Year one of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare.
The year of the:
£14,400 (US$25,400) "service
West London County Court claim
Start of the harassment, intimidation,
bullying and blackmail tactics by Andrew Ladsky and his aides
Lack of action by Kensington & Chelsea
police following complaints by five leaseholders at Jefferson House, against Andrew Ladsky
At c. 23h00 when I come back from work, Andrew Ladsky forces me into Jefferson House by coming in very closely behind me.
I ask him who he is (I had never seen him before), whether he is living in the block.
He replies, "None of your business"
(NB: Since getting the leasehold in 1996, and the freehold in 1997, he had been hiding - while preparing his scam)
1 February 2002 - 22h45 - Somebody presses my door bell = Ladsky
(At the time I had just replied to Joan Hathaway,
Russell Jones (MRJ) that the planned
survey dealt with items connected with the
building of an extra floor rather than with
redecoration - my
emails to Hathaway.
(NB: Subsequent note - I WAS
RIGHT! As can be seen
from the photographs captured in this pack, Ladsky's surveyor, Brian Gale's
interpretation of his recommended "remedies" in
relation to the identified "defects" is
fascinating to say the least - when contrasted with the outcome.
Please, note also the 2
May 2006 response from Barrie Martin,
Russell Jones, to my
criticisms of his firm and
of Brian Gale was "Your
allegation is false and we
require your written acceptance
that you were wrong to make
At 22h45 somebody presses
my door bell and immediately walks
into the building (i.e. has the key to
the front door). The lift is activated
for a long time i.e. going up several
Ladsky lives on the 4th floor of Jefferson House, in flat 34.
conclude that it is him given the
encounter on 30 Jan 02, as well as the
history of harassment of the person who
was running our residents association the minute
she interfered with his plans (see Notices
by landlord and Head
of Residents Association, as well
as harassment of other residents, Elderly
Resident , Other
(NB: As I reported in e.g. my 13.03.02 letter to the then Police Complaints Authority, it led me to disconnect my door bell).
15 February 2002 - 23h45 - A hard object is thrown at my windows
At 23h45 a small hard object
is thrown at my windows . It
is immediately followed by somebody coming
into the building. Yet again, the lift
is activated for a long time. Again,
I conclude that it must be Ladsky.
17 February 2002 - 21h50 - Anonymous phone
I receive anonymous phone calls at home in succession from 21h50.
British Telecom (BT) told me that 13 calls were made that evening. (I switched off the bell after the 8-9 calls in succession).
(NOTE: Although I did not have a trace on my phone on 17 February, BT was nonetheless able to trace the calls)
18 February 2002 - I try to report the harassment to Chelsea police
I go to the local police station to report the
calls, as well as pressing of my door bell and
object thrown at my windows (crime
report BS 560 4102/02C) (see Police # 1). It was abundantly clear from the attitude of the person on duty she did not want to record my complaint. For evidence of this, see next entry.
19 February 2002 - Another 7 anonymous phone calls. Chelsea police has 'lost' the form I completed yesterday.
Another seven anonymous
phone calls are made to my home phone. All
were traced by British Telecom.
DC DR Adams, Kensington CID tells me that the form I had completed at the station "was lost".
26 February 2002 - 18h25 - I am assaulted by Andrew Ladsky who tells me to "Get lost!"
Late February - Early March 2002 - Anonymous
phone calls at work from somebody connected with Jefferson House. Who else but Andrew Ladsky!
I receive several anonymous
phone calls at work. These
were preceded by our switchboard telling me
that somebody was asking whether 'Ms K-Dit-Rawé'
works in the company. This is the name
I use with the managing agents. Hence,
the calls were made by somebody connected with
the managing agents.
w/c 18 March 2002 - Lies by DC DR Adams, Kensington CID
After an extensive exchange of letters with
the police, DC Adams Kensington CID tells me that the calls made
from a mobile number where from a phone that belongs
to Resident K who (then) lived in flat
33 (apparently, below that of Ladsky).
also tells me that Resident K had said that her
phone had been stolen in November 2001 (see
April 2002 letter to Paul Webster,
Detective Inspector, Kensington Police station)
This implies that the person who stole the phone waited five months to make the anonymous phone calls.
