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

• The continuation of the battle with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) which eventually resulted in the expected 'no malpractice' verdict

• More 'get lost' from one of Lord Falconer's department; this time, the Land Registry

• But. against of all that - events have taken place which, I 'think' will sensitise people to my case. Namely, a government that has come under attack in the media on all fronts, which include identification / claims of corruption. I'll have to wait and see... and pray!

(SUBSEQUENT NOTE: In reading events, consider what is reported in MY DIARY 13 APRIL 2008 : media reports of a couple being spied on by its local council, and councils and government departments employing an army of 850 'covert human intelligence sources' to spy on people )

Wednesday 4 January 2006

I am convinced that I continue to be followed on a daily basis. So, at lunch time today, I decide to again put it to the test. I go to Blackfriars tube station (consequently unusual for me to do this at lunch time, suggesting I am going somewhere). I stay in the corner, in between the ticket office and the automatic ticket dispenser (as though I might be waiting for somebody), but out of the way so that I will not inconvenience anybody. There is nothing 'suspicious' for the first 4-5 minutes.

After that a man arrives, c. 1.90m, Caucasian, mid to late 30s, glasses, wearing a black leather jacket, black trousers and black sporty shoes. He spends over a minute reading a notice on one of the boards next to which I am standing. He then goes to the automatic ticket dispenser. He looks at it for nearly one minute, making a face like he cannot figure things out.

He then goes to have a look at the rail & underground map which is a few meters away. He comes back again to have a look at the ticket dispenser, still with an expression as though he cannot understand. (He could easily have gone to the ticket office if he required assistance. There is not a queue).

He then goes to the pamphlet holder which is about 1.5 meter to the right of the automatic ticket dispenser. He takes a leaflet and looks at it for 2-3 minutes. He repeats the same thing with another leaflet, and another one, and another. During this time he occasionally looks in my direction, but not at me. I believe he does this because his attention has been caught by people arriving in the station.

After c. 10 - 12 minutes of this, I go through the automatic barriers, down the stairs in order to get to the platform .

Another man, late 30s, blond, wearing a dark blue-greyish, padded blouson is a few steps behind me as I walk down the steps to the platform. As I am pacing on the platform, keeping him in my line of vision, he goes to the kiosk to buy a newspaper.

At this point, I leave the platform and go back up to go out of the station. The man who had been looking at the leaflets is still there. I come out of the station through a side exit. I then run across the street. When I am on the other side, I turn around.

The blond man with the dark blouson has also come out of the station and is walking on the pavement.

I am certainly left in no doubt that I am being followed.

While these two men were of 'type 2' i.e. appear to have more experience of doing this type of thing than 'type 1' (e.g. the two men on Christmas day), I still tricked them! (I need to get a few laughs where I can!)

Sunday 15 January 2006

I definitely continue to be followed on a daily basis. Today I am due to meet with my Cousin in Canterbury . I walk from the 'hell hole' i.e. the flat to Victoria National Express coach station, changing direction twice on my way there (to confuse the 'minders'). I queue for a ticket but I am told that I have missed the 10h30. I nonetheless buy a ticket thinking I might take the 11h30 bus instead. I go into a corner, which is in a recess, in the same area to call my Cousin. I am therefore out of view when people come into the ticket hall. Quite a few people arrive.

However, my 'internal radar' is activated by one man, short grey hair, mid-late forties, c. 1.88m, wearing a navy blue, thigh high, padded, all-weather jacket. My 'internal radar' goes on 'alert'.

Like a significant number of men who have been following me since Summer 2005, he looks as though he could be a cop. (Of course, he might not be. I am just reporting my impressions). There is something about him that makes it fairly obvious that he has not come in the ticket hall to buy a ticket.

He gives me a hard look as he goes by and continues walking for a few steps. He then turns round and again looks at me with the same stern, hard facial expression. I return the compliment. He yet again turns around and walks to the end of the ticket hall, thereby walking alongside the people who are queuing. At the end, he turns right and walks back, also alongside the people who are queuing, but on the other side i.e. he walks alongside the ticket counters that are manned. As he goes passed me, he again looks at me with the same nasty look. Yet again, I return the compliment.

After c. one minute, I leave the area. Four young men who had been standing nearby, also start walking as I do.

I had spotted another man, late thirties, hair greying on the side, black leather blouson, black jeans, sporty, thick sole brown shoes, small brown holder strapped around his waist. He had been walking around and, when I looked at him, started to look at a small leaflet that he had been holding with his hands clasped behind his back. As I come out of the hall, he is inside close to the entrance. (I took a photograph of him)

I go into the street, where I stop a few metres from the entrance to observe movements. The four young men also station themselves about 3 metres from me. They start smoking and occasionally look in my direction. I, likewise, look at them. After c. 2 minutes, they cross onto the other pavement that is on the side of Victoria station. They look in my direction 2-3 times. (I agree, there may not have been anything suspicious there. I should also say that, at times, I must be looking a bit 'odd' to other people).

I walk back into the hall to see if I can spot the man with the grey hair and padded jacket. I cannot see him. I walk out of the hall onto the pavement and turn right to go to the bus stop in order to get the number 11 bus as I have decided the next bus would get me to Canterbury too late for lunch. After about a minute, the man, wearing a black leather blouson who had been standing inside close to the entrance also walks out and walks away in the opposite direction. I think he crossed the road. I was not paying too much attention as I was looking out for the bus. It was not the right one but one arrived shortly afterwards.

Before it does, I notice another, late 30's, dark hair man , wearing a longish black leather jacket. He is resting alongside the wall of the building in a little recess, close to the bus stop. He starts using his mobile phone. I also take a photograph of him. I board the bus that has arrived and go on the top deck from where I continue to observe the man.

As he looks up at me, I smile, a kind of sneer, as one can to oneself.

He looks back down. He then also smiles to himself.

If he is one of the 'minders', I assume he is thinking that I tricked them.

That thought cheers me up.

How dare they follow me around? **I AM NOT THE CRIMINAL! (*)**

(*) re. the use of the word 'criminal' see 'Breach' under Definition of words, and Extracts from legislation

I get off the bus at Westminster Bridge and go down the tube station but in order to come out from the exit closest to the bridge. I walk on Westminster Bridge then go down the steps walking alongside the river, past the London Eye. (I am just thinking: overseas visitor to the site, you are getting a guided tour of central London !).

I stop to buy a sandwich and a drink in Gabriel's Wharf and continue walking in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge . Hence, towards my ultimate direction: the office. Just before the Oxo tower, there is a little garden area. I sit on a bench that is at the back of the area, about 25-30 metres away from the river. I open the drink I have just bought and stay there for a little while.

