The year of:

•  The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearings and determination from which the impact was a reduction of nearly 70% on the global sum demanded - from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) to £236,000 (US$416,000)

•  Suffering extreme torment and anguish from the actions by West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court, as well as injustice

•  'Suffering appalling treatment from Piper Smith & Basham, solicitors, as well as professional misconduct by Mr Gallagher (' Allegedly ' as my complaints have not been upheld by the Law Society and the Bar Council - nor by the Legal Services Ombudsman)

•  The 'offer' by Steel Services of £6,350 (US$11,200) + interest (!!) (the initial demand was £14,400) (US$25,400)

•  The battles with the lawyers

•  Harassment and intimidation by Kensington & Chelsea police

•  The continuation of the bullying, intimidation, harassment and blackmail tactics by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides

 

2 January 2003

On my return from holiday, I find an 'expert witness' report, dated 13 December 2002 , written by Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, Mr Andrew Ladsky's surveyor, to the LVT , in which, in effect, he calls me a liar as he claims on page 6 that I have been issued with a detailed costing of the specification. This report was delivered post the 17 December 2002 deadline, and therefore in breach of the directions set by the LVT. (See Brian Gale and LVT sections)

I also find a letter dated 16 December 2002 from 'Ms Hathaway', MRICS, , Martin Russell Jones,. (Comparing this letter with others sent by Mr Ladsky / 'Steel Services' i.e. 25 January 2001 , 2 January 2002 and 14 November 2001 , I conclude that it has most probably been written by Mr Ladsky).

This letter is a work of fiction , riddled with lies and in which 'Ms Hathaway' in effect calls me a liar.

3 January 2003 - 11h30

I can sense that somebody is in the corridor very close to the door to my flat. When I open the door in order to leave my flat, it is Mr Andrew Ladsky - no doubt trying to listen in.   He immediately goes down the corridor but, as this does not lead anywhere, he turns back.   He ends-up walking barely a metre behind me and, as he is doing this, says, I am going to get you this year" with a lot of venom in his voice.

20 January 2003 - c. 12h40

As I had come up the stairs to go out of the building, Mr Ladsky was about to get into the lift. On seeing me, he says:   "Better luck next time!" followed by a sarcastic laugh.   I conclude he is referring to the forthcoming 5th February 2003 LVT hearing where he is clearly counting on getting the case closed.

c. 17 January 2003 - The tribunal's refusal to my request for a postponement

One or two days earlier I had received a reply from the LVT to my 12 January 2003 letter in which I requested a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing. I gave as reason the fact that I "still have not been supplied with the priced specification and cannot therefore instruct an expert witness to determine the reasonableness of the cost of specific remedies and thus determine specific items of dispute for the trial" (i.e. as per the directions set by the LVT).

Please not that in my 18 December 2002 letter to the LVT, I had already highlighted the breach of the tribunal's directions by Martin Russell Jones - and consequently my inability to implement actions as per the instructions). The LVT refused my request . (See LVT section).

So, in addition to West London County Court ignoring, so far, two letters from me ( 10 December 2002 and 17 December 2002 ), as well as my defence , I have the tribunal which also opts to ignore the contents of my correspondence. It leads me to the conclusion that both the court and the tribunal consider me as a non-entity and that I might as well have been writing in invisible ink. (See below, 'end January')

In the case of the tribunal, I kick myself for my naivety in believing in a claim made by a government department; in this instance, Mr John Prescott's Office given that it covers the LVTs.

Indeed, the LVTs are positioned as a forum for resolving residential leasehold problems "without the need for professional representation" .

That is proving to be definitely not true. I am going to need 'professional representation' - and fast!

It leads me into a frantic search. I do not know where to turn to. I go back to the LEASE site which lists pages of solicitors claiming to be specialist in landlord-tenant disputes. (Several months previously, I had visited the site from which I identified two solicitors I met with. One of them refused to give me an idea of cost saying that this kind of dispute is unpredictable. Equivalent to saying: 'write me a blank cheque').

I take a leap of faith and select a solicitor. From a list of four names that he supplies me with, I end-up selecting a surveyor. Hence, another leap of faith.

Then starts the writing of correspondence to brief the solicitor and surveyor on events to-date, provide clarification, as well as copying of documents.   More evenings spent doing this - added to all the other evenings, as well as weekends that this nightmare has so far robbed me off.

23 January 2003

I receive a copy of a letter, dated 20 January 2003 written by Ms Hathaway to the LVT (following my request for postponement of the 5th February hearing) in which she, in effect, calls me a liar claiming (like Mr Brian Gale did in his 13 December 2002 report) that I have been supplied with the priced specification. (See below, 5 February 2003, for proof that both lied)

End January 2003 - The 'get lost' from West London County Court

In reply to my two letters (10 December 2002 and 17 December 2002 ) and my defence in December in which I highlighted that the same action had been referred to the LVT and consequently requested that the action be stayed (suspended), West London County Court tells me in its 24 January 2003 letter that I should ask CKFT whether it agrees to this. Unbelievable! As a litigant in person (i.e. not represented), and considering events to date i.e. Mr Silverstone's 7 October 2002 and 21 October 2002 letters, I conclude that there is no point my doing this.

I also find it extraordinary that West London County Court does not see that it has a role to perform as a result of being informed of an abuse of process of court - committed by an officer of the court - which is what a solicitor is. (NB: There most definitely is an abuse of process.

Not only have LEASE and another solicitor said this to me, the following two letters provide further proof of this: Ms McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitor and the 12 December 2002 letter from one of the leaseholders' solicitors to CKFT). Of course, as with every other government departments I have been in contact with: up to me to sort it out!

Not surprisingly, the LVT refusal causes me enormous distress, torment and anguish. What is going to happen next? How am I going to deal with it... on top of everything else? And more was about to be added very shortly.

