Email this site to a contact

 

15 years of mental torture, harassment, persecution, intimidation, bullying and blackmail tactics - in the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - in 'The Kingdom of Make-Believe'

My Diary - 2004

Year three of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare.

The year of:

•  The continuation of the 'persecution' by West London County Court , followed by Wandsworth County Court and of the - unanswered - 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton

•  Another service charge demand for £14,500 (US$25,500) - without any explanation whatsoever, followed three weeks later by another demand for £15,500 (US$27,300) - likewise with no explanation

•  The complaints against the lawyers and subsequent battles with the professional associations (better described as 'trade associations')

•  The complaint against Kensington & Chelsea Housing department and subsequent battle with the Local Government Ombudsman

In 2004, I filed a complaint against Piper Smith Basham, Mr Gallagher and CKFT. Early 2005 I filed a complaint against Martin Russell Jones.

Between writing the complaint and the follow-up, which can only be described as entailing unbelievable battling and arguing, each has cost me in excess of 250 hours of my life.

In other words: over 1,000 hours of my life has been spent on these four complaints. And the outcome? None of them upheld - included when escalated to the next level up i.e. the Legal Services Ombudsman (excludes complaint against Martin Russell Jones as it is not in the legal sector)  

During 2004, I also filed a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman against Kensington & Chelsea Housing department.   This, added to the all the time spent battling with the Council, robbed me of another 250 hours of my life .

Complaint against Piper Smith Basham

The summary of my ' alleged accusations ' against Piper Smith Basham is:

"This is a complaint against Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean of Piper Smith & Basham, London, for abuse of fiduciary relationship, negligence, non-compliance with client instructions and use of intimidation and coercion tactics in relation to a 'Landlord-Tenant' service charge dispute with Steel Services represented by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors (CKFT)"

I filed a complaint against Piper Smith Basham because I was worried that CKFT would file a claim against me for alleged breach of agreement.   (In addition to previous actions by CKFT) I viewed this as a possibility, principally because:

•  Piper Smith Basham insisted that I had given my agreement to the 13 November 2003 reply it sent to CKFT. I had NOT.

The incontrovertible proof of this is Ms McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 asking me to " confirm that the consent order may be signed " - to which I replied on 26 November 2003 with "I am not endorsing a reply that does not in any way challenge the offer letter .It was your firm's responsibility to ensure it was captured in the letter and it is now your firm's responsibility to ensure that it is."

Further proof can also be found in Mr Gallagher's initial reply to my complaint in which he wrote that he "simply (could) not understand why NKDR changed her mind and was not prepared to endorse the draft consent order "(point 80, 9 June 2004 )

•  Ms Salim, CKFT, had sent a 19 November 2003 letter to Piper Smith Basham stating ".endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court." .  

My rationale was, if this happened and I said in my defence that I had not agreed to the reply that was sent, I would be asked for evidence of this. While I had several documents to produce in evidence, least of all the fact that in her 24 November 2003 letter Ms McLean had asked me to confirm that "the consent order may be signed" , I thought that filing a complaint would be another key element in my line of defence. In addition, writing the complaint would help me compile events and organise the supporting evidence in an orderly fashion.   I had so many documents.

Having persisted in getting a complaint form from the Law Society (it took three requests, including by recorded delivery), I filed the complaint , including complaint form , against Piper Smith Basham on 16 March 2004 (and copied Piper Smith Basham).  

Given the initial response of 2 June 2004 from the Law Society, with my reply of 17 June 2004 , I also enclosed 136 supporting documents in support of my complaint.

Over 70% of the acknowledgement, dated 27 April 2004 , is a very loud message: " Go away! We don't want to deal with your complaint" .

In particular, the caseworker notes that I am expecting the maximum £5,000 (US$8,800) compensation - which she recognises her Office can award. However, she then states,   ".if you are looking to recover such a large amount of money from the solicitors, you should seek independent legal advice in respect of pursuing a legal claim against the firm" .

The caseworker further attempts to 'put me off' by stating that "In the majority of cases awards by this Office fall below £500" (US$880)

Bearing in mind that I have contacted the Law Society in order to file a complaint against a solicitor, the caseworker then goes into great detail emphasising 'the ease' with which I could find another solicitor: (1) the Law Society database that will "help you to find a solicitor in your local area" , "specialising in this area of law" ;   (2) "Many firms offer initial advice sessions for free." .

From this followed a protracted exchange of correspondence with the caseworker which is best summarised as either ignoring highly material evidence, or rejecting it.   A significant part of the events are recorded in My Diary under the period September 2003 - December 2003 and in comprehensive detail under the Piper Smith Basham and Law Society section. Examples of my ' alleged ' accusations in my complaint include:

•  Not incorporating, in the 13 November 2003 reply to Steel Services, the points agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting with Mr Stan Gallagher - and related prior events

•  Ignoring the terms of my lease

•  Insistence that I had given my consent to the reply sent by Mr Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 - which I had NOT (NB: Ms McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 and point 80 of Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply)

•  Mr Twyman's refusal to discuss the instructions I had sent him 5 working days before the reply

•  Mr Twyman giving me less than 21 minutes - while I am at work - to review the draft reply I had not seen before and this, in spite of the fact that over a 5-day period I had stated on three occasions that I wanted to review the reply before it was sent

•  My not getting a Witness Statement from Steel Services because Ms McLean assessed "the situation as having been settled" - which it had not

•  Mr Twyman and Ms McLean insistence that I could not make a 20C application that would apply to the whole block. I supplied Ms McLean's letter of 23 June 2003 as proof that Ms McLean and Mr Twyman knowingly provided me with false information.   Concurrently, they used what I consider to be bullying and coercion tactics that, eventually, stopped me from proceeding with my application

With hindsight, my 'mistake' in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham is that I naïvely assumed that if I related events - supported by black on white evidence - the Law Society would act as per its stated remit of "disciplining solicitors as appropriate" .

Indeed, as I wrote to the Legal Services Ombudsman on 22 May 2005 following her refusal to consider my complaint because ".there is no concluded investigatory procedure or resulting decision for me to review." I drew her attention to the following on the Law Society's website :

•    "Who we are - The Law Society is the regulatory and representative body for solicitors in England and Wales "

•  "How the Law Society regulates solicitors - We set the rules of professional conduct - We monitor solicitors to make sure they comply with the rules - We investigate and, if necessary, discipline solicitors who don't meet the standards"

Following on from this, I wrote:

•  The Law Society "sets the rules" through the 'Solicitors Practice Rules'. As stated on its website, these practice rules are "made by the Council of the Law Society."

•  In terms of "disciplining solicitors", it imposes fines that can be in the tens of thousands of pounds - and its Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal strikes off solicitors.

•  My expectation of the Law Society is to "investigate" my complaint "fairly"

In the same letter, I also asked the Legal Services Ombudsman - given her role:

•  "Precisely how many more letters am I expected to write back to the Law Society repeating exactly the same thing: "you have not considered the evidence I supplied"?