I notice a man , walking alongside the river, in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge . He is relatively short, very short hair / nearly bold (I cannot quite determine from where I am), possibly late 30s. (He looks the same type as e.g. the second man on Christmas day; the man on 16 July 2005 i.e. ' type 1' ).

He looks in my direction at least 2-3 times as he walks along. (I should say that for somebody strolling alongside the river, the river side view vs. where I am is a lot more attractive and interesting). I lose sight of him as he walks away. After about 5 minutes he is back i.e. has turned around. He again looks in my direction as he is walking along. The second time he does this, I wave in his direction as I am now getting fairly convinced that he is interested in what I am doing. (I am the only person in the little garden area). He continues walking, while looking in my direction two more times.

I get up and exit the garden from the back, turning left i.e. end-up walking at the back of the Oxo Tower and other buildings that are alongside the river.

It is a small street and is practically deserted.

As I have walked for about 45 metres, I turn around and who do I see?

Yes, the relatively short man of a few minutes ago. At the time that I look at him, he was about to turn right and has turned around. I wave in his direction. (Might as well help him find me again!)

I continue walking in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge and hid in a recess in case he walks by. He does not. However, I note two cyclists going in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge .

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: I think you will agree that, from what I am reporting in this Diary, I am being followed - and it appears to be by a small army.

Who is footing the bill?

I wonder for how long this is going to go on.

What the objective is and how and when will it end?

Given the 'type 2' profile that has emerged since August 2005, (and bearing in mind the bombing in the London underground in July 2005), I wonder if I was reported to the police for 'suspicious acting' : I have not opened the blinds in the flat since November 2004; I leave the flat by 8h30 at the latest and tend to return past midnight, spending the time in the office - and do this seven days a week (except weekends when I leave the flat a bit later). IF I am right, the 'acrobatics' in which I have engaged in the last few months on my way to and from work in order to annoy the 'minders' will have further added to the suspicions.

I have been discussing this with family and friends. Again, emphasising IF this is indeed what has happened, another trigger, potentially 'more likely', might be the fact that, in 1998, I spent the Christmas holiday in Yemen. It was an organised tour.

Visitor to the site, you may be aware that, in Yemen , the carrying of guns in full day light is as common as wearing shoes. (I have a photograph of a notice at the entrance of a hotel in which our group stayed that states: "Please leave your gun outside" ). The driver in the lead car always had a gun. One day, while we were in a remote area, I had a photograph taken with the gun resting on my shoulder.

During our trip, some English tourists were kidnapped. (It was a question of c.15 minutes as they had just overtaken us while we had stopped in a village i.e. potentially, it could have been our group). Tragically, some were killed. On our return to the UK , all the members of my group were contacted by Scotland Yard and asked to supply all the photographs we had taken, as well as the negatives. I did so, of course including the photograph on which I was holding the gun i.e. as shown here.

Might it be that this photograph was recently dug out of files as a result of the heightened security measures? On the other hand, it would surely be realised that if I had something to hide, I would certainly not have had this photograph taken in the first place.

Furthermore, had I done this, if I had something to hide, I certainly would not have given the photograph to Scotland Yard (and the negatives i.e. showing all the other photographs taken on the film).

Does any of the above explain why I am being followed? I have no idea . However, somehow, I do not think so. Somebody with two brain cells, while concluding that something is evidently taking up a lot of my time, could not arrive at the conclusion that I am masterminding a terrorist attack. (All I do on a seven -day basis is 'hell hole' to office, back to 'hell hole').

What I believe is that I am being followed because of the fight I am putting up since 2002 - and the very damning evidence I have accumulated against various parties in the process. IF, and it is a BIG IF, my feeling is correct that some of 'my minders' are connected with the police, then, the cost to date must be very substantial.

When discussing this with friends and family - saying that it would be madness taken to the extreme...

...I give them the example of Kensington police which, in 2003, was widely reported in the media as having spent Pounds 5-7 million (US$12.4-8.8 million) of taxpayers' money investigating one of its own.

The net result of this massive expenditure was an admission that

" [the Officer]...may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700)"

The following are extracts from two of the many press articles at the time.

The Times , 16 September 2003

"Police tried to destroy me, says cleared officer - A FOUR-YEAR corruption investigation into a top-ranking police officer collapsed yesterday, leaving taxpayers with a bill of up to Pounds 5 million (US$8.8 million) "

"Superintendent Ali Dizaei.was the focus of the biggest investigation of a policeman, involving 100 officers, MI5, the Inland Revenue and police in the United States and Canada . He was trailed, bugged and filmed "

"The officer had been accused of being a drugtaker, a threat to national security and a friend of drug traffickers and money launderers. But the marathon inquiry ended in ignominy for the Metropolitan Police when the only remaining actual charge , fiddling Pounds 270 (US$480) mileage expenses, was dropped "

"Dr Dizaei [said] .I find it astonishing and extraordinary that taxpayers' hard-earned funds could be abused in this way."

"His defence described the investigation as having "Orwellian proportions". One undercover officer joined his gym hoping to entrap him over drugs. Police spent Pounds 15,000 (US$26,500) renting a flat in Kensington as part of the officer's cover story"

"Surveillance teams followed Dr Dizaei for 91 days. Police recorded 3,500 telephone calls and monitored 250 hours of conversation . CCTV cameras watched him all over London . Police checked his claims to a married man's allowance and even went to his dry cleaner to see if he got a discount "

"The jury cleared him in two hours"

"Charges that Dr Dizaei had fiddled mileage expenses were dropped at the Old Bailey yesterday, two weeks before a second trial was due. The CPS had realised that it could probably claim that only Pounds 270 (US$480) might have been fiddled. It also admitted that Dr Dizaei... may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700) "

The Guardian , 20 March 2004

".By the time he was tried last year, all charges had been dropped, bar two: perverting the course of justice (over where his car had been parked) and misconduct in public office (relating to a pounds 270 (US$480) expenses claim)"

After an estimated pounds 7 million (US$12.4 million) of public money had been spent on the investigation, he was acquitted on both counts at two Old Bailey trials"

".the prosecution was forced to admit that, rather than overclaiming pounds 270 (US$480) from the Black Police Association (BPA), Dizaei was owed around pounds 400 (US$700) "

"Dizaei [said] "Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine there were 44 people you worked with who got up every morning for three years , with all the executive power at their disposal, all the money they wanted.." The 44 people he refers to are the officers who formed Operation Helios, the team created to investigate him in 1999"

"At his trial last year, documents disclosed to the defence revealed the lengths to which Helios officers were prepared to go to find something of which they could accuse Dizaei."