30 January 2003 - Kensington & Chelsea police officially records a complaint made against me by Mr Andrew Ladsky

I receive a letter from Neil Watson PC 206BS, Kensington & Chelsea Police , dated 27 January 2003 , stating:

"The police have been informed by a Mr Andrew Ladsky that you verbally abused him in public over some sort of dispute revolving around your premises.   Indeed, his version of events have been confirmed by a witness.... Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you, as this initial complaint has been fully recorded by the police.   I wish to make it clear that my role in this is purely neutral at the moment....".    ( NB: Timing is just before the LVT hearing of 5th February 2003)

I laugh on receiving this letter as I visualise the scene: a man, standing in a police station, saying, "Mr Policeman, a woman swore at me" (Or was it just a phone call to Kensington and Chelsea police?) I am most definitely not going to phone him. The 2002 events (Feb-March and May-July) are still very fresh in my mind. I opt to ignore it and to wait and see what the next instalment brings.

5 February 2003 - Letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone

Letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone , CKFT, dated 4 February 2003 , to me stating " .has come to [their] attention from Mr Ladsky, tenant ( !!!) of flat 35. you shouted abusive and foul-mouthed remarks at him . in front of a guest.   We further understand not first incident of this description. incidents have been reported to police... Mr Ladsky or the police may take action against you ... your behaviour constitutes breach of covenant... any repetition or further complaint our client will take injunctive steps prior to other proceedings being formalised to restrain you. To date you have made quite improper and defamatory allegations regarding the probity of our client company and also of Mr Ladsky..".

(NB: Ditto in terms of timing: calculated to arrive on the day of the LVT hearing). (Well, Mr Ladsky did say to me on 3 January 2003 "I am going to get you this year!" )

5 February 2003 - The tribunal hearing

Before the start of the LVT hearing, my Counsel 'grills' me on previous events with the LVT, showing some irritation. I break down in tears. The stress of the last 12 months is taking its toll. The last thing I need is my Counsel also 'getting at me'. However, on the upside, we determine that, in sending me a copy of Steel Services 7 August 2002 application, the LVT had NOT included any of the supporting enclosures.

My brother arrives to give me moral support. (Not a blood brother, but a brother in every other way)

When we arrive in the main reception area upstairs, Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones is there. My Counsel introduces himself. Then my surveyor and solicitor arrive. This is followed by the arrival of Mr Andrew Ladsky who looks at my party and goes to talk to Ms Hathaway. Until the start of the hearing, Mr Ladsky spends the time on his mobile phone. He looks very animated. (Internally, I have a good laugh. About time!)

Very clearly, he had not expected me to turn up with professional advisers. In fact, considering the atmosphere and eye contacts at the beginning of the hearing, nor have the members of the panel. (Until then, there had not been communication on my behalf from a professional adviser). The beginning of the hearing is decidedly 'frosty' - leading my Counsel to make a remark to the Chair.

At the hearing, Mr Ladsky (who was a member of Steel Services party throughout the hearings) says to the Chair, " Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to hearing?" The Chair replies that I am perfectly within my rights to challenge the application made by Steel Services.

This is captured in the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) under point 64 "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered"

( NB : Both, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones, subsequently accused me of being responsible for the LVT action. Please note that it is Steel Services - not I - who filed the 7 August 2002 application to the LVT.

For example, in the case of CKFT, Mr Silverstone 25 June 2003 letter to me ".without going through the costly LVT process which has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project" .

Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, 21 October 2003 'offer' "Your client's decision to challenge both the LVT decision and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building"

Please note that it is Steel Services that kept challenging the LVT determination, not I - as evidenced by the statement in the 21 October 2003 'offer' "our client has once again (NB: !!!) reviewed the revised apportionment dated 24 June 2003" . Note also that if Steel Services was unhappy with the LVT determination, the proper channel to follow was to refer it to the Lands Tribunal.

In relation to Martin Russell Jones, see Mr Barrie Martin's false accusations in his 4 August 2004 letter to me - and my reply of 11 August 2004 )

As to Ms Hathaway's previous claims (e.g. her 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT) that I had been supplied with a copy of the priced specification, initially, she vehemently asserts this claim yet again during the hearing, by saying: "the porter has confirmed that Ms Rawé has looked at them" .   She then contradicts herself in reply to a question from my Counsel, by saying:   "Oh!, there are so many reports in the porter's lodge, he would not know which is which!"

This is captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report "Ms Hathaway (of Martin Russell Jones), on behalf of the Applicant, resisted the application for an adjournment. She maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification... but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version" The same damning evidence is found in Mr Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 report, under point 2.04:   "the un-priced or priced Specification...has been. freely available for all lessees to view" ).

See also LVT , Brian Gale and Martin Russell Jones for further evidence, namely letters from other leaseholders to Mr Hathaway and the LVT)

When my counsel raised the issue of the missing enclosures during the hearing, the Chair turned to the clerk asking him to confirm this - to which he replied: "Not all the residents were copied on the enclosures"

The outcome was that, while the LVT had denied my 12 January 2003 request for an adjournment of the hearing, it was finally granted at the 5 February hearing - as captured under point 16 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report: "In the interest of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment."

"In the interest of justice" (!!!). Why had there not been 'justice' before? I attribute this change of position by the LVT to the fact that I was represented. Why was it necessary for me to spend a very significant part of my life-savings to employ a barrister (and concurrent solicitor) to repeat what I had already said to the LVT on numerous occasions previously?   (See LVT section for more detail)

11 February 2003

I receive another letter from Neil Watson PC 206BS Kensington & Chelsea Police , dated 6 February 2003 - again asking me to contact him.

As the only communication I am prepared to have with Kensington & Chelsea police is in writing, I write a reply, dated 11 February 2003 , in which I ask for very precise details - in writing - of the accusation and send the letter recorded delivery.   There has been no 'official' follow-up whatsoever by the police since.   (See Police section for further detail)

(NOTE : As detailed previously, in 2002 (in relation to the handling of my complaint by Kensington & Chelsea police), I eventually escalated my complaint to the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, asking for his assistance in my letter dated 5 May 2002 .