•  How many more of their correspondence in which they twist, distort and muddle the facts (all with the aim of wearing me down so that I give up) am I meant to answer?

•  Exactly for how long is this 'game' meant to be taking place? Is it perhaps until I have passed the 3-year deadline for issuing proceedings against Piper Smith & Basham?"

As with every other part of the system I have naïvely (or should I say 'stupidly'?) believed in, I had yet again been conned as it became very clear to me that the Law Society (like the Bar Council) will not of their own volition identify faults committed by their members.

In fact, while both the Law Society and the Bar Council claim to be regulatory bodies, in reality BOTH are trade associations with a focus on protecting the interests of their members. This is a widely recognised fact.  

In support of my statement, I draw your attention to the outcome of the Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services led by Sir David Clementi (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004):

"The current regulatory system is flawed.It has insufficient regard to the interests of consumers...I am not satisfied that the main frontline bodies have always put consumer interests ahead of their own interests."

Being in my nature to 'call a spade a spade', I expressed this view far less elegantly to the Law Society ( 30 November 2004 ) and the Bar Council ( 25 March 2005 ). To both, at the beginning of my letter, I wrote, "it occurred to me that, as your Office has the dual role of 'trade union' and 'regulator' of that profession, this might lead to a potential conflict of interest.   Namely, to use a colloquial expression, that there might potentially be the possibility of your 'not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you'" (NB: My reference to a 'trade union' is wrong. I should have written 'trade association').

I filed a complaint with the Legal Services Ombudsman against the Law Society because after an exchange of correspondence that spanned from March to November 2004, I simply was not getting anywhere. The caseworker was repeatedly ignoring the evidence I supplied.

It is also clear from this protracted exchange of correspondence that the Law Society's intention was to keep me going round 'like a hamster on a wheel' until I accepted its ludicrous assessment.

 

Had I caved in, for the purpose of escalating my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman (given that I am meant to have a "final decision" before doing this - 12 May 2005 reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman) ( nice set-up! ), I can guarantee (although cannot substantiate) that I would then have received the following reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman: "But you accepted their decision. So, what are you complaining about?"   And this reply would have been most strongly put to the fore by the Law Society.

(NB: In making this assertion, I also take into consideration the Legal Services Ombudsman's handling of my other complaint against the Law Society, as well as the handling of my complaint against the Bar Council. See below, as well as Legal Services Ombudsman for further detail)

Hence, the outcome would have been: no action taken against Piper Smith Basham, other than giving me (an insulting) £150-200 (US$260-350) in compensation.   Yes, the caseworker could not even make-up her mind on the amount - as evidenced in her 22 September 2004 letter.   As I captured under point 156 of my 30 November 2004 reply "What is this meant to be for? Postage costs?"

As I had no intention of 'going back on the wheel' and waste many more hours of my time fighting with the caseworker, I did not go back to the Law Society with my complaint against Piper Smith Basham . I felt that the time would be more usefully spent developing my website to expose what has been taking place.

Although not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against Ms McLean and Mr Twyman.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - even if, like me, you are not a lawyer - I believe you have probably arrived at the same conclusion if you have read My Diary for the second part of 2003. And, if you still have doubts, please see Piper Smith Basham for comprehensive detail.

Complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher

The summary of my ' alleged accusations ' against Mr Gallagher is:

"This is a complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher of Arden Chambers, London, for abuse of fiduciary relationship by giving me biased, unbalanced advice, ignoring highly material facts and non-compliance with what had been agreed in relation to a 'Landlord-Tenant' £14,400.19 service charge dispute with Steel Services represented by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors (CKFT) - with detrimental consequences, including on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position"

A significant part of the events in relation to Mr Gallagher is recorded in My Diary under October 2003 and in comprehensive detail under Mr Gallagher and Bar Council section.

Likewise, motivated by the need to have a defence if CKFT issued proceedings against me for alleged breach of contract, initially, I wrote a complaint to Mr Gallagher on 20 January 2004 . In his email of 23 January 2004 , Mr Gallagher referred me to Mr Arden, Arden Chambers.

I sent Mr Arden the 20 January 2004 complaint I had sent to Mr Gallagher, stating in my covering letter of 26 January 2004 "Please, consider the enclosed letter as having been addressed to you, rather than to Mr Gallagher" .

Ten weeks later, I had not received a reply . I knew from the post office that the letter had been delivered on 27 January (see 26 January 2004 ). It led me to file a complaint against Mr Gallagher with the Bar Council on 4 April 2004 with complaint form . I enclosed 50 supporting documents with my complaint. I sent an additional 60 documents with my 29 August 2004 reply.

This generated a 14 April 2004 letter from Mr Michael Scott, Complaints Commissioner, to Arden Chambers asking whether it is going to deal with my complaint. To this, Mr Carter replied on 23 April 2004 that he "would be happy to deal with my complaint" .

This is followed by a 28 April 2004 letter to me from Mr Scott "I am afraid I have not been able to verify exactly what happened between our offices and Chambers but I am quite clear that the Bar Council policy is that Chambers should deal with a complaint, if made to them, in the first instance. So, Chambers will now consider your complaint. If you are not subsequently satisfied, please return to me"

I conclude from this letter that the trade association 'machinery' had been set into motion, in so far as the Bar Council was unjustifiably taking the blame for Arden Chambers not responding to my complaint after a period of 2 months.

Furthermore, in the process, the Bar Council was 'turning a blind eye' to one of its members' breach of the Bar Council Code of Conduct.

I replied to Mr Scott on 3 May 2004 that "I do not accept your proposed course of action. Arden Chambers were perfectly clear as to the procedure for handling complaints. I have more than amply complied with your professional body's complaints guidelines. I therefore expect your Office to deal with my complaint now which includes taking into consideration the fact that Arden Chambers did not reply to my complaint - contrary to your professional body's guidance"

In spite of the evidence supplied, Mr Scott still continued with his 'theme' in his letter to me of 6 May 2004 . While he says that he is "perfectly happy to investigate your complaint" , he concludes by what I consider to be a threat as he states

"It might well have been that they could have given you satisfaction and, if not, you could then have come to me, giving you two rungs of the ladder, so to speak"

By then, four months had gone by since I had filed my complaint with Arden Chambers. It took another two months before I received a reply from Mr Gallagher. Although his reply is dated 9 June 2004 , I only received it on 3 July 2004. In other words, it took five months for me to receive a reply to my complaint

My 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher took-up most of my weekends in July and August.  

During this period, in addition to the fight I was having with the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham, I was also in battle with Kensington & Chelsea housing department in relation to getting the year-end accounts for Jefferson House.   (See below, as well as Council & LGO section). The outcome was that, contrary to my initial expectation, I wrote to the Bar Council on 27 July 2004 that I needed more time to respond.

In its 17 August 2004 letter, the Bar Council, had the audacity to write ".it is in everybody's best interest for this matter to be resolved quickly" .