"Fly to south of France to obtain statements from a concert-goer re sale of concert tickets"

"Trace and take statement from every taxi driver who has given defendant a receipt since 1998."

This is how far Kensington police et. al. are prepared to go - at the taxpayers' expense.

Note at end July 2006 - Whatever the true reasons that motivated the above, as reported in the press, it simply does not make any sense for the police to have me under 24hr surveillance for, so far, a whole year.

IF I was maliciously reported to the police as engaging in some activity construed as a potential threat to national security, it surely would not take that long to conclude that this was not the case.

What would they have been reporting for a whole year? Well, all that they would have been able to report is: spends her life in the office, including holidays, and gives us the run around on her way to and back from there. Occasionally, sees the same handful of people (against which the police cannot have anything. Some of these people are members of C.A.R.L. ).

(Because I am in full time employment, I can only develop the site in the evenings, at weekends and during my annual leave. So obviously, I have no time for doing anything else. I am sure that anybody who sees the content of the site will have no difficulty believing that it has taken over 2,000 hours to develop. On top of which, I have also had to learn using some software packages in order to do it.

In addition, I have also had some 'battles' going on during that period that have taken up a lot of my time e.g. the ICAEW; the 10 February 2006 so-called 'notice of first refusal' (also covered below under 18 February); the Land Registry (see 28 March 2006, as well as towards the end of the section on Lord Falconer of Thoroton)).

SO: the most 'logical' explanation for my suspicions that some of the 'minders' are connected with the police is that they are ex. policemen employed by the private sector. The company is making a fortune! Maybe I should ask it for a commission? (Joke!)

Third week January 2006

I collected my post from the PO Box and found an invoice from Martin Russell Jones , dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a

"Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900) .

Yet again, no explanation provided .

Hence, what is the amount currently hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300) (?) £14,500 (US$25,600) (?) £5,625 (US$9,900) (?), or all three combined, making a total of £35,625 (US$63,000)?

Other components of the correspondence are BOGUS / FRAUDULENT. See below the 18 February 2006 entry for detail, as well as Pridie Brewster

Saturday 21 January and Sunday 22 January 2006

I spent the weekend on the south coast with two of my cousins. I believe we were followed. One man in particular who gave me a nasty look on the 2-3 occasions I looked at him. (It might have something to do with the fact that for the last two weeks or so when I spot a 'might be' I sing 'let the dogs loose' and / or let the [scums] [Note] loose' as I go past. Well, it will only offend those who feel it could apply to them).

It also seemed to me that there was at least a couple (the man was tall; the woman considerably shorter, short hair died in a strong red/aubergine colour). I also spotted another couple that seemed interested in our movements. They were looking at a house that had a 'for sale' sign, as well as looking in my direction 2-3 times. They went into what, on the face of it, was an involved discussion in relation to the house. However, it came across to me as a 'show'.

On my return on Sunday, I also spotted other things.

Monday 23 January 2006

On leaving the block, as I walk towards the end of Basil Street , my 'internal radar' switches on as I spot a man stationary on the pavement. He is of 'type 2' i.e. 'appears' to me as though he could be a cop . Of course, as I have stated in earlier instances, he might not be . I am just reporting my impressions. At least, unlike the others, he does not have that arrogant, defiant, superior, smug look.

There is a bucket and mop / something to clean windows next to him i.e. as though he is a window cleaner. However, his body language suggests otherwise to me. He is as connected to these items as I am i.e. not at all. I decide to walk up to him to ask him for the time. As he sees me walking in his direction he seems to me to be getting slightly ill-at-ease. When I ask him for the time, he tries to suppress a little smile.

When I get to the bus stop to catch the #9 bus, I spot another man, stationary on the other pavement, quite a distance up from the bus stop. Tall, thin, wearing a woolen hat, dressed in workout type clothes. He is looking in my direction every 10-15 seconds. When the bus arrives, I wave in his direction. Might as well say goodbye!

I get some good news when I get to the office as I find an email from a friend who attached a copy of an article published in the Property section of the Daily Telegraph of Saturday 21st . I missed it! It talks about my case and that of other leaseholders. (The journalist had phoned me a while back. I thought the newspaper had dropped the idea).

The good news is not my being mentioned (it is now the fourth time that my case is covered in the press, and the impact has been: ' ZERO') (hence providing further support to my claim that 'there is absolutely nothing on this island to help me'), but the fact that the whole of the first page shows the photograph of a man in chains with padlocks. The caption, in large bold letters reads:

"It's a feudal form of property ownership and new laws do little to protect us. Everywhere leasehold has us tied in chains" .

Well done Daily Telegraph! If only this could be picked-up as a media-wide campaign.

It is now 22h30. I wish I could stay in the office all night. I dread going back to the 'hell hole'. However, best pack-up and go as I got up very early this morning.

Rest of week beginning 23 January 2006

More of the same thing: I definitely continue to be observed / followed. On leaving the block to go to work in the morning, I again saw men, stationary on the pavement (one man immediately across the block on the other pavement; another one on the corner with Hans Crescent ) (who was there two days running) looking at me with insistence as if to say: "Look we are! We are watching you!" The one on the corner in particular, had this nasty, arrogant and superior hard look (same type as on e.g. 15 January 2006 - the man who went round the ticket hall)

I am really glad I am giving them a hard time, provoking them to the extent that it leads them to adopt this behaviour.

Their male ego cannot cope with a woman giving them the run around.

How unbelievably stupid! Well, I suppose that if they had the brain to do something intellectually challenging they would not be standing endlessly on pavements taking root like vegetables.

On the first day, I had stopped across the one on the corner, resting my left hand on my hip and looked from one to the other (they were both looking at me) while shaking my head suggesting "you pathetic, sad people! Contempt inducing scums! "

Maybe the best policy would be to pretend I don't see them. But it makes me very angry to have such an invasion of my privacy.

By doing this, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, EVERY SINGLE TIME they commit a criminal offence against me. They are also breaching my Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Respect to private life.

I am being watched, spied on and monitored as though I am a criminal. I AM NOT A CRIMINAL. I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG .

Years ago, when I read George Orwell '1984', I thought: "This is just fiction" . Not any more.

Apparently, there are more CCTV cameras per head of population on this island than anywhere else in the world. Quite a few people I have discussed this with, hold the view that, contrary to the claim, these cameras are not for the benefit of the 'common man and woman' in the street. (As an example, see Knightsbridge tube station (in a wealthy part of town) for the ridiculous number of CCTV cameras. You would think that it houses the crown jewels. Definitely a case of 'Big brother' is watching you absolutely everywhere!)