After some chasing, I received a reply, dated 11 July 2002 , in which he wrote, among others "...the police must act only on the basis of established facts" .

Compare this with the 27 January 2003 letter from Neil Watson PC 206BS following Mr Ladsky reporting me for "swearing at him"  

" Of perhaps greater importance is the fact that any further such outbursts may result in charges of harassment being made against you, as this initial complaint has been fully recorded by the police."

Very clearly, no concern here about: "acting only on the basis of established facts"

And, obviously, another of the Chair's comment in his 11 July 2002 letter that I must ".appreciate that officers have to act with consideration for resource and time expenditure when investigating a case such as this" did not apply in this instance either.

I concluded my 4 August 2002 reply to the Chair by stating: ".my dealings with the police in recent months, have led me to totally - and for ever - lose my confidence in the British police" .   The above events in 2003 only served to reinforce my feelings. (And have led me to my current thinking that, if I am attacked, there is no point my contacting Kensington & Chelsea police)

(The 7 August 2002 reply from the Chair's Office to my 4 August 2002 letter, once again stresses the need for evidence for the police to act)

Additional food for thought: it seems that if Mr Ladsky was 11 years old, I and the other residents would have been able to get an ASBO (Anti-social behaviour order) placed on him.   The attached Daily Mail article of 6 June 2005 reported such a case "The... order...prohibits (the child)...from harassment that would cause alarm." .

Why is it that landlords and their aides are free to terrorise leaseholders? (The Evening Standard article of 3 December 2003 , headed "Left homeless for £25" (US$44) indicates that a leaseholder had a similar experience: "neither the police nor Hastings borough council will act" )

13 March 2003

First day of the substantive hearing at the LVT. I feel very nervous and stressed, partly because of all the recent events, and partly because I have at the back of my mind Mr Ladsky's question to the Chair on 5 February "Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to hearing?" .  

I also remember one leaseholder who wrote me in her 1 November 2002 letter

".Mr Ladsky acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims" .

I also know what he and 'Steel Services' i.e. him, did to the Head of the Residents Association, the Elderly Resident, Other Residents and Nucleus .

At the hearing, the opening statement from Mr Warwick, Steel Services' Counsel , is that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" .   (Although it very clearly was not his meaning), damn right I am not going to pay £14,400 (US$25,400) without justification.

Prior to the hearing, I had received a copy of Mr Brian Gale 24 February 2003 " Expert Report /Proof of Evidence " to the LVT. Sections 2 and 5 of this report can only be described as 'a pack of lies' . My 13 March 2003 reply to Mr Brian Gale's section 2 and 5 was handed by my Counsel to the LVT Panel and Steel Services party on 28 April 2003 (third and final day of the LVT substantive hearings). (See Brian Gale for further detail)

And Mr Gale certainly proved to be a liar .

In his 13 December 2002 "Expert Witness" report to the LVT, Mr Gale wrote under Section 4 -1.4

"I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat"

In fact, when the works started in September 2004, so did the construction of the penthouse flat.

Jefferson House July 2002

Jefferson House September 2005

 

See also the February 2002 photographs taken by Mr Gale of the back of Jefferson House (2.2MB) at the time he undertook the condition survey in January-February 2002.   In the summary of his accompanying report in February 2002 he wrote: "...the roof coverings will need to be replaced and provisions made.to cover any additional works may become apparent."

Evidently, such as the 'incidental' cost of building a penthouse flat and significant works to the flat below. Of course, as Mr Gale wrote in his February 2002 report

"...the roof had exceeded [its] modern life span" and there was ".water ingress" to "some of the properties" , "replacing the asphalt roof" "needed to be dealt with as a matter of urgency" .  

It was so urgent, that the works were started 2.5 years later in September 2004. See Brian Gale section for further detail.

As can be seen in his letter of 19 October 2005 , Mr Gale continued to misrepresent the works undertaken to the very end:

"...Mansells, the contractors undertaking the works.have now completed the external redecoration" .  

"The external redecoration" ?

•  How about the construction of the penthouse flat?  

•  How about the conversion of flats resulting in the addition of three other flats?

•  These works resulted in 39 flats v. 35 flats at the start of the works. (For evidence of 35 flats at the start of the works see, for example, point 7 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report).

Mr Brian Gale proved to be a liar, like Ms Hathaway:

•  Her letter to me of 26 March 2002 :   "Your suggestion that the appointment of professional advisors is in any way connected with any planning application is incorrect"

•  Her 30 August 2002 letter to me:   "We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time"

•  Her 4 March 2003 letter to Brian Gale (which was supplied as part of the evidence during the tribunal hearings in March-April 2003):

"...regarding the proposed penthouse...although the planning permission was granted it was subsequently found that the scheme was not a viable proposition...there are no plans to build the penthouse at the property"

And their 'dear' client, Mr Andrew Ladsky:

•  In his letter to me (and other leaseholders) dated 25 January 2001 : ".the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents. All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably."

As to how the contractors, Mansell Construction Services and / or Mr Brian Gale, describe what they did to the roof (from the " description of the works " , headed with:   Principal Contract: Mansells Construction)

"General repair and refurbishment of the main structure of Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, to include cutting out of spalled and defective brickwork and replacing to match, replacing asphalt roofs , redecoration externally, redecoration of internal common areas, replacement of lift"

Very clearly, Mansell - Mr Gale have a very unique interpretation of "replacing asphalt roof" !    Maybe it's a question of economy with words as they headed this "Brief description of work".  

18 March 2003

For the second time now, I set-up another 'Keep safe' facility with the post office because my regular postman is going on holiday.

24 March 2003

I receive a notice of a Charging Order hearing, dated 21 March 2003 , stating that it is due to take place on 4 April 2003 (This amounted to giving me a 7 working day notice.   Typical of West London County Court that has consistently demonstrated the most amazing haste in responding to Steel Services i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al's / CKFT's requests for hearings).