Then, the person makes numerous anonymous phone calls in succession to my phone in the space of c. 48 hours.
This story does not stack-up. (NB: Confirmed when I received the "crime report" following my Subject Access Request in 2009 - see KCP #1)
25 March 2002 - Kensington CID cover-up and lies
DC DR Adams, Kensington CID tells
me that Resident
K admitted having made
the calls. Apparently, that
she had said that "she had nothing against
me; she did not know why she made the calls;
she was very sorry" .
also tells me that she had "complained
of being harassed by Mr Ladsky".
(Also captured in my 2
April 2002 letter to DI Paul Webster.
Clearly, I would not have written
this to the head of the local police
if it were not true. Note also that
DC Adams never came back to
me to challenge what I wrote in the
(NOTE: Prior to this: Resident K came
to my flat one day in Jan/Feb 2002 to complain
about Ladsky saying that he was "making
a lot of noise in the middle of the night,
fighting with his girlfriend" . I
suggested she reports this to the local
2001, Resident K had complained to
H of noise from Ladsky's flat in
the middle of the night. At the time, Resident
H was trying to organise the leaseholders at Jefferson House, to respond to the offer of buying the headlease).
Resident H reported that Resident K
had told her she was very frightened of
Ladsky. She apparently also said the
same thing to Resident A, the Elderly
When she came to my flat in Jan/Feb 2002, Resident
K also told me that, one evening, as she
was getting into the lift two men forced
their way in and asked her why she was
not paying her service charge. (Please note that
Joan Hathaway, MRICS,
Russell Jones, sent the demand for the
major works five months later in
a letter dated 15
In addition to her visit, I also had 1-2 phone
calls from her in which she repeated the same
thing, and said that she could no longer live
in the block. Two years later i.e. in
2004, I saw her in the block, and again in August 2007)
Note: She was also in the block in August 2007
- which I find most extraordinary considering
the claims of harassment by Andrew Ladsky (see Ex(?)
Resident K. ). Smells 'very fishy' to me. (NB: I proved to be right - see KCP # 1)
of events as reported by
DC Adams, Kensington CID is far
from convincing .
Among others, his report implies
that, in the space of three
hours, the police had
contacted Resident K, made her
come to the police station (for
her interrogation), and completed
the report (if, indeed, report
there was, as the CID person never
complied with my request to capture,
in writing, what he had said to
me) (see also Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 - and what I discovered following making a Subject Access Request in 2009)
7 March 2002 - 21h45 - Andrew Ladsky and another individual try to intimidate me
As I was waiting for the bus at my usual bus stop on Sloane St, at c. 21h45, Andrew Ladsky and another individual (who is driving the car) stop the car, sneered at me, then revved the engine and departed at high speed - clearly with the intention to intimidate me.
11 March 2002 - 00h15 a.m. - Malicious leak in my bathroom - the first of several
On my return from work, after midnight, I find
that water is coming through the fan
extractor in my bathroom. I
suspect that it is coming from the corridor above.
I try to check the radiator that is opposite
the door to the lift. The radiator is encased,
with a grill placed in front. Although the grill
has been dislodged, it requires some pressure
in order to remove it. I opt to leave it (as
otherwise I will be accused of having damaged
property) and call a plumber .
Because I have disconnected my door bell (as
it was being pressed in the middle of the night),
I stay on the pavement, waiting for the plumber
to arrive. It's cold and there is a bit of a
As can be seen on his 11
March 2002 invoice, the plumber confirms
that the water is coming from the radiator
but he is unable to determine how to stop the
water flow. Nothing can be done. I leave
a bucket under the leak and go to bed.
morning, I report it to the porter and
ask him to come in my bathroom - where
the water is still leaking. Initially
he does not want to come in.
When he is in, it is very noticeable
that he is trying to stop
himself from smiling .
He can see me in a state of anguish.
Hence, objective achieved! This
statement because I believe
it was a malicious act.