During February 2006

I still continue to be followed / observed and having a bit of fun with it by challenging the 'minders'. I am not capturing events because it takes a long time to explain. However just the following two.

On Sunday 26 February 2006, or more precisely Monday at it was c. 00:10 a.m. I again saw the man I had seen on Saturday 10 September 2005 at 23h45.

This time he was sitting in a car across the same bus stop on Fleet Street. It was the same car as previously.

I crossed the road to note the make of the car, as well as look at the number plate which, I realised, I had not noted quite correctly on the previous occasion. It is an unusual number plate composed of five letters and no number. The first two letters, which start with 'SI' are together.

The make of the car is a Subaru estate, cream colour.

(NB: I saw him again on Saturday 18 March 2006 and on Monday 24 April 2006 at 00h15 a.m.).

Within 30 seconds of my being behind the car, a woman of Far East origin came running out the building along which the car was parked and hurriedly jumped in the car. She was not wearing a coat. It was quite cold that night. They departed immediately.

On Tuesday 28 / Wednesday 1 March , I opted to do one of my little detours on my way to work. It was about 08h40. I walked alongside the back of Harrods to go to Brompton Road . On the corner, with Hans Road, there is a Barclays bank. It has two automatic cash dispensers on the Brompton Road side. A man was standing idly in front of one of them. Early 40s, c. 1.77m hair, cut short ; he was wearing a blouson.

I saw that he was looking in my direction and continued to do so as I went past. There was something about him that made me stop a few metres afterwards to observe what he would do. He kept looking in my direction. I did to - while, in the process, relating to a friend on my mobile phone what was taking place and laughing. The man was definitely looking uncomfortable, not knowing what to do.

A woman arrived wanting to use the cash dispenser. He spoke to her. I assumed from his gesture, the movement of her head and the fact that she used the other cash dispenser that he had told her that the one in front of which he was standing was not working.

As I kept looking at him, he turned ending up facing the glass window of the bank.

He must have seen a bank employee inside, as he made a highly exaggerated gesture in pointing towards the cash dispenser. The way he pointed at the cash dispenser, you would think that a bomb was about to explode.

He then run like a demented individual to the door of the bank on the corner. As he looked in my direction, I continued laughing, as the 'show' was rather amusing. And a 'show' it was! I then left.

Saturday 18 February 2006 - Collecting my post

As I was about to enter the sorting office, my 'internal radar' kicked into action leading me to spot a man about 30 metres down on the opposite pavement. He was tall, slim, in his 50's, wearing a long, dark blue overcoat.

He was stationary and looking at me, exuding negativity. I felt that his interest was in me and opted to wave in his direction while aiming to communicate: 'Yes[ scum ] [Note], I am collecting my post'. Actually, what I really felt is that he was not one of 'the [ scum ] [Note]', but one of the Mr Ladsky et. al. parties. Judging by the follow-on events, looks as though my 'internal radar' was on target

Saturday 18 February 2006 - The "Notice by landlord"

From my PO Box, I took delivery of a "Notice by landlord" i.e. offer of 'first refusal' (see Extracts from legislation ), dated 10 February 2006 , sent by Portner and Jaskel , solicitors, 63/65 Marylebone Lane, London W1U 2RA.

The minute I saw the name 'Portner and Jaskel' I immediately suspected something 'fishy' or, to be more precise: fraudulent...

....as I already knew about its method of operating which, like that of Mr Ladsky's other 'advisers', Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones is based on bullying, intimidation and blackmail.

Hence, in complete disregard of the laws of the land.

I WAS RIGHT!

This prior knowledge relates to events with the then Elderly Resident (74 years old).

In November 2001, some residents had approached Nucleus, our local Citizen Advice Bureau, over the service charges for Jefferson House. Nucleus suggested we appoint an arbitrator (as per the clause in the lease - Clause 2(2)(g) ). (Full copy of my lease)

Because the Elderly Resident paid the initial £250 (US$450) application fee to appoint an arbitrator, his name featured on the application document. As we subsequently discovered that the arbitrator would be charging £130 (US$230)an hour for this service, we did not proceed with the application.

Following on from this, the Elderly Resident received a letter from 'Steel Services', dated 2 January 2002 , claiming compensation of £1,586 (US$2,800) for " legal and surveyor fees" and demanded...

..."payment within fourteen days, failing which we shall take such appropriate steps as may be available to us, including issuing proceedings against you without further notice"

I view this letter as having been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky. See his letter to me and other leaseholders of 25 January 2001 (other examples: 'Steel Services' letter to Nucleus of 14 November 2001 ; and letter 'from' Ms Hathaway of 16 December 2002 , those of 20 January 2003 and 4 March 2003 written / supplied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal

NOTE at October 2006 - YES! I WAS RIGHT! (And I knew I was: the 'trademark' is so obvious)...

...In its - libellous, scurrilous - 3 October 2006 letter to my website Host Portner and Jaskel identified its client as being Mr Andrew Ladsky. (See My Diary - 3 October 2006 - Post site launch)

Understandably, this poor Elderly Resident was in a terrible state.

As he was not paying the sum, in a letter dated 28 January 2002 , Portner and Jaskel, demanded payment of £1,337 (US$2,400), stating:

"...unless we are in receipt of the aforementioned sum [£1,337.50] by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 31 January next (i.e. within three days of writing the letter) proceedings shall be issued against you to recover without further notice. Should our client company be obliged to commence proceedings in addition to the costs we will seek interest on the above sum at the rate of 8% per annum until payment"

Within less than a month, the Elderly Resident received a claim from Central London County Court for £1,532 (US$2,700) dated 26 February 2002 . This claim was filed by Portner and Jaskel.

This claim amounted to bullying and intimidation as it was totally unjustified. The Elderly Resident ended-up paying because his solicitor told him that his fees would be as much as the sum demanded. (NB!!!) Hence: the Business model had, yet again worked as landlord was - unjustifiably - £1,532 better off.

('Some good' did come out of this because, on the claim, Steel Services stated an address in the British Virgin Islands. It led me to follow this up a few months later and to discover that Steel Services had been "struck off the BVI registry for non-payment of the licence fee" .

The second 'bonus' was that it describes Steel Services as the 'freeholder'. See section Owners identity for detail)

The 10 February 2006 "notice" appeared to offer a golden opportunity for PAY-BACK to Portner and Jaskel - and its client - for what they had done to the Elderly Resident .

I WAS RIGHT! And I had great fun doing it.

(Funny how rogue solicitors appear to overlook the potential 'boomerang effect'. They are blinded by their unbelievable arrogance and grossly inflated sense of superiority)

Two other things added to my suspicions.

