The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
uns
Five years of harassment, intimidation, bullying and blackmail tactics
|
My Diary - 2007NOTE AT DECEMBER 2007
I have not released an update of my website since May 2007. A lot has happened since then. For the time being I am only updating / reporting: (1) Events in relation to the fraudulent claim, ref 7WL 00675, filed against me by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, in West London County Court on 27 February 2007 - giving two names for the 'landlord': (1) "Roostock Overseas Corp" (should read "Rootstock"), said to be domiciled in Panama; (2) Steel Services (assumed to still be domiciled in the British Virgin Islands). There is a third name - in the directory file path at the bottom of the claim: Sloan Development (assumed to still be domiciled in the British Virgin Islands). (In October 2006, Mr Hershkorn stated that his client is Mr Andrew Ladsky) So much has happened with Portner and Jaskel and the court, that I have set-up a new page for each and transferred some of the content from 'My Diary 2007' to these new sub-sections i.e. Portner and Jaskel & Law Society, and West London County Court - Post 2004 YES, as I have stated from the time I received the 7WL 00675 claim: IT IS FRAUDULENT. For a summary of the reasons in support of my position see the 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" I filed in West London County Court. (It provides a comprehensive overview of the events and issues in my case) It is now more than NINE MONTHS that this fraudulent claim has been 'hanging over my head'. Providing overwhelming support to my position that the claim is fraudulent is that, since the end of September, I have not received any communication whatsoever from Portner and Jaskel , AND, NOR have I received any from West London County Court - in spite of sending several chaser letters. WHY HAVE PORTNER AND JASKEL - AND - WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT GONE INTO 'SILENT MODE' SINCE THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2007? (Note at February 2008: contact finally made; it provides further evidence in support of my position that the claim filed against me is FRAUDULENT - see My Diary 9 February 2008 ) Events with West London County Court lead me to the perception that it is preventing my case from proceeding to a hearing, leading me to write in my 5 December 2007 letter to the Customer Service Department of Her Majesty Court Service (HMCS):
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 As the 10 December 2007 reply totally ignores my demand, on 11 December 2007, I escalated it to the Justice Secretary asking for his assistance - see WLCC #23 for my reply to the initial acknowledgement See also WLCC #22 for the reply to my complaint against the court from the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Service (HMCS) - and my reply headed "CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION" NOTE: While I have not received communication from Portner and Jaskel, I have received 'some' from its client: no heating and no hot water in my flat for three days - starting on Christmas day. It reminds me of what took place during the Easter break in 2003 (2) Concurrently, I have updated the Document Library section - among other, by adding a 2007 section to West London County Court, and one to Portner and Jaskel (3) The fourth malicious leak in two years: - 20 July 2007 (4) Having my third witness that I continue to be monitored: 25 October 2007 (5) Adding new (very welcome) messages of support from visitors to my website (in the 'Comments' section) (6) Added a note at the end of the last entry when I updated my website in May (7) Replaced the words 'pigs' and 'monkeys' - not because of the accusations by Kensington & Chelsea police - as they are FALSE (My Diary 20 March 2007) - but simply because I should have used stronger words, words to communicate my abhorrence and feeling of utter disgust and contempt (NB: I continue to use the exchange rate £=US$1.76329) Introduction - at January 2007Somebody told me that year 2007 is the year of blessings. I certainly hope that some find their way to me. My dearest wish is to close down this website - of my own free will - as it will mean that I have achieved my personal objectives. As to my other objective i.e. for my site to be a trigger for change / a 'wake-up call', I assume that it is already in the process of happening. I dearly hope that my action will spare other people from going through what I have gone through - and continue to go through every day: it's a prison sentence. In relation to the site, I continue going through the sections, putting the anchors and the links, developing the 'Abbreviations-Definitions' section. It is such a slow, painstaking process... but it's worth it. 9 January 2007 - Block sale of flatsA 'for sale' sign has been placed on the railing at Jefferson House since about November. I