(Subsequent note: The same thing occurred
on 18 August 2005. By
then, the radiator had been removed,
but the pipe is still there). (NB: Another equally malicious leak was caused on 8 August 2005. In 2007, after a failed attempt on 6 February 2007, my flat was flooded in July 2007 - and MORE since)
Very little damage was caused to my bathroom
as the majority of the water fell in the ceiling
of the corridor on the other side of the wall
to my bathroom. A significant amount of water
got trapped between the wall and the wallpaper
in the corridor, resulting in a large bulge - which
As little damage was caused to my bathroom (I
subsequently fixed it with a few strokes of paint)
I did not report it to Martin Russell Jones.
Further confirming my belief that this
was a malicious act, more than two
years later, in his 19
August 2004 letter, Ladsky's surveyor,
Gale wrote "We understand that
significant damage has occurred to your flat
in the past where water has penetrated from
leaking pipes." .
As I replied to him on 23
August 2004 " There has never
been any communication from me to this effect. What
is the source of your information? Is
this perhaps something that I should be anticipating? Let
me make it very clear that, if any damage occurs
to my flat, I will, as appropriate, use all
relevant correspondence and materials in support
of my action"
3 April 2002 - 22h30 - A hard object is again thrown at my windows
At 22h30, a hard object is thrown at my windows. Hence, a repeat of what took place two months previously, on 15 February.
24 April 2002 - 19h30 - Resident K corners me in a local street
K 'corners me' in Walton St at 19h30
looking clearly worried. I challenge her
several times by saying: "Are
you saying you made the calls yourself, not Ladsky?" . She
says 7-8 times that she has nothing against me,
that she likes me. She does not reply 'yes' to
my question. I tell her that the matter
is not over. (See KCP # 1)
28 May 2002 - 'Get lost' from 'my MP', Michael Portillo
Strongly suspecting that the 26
March 2002 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, is
intended to 'prepare the ground' for eventually
demanding the sum of £1.5 million (US$2.7m) + from the leaseholders at Jefferson House, I decide
to approach Michael Portillo,
my then (Conservative) MP to get his
secure a meeting with him for 28 May.
for this, I spend 30 hours preparing
a pack, dated 27
May 2002 , I send ahead of
my meeting with him.
It leads his
Assistant (?) / Researcher (?)
to phone me from the House of
Commons and say that she is very
impressed with the pack.
her and say that I hope to be equally
impressed with the outcome of my
meeting with Mr Portillo.
The pack contains detail of the situation, as
well as a summary highlighting the key issues
and actions I hope Mr Portillo will take. (The
title of the pack probably comes across as exaggerated - especially
to somebody who does not have knowledge of the
situation - but I stand by it in terms of the
tactics used by Ladsky and his aides)
During the meeting, Mr Portillo tells me that
he does not think that he can help me,
but that he will nonetheless think about
it. He obviously did not spend too much
as, in a letter dated 28 May 2002, i.e.
written on the same day, he states that
he cannot help and suggests that I "get
More than three years on, having acquired a
massive amount of knowledge since, I admit that
my 'wish list' of actions I expected of Mr Portillo
includes some that are unrealistic. Nonetheless,
Mr Portillo could at the very least have made
As I had heard that Mr Barry Gardiner, MP, was
sympathetic to the plight of leaseholders, on
1st July 2002 I sent him a pack similar to the
one I had sent to Mr Portillo. In a letter dated 29
July 2002 Mr Portillo tells me "I
am your Member of Parliament" , and now
for the second time, to "get legal advice" .
(Based on my now very comprehensive first-hand
experience of government bodies I have turned
to for help, I have coded this reply as a euphemism
for "get lost!" )
Mr Portillo did this a third
time, in his 6
August 2002 reply to my 2
August 2002 letter, in which I again
pleaded for his assistance. (By then, I had
received the "major work" service charge
demand of £14,400 (US$25,400),
which, in addition, showed a clear intent
of asking for more money at a later stage
for the same works - Joan Hathaway's letter
July 2002 ). My conclusion on this
was that Mr Portillo was not going to 'rock
the boat' on my behalf.
that time, I contacted several other
MPs with the same desperate cry for
help, including John Prescott (who
then headed housing).
Every time I sent a similar version
of the pack I had sent to Mr Portillo,
as well as supporting enclosures
e.g. my 1
July 2002 pack to Mr Prescott
(in which I state that I have
sent the same pack to Nick
Raynsford and Sally
July 2002 reply from the ODPM, directs
me towards the LVT. (I did follow this advice.