I am in a state of shock and panic, as I have absolutely no idea what a Charging Order hearing is. It leads me into a frantic search which includes phoning the Department for Constitutional Affairs i.e. Lord Falconer of Thoroton 's department. The person I speak to says that she does not know the answer. (But she offers to send me a complaint form (!!!))

25 and 30 March 2003

I reply to the court on 25 March 2003 highlighting the fact that the LVT had specifically told leaseholders to not pay the service charge demanded until it had reached a decision - and it had therefore been implemented (we were given a leaflet to emphasise the point - see page 5) In spite of this letter, West London County Court still persists in telling me, in its 27 March 2003 letter, that the 4 April 2003 Charging Order concerns me "Please note that your request will be considered at the hearing on 4th April 2003"

I leave messages with the solicitor acting for me at the time, and send a fax. He does not return my calls. The next day I receive a letter from him telling me that he is advising me in relation to the LVT - not the court action. Hence, I need to pay £2,000 (US$3,500) in advance to receive advice. In other words, at the time, in order to get a reply to what is a straightforward question for a solicitor. (By then, I had already paid c. £9,000 (US$15,900) in fees)

30 March 2003

At my wits end, on 30 March 2003 , I send a letter to the members of the LVT Panel - on which I copy the District Judge stating, among others:   "...I requested (once again) that the action be stayed explaining, among others, that: 1. at the LVT pre-trial hearing on 29 October 2002 Mr J.C. Sharma JP FRICS had in effect told the residents to not pay the service charge demanded for the major works until the LVT had reached a decision. How can it be that two government departments - who have been made aware of a conflict as a result of actions they are concurrently undertaking - have no line of communication?"

1 April 2003

Minutes away from giving an extra £2,000 (US$3,500) to my solicitor because I cannot determine what a Charging Order is, through my network of contacts, I am told that a Charging Order implies that a judgement has been entered against me. Has a judgement been entered against me?   I reply that I have not received any communication to this effect.

Armed with this information - in particular the 'correct' terminology - I phone West London County court, now for the third time. Having said (at a very slow pace) "there cannot be a charging order against me because there has not been a judgement against me" , at this point I am put through to somebody else who, I believe, is the court manager.

Following my repeating the same thing (again very slowly), I get the reply: "No, the charging order is not against you, it's against other residents" .  

I went through days of hell, and nearly spent another £2,000 (US$3,500) of my life-savings, to finally be told that the action has nothing to do with me!   And do I get an apology from the court? Of course not! (And not even following my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer. See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for my comments to the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service

My follow-up to the court on this is captured in my 1 April 2003 letter. You will see my statement that I attribute events to among, others, mismanagement.  

Although denied by Lord Thoroton when challenged on this by the media, there appears to be a widely held perception of gross incompetence and mismanagement of the courts. Indeed, even a judge was reported in 2001 as holding this view ( District Judge used the term "gross incompetence" in relation to administrative staff in a Magistrates Court )

And more was yet to come from the courts. on four other occasions. (See 16 June 2003, 31 March 2004, 28 May 2004 and 12 June 2004)

4 April 2003 - A wasted journey to West London County that cost me over £700 (US$1,300)

During my conversation with the court manager on 1 st April, he tells me that although the hearing does not concern me, there may nonetheless be benefit in my attending. Not knowing what to expect, I ask my surveyor to accompany me.   When we arrive at the court, we are informed that the hearing had been cancelled. A consent order relating to the 7th Defendant, dated 2 April 2003 , had been faxed to the court by CKFT.

Of particular importance: the document states "Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003...." THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE! SUCH INJUSTICE!

In addition to my surveyor's fees of £600 (US$1,000) , it also cost me half a day of my annual leave.   Added to the other days of my annual leave I had so far been using up - and would need to use (e.g. LVT hearings), I am not going to have much holiday left for the year.

As I am returning to work from West London County Court , when I arrive on the corner of [ ] and [ ], I notice a man standing on the corner of [ ] and [ ]. He is looking at me. Aged in his 30's, he looks like a bouncer. Short dark hair, heavy features . He is wearing a suit.  

I turn left into [ ] and cross to the other side of the street in the direction of [ ].   Before going into [ ], I turn round.   The man is still looking at me.   I purposely hold his gaze. He turns away and walks in the direction of [ ].   I stay where I am and keep looking at him.   When he is at the height of the post office, on the corner with [ ], he turns round and looks in my direction. I stand there, looking back at him. We stay like that for c. 1 minute, at which point I go into [ ].

Easter break 2003

There is no heating and no hot water for 5 days from Good Friday 18 April 2003 until Wednesday 23 April 2003.   Mr Ladsky is away during that weekend.

There is nothing the residents can do :   the porter cannot be reached (the 'emergency number' diverts to an answer machine in his cubby-hole); there is no emergency number for Martin Russell Jones;   it is impossible to access the boiler - even if residents knew where it is - it is likely to be locked.   While this event may be a coincidence, I very much doubt it.

May 2003

The difficulty of keeping track of when my regular postman will be away, added to the unreliability of the 'Keep safe' service, leads me to set-up a PO Box.

Doing this requires my needing to go to the sorting office some way down the Kings Road to get my mail. This is very inconvenient, but my only option for ensuring that I get my mail.

Note at 2005 and 2006: At least, that is what I was expecting. In reality, the service has proved to be particularly unreliable leading me to file several complaints, eventually to the CEO - to whom I yet again in March 2006. (Another example of being 'trapped' as there is no alternative. At least, I now have a 'direct line to the top' to which I report my complaints. Lucky me!)

