).



19 •  Fourthly - Within days of my writing to MRJ that the proposals put forward by the companies for conducting the condition survey of the block focused on works that would be required as part of building an extra floor - rather than on repair and decoration - I started to suffer harassment and intimidation. This has continued.





20 •  Fifthly - A major contradiction in Mr Gale's opinion as, in a letter dated 26 March 2002 i.e. written after Mr Gale had completed his 'Condition survey' (in February 2002), MRJ wrote:   "The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1million + VAT and fees."   whereas, in his expert witness report, Mr Gale states that he considers "the cost of works...detailed by Killby & Gayford on 8 July 2002 and totalling £564,467.00 represents a reasonable assessment of the cost of carrying out all necessary works"




21 •  In addition to the above, the bullying and intimidation tactics employed by the Claimant further reinforced my feeling that there was something suspect about the specification. In particular: (i) letter from CKFT dated 7 October 2002 in which they threatened " commence proceedings by 14 October for recovery of the debt" if I did not pay what was demanded of me, as well as threatened "to take action to forfeit my lease" ;   (ii) their claim to County Court in November 2002 - when in fact Steel Services had applied to the LVT and the process was in motion.


22 •  Consideration of all these factors prompted me to employ a surveyor, lawyer and barrister to advise and represent me at the LVT. The outcome of my surveyor' assessment and of the LVT hearing and subsequent report, dated 17 June 2003, confirmed that I was right to suspect that the sum I was being asked to pay was not due e.g. (i) point 46 of the LVT report: "The Tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail in the specification and in Mr Gale's evidence. Works were not clearly identified, were not measured where they clearly could have been, and there was some elements of duplication. Some items were not specified at all e.g. the types and capacity of the boilers" ;   (ii) Page 12, (in relation to the lift):   "The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work, and he conceded during the Hearing that there may have been an element of duplication. Further, no proper explanation has been given for the increase from £27,300 to £60,000 over a matter of months".


23 •  The LVT has not included a summary of its decision in its report. I have requested that it does so. To date, my request is still outstanding. The following is therefore based on the assessment of the 17 June 2003 LVT report by my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock, LSM Partners. Mr Brock has concluded the following:


24 •  Firstly - That the LVT has disallowed the global sum of £129,958.00 (i.e. 23.02% of the original sum demanded) on the basis that the items were either unreasonable, or improvements. From Page 15 of the LVT report:  ".the Respondent and other tenants could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal.." . My surveyor has concluded that, in its July 2003 'revised cost', the Claimant has now deducted this amount.



25 •  Secondly - That the LVT has stated that due to lack of/insufficient specification, it was unable to make a decision/ recommendation on numerous items, which, in total, amount to £144,745.87 (or 25.65% of the original sum demanded). According to Mr Brock, the Claimant has now reduced the amount by £34,849.00. However, as highlighted by Mr Tim Brock: "There is no explanation from Killby and Gayford for this reduction, or what directions they have followed from the Tribunal's decision. This reduction still does not change the fact that it is possible that further cost reduction would occur if the works were correctly specified" .


26 •  Thirdly - The Tribunal has stated (under Point 63) that the contingency fund (of £141,977.00 at the time of the hearing) should be used as contribution towards the major costs:  "The wording of the clause relating to the contingency or reserve fund in the lease is unambiguous. surely it envisages the type of works proposed at the subject property. the Tribunal considers it inequitable that this fund should not be used in part to fund the works". In any case, in their 7 June 2001 letter to residents, MRJ specifically stated that they would use the full amount in the reserve fund, as they wrote that they would contact residents to "...give details of the additional payment required from you..." .




27 •  At the case management hearing on 24 June 2003, CKFT handed me, and the Court, a revised amount for the major works, from £14,400.19 to £10,917.27, representing a 24.19% reduction. For the 26 August 2003 hearing, it provided me with a "revised costs" for each of the 35 flats.



28 •  Using this information - and applying the 11% management fee, plus VAT - I have calculated that the Claimant has so far reduced the total sum demanded by £178,074.13. To this I have also added a further reduction of £45,451.81 (based on Mr Brock's assessment of the 'revised costs' produced by CKFT in July). Hence, relative to the global sum of £736,206.09 originally demanded from the residents, the total reduction admitted to date by the Claimant is £223,525.94 (or 30.4%).


29 •  Until the Claimant addresses the issues identified by the LVT - and my surveyor - in relation to items totalling £141,977.00, as well as implements its commitment to residents in relation to the reserve fund, I am only prepared to pay £2,255.07 - which is what I have done.


30 •  My surveyor has identified that, in its 'revised cost' produced in July 2003, the Claimant has included a tender price increase of 6.45%. I refuse to pay this increase because the delay has been caused by the Claimant and should therefore be the Claimant's responsibility: (i) not providing the priced specification until 36 hours before the 5th February hearing; (ii) it is clear, from the comments made by the Tribunal, that the specifications and method of organising these works are below standard; to date, they have not been addressed.


31 •  Electricity - Sum of £264.04

32 •  The standing charge for electricity was suddenly increased by 59% from Q4 of 1999 to Q1 of 2000. I asked MRJ for an explanation as London Electricity told me that, rather than going up, the standing charge had in fact gone down.   MRJ replied that "the standing charge varies according to the period that the account covers" . This is precisely what I would expect, but is not the way MRJ has been charging me e.g. it charged me £12.58 a quarter for over two years from July 1997 to October 1999, and £19.56 for the following 15 months. The standing charge has only started to vary this year.



33 •  This year alone, on five occasions I have asked MRJ to prove their claim by sending me copies of London Electricity invoices. At the end of August they sent me invoices covering three quarters of year 2000. However, the charge only applies to Steel Services' account with London Electricity, not to the meter for each flat.   It would appear that these are under the control of Steel Services. Hence, while the explanation provided by MRJ is contradicted by the pattern of charging over the years, it seems that I have no choice: I have to resign myself to paying - once the Claimant has addressed the errors in its claim.


34 •  In conclusion, I have ended in my current situation due, partly to prolonged lack of cooperation by the Claimant in providing me with the evidence I requested, and partly because I established that the very substantial sum demanded of me by the Claimant is, for a large part, not due and payable. Several steps must be taken by the Claimant in order to arrive at the amount that I truly owe.


- END of Witness Statement -

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.



(1)- In the context of another fraudulent claim filed against me, ref. 7WL00675, also in West London County Court, on 27.02.07, by Portner and Jaskel (Overview # 11 ; WLCC # 1), on behalf of "Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd / Sloane Development" - but, quite clearly, yet again, instigated by Rachman Andrew David Ladsky...

...- I wrote this 03.06.08 Witness Statement (WLCC # 30 , # 27). It led to a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL of the claim" against me (Portner # 31).

Because, this time, I handled my case entirely on my own, thereby precluding the possibility of arriving at 'a behind the scene arrangement' with 'my' legal advisors - as discussed, among other, above, under Events.

And because, unlike in 2003-04 (see Kangaroo court ; Extortion ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) = 2nd time round: the fear tactics had NO hold on me.

(2)- I subsequently wrote other witness statements - in the context of the claim I filed in 2011; see Queen's Bench Division.

(3)- The same thing happened with Ladsky's 2nd fraudulent claim against me - Note (1), above. I did NOT get a witness statement.


  C O M M E N T S

Back to top