See below from October 2002 for where this
got me to, and the London LVT page for more detail).
I replied on 29
July 2002, essentially communicating
the message that I am appalled by what is
allowed to take place.
(A year later, I again contacted the ODPM by
copying John Prescott on my 6
September 2003 letter to the Head of the
LVTs, in which I requested that a summary of
the impact of the 17
June 2003 report on the global
sum demanded for the works be included in
the report. In other words: requesting
that the LVT fulfils its legal remit - as defined under s.19 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 .
It led to the very familiar "get lost" in
the letter dated 6
October 2002 - including from Mr Prescott's
Office. (See below 22 June 2003
and LVT section for detail)
31 May 2002 - Chaser letter to Sir Toby Harris, Metropolitan Police Authority
I write a chaser email to
May 2002 letter to Sir Toby Harris, Chair of the
Metropolitan Police Authority, stating
that I view Kensington & Chelsea
for the anonymous phone calls made
from a landline number as suspect. DC Adams told me that the calls were also made
by Resident K - from the Carlton Tower
explanation is very difficult to
(1) it implies
that she would have booked a room
in the hotel (how else could the
calls be traced to her?);
(2) the hotel
is 150 metres from Jefferson House
where she had a large flat.
(Also, would the hotel keep a
record of telephone calls for four
months?) (See Police section)
(NB: I was right! See KCP # 1 for what I discovered following making a Subject Access Request in 2009)
(NOTE: I subsequently found that a "caution", filed
on 10 October 2003 in favour of Steel
Services had been entered on the Land
Registry for flat
33 . See the details of the Claim filed
London County Court on 29 November
2002, which indicate that the claim against
flat 33 was the second highest, at £62,000 (US$110,000))
11 July 2002 - Sir Toby Harris is siding with Kensington CID
Letter dated 11
July 2002 from Sir Toby Harris, Chair of the
Metropolitan Police Authority stating "[Resident
K] is held fully responsible for the
crime" . (At
last, I have this in writing!). He goes
on to say "There
was therefore no
option other than to hold Mrs [x] fully
responsible for this crime" .
It also states: "You seem convinced that
[Resident K] acted under the direction
of Mr Ladsky. While this or may not
be the case, the police cannot act
on the basis of your suspicions ,
however strongly held and must only act
on the basis of established facts" (See KCP # 2 for subsequent events)
I receive a letter 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, "To All
Lessees", dated 15
July 2002, stating that the cost of the "major
works" is £736,206 (US$1.3m).
Enclosed with the letter is an 'invoice' dated 17
July 2002 "Major works contribution: £14,400.19 " (US$25,400)
(My 1.96% share of the £736,000 (stated in 'her' 15 July 2002 letter)
Although I anticipated a serious 'rip-off' (triggered
by, among others, Hathaway's letter of 26
March 2002 which I viewed as 'preparing
the ground' for eventually demanding the sum
of £1.5 million (US$2.7m) (My Diary 28 May 02), it nonetheless did not prepare
me for the shock.
state of chock, disbelief, utter
despair and panic is most definitely
the state I find myself in.
This is a 'huge' amount
of money for me.
I am convinced it is a 'rip-off',
but how am I going to handle
(Needless to say that other leaseholders at Jefferson House, are, likewise, in a state of shock)
Not only is it c. 10 times the cost
of previous refurbishments, the evidence
to date lead to the conclusion that it
is a 'rip off'. (NB: I WAS RIGHT!) The ultimate evidence in
support of this is that no breakdown
of costs has been supplied. The letter
from Killby and Gayford only states
a global sum. (Hence, it is in breach
of my statutory rights) (in addition
to being in breach of the terms of my
Russell Jones, Leasehold
Valuation Tribunal , CKFT , Piper
Smith Basham, Stan
Gallagher and West
London County Court for more detail)
Summer 2002 - The (above) demand is the 'coup de grace'. I can no longer cope with my very demanding job, and get transferred to non-client work.
Since the start of the harassment and persecution,
I am finding it difficult to cope with my work - which is very demanding. I am a Commercial Due Diligence manager, in KPMG's Transaction Services division.