decide to have a look at the estate agents' website - and capture my findings in the 'Block sale of flats' section. The information suggests that the lease has already been sold on several flats. It might include to foreigners (in some instances the word 'apartment', instead of 'flat' has been used suggesting an intention to attract foreign buyers) (See Business model # 2 ). If these poor people knew what they are letting themselves in for! Unfortunately, with a system that is opting to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to everything, I can't do anything - other than send the address of my website to several major estate agents in my area (Note: I did at the beginning of February, but it can be safely assumed that no notice will be taken of my site - other than keeping it very quiet). (NB: Within 48 hours of my capturing the information on the site, the 'for sale' sign was removed from the railing). Saturday 12 January 2007 - I receive my first comment on the websiteIt cheers me up immensely as the person very kindly extends an offer of help. The first comment received, and it's an offer of help! How wonderful. 'Maybe' 2007 will turn out to be the year of blessings? God, I hope so! I'll wait until I have a few more comments before placing it on the site. It spurs me on for the rest of the weekend. (Subsequent note: follow on events have led me to view this contact as very suspicious - see Portner and Jaskel # 14 ; also covered under points 37 and 38 of my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement) w/c 15 January 2007 - My first ever press releaseI am getting tired of putting the anchors in the sections, setting-up the links, etc. I want things to move on. I want to be out of the hell hole. I want my life back. I am thinking of ways of attracting attention to my site and how I can communicate my current desperate situation after going through five years of absolute, sheer utter hell. I start drafting a press release. Never done one in my life, but nor had I done many of the things this horrendous experience has forced me to do. It must fit on one page. Quite a challenge! The additional 'black on white' evidence from the 'block sale of flats' prompts me to change the banner on my site into an 'eye catching' summary of the overall site. Yeah, that should catch the attention! As to the 'black on white' evidence for each part of the statement: easy: I just provide the link to the section/s w/c 22 January 2007I rework the press release a little bit - managing to still make it fit on one page. I am tired. In addition to the 'war-time like conditions' in which I have been reduced to live under (e.g. My Diary 2 August 2006), I cannot remember the last time I had a decent break: three or more (?) years ago. I book a week of thalassotherapie (a very 'French thing') and leave for France on 27th Jan. Monday 5 February 2007 - My wonderful US website HostFirst day back at work after a very relaxed week in France that has allowed me to 'recharge the batteries'. Unknowingly, my wonderful US website Host played a key part in my being able to enjoy a decent break, as I discovered on my return that it had in fact been receiving communication from Portner and Jaskel since 19 January demanding the closure of my website - making the highly libellous, scurrilous claim that "all the allegations contained in [my] website are not true" - without of course providing evidence in support (Defamation Act 1996). Yep, it's the same firm of solicitors to which my previous ISP gave in (3 October 2006 and 6 October 2006) - in spite of not being provided with evidence in support of the accusations. My website Host is a firm believer in people having freedom of speech (of course, with the usual exceptions you would expect such as racist comments, comments that incite violence, drugs, etc.) Not surprisingly, when repeatedly put on the spot by my ISP, Portner and Jaskel is unable to come-up with a reason that would lead my ISP to close down my website. How could it? I am not saying anything that is not backed-up by ‘black on white’ evidence – the majority of which is very damning (and, as I have said before, it does not require being a lawyer or a genius to understand – and accept it). Isn't it fascinating to see what Portner and Jaskel and its client consider acceptable to do to me 'behind closed doors' v. their reaction once it is in the public domain? When I told a friend what had been happening, he replied:
Tuesday 6 February 2007 - c. 05h40 am - And another leak!On 10 October 2006, I captured in My Diary: "What kind of punishment am I going to be made to endure for daring to make my story public? Will I find another leak in my flat?" And there we are: another leak started in the early hours of the morning! The third in the space of 18 months (the previous ones were on 8 August and 18 August 2005) (and prior to this on 11 March 2002)