As I wrote in my 29 August 2004 reply, " Evidently, this view is not shared by Mr Gallagher as it took 5 months for me to get his reply.   During this 5 month period from the end of January 2004 to the beginning of July 2004 it would have been considerably more convenient for me to deal with Mr Gallagher's reply"

The summary of my ' alleged ' accusations in my complaint against Mr Gallagher is:

•  Giving me incomplete and wrong advice and not taking the opportunity to remedy the situation.

•  Acting against my best interests by superficially treating / crafting the wording of highly material points as to make them it incomprehensible / mask the real issues - and misrepresenting the facts in support of his position

•  Making critical changes to the reply to the Claimant's offer without my consent

•  Abuse of the fiduciary relationship, placing great emphasis on - in Mr Gallagher's view - the likelihood that a court would find against me - and thereby assisting Piper Smith & Basham in implementing their coercion tactics to push me into a decision against my will

•  Playing an active role in what I view as Mr Twyman's engineering of the situation calculated to take advantage of the fact that I am at work so that I would not have the time to review the response to CKFT

•  Causing me an enormous amount of stress, anguish, torment and distress - leading to serious consequences on my physical and emotional health requiring the need to seek medical treatment

•  Causing me financial loss

There followed a reply from Mr Gallagher on 11 October 2004 and one from me on 31 October 2004 (with, due to an error, an addendum, dated 2 November 2004 ).  

It took a further three months for the Bar Council to issue its decision

"...of no professional misconduct or inadequate professional service"

dated 27 January 2005 .

I find this assessment UNBELEVABLE!

(Note the double standard: what the Bar Council and Mr Gallagher did v. the Bar Council chasing me for a reply after six weeks - the 17 August 2004 letter)

In the 27 January 2005 letter the Bar Council wrote "Under the Rules, there is no mechanism for you to appeal this decision. If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been considered by the Bar Council, you may approach the Legal Services Ombudsman to investigate the way we have dealt with it."

It also states, "The Committee however, may be prepared to look at the matter again if you have some additional evidence in support of your complaint which was not included in the letters you have already sent" .

To this, I replied under point 78 of my 25 March 2005 response, "Your Office has already been provided with ample evidence and has opted to disregard it" . (All that I did in my 25 March 2005 was to highlight points / evidence that had been ignored and, in the process, provided extensive cross-referencing to previous documents).

Indications are that after my 25 March 2005 reply some communication took place between the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman - suggesting that the Legal Services Ombudsman attempted to assist the Bar Council in making a U-turn ( 1 April 2005 ) .

My objection ( 2 April 2005 ) resulted in another U-turn, this time, by the Legal Services Ombudsman ( 8 April 2005 ) . (See Legal Services Ombudsman for further detail)

And the 'PIECE DE RESISTANCE'...

In his 3 June 2005 letter, the Bar Council caseworker wrote

"...Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about 3 weeks. "

 

 

To which I replied ( 22 June 2005 )

"Should I conclude from this an intention to now use this feeble and, quite frankly, laughable excuse, in defence to my complaint?"

The only possible explanation for this statement (which was also 'dutifully' highlighted by the Legal Services Ombudsman in her 30 August 2005 reply) is a claim that this amount of time was insufficient for Mr Gallagher to give proper advice. (It was the first time that this statement was made).

Given these events (and the Legal Services Ombudsman's replies to my complaint against the Law Society) her 30 August 2005 reply to my complaint against the Bar Council came as no surprise. The penultimate paragraph states:

"I take the view that the Bar Council's response to your complaint namely that you had failed to disclose a sufficient case of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional service against Mr Gallagher was satisfactory"

I find this assessment UNBELEVABLE!

Among others, consider the following comment made by the Legal Services Ombudsman on page 3 of her 30 August 2005 reply...

"The outcome of the (LVT) determination was largely favourable for your landlord"

...against the fact that the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination was to reduce the global sum demanded of £736,000 (US$1.3 million) by nearly 70%, down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (incl. contingency fund). In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered as reasonable.

I had very clearly detailed this outcome in my 5 April 2004 complaint to the Bar Council, under points 7, 22, 23, 51, 82 and 86.

I again repeated this in my 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint - very specifically - under point 48, as well as emphasised it under points 32 - 37, 39, 49, 50, 52, etc.

And yet again, for the third time, I captured this in my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, under points 16, 36, 38, 42, 43, 49 (For detail, see Leasehold Valuation Tribunal).

Mrs Manzoor WAS SUPPLIED with these documents. And she is of the view that the outcome of the LVT determination was "largely favourable for your landlord" !!!

Not only is it abundantly clear that Mrs Manzoor did not read any of the content of my correspondence, it is equally obvious that she did not read Mr Gallagher's replies to my complaint either. Had she done so, she would have seen the following:

•  Under point 21 of his 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint, Mr Gallagher stated that he regarded the LVT determination as "a mix bag".

•  As a result my challenging his comment in my 29 August 2004 reply (points 72 and 73), in his second reply of 11 October 2004, under point 8, Mr Gallagher wrote, "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants"

How much more evidence is required that this Ombudsman has ignored my complaint?

I opted to not waste anymore of my time replying to her letter. I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing the site, instead of wasting it writing a letter drawing attention to points and evidence I had already supplied.   As they were not acknowledged the first time round, nor would they be the second time round. Instead, I have annoted a few comments on her reply.

Yet, although not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against Mr Gallagher.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - even if, like me, you are not a lawyer - I believe you have probably arrived at the same conclusion if you have read My Diary for the latter part of 2003. And, if you still have doubts, please see Mr Gallagher for comprehensive detail.

Likewise, for further comments on the replies from Mr Gallagher and the Bar Council, see the section on Mr Gallagher.

Complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor

The summary of my ' alleged accusations ' against CKFT is:

"This is a complaint against Cawdery, Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA for committing criminal offences against me and causing highly detrimental consequences on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position - in the process of supporting its client, Steel Services' unlawful claim against me of a service charge demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) "

Events in relation to CKFT are covered in various parts of My Diary in 2002, 2003 and 2004, as well as in comprehensive detail under the Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Law Society section.

I sent a complaint and complaint form against CKFT to the Law Society on 20 December 2004 to which I attached 130 supporting enclosure s.

While I had contemplated filing a complaint for a while, what triggered me to do it was the 21 October 2004 invoice for £14,452 (US$25,500) I received from Martin Russell Jones - without any explanation whatsoever.

I saw in this a very clear message that Mr Andrew Ladsky wanted to continue the fight.  

He was not going to 'let go of his bone' .

Given CKFT's method of operating, added to the fact that there appears to be nothing to stop Mr Ladsky from filing a false claim against me in court every day of the week, I concluded that my only solution for stopping him - at least for a while - was to file a complaint against CKFT.

YES, in spite of what CKFT had done until then, this was the trigger for my complaint to the Law Society.

True to form, when I requested a complaint form from the Law Society, the 27 April 2004 reply immediately started-off by stating that the Law Society "does not deal with complaints not made by a solicitor's client" .

