The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineered

(At the time I had just replied to Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin 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 Ms Hathaway.

(NB: Subsequent note - I WAS RIGHT! As can be seen from the photographs captured in this pack (2.4MB), Mr Ladsky's surveyor, Mr Brian Gale's interpretation of his recommended "remedies" in relation to the identified "defects" is fascinating to say the least.

Please, note also the 2 May 2006 (2.3.MB) response from Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones , to my criticisms of his firm and of Mr Brian Gale was "Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it" )

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 floors. ( Mr Ladsky lives on the 5th floor. I 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 Residents)

15 February 2002 - 23h45

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 Mr Ladsky

17 February 2002 - 21h50 - Anonymous phone calls

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 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 section)

19 February 2002 - Anonymous phone calls

Another seven anonymous phone calls are made to my home phone. All were traced by British Telecom .

26 February 2002 - 18h25 - Assault

As I am about to open the front door to get in the block, Mr Ladsky jumps up the entrance steps (as he had done before) and pushes me aside in the corridor.

When I comment on his behaviour he tells me to "get lost"

Late February - Early March 2002 - Anonymous phone calls

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

After an extensive exchange of letters with the police, Kensington & Chelsea 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 Mr Ladsky). CID also tells me that Resident K had said that her phone had been stolen in November 2001 (see my 2 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 .

25 March 2002

Kensington & Chelsea 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" .

The CID person also tells me that she had "complained of being harassed by Mr Ladsky" . (Also captured in my 2 April 2002 letter to Paul Webster. Clearly, I would not have written this to the head of the local police if it were not true. Note also that the CID person never came back to me to challenge what I wrote in the letter)

(NOTE: Prior to this : Resident K came to my flat one day in Jan/Feb 2002 to complain about Mr 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 authority.

(In 2001, Resident K had complained to Resident H of noise from Mr Ladsky's flat in the middle of the night. At the time, Resident H was trying to organise the leaseholders to respond to the offer of buying the headlease). Resident H reported that Resident K had told her she was very frightened of Mr Ladsky. She apparently also said the same thing to Resident A, the Elderly Resident).

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 Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, sent the demand for the major works five months later in a letter dated 15 July 2002).

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)

Note: She was also in the block in August 2007 - which I find most extrordinary considering the claims of harassment by Mr Andrew Ladsky (see Ex(?) Resident K. ). Smells 'very fishy' to me.

The sequence of events as reported by Kensington & Chelsea CID is far from convincing .

Among others, CID's 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 Police section)

7 March 2002 - 21h45

As I was waiting for the bus at my usual bus stop at c. 21h45, Mr 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.

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 drizzle.

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.

In the 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 . (The same thing occurred on 18 August 2005 . By then, the radiator had been removed, but the pipe is still there).

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 was amusing.

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, Mr Ladsky's surveyor, Mr Brian 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 thrown at my windows.

24 April 2002 - 19h30

Resident 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.

28 May 2002

Strongly suspecting that the 26 March 2002 letter from Ms Hathaway is intended to 'prepare the ground' for eventually demanding the sum of £1.5 million (US$2.7 million) + from the leaseholders, I decide to approach Mr Michael Portillo, my then (Conservative) MP to get his assistance. I secure a meeting with him for 28 May.

In preparation 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.

I thank 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 Mr 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 time 'thinking' 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 legal advice"

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 suggestions.

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 - Ms Hathaway's letter of 15 July 2002 ). My conclusion on this was that Mr Portillo was not going to 'rock the boat' on my behalf.

During that time, I contacted several other MPs with the same desperate cry for help, including Mr 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 Keeble ).

The 19 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 LVT section 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 Mr 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 determination on the global sum demanded for the works be included in the report. In other words: requesting that the LVT fulfils its remit . 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

I write a chaser email to my 5 May 2002 letter to the Head of the Metropolitan Police Authority, stating that I view Kensington & Chelsea police's explanation for the anonymous phone calls made from a landline number as suspect. CID told me that the calls were also made by Resident K - from the Carlton Tower hotel.