(See the Photo gallery for larger photographs) This one was intended to do quite a bit of damage. The noise woke me up around 05h40 a.m. Initially, I thought that it was raining quite heavily. I then realised that the water was in fact dropping on the carpet, just on the other side of the door to my flat. The only thing I could do is pray that it would not find its way into the ceilings in my flat. The porter arrived around 07h45 and placed some buckets, as well as cardboard as the carpet was soaking wet. I stayed in the flat for as long as I could before going to work. (I could not afford to take the time off as I had meetings). By the time I left, the water was still contained in the corridor. So, the sign was that God heard my prayer. (As I wrote on the home page to the site: "As a leaseholder you are totally and utterly alone. At that point, you realise that you had better believe in God, because that's the only help you're going to get") Wondering what would happen once I was out of the flat and, in particular, being concerned that the firemen might be called upon to smash my door in under some excuse, I opted to go to the fire station located in my street. I also told the firemen about previous leaks and gave them a card with my website address. I then did the same thing with somebody else in my street. When I came back after midnight, the ceiling looked as in the third photograph on the right. Mercifully, no water had penetrated my flat. The damage is limited to the door frame external to my door - due to the floor being soaking wet. The place stinks. Do I believe that this leak is the result of a malicious act? Absolutely! In addition to the fact that this is now the fourth time that it happens, I view it as an act of retaliation following my ISP's refusal yesterday to close down my website. I wonder what is going to be thrown my way next?...continuation of the daily anguish, especially when going back to the hell hole. Saturday 11 February 2007 - No post from Portner and Jaskel, its client, or other related partiesToday I collected my mail from my (Royal Mail) PO Box which I had not done in quite a while. As I expected: NO communication from Portner and Jaskel; nor from its client; nor from any other parties related to its client. Given Portner and Jaskel's threats to my ISP over the last three weeks: why isn't it writing to me? It's my website - and I wrote all of the content. Reason: it and its client Mr Andrew Ladsky have not got 'a leg to stand on'! As to my conclusion that the leak on Tuesday is the outcome of a malicious act: the evidence in support of this is that there is no communication from Martin Russell Jones. Four working days have gone by since then. With that kind of damage, you would normally expect the managing agents to contact residents with an explanation as to what happened, ask if the leak has caused damage in their flat, and the actions that are going to be taken. And, if for some reason, it could not send a letter, the porter could haven spoken to me, dropped a note under my door. I have not received any kind of communication! w/c 12 February 2007 - Letter bombs v. my styleJudging from the British media, the level of discontent in this country appears to be reaching an all time high. Last week, one (or more?) person/s expressed it by sending letter bombs to companies, with the return address of a dead person - and hence, in the knowledge that they will injure innocent people at random. By comparison, my approach is to set-up a website in which I am totally open, honest, direct and transparent, and with the courage to direct what I have to say at the people I hold directly responsible for my situation. This must come across as very daring, and hence, scary. Oh well! That's the person I am, and I am proud of it. Tuesday 13 February 2007Not having a brilliant day but, my site is still online - and that's what matters the most. Every minute it's online, it increases my chances of getting help, of realising my objectives. By late afternoon, I have had it. I need to be somewhere where I can unwind, feel comfortable and safe. The only option is to, yet again, book in a hotel. Not good for the finances, but... I take the morning off as annual leave, to catch up on some sleep and build a little bit of reserve. I'll need it, as tonight it's back to the hell hole, back to sleeping fully dressed, with a kitchen knife by my side in the bed, my rucksack next to my pillow, shoes and coat by my bed - and back to the anxiety of wondering what I am going to find when I get there, and what might happen during the night. It's the same scenario EVERY DAY! (as captured e.g. in My Diary in the latter part of 2 August 2006 ). Just as well I live in a "prestigious" part of town (comment 'from' Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, and Mr Brian Gale to the tribunal - last slide in this pack) At least, one item appears to be out of the equation: it seems to me that I am no longer being followed. That's one positive outcome from the