End of May 2003

I receive a 23 May 2003 application for a Case Management Conference to West London County Court written by Mr Silverstone, CKFT, stating: "As you are aware we are solicitors for the Claimant. The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following". The list states the 1st , 2nd , 5th and 7th Defendant. But the LVT has NOT issued its determination. (It dated its report 17 June 2003 and I only received it on 22 June 2003) (see this date for further detail)

As there were 11 leaseholders listed on the 29 November 2002 claim, it provides incontrovertible evidence ( "has obtained judgement" ) that West London County Court was instrumental in making seven leaseholders pay before the LVT issued its determination.

Hence, West London County Court totally ignored the fact that leaseholders had very specifically been told by the Tribunal to not pay - until it had issued its determination - and it had been implemented .

For further evidence that it did this, see earlier on my 25 March 2003 letter to the court  in which I had - yet again - brought attention to the ongoing LVT action, as well as reporting - very clearly - that we, the leaseholders, had specifically been told by the LVT to not pay the service charge.

See also earlier on: (1) its 27 March 2003 reply, insisting that the action concerned me; (2) my 30 March 2003 letter to the LVT Panel - on which I copied the District Judge - and in which I again repeated what we had been told by the LVT; (3) my being finally told, as a result of phoning the court on 1 April 2003 saying

"there cannot be a Charging Order against me because there has not been a judgement against me"

At this point I was told "No, the Charging Order is not against you, it is against other residents" (as captured in my 1 April 2003 letter to the court). (The fact that a Charging Order can only be issued once a judgement has been entered was also confirmed by the Court Service in its 23 August 2004 reply)

(NB: Remember also that between December 2002 and March 2003 I wrote four letters to West London County Court highlighting the LVT proceedings and consequently requested that the action be stayed. I had also referred to the LVT proceedings in my defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002 . As just explained, in two of my letters, 25 March 2003 and 30 March 2003, I had made specific reference to the fact that the LVT had specifically told leaseholders to not pay the service charge demanded)

This is so, so MORALLY WRONG. SUCH INJUSTICE. Indeed, (jumping the gun here a bit), consider the above events in the context of point 64, on page 15 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report: "...the Respondent and other tenants (NB !!!) could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal..." (See below, 22 June 2003, for further detail)

During the 24 June 2003 hearing, the judge told Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, that he was "wasting my time and the court's time. The LVT report has just been issued. You need to give the Defendants time to review it" (leading the judge to award costs to me (and the other leaseholders present))

Consider the latter part of the judge's comment in light of the above.

Consider also the LVT's 21 July 2003 reply to Mr Silverstone's letter of 17 July 2003

"It is not the duty of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness , or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant "

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: can you see why in the introduction to the site, I stated that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress'?

16 June 2003

I receive a Notice of Hearing from West London County Court dated 12 June 2003 . It states that the hearing is due to take place on 24 June 2003. (Again, barely one week notice) I have not received a copy of the LVT determination (as it signed it on 17 June 2003 ).   I consequently see myself as, yet again, being hounded by the court. In fact, I feel that 'persecuted' is by now a more appropriate description.

17 June 2003

In my 17 June 2003 letter to the District Judge, West London County Court, I state, among others,

"Why are you asking me to attend a hearing? Why aren't you instead asking me whether the LVT has reached a decision? Better still, why are you not communicating with the LVT? For the second time now your court is causing me untold torment, anguish and distress.   Why is your court putting me in this situation of needing to get very costly legal advice when in fact I have yet to hear from the LVT? Why is it that your court is not waiting for this decision?   Until there is a decision from the LVT, what can you enforce? But maybe I am going through this hell for nothing. Maybe this is a repeat of what happened in March. i.e. has nothing to do with me. Is that the case?"

22 June 2003

I receive the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 LVT determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database). It is a damning report (which endorses my surveyor's assessment of 24 February 2003 ) but it does not include a summary of the impact of the determination on the global sum demanded.

Hence, the LVT failed to perform its remit. (Evidence that this was its remit, is captured under point 1 of its 17 June 2003 report and was also confirmed, for example by the LVT Clerk on his voicemail message to Piper Smith Basham ".the tribunal is looking to determine the reasonableness of the global figure that's attributable to the whole block" - as captured in Ms McLean's 9 April 2002 letter. It is also evidenced by the LVT's 17 July 2003 reply to Mr Silverstone)

(See LVT for my follow-up actions - IN VAIN with the Head of the LVTs: she twice refused my request to have a summary included. See also Mr John Prescott # 1.3 , # 1.4 )

(As an introduction to the next few paragraphs, please note that my surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners, is a Chartered Surveyor, member of the RICS. To which I will add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity)

Based on my surveyor's assessment (as the LVT, 'conveniently' for Steel Services, failed to provide a 'global' assessment), the outcome of the LVT determination, in relation to the original global sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 excl. VAT and 11% management fees) is:

•  Amount disallowed by the LVT because improvements: £169,498 (US$299,000) (£129,958 excl. VAT and fees) = 23% of the global sum demanded (point 48, 29 August 2004)

•  Amount for which the LVT could not make a determination due to lack of specification = £188,784 (US$333,000) (£144,745 excl. VAT and fees) = 25.6% of the global sum demanded (point 48, 29 August 2004)

•  A view supported by the LVT (*) , considering the terms of the lease, as well as Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors best practice, that the reserve fund should be used as contribution: £141,977 (US$250,000) - or 19.3% of the global sum demanded (point 48, 29 August 2004 )

Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded. In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered as reasonable .

My share of this at 1.956% equals £4,615 (US$8,140) (vs. the £14,400 (US$25,400) originally demanded and for which a claim had been filed against me on 29 November 2002 by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB))

Hence, it provides overwhelming evidence that the original demand was extortionate. A scam!

Without a summary, I foresee that that the battle with Mr Ladsky et. al. is going to continue. (I subsequently asked the Head LVT, to include a summary - as evidenced by my letters of 6 September 2003 and 6 October 2003 . Her initial refusal was in her 12 September 2003 letter, the second in her 26 November 2003 reply.