My battles with the police, fear for my safety (Andrew Ladsky's harassment and persecution detailed earlier on on this page ; police # 1 - background),
and the 26
March 2002 letter 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, add
to my anxiety. At times, I am in tears at my
The £14,400 (US$25,400) demand is the 'coup
de grace'. I cannot cope with doing client work
anymore. I get a transfer to a role that is non-client
facing - "until my situation is resolved". (NB: I tried to do that: IN VAIN! as I am dealing with psychopathic criminals)
August - September 2002 - Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, ignores my letters asking for evidence in support of the 15 July 2002 demand, and threatens me with "legal proceedings"
August 2002 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, in which
I request detail of costings is followed by
yet more letter writing to Hathaway who,
in her 20
September 2002 reply, totally ignores
my previous correspondence. 'She' (= Andrew Ladsky) wrote:
" As other lessees have paid their
contribution , and it is intended
to start work during October, we have to
require payment by return. if payment is
not made now our client, Steel Services. will
instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings" .
Yet again: A LIE as, two months
later, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) a claim in West
London County Court against
11 leaseholders representing 14 flats - for which she signed the statement of truth (see WLCC Key Point # 1(3) for the issue in relation to getting her to do this).
(She sent the same letter to other
leaseholders - see MRJ #14)
I receive a letter from Lanny Silverstone,
CKFT, dated 7
October 2002 with the reference "LAD008" (
= Ladsky) ( * see
He states, ". our
client requires payment of the. sum
within seven days of the date of
this letter. In the event that
payment is not received by Martin
Russell Jones by 10 am
on Monday 14 October ,
we have instructions immediately
to commence proceedings for
recovery of the debt"
To give added weight to his blackmail
tactics, Silverstone also wrote
client reserves the right to
take action to forfeit your
breach of covenant and to
communicate with your mortgagee (if
any), if such action becomes necessary"
(NB: Re. "recovery of the debt": the £14,400 demanded translated into a 21 October 2003 "offer" for £6,350 - see My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Home page-Introduction)
I am at work when I read this
letter. My level of distress and
anguish is such that I am trembling
and end-up being physically sick.
Compare this letter with a letter sent 12 days
later, dated 21
October 2002, also
by Lanny Silverstone to a firm of solicitors
acting for a leaseholder at Jefferson House.
"We note that you have made no proposal
on behalf of your client to pay all or part
of the interim service charge. We should be
grateful if you would clarify whether your
client does in fact have any objection to the
cost of the major works in respect of which
we are instructed that appropriate notices
were served some time ago"
See the Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor page
which contains my
complaint to the Law
Society against CKFT. (Complaint - of course -
not upheld by the Law Society, including
by the Legal
See also the Major
Russell Jones, Brian
Gale and London Leasehold
Valuation Tribunal for
detail of events. In particular,
the fact that 'Steel Services' =Andrew Ladsky had
applied to the LVT on 7
August 2002 to determine the "reasonableness
of the global sum demanded for the major
At the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing at the LVT (directions issued at that hearing) we (the leaseholders at Jefferson House)
were told that if we paid the service
charge demanded, the tribunal would
not be able to assist us.
In other words, we were told by the tribunal
to NOT pay the service
charge demanded until the tribunal had
issued its determination - and it had been
implemented. In support of this direction,
we (the leaseholders) were handed a
booklet which, on page
". a recent Court of Appeal case ruling
(Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold
Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only
have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness
of disputed service charges that are
still unpaid except under certain
circumstances" (NB: bold type
face as per the leaflet)
Among others, CKFT's client Andrew Ladsky,
Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin,
FRICS of Martin
Russell Jones, as well
Gale, MRICS, of Brian Gale Associates,
attended the 29 October 2002 pre-trial
LVT hearing - as
evidenced in the directions issued
by the tribunal. (NB: Although LVT documents
are in the public domain, I have blocked
out the name of other leaseholders to respect
Andrew Ladsky was sitting at the back of the room,
away from everybody. When asked by the Chair,
Mr Sharma, what his interest was in the proceedings,
he replied "I am just a resident" .
At which point, all the leaseholders turned
round and, in chorus, called him a "liar" as
he was going round the block saying he
The charade, and more appropriately - COLLUSION - continued at the London LVT.