website! Friday 16 February 2007 - e-petition to the Prime Minister "to abolish leasehold"This week there was an article in The Independent about an 'e-petitions' website set-up by 10 Downing Street. Yesterday, a contact informed me that somebody submitted a petition to "abolish leasehold". This was done on 12 February. What a coincidence! The petitioner is described as "of Retired Pensioner" I have added my name tonight. I hope that many people will add theirs. The website address is http://petitions.pm.gov.uk. (You need to be a British national, or resident to be able to add your name to the petition) C.A.R.L., Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold, as well as other leaseholder groups such as e.g. the London Leaseholders' Network will no doubt be referring to this website, including giving detail of alternative form of tenure to leasehold. Will this be the beginning of the end of this feudal, exploitative system that causes so much misery to so many people? Note at 21 February 2007 - Let's not raise our hopes: the press reported that 1.8 million people signed a petition on the website against the introduction of road charges. The reply from the Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair amounts to: don't care; intend to go ahead. Tuesday 20 February 2007 - If I were a criminal I would get compensation from the governmentThat's one too many! I must capture it in My Diary as it only adds to my level of outrage on how I have been treated in the last five years by the authorities and institutions in this country. Today the press is reporting another "compensation" payment to prisoners by the Home Office. This time, nine foreigners are said to have claimed compensation for being held in jail for longer than their jail term due to mistakes made by the Home Office. The Home Office is reported to have paid them the total sum of £55,000 (US$98,000) Towards the end of last year, the press reported:
Looking at various media, the basis of the claim included: "violation of their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights", in particular: Article 3 - "Prohibition of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" ; Article 8 - "Right to respect for private life" (in prison?) ; Article 14 - "Prohibition of discrimination" The payment was reported (e.g. in the Yorkshire Post, 15 November 2006) to have been made on the grounds that "they were treated unlawfully "as a direct result of which they endured pain and suffering that the Prison Service knew could have been avoided if a more reasonable treatment regime was provided"
I contrast the above with the way I - the innocent, law abiding victim - have been treated over the last five years by the authorities and the institutions for acting out of strongly held moral principles of right and wrong, for asking for my rights - as defined under legislation / their codes of conduct - for believing in what they claimed they would do for me the taxpayer / consumer if I called on them for assistance.
I have suffered numerous breaches of my rights (see e.g. Abbreviations-Definitions) Wherever I have turned to for help I have been treated like dirt, like a non-entity with no rights. All my cries for fair and just treatment have been ignored (My Diary 6 May 2008 ; Document library). Do I need to commit an illicit act to get support in exerting my rights - in obtaining justice and redress? This country has turned completely upside down. NOTE at 20 March 2007 : Not only do my rights continue to be ignored, Kensington and Chelsea police now holds the view that I have committed "a crime" - see entry for 20 March 2007 Saturday 24 February 2007 - Portner and Jaskel's threat of proceedings, Statutory demand and demand for costs on behalf of "Rootstock Overseas Corp" - a company unknown to meAt the end of the entry for Tuesday 6 February 2007 I wrote: "I wonder what is going to be thrown my way next?" - and here is the answer to the question: a letter from Portner and Jaskel, dated 16 February 2007, of which I took delivery today. It is headed : "Rootstock Overseas Corp - Outstanding arrears £8,937.28" (US$15,800) I have NEVER heard of this company. That's right! NEVER! (Note at July 2007 - Proof that I was NOT lying can be seen in the 12 July 2007 letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel: "We notified you by our letter of 27th February 2007 that the title to the premises was transferred from Steel Services Limited to our clients, Rootstock Overseas Corp on the 24th May 2006" Please note that Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's reply to my 25 February 2007 letter asking for the identity of "Rootstock" was to file a - fraudulent - £10,357 (US$18,262) court claim against me in West London County Court - see below Friday 9 March 2007. My reply to the claim, in which, among others, I contest the court's jurisdiction, is under 4 April 2007. The letter states : "We have been instructed by Rootstock Overseas