• The first one was the "offer" price of £120,000 (US$211,600). Indeed, it is fascinating to see how the price of a "headlease" for a block of flats in Knightsbridge has tumbled over the last six years - especially when compared with average UK property prices.

(PDF of: graph 1 ; graph 2 )

• Secondly, pages one and two of the Land Registry title for Steel Services were not included with the so-called "Notice"

I remembered what happened with the December 2000 "Notice" when I and other leaseholders were sent on a wild goose chase, wasting our time and money for nothing as the "notice" was pulled from 'under our nose' - while a change of ownership nonetheless took place . See Notices by landlord for detail.

It led me to obtain from the Land Registry all the titles for Jefferson House . This cost me c. £200 (US$350), as well as numerous hours mapping out the ownership. (Judging from the evidence left on the Land Registry online database in February 2006, Mr Ladsky had been spending quite a bit of time building his multi-level maze - as explained at the end of section Owners identity )

It required that I also use copy of titles I had obtained over the previous years. My resulting summary confirmed that my suspicions were totally justified (see also Freehold ownership , Headlessors and Owners identity )

Indeed, highlighting what some people might describe as "conjuring up sociopathic character traits, including the belief of being 'above the laws of the land', as well as malice / perversion", I discovered that JUST TEN DAYS before Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, sent the "notice" on behalf of Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al., its client had disposed of the title to Lavagna Enterprises Ltd. (It might be more accurate to say "seven weeks previously", as the first page of the Land Registry document states "15 December 2005")

A 'Section 5 Notice' is an important legal document. Consequently, a solicitor is expected to ensure the accuracy of its contents. It was abundantly clear to me that what had happened was the result of collusion by Portner and Jaskel - rather than just gross incompetence:

• Page one of the title withheld by Portner and Jaskel state that the 'airspace of Jefferson House' was removed from the title. The 'airspace' has the penthouse flat as lessee . Hence, the headlessee i.e. Steel Services, no longer has control of the last floor of Jefferson House .

• Judging from the date of the mortgage obtained from HSBC, point six, on page three which states 31 January 2006, the copy of the title was obtained just prior to Mr Broughton sending the "Notice" .

Yet, the description of the "disposal" in the 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices e.g. 13 December 2000 when Steel Services's headlease covered the whole block.

Considering: (1) the extortionate service charge demands (confirmed by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in its 17 June 2003 report, ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database) ; (2) the filing of a - false - claim against 11 leaseholders (representing 14 flats) in West London County Court on 29 November 2002 (ref. WL 203537); (3) the recent further 'carving out' of Jefferson House, etc., etc., I suspect that the current ownership profile of the flats is unlikely to meet the requirement of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (Part 1, S.1 (2) ) for the issue of a S.5 Notice. Indeed, it 'seems' to me that Mr Ladsky has succeeded in making the majority of leaseholders leave the block. (See below for my explanation on the use of 'seems')

Consequently, I 'suspect' that this 'exercise' was undertaken solely for 'my benefit', for the fun of it and out of vengeance. I had every intention of catching them at their own game. How far would they go with it?

Well, including the "notice", Mr Broughton made the SAME CLAIM ON THREE occasions.

In my first reply to Mr Broughton of 3 March 2006 I wrote:

"My understanding of this is that the "Notice", refers to the building, as it stands now, in its entirety i.e. the whole of Jefferson House. Please, confirm"

As you can see, no potential for confusion in the way I expressed it. I knew the "notice" was bogus so, I set up my 'snare' very carefully.

Although his 6 March 2006 was affirmative, the address that he stated was different (he quoted one of the addresses for the freehold - further proving that he had all the relevant documents in his possession), in my follow-up letter 11 March 2006 I asked him to confirm the correct address. He replied on 14 March 2006 confirming that the address was that captured in the "notice" .

Hence: Mr Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, confirmed that the "Notice" relates "to the building, as it stands now, in its entirety i.e. the whole of Jefferson House" .

They wanted to have fun at my expense. BAD MOVE! I was going to turn the table on them making their game backfire and blow-up in their face in a big way. 'I' was going to have the fun.

In my 30 March 2006 letter to Mr Broughton, I wrote:

"It follows that the "disposal" being offered in the "Notice" for £120,000 (US$211,600) is the Title for Lavagna Enterprises Limited, as it owns - as of 31 January 2006 (i.e. barely 10 days before you sent the "Notice"):

one Title covering all the floors of Jefferson House, except the last floor and the roof

one Title covering the airspace of Jefferson Ho use which includes the Title for the penthouse flat, as well as associated parking space.

As you omitted to include pages one and two of the Title for Steel Services when you sent me the "Notice", I assume that you have, likewise, omitted to include the other above-mentioned Titles. Please, confirm"

I 'think' this letter probably caused the equivalent of a major earthquake on arrival.

In his reply of 3 April 2006 , Mr Broughton wrote:

"The disposal being offered, as per the content of the notice, is in respect of the interest held in the property by Steel Services Ltd and not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd "

He also wrote:

"I would advise pages 1 and 2 of the title documents were deliberately omitted as our client is not required to provide this information. All other relevant information has been provided"

My reply of 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) addresses these comments, as well as other points, including - my non-lawyer - assessment of Mr Broughton and his client's breaches of statutes (see below 28 March 2006, as well Notices by landlord ) which led me to conclude with the following:

"In conclusion, in relation to your final comment in your 3 April 2006 letter:

"I can be of no further assistance to you and would recommend you seek independent legal advice."

I return the advice and suggest that you - and your client - seek legal advice"

To write this letter cost me many hours of desk research on various statutes, as well as the Solicitors code of conduct. I probably sift through over 400 pages, which I then reduced to 200 pages, etc., etc.

Given the profile of my 'target audience' I had to be 500% sure of what I was writing. The letter also cost me many hours. But, this very substantial investment was worth it.

My overall feeling was: another one bites the dust!

Mr Broughton's 3 May 2006 reply (at the back of my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB)) was

"Whilst your letter is irrelevant in places, misguided in others and incorrect parts you are of course free to pursue whatever course you so wish should you feel further action is required"

How gracious of him to give me the permission!

Note that Mr Broughton does not reply to any of the contents of my 30 April 2006 letter.

I WONDER WHY? ... considering (to use a leaseholder's expression about his own landlord) that his client

"...seem to have turned intimidatory litigation into an industry"

(Even girlfriends can end-up in "...a court battle over a floor-length sheepskin coat and two paintings" (Reference to Mr Andrew Ladsky in an article in the Sunday Times ) (back-up printscreen )

Considering my very extensive first-hand experience with the Law Society , in relation to Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , there is no point filing a complaint against this firm as it would ignore the evidence and conclude that there is no malpractice.