Indeed, while Ladsky was a member of 'Steel
Services' party throughout the four-day hearing,
holding frequent conversations with Steel Services'
Counsel, Mr Warwick, as well as Joan Hathaway and
Brian Gale, the LVT opted to stick with this
initial reply as, point 12 of its 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02
report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) states "Mr Ladsky,
the lessee of flats 34 and 35 also attended".
I also draw your attention to my 17
October 2002 letter to Lanny Silverstone
in which I asked:
"Are you aware that Steel
Services has applied to the Leasehold
Valuation Tribunal for determination of the
reasonableness of the charge for major works?"
To this, Silverstone replied in his 21
October 2002 letter
"We are aware
that Steel Services has applied to
the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" .
this with the information contained
in the booklet given
to myself and other leaseholders
by the tribunal on 29 October 2002.
( * ) NOTE -
Confirmation that 'LAD' = 'Ladsky' comes
from the following:
(1) In an identical letter,
dated 11 October 2001, to Leaseholder
A and Leaseholder
B , Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, states that
Andrew Ladsky is CKFT's client.
(2) CKFT has acted for Andrew
Ladsky since at least the early/ mid 90's as
it instructed counsel in the TSB
Bank plc v. Arthur Ladsky 1996 Court of
Appeal case. Messrs Andrew
Ladsky and Arthur
Ladsky were both directors of Combined
(3) As can be seen from Companies
House database records for
Andrew Ladsky, some indicate CKFT's address
(4) (This point added at Sept 2006) As noted
in the LVT report, Ladsky is the lessee
34 and flat
35. With its 29
August 2006 letter,
the ICAEW attached the 2002 and 2003
contributions paid by the lessees. They show that flat 34 , flat 35 and flat 5 have not paid any contribution. (NB: However, according to the ICAEW, some undetailed contributions in the 2004 year-end accounts were paid for some of the flats owned by Ladsky. No contribution has been received from flat 5, nor flat 21- See Pridie Brewster # 18 ) (Owners identity # 3. 1 )
Hence, Andrew Ladsky and 'Steel Services'
are one and the same.
5 November 2002 - Andrew Ladsky tries to obtain what I sent to the Kensington & Chelsea Tenancy Relations Officer
Following discussion with his legal department,
in his 6
November 2002 email, he confirmed, "we
will not be releasing any documents to Mr Ladsky.
The Council's legal department believes you
are entitled to a degree of confidentiality
when you sought assistance from us and this
is why we have taken this decision." (See
Council & LGO section for further detail)
If, like me, you have never been at the receiving
end of a court claim, I think you will understand
that it caused me a tremendous amount of distress and anguish. (Subsequent note: = FEAR tactics intended to make me (and my fellow leaseholders) cave in; Proof that Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
I am also very confused given that, as detailed
above under '10 October 2002', we (leaseholders)
had specifically been told by the LVT to NOT
pay the service charge demanded as, if
we did, the tribunal would not be able to assist.
This leads me to go into a frantic search for
information as to what I should be doing. It
includes contacting LEASE. Having fought-off
the typical, initial government department response, "get
legal advice" , I then obtain the useful
assessment that the filing of the claim in court
is duplication and abuse of process since Steel
Services is simultaneously pursuing the same
action in the LVT.
(Subsequent note: confirmed by, among others, two solicitors - see CKFT # 2 and # 6.1, which shows that the Law Society turned a 'blind eye and deaf ear' to this abuse)
It leads me to conclude that I can ignore the
claim. However, a contact strongly stresses
the need for me to reply with my defence.
be seen in my defence ,
the claim was riddled with inaccuracies
in relation to the electricity charges.
It takes me seven hours to
sort this mess out, keeping me in the
office until 4 a.m. on 17 December.
(Subsequent note: the same trick was played by Martin Russell Jones with the 27 February 2007 claim - compare the Particulars of Claim v. what I made of them)
(The next day, I am flying out
of the country for the Christmas
holiday. Not surprisingly, this
was not one of my best holidays)
Because my regular postman is going on holiday
and, on previous occasions his replacement had
left my mail in the main entrance leading to
some never reaching me, I set up a 'Keep safe'
facility with the post office.