Corp in connection with outstanding arrears of service charge due and which relate to the above premises, details of which you are fully aware of " Obviously, as I have never heard of this company, it follows that I have never had any dealings with it - and consequently cannot have "outstanding arrears" . It then states that, as of now, correspondence to / from Martin Russell Jones is through Portner and Jaskel. (As the saying goes : "Birds of a feather flock together") The second paragraph starts with "We enclose a copy of a statement dated 13th February 2007 which indicates how the sum of £8,937.28 (US$15,800) has been calculated". NOTHING was enclosed with the letter. The letter goes on to threaten bankruptcy proceedings, etc. See Portner and Jaskel and Law Society for detail. In relation to my situation on the service charges with Steel Services i.e. my landlord, see Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 12 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 , # 4 , # 6.2 , # 6.3 , # 6.4 , # 6.6 , # 6.7 and # 6.8 (The events and issues are also comprised in many other parts of the site e.g. in summary form on the home page, West London County Court , Lord Falconer of Thoroton , etc. ) (Note at mid-December 2007: and summarised in the 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" I filed with West London County Court) See also My Diary 3 March 2007 for my research findings on 'statutory demands' and bankruptcy proceedings. Wednesday 27 February 2007 - My letter to Mrs Fiona Woolf, President of the Law Society of England and WalesIn some parts of the site (e.g. Home page # 4.19 ) - in relation to the 10 February 2006 "notice" - I have written that, considering my very extensive first-hand experience with the Law Society (i.e. my complaint against Cawdery Kaye & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham, and follow-up involving the Legal Services Ombudsman ) I saw no point filing a complaint against Portner and Jaskel. Well, this 16 February 2007 letter, combined with the fact that my very courageous US website Host is holding firm on keeping my site online - has led me to change my mind. In addition, if I am not mistaken, Mrs Woolf took on the appointment - post my previous complaints. She 'might' have therefore instituted 'a new regime' for the Law Society. Hence, tonight, I am writing her a letter capturing events with Portner and Jaskel, heading my letter with
and provide 14 enclosures as supporting evidence. I conclude by asking Mrs Woolf "to take appropriate actions against your member in relation to the matters raised in this letter" It is nearly midnight. Tomorrow I'll go to my PO Box. I wonder what I will find...and what will happen between now and then (as explained in My Diary under 2 August 2006). Watch this space! Saturday 3 March 2007 - No post from Portner and JaskelWell, I made it through the night. This is what I think every morning when I wake-up in the 'hell hole' i.e. the flat. One day at a time. That's the extent of my vision since 2003. True, you never know what awaits you 'round the corner' but, before this horrendous nightmare, I would make plans for the year, and the next one. Now, I don't dare, as I never know what is going to 'land on me' with 'the compliments' of Mr Andrew David Ladsky and his bunch of thugs. As to the plastic sheet permanently covering my bed, it has proved unnecessary: no leak either during the night. I went to my PO Box: NO communication from Portner and Jaskel. As I have always had an impeccable credit record, I have never faced the threats comprised in Portner and Jaskel's letter of 16 February 2007 - and have never come across these terms before. Although the threats are made in the name of a company I have never heard of, last weekend, I nonetheless undertook comprehensive desk research on the Insolvency Act, statutory demands and bankruptcy proceedings. (Yep, yet more hours of my life used up on 'project sunshine' - all due to the actions of criminals) (On the upside: I have gained yet more legal knowledge - and 'knowledge is power'.) What I found out: A 'statutory demand' is filed without any court involvement, by a person who is owed a debt. It just requires completing a form and sending it by recorded post. One website describes it as "the first step to bankruptcy against an individual" If the person against whom the statutory demand has been filed disputes the claim, he/she has a maximum of 18 days to apply for the statutory demand "to be set aside". One source states that "this process can result in an order for costs being made against the creditor" . I should hope so - if the claim made against the person is fraudulent. If the demand has not been "set aside", following a period of 21 days from the statutory demand being served, the person who has issued it can begin the petition process for bankruptcy against the individual. Looks like you'd better be in town when a statutory demand arrives!