It is only in the last sentence (i.e. 20% of the paragraph) that the caseworker finally made the comment that the Law Society will "investigate such complaints where they raise issues of professional misconduct".

In filing my complaint against Piper Smith Basham I had made the assumption that if I related events - supported by black on white evidence - the Law Society would act as per its stated remit of "disciplining solicitors as appropriate" .

Given subsequent events in relation to this complaint, I was adamant that, this time, I would 'pin down' the Law Society.  

I would do this by getting as much knowledge as I could.   It led me to spend many hours (several weekends, as well as evenings) going through the solicitors code of conduct, the Civil Procedure Rules and various Acts.

It felt like sitting for exams all over again - and I was absolutely determined to pass these exams... and with flying colours!

The summary of my ' alleged ' accusations in my complaint against CKFT is:

•  In pursuing instructions on behalf of its client, Mr Andrew David Ladsky (Steel Services), CKFT has acted in breach of:

Rules and principles of professional conduct comprised under 1.01 Practice Rule 1 (basic principles) of The Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors - Principle (a) (independence and integrity);   Principle (d) (repute of solicitors' profession);   Principle (e) (standard of work);   Principle (f) (duty to the Court)

•  CKFT has committed criminal offences under the Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996

Section 16 (1) of the Act: ". by any deception dishonestly obtaining for. another any pecuniary advantage."; Section 21 of the Act: "Blackmail     - (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces."

•  CKFT has committed a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994

Section 4A of the Act:   Makes it a ".criminal offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress with intent by using threatening words"

•  Having committed criminal offences (punishable under UK law), CKFT also committed offences under the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

•  CKFT has committed offences under the Defamation Act 1996 by originating, as well as disseminating to other residents at Jefferson House and, hence, the public at large, County Court documents with my name on them which, it knew, contained defamatory statements about me

See CKFT section for further detail.

I believe that I did 'pin down' the Law Society, in so far as in its 8 February 2005 reply, the Law Society did not leave the door open for further communication.

Of course, no surprise here:

the Law Society dismissed my complaint on the ground that there was "no malpractice" , or because parts of my complaint were "matters for the courts, or for the police"

I nonetheless replied on 19 February 2005 for the purpose of referring my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

Once again, it led me to spend many hours going through the solicitors code of conduct, the Civil Procedure Rules and various Acts.

The Law Society was throwing all the balls back in my court. I would throw them back at them.

It led the Law Society to reply on 17 March 2005

"...this office cannot take any of your concerns any further"

My conclusion from this was: Got you Law Society!

See Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor section for further detail.

Although the Legal Services Ombudsman does not cover the courts, nor the police, given the Law Society's response to parts of my complaint, in my covering letter of 20 February 2005 to the Legal Services Ombudsman, I related my experiences with West London County Court and Kensington & Chelsea police (as well as supplied documents in evidence) and asked her to consider, in light of events, the probability that the courts or the police would take action.

The outcome of referring my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman was, in the reply dated 11 July 2005 :

"...I take the view that the Law Society's response was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified."

I find this assessment UNBELEVABLE!

On 1 August 2005 I acknowledged the Legal Services Ombudsman's reply by just capturing the above sentence. I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing the site, instead of wasting it writing a letter drawing attention to points and evidence I had already supplied.  

As they were not acknowledged the first time round, nor would they be the second time round.

Likewise in the case of CKFT, although not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against this firm, in particular Mr Silverstone and Ms Salim - and that it does not require being a genuis to see that.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - even if, like me, you are not a lawyer - I believe you have probably arrived at the same conclusion if you have read My Diary for the latter part of 2002, 2003, as well as read events in 2004. And, if you still have doubts, please see CKFT for comprehensive detail.

Complaint against Martin Russell Jones

The summary of my ' alleged accusations ' against Martin Russell Jones is:

"This is a complaint against Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, M.R.I.C.S. and Mr Barrie Martin, F.R.I.C.S. Martin Russell Jones, Chartered Surveyors, London NW4 3JL for committing criminal offences against me and causing highly detrimental consequences on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position - in the process of aiding and abetting its client, Steel Services in unlawful service charge demands totaling£28,450 (US$49,500) "

In December 2004, I started to compile a complaint against Martin Russell Jones to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) . It turned out to be the longest of all my complaints.

I had heard from several people that filing a complaint with the RICS would be a complete waste of time - as it was with the other professions' professional bodies - because their focus is on protecting their members' interests - not the end-user, or consumer. I nonetheless opted to go down this route, as this is the proper channel to follow.   If no action was taken, it would complete the set of evidence.

In addition to the code of conduct, a factor that influenced my decision was the fact that, on the RICS website of disciplinary cases, I had seen the case of a surveyor who had 'apparently' been expelled from the RICS. It listed a dozen offences, each followed by the statement that it had been ground for expulsion. One of these was the non-production of accounts.

On seeing this, I thought, given the overwhelming body of evidence I have against Ms Joan Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin, the RICS is bound to take action against Martin Russell Jones.  

Nonetheless, based on my experience to date with the professions' 'so called' regulatory bodies, I was determined to not give the RICS the opportunity for an excuse to not consider my complaint.

During the Christmas break, I went to the RICS' bookshop where I bought a book, 'The RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code'. I went through this book page by page. I also obtained a copy of the code of conduct, as well as a guidance book on applying the code of conduct i.e. aimed at surveyors.

I sent my 2 February 2005 complaint to the RICS with a complaint form , a covering letter of the same date, detailing that my complaint comprised of a 19 page summary supported by a 99 page document (with which I included a detailed contents page ), as well as 220 supporting documents .

It is a long summary as I reproduced the sections, as appropriate, from the Service Charge Residential Management Code, detailing a summary of my complaint under each. I took the same approach with the RICS code of conduct.   I did this to avoid any potential confusion as to what I was referring to, as well as eliminate possibilities for the RICS to 'wriggle out'.

After an initial acknowledgement, I received a letter dated 1 March 2005 , stating "we are able to investigate allegations of professional misconduct to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" .

It also states that the "appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint is "through civil or criminal proceedings" . Also, that the RICS has " no power to award any compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid" .

In my 5 March 2005 reply, I challenged the RICS response to parts of my complaint, every time highlighting the Core Values and Principles comprised in the RICS code of conduct I considered to have been breached by Martin Russell Jones. Hence, to quote the RICS , ". breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" . I also relate the recent outcome of my battle in relation to the year-end accounts.

On 21 March 2005 , I sent a letter to the RICS as further support of a point in my complaint that, "MRJ has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does not respect residents' statutory and common law rights." This was the 28 February 2005 dictate (posted two weeks later on 14 March and received on 16 March) from Ms Hathaway that is, yet again a breach of my lease - associated with the now familiar threat of legal proceedings.