This explanation is very difficult to accept as:

(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)

(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 in West 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

Letter dated 11 July 2002 from the Head 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 My Diary 30 January 2003 and 11 February 2003, as well as Police section for subsequent events)

c. 22 July 2002

I receive a letter from Ms Hathaway "To All Lessees", dated 15 July 2002 , stating that the cost of the "major works" is £736,206 (US$1.3 million).

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 (US$1.3 million) (stated in her 15 July 2002 letter) .

Although I anticipated a serious 'rip-off' (triggered by, among others, Ms Hathaway's letter of 26 March 2002 which I viewed as 'preparing the ground' for eventually demanding the sum of £1.5 million (US$2.7 million) + from the leaseholders), it nonetheless did not prepare me for the shock.

A 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 this?

(Needless to say that other leaseholders 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'. 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 lease)

(See Martin Russell Jones , Leasehold Valuation Tribunal , CKFT , Piper Smith Basham, Mr Gallagher and West London County Court for more detail)

Summer 2002

Since the start of the harassment and intimidation, I am finding it difficult to cope with my work.

My battles with the police, fear for my safety, and the 26 March 2002 letter from Ms Hathaway add to my anxiety. At times, I am in tears at my desk.

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.

August - September 2002

My 11 August 2002 letter to Ms Hathaway in which I request detail of costings is followed by yet more letter writing to Ms Hathaway who, in her 20 September 2002 reply, totally ignores my previous correspondence. She 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, she filed a claim in West London County Court against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats. (She sent the same letter to other leaseholders) (See Martin Russell Jones and West London County Court for more detail)

10 October 2002

I receive a letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT , dated 7 October 2002 with the reference "LAD008" ( = Ladsky) ( * see note below)

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, Mr Silverstone also wrote

"Our client reserves the right to take action to forfeit your lease for breach of covenant and to communicate with your mortgagee (if any), if such action becomes necessary"

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 Mr Lanny Silverstone to a firm of solicitors acting for a leaseholder in the block

"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 Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor section which contains my complaint to the Law Society against CKFT. (Complaint not upheld by the Law Society, including by the Legal Services Ombudsman)

See also the Major works, Martin Russell Jones , Brian Gale and Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for detail of events. In particular, the fact that Steel Services had applied to the LVT on 7 August 2002 to determine the "reasonableness of the global sum demanded for the major works" and that, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT we (the leaseholders) 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 5 states:

". 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 Mr Andrew Ladsky, Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS of Martin Russell Jones, as well as Mr Brian 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 their privacy).

Mr 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 owns it.

The charade continued at the LVT.

Indeed, while Mr 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 Ms Hathaway and Mr 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 Mr 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, Mr Silverstone replied in his 21 October 2002 letter

"We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" .

Contrast 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 , Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , states that Mr Andrew Ladsky is CKFT's client.

(2) CKFT has acted for Mr 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 Mercantile Securities.

(3) As can be seen from Companies House database records for Mr Andrew Ladsky, some indicate CKFT's address

(4) (This point added at Sept 2006) As noted in the LVT report, Mr Ladsky is the lessee of flat 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 Mr Ladsky. No contribution has been received from flat 5, nor flat 21- See Pridie Brewster # 18 ) (Owners identity # 3. 1 )

Hence, Mr Andrew Ladsky and 'Steel Services' are one and the same.

5 November 2002

In his 5 November 2002 email, the Tenancy Relations Officer, at the Kensington & Chelsea Town Hall , informs me that he

"received a telephone call from Mr Ladsky.

He has asked for copies of all correspondence that you have sent me " .

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)

6 December 2002

I receive a West London County Court claim ( WL 023 537 ), dated 29 November 2002, on which I am listed with 10 other leaseholders (representing 14 flats in total).

The claim has been filed by Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones , on behalf of Steel Services and gives CKFT as "the Claimant's solicitors"

The Particulars of Claim state, among others that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges. that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Hathaway which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" .

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.

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.

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.

As can 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 out, keeping me in the office until 4 a.m. on 17 December.

(The next day, I am flying out of the country for the Christmas holiday. Not surprisingly, this was not one of my best holidays)

December 2002

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.