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
|You are here > Home > At 19 October 2003
WITNESS STATEMENT At 19 October 2003
|(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').
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
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 et.al. 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.
An absolute and utter lie that provides further proof of collusion as:
- 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
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".
... 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"...
...to 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"
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).
(2)- My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement
I, Noëlle Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé, in my capacity as lessee of flat 3, Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX, where I reside:
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
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.
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
Disclosure of Documents' and will refer to
some of these in my statement giving
detail of the number under the 'Exhibits'
works - Sum of £14,400.09
6 I have consistently
agreed that repair and redecoration
works are required at Jefferson
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
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
Claimant has also argued that, had
I attended the residents meeting
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.
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.
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.
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
August 2002; 16
October 2002; 12
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,
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 .
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.
Claimant had attached a copy of the
priced specification to its application to the LVT, dated 7
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
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".
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:
- 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 "...as
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).
- 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
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
- 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
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 "...to 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.
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
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
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
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..." .
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.
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
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.
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
31 Electricity - Sum
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.
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.
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.
Back to top