(As I did in my 30 March 2005 reply to Ms Hathaway) I highlighted to the RICS the 'absolute term in my lease under Clause 5 (5) (b) "(The lessor) to remove each day (excepting Sundays) from the flat all domestic refuse and rubbish (the lessee providing his own suitable receptacle)." )

As I had no communication from the RICS, I sent two 'chaser letters'. One on 18 April 2005 , the other on 5 May 2005 . In the latter, I stated that if I did not hear form the RICS by "13 May 2005, I will assume that your Office approves of the conduct of Ms Hathaway and Mr Martin - as detailed in my 2 February 2005 complaint" . I copied the RICS CEO and President on my letter.

It led to a 13 May 2005 reply stating, "I would like to confirm that this department is taking your complaint seriously" .  

It also asked me to supply a summary, to which I replied on 2 June 2005 that I had already supplied one and would not therefore supply another one.

As more than three months had gone by since I filed my complaint, in my 17 May 2005 letter, I listed what I perceived as 'obvious' conclusions from the lack of action by the RICS. Namely, that, as the RICS evidently approved of Ms Hathaway and Mr Martin's conduct, it followed that all the other RICS members who had been involved in my case were all in the wrong.

I finally get a letter from the RICS, dated 10 June 2005 . The caseworker states that he "would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously" . He takes the opportunity to throw back at me various parts of my complaint, including breaches of my lease, which, he states, "amounts to a breach of contract" .

The whole letter is a farce. The caseworker states that the " Service Charge Residential Management Code is not mandatory .is classified as a Guidance Note.an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations"  

He then adds it ". was approved by the Secretaries of State. It is therefore outside the control of the RICS "

Hence, it is called a 'code' but it is not a code. For what purpose has it been "approved by the Secretaries" ?   Decoration of the mantle piece?

Please, consider this reply as well in the context of what the caseworker had written in his 1 March 2005 letter: "Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so"

Continuing on his nonsensical journey, the caseworker then states that the " LVT can take the code into consideration when considering allegations that a member has not followed the recommendations of the code" .   In addition, that "the RICS will consider whether such criticism constitutes a breach of RICS regulations" .

So, while the code is 'apparently' not mandatory, (1) the LVT can base its determination on it and (2) the RICS will then "consider whether there is a breach ".  

If the code is not mandatory and, according to the caseworker, ". an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations" , how can there be a breach?  

A prime example of my being sent from 'pillar to post' .

As to the point in my complaint that Martin Russell Jones has not implemented the LVT determination, the caseworker states that "The RICS does not have the standing to determine something that the LVT did not make a decision on nor can compel the LVT to qualify a decision" .

In other words, the caseworker purposely ignores non-compliance by Martin Russell Jones of S.20 of the L&T Act 1985.

While this reply is a farce, more was yet to come as, in his letter dated 3 August 2005 , the caseworker wrote: "I have received a reply to my letter of enquiry regarding your complaint. I would be grateful if you could review the reply and enclosure and give me your comments. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.".

Of course, he does not supply me with the questions to which the answers relate. Yet, he expects me to comment!

To this, he attached a letter dated 25 July 2005 from Martin Russell Jones who had enclosed copy of what I assume is meant to be the insurance for the block , which, unbeknown to me, has moved to SW1.   (It once again supports one of the points in my complaint that even the address on the 'so called' insurance document is wrong).

Just as well that the RICS "takes complaints seriously" (letters of 13 May 2005 and 10 June 2005 )

For a while, I debated whether I should waste yet more of my time replying to his letter. Eventually, I opted to do this on 14 October 2005 , yet again emphasising some of the key points.

The main points from the LVT determination in relation to the boiler (attached to the above letter from Martin Russell Jones) can be summarised as: "The specification is considered inadequate in that it is vague and lack specific detail.the Tribunal does not consider that it has sufficient information to make a proper judgement and therefore makes no determination in respect of the boilers" .   Furthermore, the need to replace the boilers had actually been questioned by the tribunal during the hearing ( points 23 and 16.07 )

The fact that Martin Russell Jones has sent me this "notice" suggests an intention to charge me for the costs.

I concluded my letter to the RICS by stating "To date, I have not seen any evidence that your Office is taking my complaint seriously" .

The RICS' 4 November 2005 reply was:

To the comment in my 14 October letter, "You do not enclose a copy of your letter to Martin Russell Jones. Yet, you expect me to "review the reply.and give [you] [my] comments.In your 1 March 2005 reply you wrote that you "will be approaching the members named for their comments on three specific matters and one general one". What points did you raise that led to the 25 July 2005 reply from Martin Russell Jones?"

Reply from the RICS: "I am dismayed to learn that it took you ten weeks to inform me that I had not included a copy of the Martin Russell Jones's reply." ( UNBELEVABLE!)

In relation to my re-emphasising some of the key points in my complaint (after which I had stated the documentary evidence I had already supplied to the RICS / the reference number in my complaint under which I had provided detail), the reply from the caseworker was:

"I am quite dismayed by your letter as it appears that you have not taken on board any of the information I clarified to you in my letter of 10 June 2005.

I will not entertain any correspondence that brings new matters into the frame.

I am of the opinion that there is an insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee currently .

Should you be unable to provide corroborative evidence of a breach of the rules, I will have no option other than to close the matter"

I find this assessment UNBELEVABLE!

I concluded that this letter did not warrant a reply.

Contrast the RICS reply with a disciplinary case, as well as another one featured on the RICS website in 2005, for which, for example, non-provision of an insurance certificate within six months of being requested was, 'apparently', on its own, ground for expulsion from the RICS membership.

My conclusion: the RICS is a complete and utter FARCE along with the other 'so called' regulatory bodies of the professions I have come across during the course of my nightmare experience.  

These sectors are totally unregulated and hence: there is NO PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS .

(See Martin Russell Jones and Institute of Chartered Surveyors for further detail)

I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against Ms Joan Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site I believe you have probably arrived at the same conclusion if you have read My Diary since 2002 and continue to read year 2004, 2005 and 2006. And, if you still have doubts, please see Martin Russell Jones for comprehensive detail.

Note at September 2006: Of course, as Martin Russell Jones has the full blessings of its trade association, the RICS, to behave as it does, it is no surprise to discover that it is repeating its 'formula' in other blocks - as evidenced by e.g. the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal case, LON/00AQ/LSC/2005/0258, 12 August 2003 (printscreen of website)

Complaint against Kensington & Chelsea Housing department

I summarised my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman against Kensington & Chelsea Housing department as:

"Evasion of its duty under Section 34 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, which states:   "Proceedings for an offence under any provision of this Act may be brought by a local housing authority"

From June 2004 until January 2005 I also battled with Kensington & Chelsea Housing department to get them, as the " prosecuting authority for contraventions of Landlord - Tenant legislation", to obtain for me a copy of the year-end accounts for Jefferson House as Ms Hathaway was persistently ignoring my requests for a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts. To this, I subsequently added the 2003 accounts which, by then, had become due.

I first sent my request to the department on 6 June 2004 . As I was getting nowhere after several letters to the Tenancy Relations Officer, on 30 August 2004 , I wrote a letter to my Ward Councillor requesting her assistance.