For the same reason: no point contemplating the possibility of then escalating my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman .

The outcome of the disposal by Steel Services is that it has further imprisoned me in the flat - as major covenants in my lease CANNOT be performed by 'the landlord'.

(See below 28 March 2006, as well as Notices by landlord for detail)

These events further demonstrate the unbelievable viciousness, evilness, arrogance and utter contempt of the laws of the land by Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. and their aides.

The worst part of it is that they do it because they know that - on this island - there is absolutely nothing to stop them. (If there was the risk of sanction, they would be far less likely to do it).

Not only does the system give them carte blanche to do exactly as they please - it actually actively helps them in their actions.

Another example of this can be seen in the below entry for 28 March 2006 in relation to the Land Registry when I approached it for assistance upon discovering that the recent further carving out of Jefferson House resulted in 'Steel Services' no longer being able to perform major covenants in my lease.

The other pay-off from the so-called "notice"

As I mentioned earlier on, this episode with the "notice" has cost me many hours of my life - as well as considerable other costs. However, it has proved to be very useful as it induced me to conduct a thorough search on the Land Registry - an action which, very clearly, Messrs Ladsky and Broughton were not expecting me to take. (Probably on grounds of cost). And, if they thought that I might do it, my guess is that they did not expect that I would be able to map out the ownership of the block due to the layers / interlinking between some of the titles.

I had not done a search on the Land Registry since April 2004 as, while it seems to me that many of the leaseholders have left the block, I know for a fact that Land Registry records do not necessarily reflect the true position.

(Some time ago, when I flagged this up while visiting the main Land Registry office in London, I received the reply that thousands of changes were taking place every day and that, consequently, the Land Registry could not police the registrations. When I asked whether there were sanctions for not communicating changes in ownership, I received a 'no' in reply and was told that the system relies essentially on solicitors communicating the information.

From my latest searches on all the titles for Jefferson House, I suspect that change of ownership has taken place but it has not been reflected in the titles . Hence the comment in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) reply to Portner and Jaskel that I "wonder whether I was the sole recipient of this latest "notice" )

Aside from leading me to discover that I am now in a 'bigger mess' than ever , the pay-off of this search on the Land Registry is that I can use it in other contexts.

One that springs to mind immediately is the 9 January 2006 invoice from Martin Russell Jones , stating "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900) - with no explanation whatsoever.

In particular, the fact that this invoice includes the sum of £815 (US$1,435) which is described as "25 Dec 2005 - 23 June 2006 - Half yearly service charge in advance".

With this invoice, was also enclosed (among others), a document headed " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " from which the sum of £815 has somehow been calculated. (I cannot figure out how the sum was arrived at).

The 'so-called' "Apportionments" notes at the bottom of the document state that "Schedule 1" refers to "All flats" , while "Schedule 2" states "Flats 1 to 35 only" .

This is FRAUDULENT given that Steel Services no longer has control of the whole building.

In addition, as a result of the 'major' works, three new flats were added: 18A, 33A and 35A. (The proprietor of the lease on these three new flats is Lavagna Enterprises Limited).

The outcome is summarised in this document . For detail see Headlessors and Owners identity

Oxford English dictionary definition of fraud: "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"

(See also 'Breach' under Definition of words)

Consequently, these claims of "Steel Services estimated expenditure" - on which a demand for payment from me is based - are FRAUDULENT...

...as they do not reflect the fact that a significant part of the expenditure must be assigned to the penthouse flat - over which Steel Services has NO CONTROL as it is now in the hands of Lavagna Enterprises.

The document " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " does not provide any explanation as to the meaning of the "Apportionments" for "Schedule 1 and 2"

Nor does it contain any statement on the changes and additions to the block. Very clearly, these changes and additions have a major impact on the lessees' share of the costs.

I was going to use this in the context of my complaint to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales against the accountant for Jefferson House, Pridie Brewster . (See entry, 'Beginning of May 2006 for detail)

**Adding to the lesson to Mr Ladsky et. al. and their equally corrupt (*) aides:**

Beware of what you do to others, as it can come back and KICK YOU 'REAL HARD'

Tuesday 7 March 2006

The 'minders' continue to be in tow . This morning I opted to walk alongside the back of Harrods, crossed the Brompton Road and, instead of turning right into Cheval Place which I have done a few times recently, for the purpose of confusing the 'minders', as well as establish whether I was being followed, I continued in the direction of South Kensington. Having come to the end of the frontage of the Nat West bank, before going down the few steps, I decided to 'plant' myself there - and observe.

There was a man a few metres behind me. He was in his late 20s, c.1.80m, shifty looking, wearing a training type top with a hood - which he was wearing.

He went to one of the cash dispensers, but did not use it. A bank employee arrived. The man went to talk to him. Judging from the bank employee's body language, he most probably asked him when the bank would open. (An usual question for a local to ask. It was c. 8h40). I continued to observe him.

As he was about to cross the road, he turned round in my direction. Having crossed the road, he went in a dry cleaner shop where there was at least one customer. However, the man only stayed in for about 30 seconds.

As he came out, he again looked in my direction . He then walked for a few metres. Yet again, he looked in my direction . (We were about 50 metres apart).

At that point, I waved in his direction. As I did this, he pulled his hood further forward on his face and crossed the road back again i.e. coming back on the side of the road from which he had previously crossed it.

Hence, he had crossed the road to do what? Nothing! In addition, why his very noticeable interest in me? He then continued straight ahead in an alley alongside the Oratory.

At that point, I started to walk in that direction. Within a few metres there is a street on the right, going alongside a little square. As I was about to cross the road, a man passed in front of me. I have seen him at least 2-3 times previously . Early 40s', c. 1.75m, grey hair, cut very short, wearing a three-quarter length black coat. He was smoking. As he went closely past me, I noted that the look on his face conveyed anger. He continued in the street alongside the square. I headed towards the next turning on the right.

I continued 'my circuit' walking to the Albert Hall from where I took a bus to go to work. Before taking the bus, I noticed 1-2 'possible' but, not sure.

Week commencing 13 March 2006

I continue to be followed on a daily basis. This includes whatever time I leave the office at night. Hence, I continue to take the 'minders' for a walk on my convoluted 'circuits'.

Friday 17 March at c. 0h15

In Jermyn St , I concluded that a man, in his 40s, grey hair, cut very short, wearing a black coat - I had seen before - was definitely interested in my movements. I was on the phone relating to a friend what was taking place. He was playing the same game I have been playing over recent months: crossing Jermyn St , back tracking, crossing the street again, making more U turns, crossing the street again.