In between, I received a 6 October 2003 letter from Mr Prescott's Office (on which I had copied my 6 September 2003 letter) stating ".unfortunately, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal is unable to re-open your case"

(*) In the £500,000 (US$882,000) I have included £141,000 (US$249,000) of contingency fund. My Counsel raised it as an issue during the hearing as Steel Services / Martin Russell Jones had not used it as contribution towards the costs - and were refusing to do so, in spite of, among others, having stated this in the 7 June 2001 letter. (This is captured under point 34 of the LVT determination). (But it subsequently did in my case - see the 21 October 2003 'offer'. I believe this to be because, among others, I had the 7 June 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway)

Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force Steel Services to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2(2)(e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the LVT report), under points 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code. (As you can see at the beginning of My Diary - Year 2004, as well as under the RICS section this 'so called' code is a complete and utter joke)

22 June 2003

As I have now received the LVT determination, on 22 June 2003 , I write another letter to the District Judge in which I highlight, among others, that, "The judgement remains open to appeal to the Lands Tribunal."

Well, in spite of this, the judge decides to nonetheless hold the hearing on 24 June 2003.

24 June 2003

A combination of costs and time factor (due to West London County Court's 'jumping' at CKFT's requests, as well as crass incompetence) lead me to represent myself at the hearing .

It is a scary, intimidating experience.

I have never set foot in a court in my life.

In addition, Mr Lanny Silverstone , CKFT , hands me in the court's waiting area, 10 minutes before seeing the judge , a Draft order and   Case summary , neither of which I have seen before . I tell him that there is absolutely no way I am going to comment on these given the situation in which the documents are given to me. He mumbles something in agreement but, clearly intends to produce them during the hearing.

With these documents, Mr Silverstone also hands me a schedule of " Major works apportionment, revised" on Martin Russell Jones headed paper. Relative to the amount on the claim, the sum demanded of me (and five other leaseholders) has been reduced by 24.19%. Mr Silverstone does not supply me with any documentation, or indeed explanation, as to how this reduction has been achieved.

While we are waiting to see the judge, I also say to Mr Silverstone that I find it absolutely outrageous that the court has been instrumental in making seven leaseholders pay before the LVT had issued its determination (see CKFT 23 May 2003 letter to the court). He replies, "they made a commercial decision" .   Yes, the Business model had worked - yet again!)

The judge starts by saying that the court has received a useful letter from me. At this point, I give a copy of my 22 June 2003 letter to the court to all those present. She turns to Mr Silverstone and asks him why he has asked for a hearing. Put on the spot, he looks very ill at ease, like a school boy being told off.

She continues, "you must give the residents time to look at the LVT determination" . (NB: How about the other leaseholders who were made to pay BEFORE the LVT issued its report? (as discussed under 'end May 2003')

THIS IS VERY WRONG. While I ended-up being the only leaseholder challenging the application (and none of the other leaseholders have contributed to my £32,000 (US$56,500) LVT costs), it does not alter the fact that the determination applies to the WHOLE block.

Indeed, this is captured under point 64 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database) under point 64: ". the Respondent and other tenants (NB !!!) could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and / or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal")

See West London County Court # 7 and # 8 for detail)

The judge reprimands Mr Silverstone by saying "You are wasting my time and the court's time" .   Great, how about my time? And why is it that no notice was taken of my request to cancel the hearing?   Oh! but of course: who am I relative to a solicitor?

She orders that Steel Services pays my costs for the day (and that of other leaseholders present) - and obviously, refuses Mr Silverstone's demand that I (and the other leaseholders) pay his client's costs for the day. (This was captured in an Order dated 24 June 2003 )

Given these events, I hold the view that the hearing should not have taken place.   What Steel Services-CKFT wanted out of the day was the opportunity to put more pressure on me (and the other leaseholders) to pay what it demanded - and the judge obliged (wasting taxpayers' money in the process).

(If you consider the cost of all the court and tribunal hearings connected with landlord-tenant disputes, the leasehold system is costing everybody in the UK a lot of money . (Consider that Steel Services only paid £500 (US$880) to file the 29 November 2002 claim against 11 leaseholders). Money that could be spent on hospitals, increasing 'senior citizens' pensions, caring for children with disabilities, providing homes to the homeless, facilities for the visually impaired, etc, etc.

It is sickening. All to help a minority line their pockets at the expense of the majority)

15 July 2003

I send a letter to the judge at West London County Court, dated 15 July 2003 , highlighting the findings from the LVT determination and that Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones have not implemented them.  

Sunday 27 July 2003 - Around 13h00

My kitchen window is open indicating that I am in the flat. Mr Ladsky holds a conversation with some people for c. 15 minutes while leaning against the railing immediately in front of my window. I view this as harassment and attempt to intimidate.

(NB: I reported this (and the 27 August 2003 event) in my 28 August 2003 letter to Ms Lisa McLean , Piper Smith Basham , by then, my newly appointed solicitors.   In her 1 September 2003 letter she wrote that she had "noted my comments about Mr Ladsky" .  

While in her 4 September 2003 letter she wrote "The references to Mr Ladsky are, I feel, a separate issue. If his actions (and of course it would have to be proved that they were his or his agents actions) amount to harassment and intimidation then you could consider injunctive proceedings. These would be entirely separate and as you can imagine not inexpensive. The matters you refer to are not sufficient (unfortunately) to justify an injunction being brought" .

While Ms McLean did not ask me whether other incidents had occurred, on 19 August 2003 I had supplied her with, among others, a copy of the 4 February 2003 letter to me from Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, containing false accusations, as well as the fact that Mr Ladsky had reported me to Kensington & Chelsea police.

It is worth noting that I encountered the same kind of attitude from Mr Gallagher, counsel, when I reported, at the 28 October 2003 meeting with him, that I had suffered on-going harassment and intimidation, as well as assault from the time I challenged the true nature of the works.