This letter gives detail of events with the Council from June 2004, as well as relates the 10-month struggle I had previously gone through with the department. My Ward Councillor referred my letter to the Chief Housing Officer.

I chased an answer by email on 10 September 2004 and again on 15 September 2004. As none was coming, I filed a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) on 17 September 2004 .

This led my Ward Councillor to send me a letter dated 30 September 2004   to which I replied on 5 October 2004   counteracting her excuses, as well as her misinformation.

The LGO Investigator terminated his 5 October 2004 reply "If I do not hear from you within the next 8 weeks, I will write to you again to see if you are satisfied with the outcome" .

I find the eight-week grace period exceptionally generous given that by the time the LGO Investigator wrote the letter exactly four months had elapsed since I had first approached the Housing department.

It led me to explore where exactly the LGO fits within the government organisational structure and to discover that it comes under the same minister who also responsibility for Local Government (at the time, Mr Nick Raynsford).   While I admit to not knowing the detail of the activities, this looked to me like a conflict of interest (similar to e.g. the Law Society and Bar Council being both, a trade association and a 'regulatory' body).

  As in the case of the LVTs...

...Local Government and the Local Government Ombudsman come under the then Office of Mr John Prescott

I then received a letter from the Chief Housing Officer dated 15 October 2004 to which I replied on 11 November 2004 , and a letter from the Tenancy Relations Officer, dated 25 October 2004   to which I also replied on 11 November 2004 .

I am now extremely tired of the pushback letters I keep receiving from government departments I turn to for assistance. I have also caught on the 'tricks' used by these departments to get rid of people like me. Hence, to short-circuit my being made to go through any more 'loops' all with the aim of wearing me down so that I give up, I made it bluntly clear in my letter that I understood the underlying strategy.

Not surprisingly, this did not go down well. I copied the LGO on both my letters - including stating in my covering letter of 11 November 2004   that I knew where the LGO fitted within the organisational structure.

The outcome is that the LGO Investigator, I nicknamed the 'little dictator' with a grossely inflated sense of power, decided to 'punish me' for it seems, perceiving me as a 'daring nobody', or descriptions in a similar vein .

This is evidenced by the following:

 

 

•  The Investigator copied me on a 16 November 2004 email to the Director of Law and Administration, RBK&C, and another individual at the RBK&C (NB: role unknown) in which he states, among others, that: "We will treat this as a new complaint which will be registered in due course. There is presently a six week delay in allocating complaints."    It is clear that I am the 'true' addressee for this email.

•  I replied that given the contents of his letter of 5 October, I assumed that an error had been made.

•  His reply of the same day, i.e. on 16 October 2004 was "No the statement you quoted is not an error.It seemed to me your letter [i.e. of 11 November] was an expression of dissatisfaction with the Council's response. For that reason I decided that your letter be registered as a new complaint (which it must be as your old complaint is closed)" .  

Compare this with the Investigator's letter of 5 October 2004 .

•  The LGO Investigator then terminates his email by saying: ". I cannot confirm at this stage that your complaint will be pursued or what further action will be taken" .  

My translation : 'Damn you woman! If you think you are going to outsmart us, you won't. We'll do exactly as we planned to do all along: ignore your request for assistance. Who do you think you are to challenge a government department - especially the 'almighty' office of Mr John Prescott?'

At least, the benefit of my approach was that I saved myself endless hours of pointless letter writing and photocopying, as well as a substantial amount in postage. By then, the Council has already cost me well over 200 hours of my life.

On 22 November 2004 , I wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, relating the nightmare I was going through. It 'seems to me that my letter filtered down to the Council and to the 'little dictator'.

I subsequently received a circumlocutionist letter, dated 16 December 2004 , from the Executive Director Housing & Social Services. (See Council and Local Government Ombudsman for further detail)

Amasingly, given his email of 16 October 2004, in January 2005, the LGO Investigator suddenly appeared to be quite keen to assist as he first sent me an email on 13 January and a chaser email on 26 January 2005 . He also phoned me speaking with a tone that I considered to be threatening, leading me to highlight this to him.

The Investigator enclosed the 'accounts' with his letter of 9 February 2005 .   As I explained in my 27 February 2005 reply, even after all of this battle, I still do not have accounts that are compliant with landlord-tenant legislation.

My 27 February reply also contains a comprehensive summary of events with the Council over the previous seven months, including the instances of misinformation, pushback and contradiction by the Council, as well as my Ward Councillor.

It also includes a summary of my experience with the LGO, leading me to write the following concluding statements in my letter (LGO # 6 ):

"Yes [name of Investigator] , there is a hidden agenda which is now very clear to me:   a dictate that landlords are sacrosanct and, quite clearly, some more so than others..

The government would like the public to believe that 'customer orientation' is the new 'mot d' ordre' for government departments.   Quite clearly, this message has yet to filter down to Kensington & Chelsea Housing Department" .

Since then I came across an insightful article in the Times of 16 August 2005 , in which the journalist, Jad Adams wrote:

".LGO Watch. called for the setting up of an independent local government complaints commission to bring order into a system it described as "morally corrupt".

the 2000 Act was supposed to herald a regime of quality, efficiency and leadership.

In fact, it has meant the introduction of the payroll and pork-barrel politics into English local government, along with the acceleration of an arrogant, managerial style of operation" .

I sent him a letter to compliment him on his insights.

January / February 2004

At the beginning of the year, a non-resident leaseholder (evidently with inside knowledge), phoned me at work one evening.

She asked me whether I had:  

received anonymous phone calls;

had my door bell pressed in the middle of the night;  

suffered flooding in my flat;  

had my mail intercepted leading me to have a PO Box;  

been followed;  

had my apartment bugged / phone tapped.  

I replied "yes to all, except the flooding. Is this something that I should be anticipating?" (At the time, I had forgotten about the leak in the bathroom on 11 March 2002)

She then went on to say: "Don't worry, they won't kill you".  

To which, I think, I replied: "Oh well, that's reassuring" .   I was also thinking, considering events with Kensington & Chelsea police - including the comment from DC Adams "You won't be able to prove a link with Andrew Ladsky" - if "they" do kill me, it 'seems' there is a chance that "they" will get away with it.

This leaseholder was 'fishing', trying to find out what I knew about the ownership of the block.

She also wanted to know whether I intended to leave.   When I replied,

"no, it's my home and I am not going to let a bunch of crooks take it away from me" (or words to this effect),

she was taken aback and said "I admire your courage" .

I have not concluded whether this was a call made from somebody who had actually gone through this ordeal herself, or whether it was a call that had been 'set-up' in order to scare me into leaving. The comment "Don't worry, they won't kill you" , makes me tend towards option number two.

She phoned again the following evening, leaving a message on my voicemail. I did not return the call.