When I ended up being on the same pavement as he was, as he was walking towards me he had a nasty, hard look on his face. When he came to my height I said "smells like a [reject from the sewer] [ Note] , looks like a [reject from the sewer] [ Note] , got to be a [reject from the sewer] [ Note]"

I have been saying this for a while when I conclude that somebody is interested in my movements.

To me, that's what they are: [reject from the sewer] [ Note]. (Although it is insulting to [cannot replace] [ Note]) . He continued walking.

Saturday 18 March 2006 - 23h30

I left the office around 23h30. As I arrived on Fleet St , I spotted the car I saw on Sunday 26 February 2006, as well as on Saturday 10 September 2005 i.e. the cream colour Subaru estate with a five-letter number plate starting with 'SI'

As I walked the few metres to the bus stop, I saw the man I had previously seen drive the car.

He was on the pavement along which the car was parked c. 15 metres further up (direction Aldwych). He was wearing a padded thigh length, cream colour jacket and woolen hat. As previously, he wore glasses .

It seems to me that he had been stationary and that he had started to walk from the time I arrived on Fleet St . (He could not have stopped to do anything as everything was closed).

He was looking at me as he was walking towards the car which, for the last few metres, he did by walking on the street. Hence, I was bound to see him. He entered the car and drove off.

Monday 20 March 2006 - 08h30

On leaving the block at c. 08h30, once I had walked a few metres in the direction of Hans Crescent , I noticed a woman standing in front of the first entrance door to Harrods. She was standing very close to one of the doors and therefore in the entrance recess. She looked in her 40s, blond, long hair, badly cut. About 1.68m in height, she wore a cream colour, waist length leather jacket and trousers. I would describe her overall look as 'ordinary' (rather than sophisticated). She had a handbag as well as a carrying case of the type used for computers.

I turned right into Hans Crescent in the direction of the tube station. I was walking slowly for the purpose of being able to observe her in the shop window of the patisserie shop that is on the corner with Basil St and Hans Crescent , as well as observe other movements.

As I was doing this, I saw her cross the street and walk in my direction. On seeing this I opted to stop and look at the menu displayed on the patisserie's shop window. She did the same, standing barely 40 cm to my right. It was quite obvious that, like me, she was not reading the menu. Although still possible to read it, we were standing about 60cm away from it.

I remained 'planted' there. I could feel that she was looking at me sideways. I did not move other than position my bag in a more comfortable position. I had made-up my mind that I would stay on the spot until she left. About two and a half minutes went by. (This is a long time). She then left, crossing the street back in the direction from which she had come but, instead of going back to stand in the Harrods door, she continued walking, going into the street that is at the back of Harrods i.e. the continuation of Basil Street.

I consider this as further evidence in support of my claim that I continue being observed and followed.

What was this woman doing standing in front the Harrods door 1.5 hours before it was due to open?

Why, from standing there, did she walk across to have a look at the menu - mimicking what I was doing?

Why did she stand there for that length of time - at a distance that is more than the average person would be standing at in order to look at a menu?

Why did she then crossed back the road and walked off?

My view is that because I live a few metres away, and was on my way to my work, she did not expect me to stop on the pavement to look at the menu. Like the other [despicable scums ] [Note] who have been following me, they are simply not prepared to react to the unexpected. Their abhorrent, criminal paymasters ought to be giving them a better brief.

Tuesday 21 March 2006 - 08h35

On leaving the block to go to work at c. 08h35, I turned right into Basil Street and walked all the way to the corner with Sloane Street . I then crossed the road. Once on the other pavement, I went back down Basil Street and turned right in the alley alongside the fire station.

Once on Brompton, having walked a few paces in the direction of Harrods, I noticed a man close to the pedestrian crossing. He was positioned facing in my direction i.e. not as the average person would position themselves while waiting to cross. Hence, he appeared to me to be loitering around. As there was no traffic on my side, and the traffic on the other side of the road was stationary, I run across the road. As I did this, I could see from the corner of my eye that the man also started to cross the road.

Once on Knightsbridge Green , I opted to walk to the mobile phone shop so that I would be able to watch him in the reflection of the glass. Within about 30 seconds he had also walked to the shop and stood c. 2 metres to my right.

He was about 1.88m, in his 30s. He looked as though he could be of North African origin. Pot marked face . He wore a pull over, thin fabric, dark blue anorak with a hood which he had pulled over his head and had fastened across his chin. (It was not raining on that day. The temperature was c. 4-5 degrees centigrade). He appeared to me more interested in me more than in the shop. Through my body language, I also communicated that, likewise, I was not interested in the shop. After about one minute, he turned around facing in the direction of Harrods, looking at me in the process, and walked behind me.

I followed him. He only took a few paces and then stopped, while facing in the Harrods direction.

Considering what had happened, at that point I said "smells like a [reject from the sewer] [Note], looks like a [reject from the sewer] [Note] , got to be a [reject from the sewer] [Note]" . He did not move.

I walked away in the direction of the alley and took the first street on the left where I stayed for c. one minute to see if he would come by. He did not. When I retraced my steps in order to see whether he was still there, I could not see him. He had left in the direction of Harrods.

I know that this man's interest was in me.

From being idle when I had arrived on the pavement: why did he start to cross once I had started to do it? Why did he come and plant himself next to me in front of the shop window while observing me? Why did he walk away for c. 4 metres and then stop? Why, having done what he had done, did he - only subsequently - walk off in the direction of Harrods?

Wednesday 22 March 2006 - 01h15

I left the office after midnight i.e. at the end of Tuesday 21 March. I took the bus and got off at the first stop in Regent Street . From there I turned into Vigo St and continued on Burlington leading to Old Bond St / New Bond St .

Something was bothering me that led me to stop on the other pavement on New Bond St. (As you can imagine, at that time of night the streets were deserted). It was a car, parked alongside with its lights on. I was on the phone. I stayed in front of a shop on New Bond St .

After 2-3 minutes I went back on Burlington . I remained on the phone while positioning myself alongside a shop. A man, who had come from the direction of Vigo St , went by on the opposite pavement, and turned right into New Bond St .

After about 2 minutes, another man, in his early 40s, moustache, wearing an all weather jacket, dark grey on the upper part, and lighter grey below, with red stripes on the inner part of the sleeves + along the side, was coming from the direction I had come i.e. from the Vigo St end. (And therefore from the same direction as the other man)

He was walking on the other pavement, slowly and was looking at me intermittently. I was still on the phone. Once he had reached the end of the street i.e. on the corner with Old Bond St , he turned round. He again walked slowly and, as he was doing this, was looking at me intermittently.