Commenting on this under point 29(14) of his 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint, Mr Gallagher wrote

"Though I was virtually certain that NKDR did not have a viable claim against the landlord"  

This comment (among others) led me to write a 7-page reply in my 29 August 2004 response (under points 106 - 117) highlighting all the instances of harassment and intimidation I and other residents, as well as our local Citizen Advice Bureau had suffered.

Evidently not expecting that I had this comprehensive amount of evidence against Mr Ladsky , in his 11 October 2004 reply, under point 4(7) Mr Gallagher wrote "the allegations of harassment by Mr Ladsky and Mr Ladsky's complaint to the police etc - these are not matters that appear to relate to the allegations against me and were not matters discussed in conference, save for a very summary overview"

Funny how Mr Gallagher initially had an opinion that I " did not have a viable claim against the landlord" and then changed tack claiming that it was only briefly discussed. As I wrote under point 22 of my 31 October 2004 reply, "Mr Gallagher is underplaying my reply to his point 29 (14)"

9 August 2003

I write another letter to the judge in West London County Court, dated 9 August 2003 stating, among others

"There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant . costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees . What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-Martin Russell Jones in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT"

Nowhere does the lease state that the share of the service charges payable by individual lessees is dependent on:

(1)Their amount of 'backbone' and courage to challenge a demand for money they do not owe

(2) Their resistance to prolonged harassment and intimidation

(3) Their determination to persist in the face of adversity and their ability to handle the resulting torment, anguish and distress"

In between CKFT's application for a hearing on 26 August 2003 and the 24 June 2003 hearing, it had sent me three letters ( 25 June 2003 , 24 July 2003 and 7 August 2003 ) in which it used what can only be described as bullying, blackmail and intimidation tactics in an attempt to force me to strike a deal. (No, I am not going to write 'allegedly'. I believe the evidence speaks for itself)

As can be seen under Mr Gallagher , he held the view that the fact I did not want to 'strike a deal' with Steel Services was one of the factors that worked against me "consider the fact that NKDR had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions on settlement in the light of the LVT determination" (point 66, 9 June 2004 ); [I] "expressly rejected CKFT's offers of a round table." (point 15, 9 June 2004 ) In other words, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact I have strong moral principles that prevented me from being treated differently from the other leaseholders i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease.

As you would expect, my lease (Clause 2(2)(c)(i) of) makes it abundantly clear that there is a set and equitable manner for the allocation of the service charges among the leaseholders. (Other evidence includes:

(1) Ms Hathaway's 30 August 2002 letter to me "The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease. There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts.   The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..."

(2) These percentages were supplied by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones with the 7 August 2002 application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to the court by CKFT, for the 24 June 2003 hearing and the 26 August 2003 hearing.

(3) The LVT's 21 July 2003 reply to Mr Silverstone, CKFT, letter of 17 July 2003   ".duty of the Tribunal.. to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant " .

This clearly demonstrates that the LVT views the calculation of the service charges payable by individual lessees as being based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied - as the norm/ understands the terms of the lease as such - which indeed it is.

Mr Gallagher knew full well from the 28 October 2003 meeting with my surveyor, as well as documents he had been provided with, that Steel Services had not implemented the LVT determination. Hence, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact I had obeyed the instructions given to me by the tribunal at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to not pay the service charge demanded until it had issued its determination and it had therefore been implemented).

Yet again, in my 9 August 2003 letter to the judge, I emphasise the findings from the LVT determination - and the fact they have not been implemented.

16 - 19 August 2003

I write a letter I send to all the major newspapers (e.g. The Guardian ), as well as Newsnight (BBC2), the BBC Radio 4 programmes 'You and Yours' and 'Face the facts', Private Eye, etc.   A dozen letters in total. Every time I supply a substantial number of enclosures in support of my claim.

Two or three show some initial interest but, in the end, only one, the Sunday Telegraph , pursues the story in its 19 October 2003 issue, heading it "My property nightmare - Extortionate service charges" . Generally, it seems to me that the majority of journalists want 'easy stories', those that do not require time to understand and can be encapsulated into little bite size.

Landlord-tenant disputes do not fall into this category as, while the root cause which seems to me to be pretty consistent across the board is very straightforward to understand: ' rip-off ', the details of the case can be voluminous and consequently appear to be complex. Only an investigative journalist of the calibre of Anthea Messy who wrote the Sunday Telegraph article, has the competence to treat this kind of story (very clearly, she invested the time to ensure she understood the details of the case).

In addition to the 'multi-event' nature of landlord-tenant disputes which require time to understand, I suggest that conflict of interest is likely to be another factor that prevents reporting of cases such as mine in some media. Newspapers that generate significant advertising revenues from property developers are, I venture, less likely to run stories that risk killing the 'golden goose'. Likewise with newspapers that generate significant revenue from legal appointments ads by the private and government sector, etc.

Furthermore, for some media I am guessing that there are probably concerns that an attack on the leasehold system amounts to, in effect, attacking the very core of the British establishment given the profile of the biggest freehold owners in the U.K. - and they do not want to find themselves in a 'difficult situation' for the sake of highlighting the terrible misery suffered by 'nobodies' such as myself. However, to be fair, some of the more 'enlightened' press does occasionally write quite critical (and justly so) articles on leasehold-related matters.

With every letter I send to the media, I also copy several ministers - including the Prime Minister . (In my introduction to the site I state that "nobody can plead ignorance' of my case, nor of my views". You see what I mean).

It seems that the various departments forward my letter to Mr John Prescott's Office. It includes, for example, my letter to the Home Office as evidenced by the 27 August 2003 reply. (Note that in my letter I refer to events with Kensington & Chelsea police. Evidently, the Home Office does not consider that this matter comes into its court. Interesting!).