Some points about my reply to the leaseholder:

•  I have no evidence that my phone has been / is still being (?) tapped. However, as my telephone line goes somewhere to a box in the block, I conclude that I cannot exclude this possibility. The implication is that I have stopped using my phone for more than two years.

Previously, I was very careful of what I said.   (Note at January 2006 : it looks like my phone line has been cut within the block. I reported my line having gone dead to BT, telephone operator, in December 2005. Although the external connection was re-established, my phone line is still dead).

•  My flat being bugged - Likewise, I have no evidence of this but suspect that it has been and may still be.   Why?  

In 2003 the flat on the other side of mine (left when facing my windows) was empty. However, regardless of the time at which I came back, I could see a faint light in the kitchen. (I excluded the possibility that it came from e.g. the clock on an electrical appliance, as it was brighter).

During this time, one evening, after midnight, I heard a metal noise on the other side of the wall. The noise was very close i.e. indicating that there was not much thickness in the wall / quite close to the plaster on my wall. The noise sounded like a metal object was turned into / against the wall in the flat.

Was it a listening device? I do not know. However, since early 2003 if I have a conversation in the flat, I am conscious that it may be overhead. Consequently, I do not use my mobile phone either. As to having friends visiting me, I have also stopped that a long time ago given events (see November 2003 + tyres on 12 February 2004 + spy camera in 2005)

Note at January 2006 / February 2006 - I have two spotlights in the ceiling by my bed. Late at night, as I was in bed, I could see one of the spotlights being faintly lit up. I had not switched on the spotlights. The same thing had happened the previous year - with both spotlights. At the time, I determined the reason to be because some tiles had been removed from the ceiling in the corridor leading to the light from the corridor shining on the base of my spotlights.

This was not the case this time. Hence, the only possible explanation is that the light came either from a hole in the wall of the flat next door, or a hole in the entrance corridor. I determined that there was no hole in the corridor - leaving a hole in the wall in the flat next door as the only explanation.

I have to say that I ensure 'they' get 'full value' from their bugging device .

Works took place in the flat from which I had heard a metallic sound during 2004. Since late 2004 / early 2005 the flat has been occupied. Same thing with the flat that it is on the right hand side of mine (right when facing my windows).

Until c. August 2005, regardless of the time at which I came back, generally, only these two flats on either side of mine had lights on. Only very occasionally did I see a light in 1-2 of the other c. 18 (?) flats that overlook onto Basil Street .

On 12 February 2004

A friend who was visiting me left his bike along the railing in front of my windows.   On our return from the cinema, both tyres were deflated .

On 30 March 2004 - c. 21h00

Coming back from work, as I started to come down Basil St coming from Sloane St , having just come off the bus, I could feel that a man was walking very closely behind me .   As I was by the Chinese shop, Shanghai Tang (?) where there is a little recess, I placed myself against the recess so that it would be more difficult for somebody to attack me.  

The man was immediately behind me.  

He stopped by the shop window, looked at me.   I purposely did not look at him straight in the eyes.   I could feel he was trying to be menacing .

He was of Afro Caribbean origin, young, probably under 30 yrs.   He pretended to look at the shop window (which displayed female clothing and a few items of furnishing). He looked at me again. It was very clear that his interest was in me, not the shop window. My facial expression and body language were saying:   you are not frightening me and I am not going to move until you do.   He went back up Basil St .

All of this took place in under one minute.   I continued walking down Basil St .   As I came to cross Pavillion Road , I turned round. The man was standing on the corner of Basil St and Sloane St and was looking at me.   I turned into Pavillion Rd and hid into an entrance recess to see if he would come down the street.   I stayed there for a few minutes.   I did not see him.

31 March 2004

For the previous three months, I had been battling with CKFT to get a consent order endorsed. It led me to go to West London County Court to determine what movement had taken place on my case.

I was told that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March 2004. This was news to me, as I had not received any communication whatsoever. After nearly one hour spent challenging the court staff and fighting off their attempts at fobbing me off, I finally got the admission that the judgement had in fact been entered against another leaseholder). (Details of this event are captured, among others, in my 29 June 2004 letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

Hence, for the second time now , I am wrongly informed by West London County court that an action concerns me. More was yet to come!

28 May 2004

A hearing took place in West London County court on 28 May 2004 .

I missed this hearing due to West London County Court 's fault.

It was a combination of the fact that the court did not follow instructions, plus giving only a few days notice of the hearing.

IT WAS A SET-UP by the Andrew David Ladsky mafia and it devoted flunkeys

Subsequent note: It was organised by the Andrew David Ladsky mafia - with its devoted corrupt flunkeys in West London County Court only too happy to (continue) providing support to the extortion.

At this 'hearing', Ms Ayesha Salim is recorded as having agreed to the text of the consent order I drafted.

I was absolutely frantic when I realised that a hearing had taken place without my being present.

I had good reason for this.

Indeed, among others, as can be seen from the 28 May 2004 order, the judge agreed to the action being stayed thereby suggesting that I could end-up back in court (WLCC # 13.2).

Subsequent note - As can be seen under paragraph 5 of the 23 August 2004 'reply' from the court service, following my 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer, of 29 June 2004, the judge did this in spite of knowing that "in particular case it is acknowledged that an agreement had been reached" (Falconer # 3)

I did (eventually! Of course, after, yet again another battle - see Lord Falconer of Thoroton, West London County Court) get a transcript of the hearing - which makes interesting reading - including the comments from the judge who, as can be seen, took his directions entirely from Ms Salim . Indeed, he admitted that he had not read the skeleton argument

"because it was delivered late"  

As I highlighted in some of my complaints "Is the role of a judge that of a mere 'paper pusher'?"

Subsequent note - Actually, more evidence to add as further endorsement of my claim that courts are 'paper pushers' : see My Diary 9 March 2007 and 4 April 2007 for damning evidence in relation to the fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002, as well as another fraudulent claim filed against me on 27 February 2007

Subsequent note - More accurately: CORRUPT - Snapshot in My Diary 11 November 2008

12 June 2004

I receive a 9 June 2004 Notice of Transfer of Proceedings from West London County Court. As can be seen, it gives my name as the 'Defendant' and in the box headed "To the Defendant" states my name and my home address. In other words: it most definitely concerns me. The Notice reads:

"As a result of an order made on 28 May 2004, the claim has been transferred to Wandsworth County Court for trial before Circuit Judge"

I am in a state of extreme shock, panic and distress, as I simply do not understand what is going on. There is no explanation whatsoever.   Why am I going to end-up in a trial? How could I possibly end-up in a trial?   Yet again, and now for the fourth time, I find myself the victim of a complete and utter shambles by the courts .

 

This was followed by six weeks of terrible anguish, torment and distress entailing endless correspondence, as well as phone calls to West London County court and Wandsworth County court.

 

26 July 2004

I finally receive a brief reply from Wandsworth County Court, dated 23 July 2004 :

"You are not required to attend the hearing on the 17th August 2004 as your case has now settled ( sic). Part 5 of the order of 28 May 2004 states that it is the claim against the 5th defendant that was to be listed".  