At the height with Cork St he remained stationary on the pavement, still looking at me. He stayed there for c. two minutes. He then crossed Burlington and went into Cork St . I opted to walk to the corner of Bravington and Cork St . He was stationary on the opposite pavement a few metres down Cork St . I continued talking on the phone and went back to where I had positioned myself on Burlington .

After about one minute, he reappeared out of Cork St , crossed Burlington and walked in the direction of Vigo St . This time, he did this at a normal pace. However, after about 15 metres, he again turned back and hence started to walk back in my direction. He again stopped on the pavement i.e. the opposite pavement from where I was. I remained where I was. After about two minutes, he again crossed Burlington and went into Cork St .

As he was doing this, the car I had seen parked on New Bond St with its lights on, passed in front of me and turned into Cork St . I thought that it might come and pick up the man. I walked to the corner of Cork St . The car had indeed stopped about 80m down Cork St to pick-up somebody who appeared to look like the man who had walked down Burlington and turned right into New Bond St . The other man i.e. with the grey jacket was on the other pavement and talking to a man. By then it was c. 01h45. I decided to leave.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, make what you will of this. This is what took place.

Could this be construed as a display of what I have been doing over the last few months i.e. my convoluted routes and frequent U turns? I think so ( as happened as well on Friday 17 March 2005).

I am very glad it is leading them to act in this way. I am obviously getting to them.

Their male ego cannot handle a woman giving them the run around - and their stupidity leads them to show it! How funny!

Sunday 26 March 2006 - 11h00

I left the flat around 11h00 and walked alongside the back of Harrods. I then turned left into Hans Square , taking the exit that leads on Pont Street . I crossed the street and continued on Pavilion Road . (A route I used to take to go to Sloane Sq tube station). At that point, I made a U turn. Once on Pont Street , I walked in the direction of Sloane Street . I was on the phone. I stopped on the corner for the purpose of 'observation'. I noted a man who had come from Sloane Street, crossed Pont Street in a diagonal in the direction of Pavilion Road i.e. where I had been two minutes previously.

I turned right on Sloane Street and went to the nearby bus stop. I stayed there for about five minutes debating what I was going to do next. In case I was being followed, to annoy the [morally depraved, lowlife] [ Note ] ', I decided to cross Sloane Street and turned right into Pont Street . I took the second street on the right, Cadogan Lane , which is quiet. I was walking slowly as I was still on the phone.

I have also previously taken this route to go to Sloane Square tube station. However, when I reached Clive Place/Sloane Sq I opted to turn left in the direction of Victoria . After about 20 metres, I crossed Clive Place and went into Bourne Street . This is a very quiet, residential street.

Having walked for about 50 metres my 'internal radar' led me to turn round and to discover that the man I had seen c. 15 minutes previously was about 30 metres behind me. He was walking quite fast. I took a photograph.

He went past me and, because of the speed at which he was walking, within about one minute he was already well ahead of me.

If this man's intention had been to use this route, why did he take a route ( Pavilion Road ) which took him further away (although, it does run parallel to Sloane Street ). (By the time he was in Bourne St , he was still empty handed). Also, considering the pace at which he was walking - and mine - if the intention had been to go there, he would have gone down Bourne Street well ahead of me. It led me to conclude that there was a high probability that his interest was in me.

Good! Another one caught in the act! And another photograph to add to the growing collection. Despicable, criminal scums!

(As stated previously, EVERY ONE of these individuals is committing a criminal offence against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - as well as breaching my Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Respect to private life - contained in the Human Rights Act 1998

28 March 2006 - The 'get lost' from the Land Registry

As explained earlier on under the 18 February 2006 entry (as well as under Notices by landlord ), the outcome of 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. selling, to Lavagna Enterprises , the 'airspace' of Jefferson House which has the penthouse flat as lessee means that 'Steel Services', no longer has control of the last floor of Jefferson House as it is now in the hands of Lavagna Enterprises .

Consequently, it means that Steel Services can no longer perform some of the major covenants in my lease which, under Clause 5 states:

"The lessor hereby covenants with the lessees"

"5 (1) to maintain repair..."

"5 (1) (a) the roofs...chimney stacks gutters..."

"5 (1) (b).water pipes electric cables and wires and supply lines.upon the building..."

"5 (1) (c) the boiler and heating and hot water apparatus..."

"5 (1)(d) the passenger lifts lift shafts and machinery..."

"5 (2)(4) "To insure and keep insured the building.and in case of destruction of or damage to the building or any part thereof so as to make the same unfit for habitation and use. to lay out all monies received in respect of such insurance... in rebuilding and reinstating the same.."

A friend had seen in the Estates Gazette the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd in which the Land Registry Adjudicator had dismissed the application to register the lease, because:

"The roof space was required for the proper management of the roof."

My friend and I concluded that the same situation had arisen at Jefferson House.

When he suggested that I write to the Land Registry my immediate reply was: it is going to be, yet again, a complete and utter waste of my time and that this time would be more usefully spent on continuing the development of the site.

He strongly disagreed, saying "Com'on! Not this time! The Kintyre case is exactly the same situation. They'll have to take action!"

To which I replied: "I bet you anything that the reply is going to be a 'get lost '" (I WAS RIGHT!)

I thought, "Oh well, it will be more evidence against 'the system' that I will be able to add to the site" .

After writing several drafts, I finalised my letter to the Land Registry on 28 March 2006 , in which I pointed out that the

"Acquisition of the headlease Title NGL 373 333 by Lavagna Enterprises, a superior headlessor first registered by the Land Registry on 31 January 2006, under Title BGL 56 642, has rendered the headlease materially defective"

I explained that the outcome of the above transactions between Steel Services, Lavagna Enterprises and Jefferson House Limited had led to Steel Services no longer having control of the roof - as it is now in the hands of a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises. Consequently, Steel Services can no longer perform the above mentioned covenants in my lease.

I therefore requested that the lease granted to Lavagna Enterprises be revoked.

In support of my request, I highlighted the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd pointing out that the Land Registry Adjudicator had dismissed the application to register the lease, because: "The roof space was required for the proper management of the roof."

I consider the initial reply of 4 April 2006 from the Land Registry as a blatantly obvious

"Get lost, I am not going to do anything against a sacrosanct landlord' '

Among others, it states:

"Regrettably, I do not have details of the Adjudicator case referred to in your letter and am unable to comment further on that decision"

"I regret that the Registry is unable to simply revoke the lease and title of BGL 56642"

"The Registry is not able to provide legal advice and I would suggest that you seek independent legal advice in respect of your concerns"

The favourite reply from a government department: "Get legal advice!"