The several "get lost" letters I receive in reply from government departments, includes one from 10 Downing Street , dated 21 August 2003

26 August 2003 - The farsical West London County Court hearing

A hearing takes on 26 August 2003 following a 6 August 2003 application, signed by Ms Ayesha Salim - under a Statement of Truth - "We CKFT intend to apply for an Order that (1) There be Judgement for the Claimant against the Second Defendant and Fifth Defendant...(2) The Defendants do pay the Claimant's costs of those proceedings - Because The Claimant believes that the Second (and Fifth) Defendants have no real prospects of successfully defending the Claim and the Claimant knows of no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at Trial"

It also states that "Following the decision on 24th June 2003, MRJ issued a revised Major Work Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants"

This is not true as, among others, the documents include a " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised " issued by Martin Russell Jones. Compared to the version issued for the 24 June 2003 hearing, this one lists all the flats. In each instance, the sum demanded has been revised down by 24.19% i.e. the same amount as for the 24 June 2003 hearing (a document which had been handed to me by Mr Silverstone, CKFT, at the 24 June 2003 hearing - with no supporting evidence ). The only difference is that in this instance the document covers the 35 flats (which was the total number of flats at the time).

Consequently, given the blatantly obvious (supported by my surveyor's assessment of 31 July 2003) that the LVT determination had not been reflected in the document produced for the 24 June 2003 hearing (and, in any case, a Section 20 Notice had not been issued following the determination), it follows that what Ms Salim's claim - under a Statement of Truth - IS NOT TRUE.

(And it is not the only false claim made by Ms Salim - under a Statement of Truth - in her 6 August 2003 application to the court - see CKFT)

The judge did not challenge Ms Salim on the claims contained in the 6 August 2003 application. This is in spite of my 22 June 2003 , 15 July 2003 and 9 August 2003 letters in which I related the main points of the LVT determination - and to the latter, attached, among others, a copy of my 31 July 2003 surveyor's assessment of the LVT determination - which clearly demonstrates that the LVT determination has not been implemented. In other words: I might as well have been writing in invisible ink.

As I had found the 24 June 2003 hearing experience quite harrowing due to my lack of knowledge and experience, for this hearing, I opted to appoint Piper Smith Basham to represent me.

In my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean, I had made it very clear that I was not prepared to 'strike a deal' with Mr Ladsky et. al.

" About CKFT's offer "to discuss" with them i.e. try to strike a deal.   I am not prepared to do this. This would be a very unwise move as it would allow them to get away with the need to redraw the specification, thereby leaving me exposed to further demands at a later stage which, I can guarantee, would be made (letters from MRJ of 26 March 2002 and 15 July 2002 ).

I also added " By forcing them to do this, it will put a line under the costs i.e. they will not have any comeback and, if they do come back, I will be in a much better position to challenge them. Last but not least, I am also hoping that by doing this they will give up on the block as I am taking away their opportunity to illegally charge works to the residents " (How naïve of me! This scam had been in the making for years)

Prior to seeing the judge, a conversation took place between Ms McLean, counsel and Ms Salim (I did not join this conversation).   Given my position, it resulted in 'an understanding' to get me to pay the costs I had recognised in my 9 August 2003 letter to the court. (NB: Although note that the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease).

During the meeting with the judge, Ms Salim's explanation for the fact that her application referred to the full amount when, in fact, now, the sum proposed was less than what she claimed in her application, she replied: "it was a clerical error" .   And this was accepted by the judge without the blink of an eyelid.  

At the hearing, I agreed to pay the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) ( 26 August 2003 order). Yet, I did not owe a single penny because the demand was not compliant with the terms of my lease as it was not supported by certified accounts - as I had stated in my defence to the claim. In addition, it was in breach of statutory requirements defined under sections 20 and 21 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

Indeed, not only was the 15 July 2002 demand not a Section 20 Notice, following the LVT determination Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones has not issued a Section 20 Notice .

What prompted me to agree to this payment were: (1) the realisation that fair and just treatment of the case was evidently not on West London County Court's agenda - and that the dice were, in my view, heavily loaded in favour of Steel Services; (2) I had been told by my solicitor and barrister 'acting for me' on the day that, if I did not make a payment, it would be likely to be held against me. I believed them. Yet, this very action was highlighted by Mr Gallagher as a factor that worked against me "consider the fact that. summary judgement had already been entered on part of the claim" (point 66, 9 June 2004 )

27 August 2003 - 22h45

As I return from work at 22h45 and I am about 30 metres from the main door to the block, I pass Mr Ladsky on the pavement. He is accompanied by a blond woman.   As I go by, he says to me: " loser! "   (I assume he told his companion that he had won the previous day in court (26 August 2003). It can be argued that he did, but lost on getting his costs . A token of justice for me!).

31 August 2003 - Around 22h45

Somebody makes very loud, thumping noises with their feet in the entrance corridor.  The level of noise is such that it is clearly intentional.   The lift is activated for a long time.   I can only conclude that it is Mr Ladsky.   Why would anybody else do this?   In addition, he knew from my 9 August letter to the Court that I can hear if noise is made in the entrance corridor.

4 September 2003

As explained, in my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, I had made it very clear that I was not prepared to 'strike a deal' with Mr Ladsky et. al. Well, as can be seen in her 4 September 2003 letter, she and CKFT were not giving up on the idea:

"Incidentally (NB !!!) , I took a call from CKFT today and, in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals (NB !!!)

I said that I had noted that you had previously refused to deal with them but in the event that they wished to make an offer (NB !!!) I was, as they well know, obliged to put it to you (NB !!!)

They intimated that they will make a Part 36 offer (NB !!!) The relevance of this is that if they make an offer which is rejected and, following trial the judge makes a determination that is no better than the offer that they had made then you will have to pay their costs from the time the part 36 offer had been made up until the trial"   (NB Please note the threat)

Note the "incidentally" . This made it the second time in the space of three days that Ms McLean was trying to push me into making a deal with Mr Ladsky et. al.

I reply as follows on 9 September 2003