This was followed by a confirmation dated 27 July 2004 .

Not only do I not get an apology from the court, it, in effect, tells me that I am an illiterate idiot.

 

 

I received from Wandsworth County Court a 'General form of Judgement or Order' dated 2 August 2004 : (1) It is ordered that the 5th Defendant do pay the Claimant the sum of £4,538.29 being the balance of the sums claimed, by 16 August 2004 (2) The 5th Defendant do pay the Claimant's costs of these proceedings to be detailed assessed if not agreed (3) The 5th Defendant do pay the sum of £548.04 to the Claimant being the interest due on the sums claimed"

So, the 5th and last valiant Leaseholder 'capitulated' but, as suggested by the evidence, on entirely different terms from those determined by the LVT. Indeed:

(i) following the hearing on 26 August 2003, the 5th Defendant agreed to pay the sum of £8,839.36 (US$15,600) (this is captured in the 26 August 2003 Order);

(ii) the original sum demanded of the 5th Defendant for "Major Works Contribution" was £15,637.02 (US$27,600).

So much for the LVT determination and Steel Services not being entitled to charge leaseholders differentially AND my bringing the LVT determination to the attention of the Judge, Wandsworth County Court, in my letter dated 22 July 2004 .

I give this as further evidence in support of my summary for the section on the courts: "The English In justice system"

26 August 2004

Given the continuation of my nightmare with the courts (in addition to everything else!), by the end of June 2004 I was feeling so distraught by events, and yet again at my wits end, that, on 29 June 2004 , I wrote a letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, primarily asking for his help.

The 'reply' I received two months later (dated 23 August 2004 ) from the Head of Customer Service Unit, Court Service, is defiant, arrogant, patronizing and dismissive: it does not recognise any wrongdoing.

In other words, the type of letter I have now become so accustomed to receiving whenever I have turned to a government body for help.

True, there are several apologies in this letter, but the majority are counter-balanced by excuses or patronising / challenging statements, as well as what I would describe as euphemisms for 'get lost':

Furthermore, in this instance, it contains a higher than usual dose of insult to my intelligence.

I refer in particular to the third sentence contained under the second bullet point in reply to my complaint that the 9 June 2004 Notice of Transfer of Proceedings had been addressed to me. He wrote:

"Unfortunately, this can be very confusing as the order has your name on it and leads you to believe that it relates to you when it actually refers to another defendant."

In light of this, I made the mental note that, in future, I must remember that when I receive correspondence from a government body, such as for example an income tax demand from the Inland Revenue, I can ignore it even though it only has my name on it and my address and nobody else's. This, is the logical extension of his statement.

Note also how the Court Service washes its hands of responsibility: "If you feel that the Judge has made a mistake, the correct procedure for you to follow is to appeal that decision to a Judge at a Higher Court " .

And if you don't have the financial means to do it? Well, evidently: tough!

My conclusion on Lord Falconer' s department:

WARNING:

THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

CAN CAUSE SERIOUS LASTING DAMAGE TO YOUR HEALTH

Running in parallel with all of this, from September 2003, I also went through sheer, utter hell with my 'advisors' and CKFT.   (See Piper Smith & Basham, CKFT and Mr Gallagher )

End August 2004 - My surveyor undertakes a condition survey of my flat

In August 2004, I asked my surveyor to undertake a condition survey of my flat in case damage was caused as a result of the works (for which the scaffolding started to be put in place). This added another £1,000 (US$1,760) to my ever-mounting costs.

Among others, what prompted me to do this was a letter from Mr Barrie Martin, Martin Russell Jones, requesting access to my flat by Mr Brian Gale to conduct a survey in case of damage to my flat, which would lead to a claim on the insurance.

While I initially agreed to this, having though about it, I concluded that if I had a claim to make, I was under no obligation to have Mr Gale involved. In fact, the evidence very strongly pointed to not getting Mr Brian Gale involved.

Indeed, in addition to the damning report by the LVT of 17 June 2003 , I also came across a 1994-97 High Court case against Mr Gale for negligence. I communicated this in my 23 August 2004 letter, which was in reply to a 19 August 2004 letter from BGA.

This is in addition to the lies made by Mr Brian Gale against me in his 24 February 2003 report to the LVT - as I highlighted in my 13 March 2003 reply.

To this must also be added his lies in relation to the construction of a penthouse flat in his 13 December 2002 report to the LVT 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"

Contrast events as well with the February 2002 photographs taken by Mr Gale of the back of Jefferson House at the time he undertook the condition survey in January-February 2002 and what he wrote in the summary of his accompanying report

"...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.

End of 2004 - Andrew Ladsky and his thugs, Martin Russell Jones, are taking their revenge

 

 

After a respite that followed the endorsement of a Consent Order by Wandsworth County Court on 1 July 2004 (see WLCC # 12 and # 13), the nightmare came back in full force in October 2004 when I received a 21 October 2004 invoice 'from' Martin Russell Jones =Andrew Ladsky, for £15,447.86 (US$27,330) which included a 'Brought forward balance, £14,452.17 " (US$25,500).

There was NO explanation whatsoever as to what the sum refers to i.e. there was NO supporting documentation. This is the same amount as the original 17 July 2002 demand (also in the 29 November 2002 WLCC claim). Hence: as though no "offer" had been made, accepted and paid.  

(I had previously received an invoice 'from' MRJ =Ladsky dated 24 May 2004 that stated "Brought forward balance, £13,430.5 " (US$23,700) which, likewise, provided NO explanation whatsoever)

Another invoice followed 'from' MRJ =Ladsky, dated 16 November 2004, stating: "Brought forward balance, £15,447.86 " (US$25,500) - likewise, with NO explanation whatsoever.

Please note that, by 21 October 2004:

•  Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor had taken payment from me of the sum of £6,350 several months previously as evidenced in its 17 February 2004 letter. (Note that of these £6,350, it had, by then, received payment of £2,255 (US$4,000) for more than a year as evidenced by the 26 August 2003 Order and my 3 September 2003 letter to Piper Smith Basham

•  I had informed Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, of this in my letter of 31 December 2003 , stating "I have submitted to CKFT full and final payment of my share of the costs for carrying out all the major works at Jefferson House (£6,350.85). (NB: My 19 December 2003 letter to CKFT). This was a NatWest cheque #1413. Also for your information, in the same correspondence sent to CKFT on 19 December, I also enclosed cheque NatWest #1414 for £264.04 in full payment of electricity charges"

Considering that the courts view it as perfectly acceptable to give a 5 day notice of hearings (I have usually had barely over a week's notice).

And, in addition, the fact that, when I missed a hearing due to the court's fault (on 28 May 2004 ) it nonetheless went ahead with it (as evidenced by the ensuing Order (name blocked out as it showed that of the 1 st Defendant followed "+ others" ) and the transcript ) (detail under WLCC # 13), it led me to cancel my long haul Christmas holiday .

Equal: another holiday ruined , and a very dear friend disappointed in the process)