In addition to the fact that I have never heard of 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' - and therefore, the claim made against me is FALSE - note how it 'piles up' the stages in succession, on top of one another, as a 'fait accompli' i.e. denying me having any rights -and how it emphasises the threat of finding myself destitute, by having my property taken from me, as well as having to pay costs. In my - 'non-lawyer' opinion - this amounts to - allegedly - committing criminal offences under several Acts e.g. Fraud Act 2006, etc. See Portner and Jaskel and Law Society for detail. Considering what the pack of hyenas is capable of, today I checked a government site I found last weekend, 'London Gazette - Statutory demands' that advertises statutory demands. I could not find one listed against me. (But I saw one against somebody in my street. Is it the outcome of another leasehold scam? )
As to you British visitor to the site, you will know from the media that, what I view as my appalling experience with the various parties connected to my case, it is not confined to leasehold-related matters. Indeed, you are likely to have heard about the follow-up events in relation to, for example, the case of Mr Stephen Lawrence, and of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes (in relation to: (1) the former, see an extract from The Independent of 28 July 2006, in My Diary under 2 August 2006; (2) the latter, see Home page # 9 , last paragraph) Do you remember the 'Dunblane Massacre' in Scotland in March 1996?I do! It haunted me for days, as I think it did the nation: 16 children gunned down in the Dunblane primary school. Here were 'ordinary' families who had taken their children to school in the morning - and had gone back to find them dead. After extensive press coverage at the time, I never heard about it again... until this week when somebody contacted me as a result of seeing my website. The person has set-up a website 'Dunblane Unburied' (http://www.dunblaneunburied.tk). (NB: At the time the person contacted me, the live site was 'Dunblane Abandoned'). Do you want to know what has happened since 1996? Have a look at the site - and prepare yourself for a shock (NB: Given what I saw at the time). You can also access it from the website of another site I previously mentioned in My Diary ( 3 October 2006 and 5 October 2006 ), 'Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers' (http://www.sacl.info ), in the dropped down menu under 'Useful links'. It also lists other websites. We must give our support to the decent judges and lawyers who are likely to be afraid to speak-up out of concern of retaliatory actions by their less honorable peers. I refer you for example to the case of the Scottish lawyer who ended-up being ostracised by the Scottish Law Society for apparently taking on desperate cases of injustice. Clearly, if a solicitor helping people fight against injustice is perceived by his/her peers as 'deviant behaviour', it follows that the norm among solicitors is the opposite: to allow injustice to take place. That's the logical conclusion) You never know: one day you might end-up in court, like me (*) - through no fault of your own, other than your strongly held moral principles of right and wrong, and because you believed what you had been told: that you have rights, enshrined in statute books, and that the courts were there to help you enforce your rights - there to ensure that justice prevails. (*) I refer you, among others, to my Witness Statement Sunday 4 March 2007 - A 'tiny ray of hope'Today I spotted an article in The Independent, headed "Wanted: The £200m crime lord". The part that cheered me is a quote from somebody at HM Revenue & Customs, c. two-thirds of the way down
This recognition is a very positive step forward. Let's hope that this person's view is shared by others - with the authority to take action - and that it will lead to the rogue elements being weeded out of these sectors. A major clean-up is certainly long overdue (as it is also long overdue in the surveyor sector ). (In addition to the parties involved in my case, see, for example, the newsletters on the C.A.R.L. website - (http://www.carl.org.uk) for numerous other leaseholders' experiences with these sectors) Friday 9 March 2007 - West London County claim for £10,007 (US$17,645) filed by Portner and Jaskel on behalf of "Roostock (v. 16 February 2007 letter : "Rootstock") Overseas Corp (covered above)
(NB: See 4 April 2007 for my next steps following the receipt of this claim: among others, I contested the court's jurisdiction). For work reasons, I have been out of the flat since Monday 5 and returned last night, Thursday 8, wondering what I would find. What was waiting for me is the 'next instalment' (which can also be described as 'Portner and Jaskel's reply' to my 25 February 2007 letter) : the attached 27 February 2007 West London County Court claim, 7WL 00675, for £10,357 (US$18,262) filed by Mr Jeremy Martin Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel - under a Statement of Truth - on behalf of "Roostock Overseas Corp" (Name has changed from "Rootstock") . The claim describes it as "the lessor" of my flat. That's news to me! And obviously, IT IS ALSO NEWS to Martin Russell Jones, the 'managing' agents for the block that provided the detail of the claim, as the Particulars of Claim are headed with "Landlord: Steel Services Ltd "!!!! (see for yourself). Isn't fascinating? (I refer you to my comments under the entry for 'The 16 February 2007 letter', as well as under the entry for Saturday 3 March 2007 )
(NB: This is another aspect of the residential leasehold system: control over your home changing hand at the drop of a hat - without your being informed. Yes, there is a statutory requirement (under the L&T Act 1985) that you are informed of the change of landlord but, as you can see, in practice: they could not give a damn, because they know they can flaunt all the so-called 'statutes' at will. (Unless you can afford to keep a retinue of 'heavy weight', 'well connected' lawyers... on a retainer basis - given that you never know what is going to be 'dropped on you' by the landlord / his aides from one day to the next). Proof? Yet again, I can back-up my claim with 'black on white' evidence: see the summary of my one year battle in 2002, under point # 1 of my 30 August 2004 letter to my Ward Councillor, (Kensington & Chelsea Council ) at the end of which I conclude that after all of that, I still did not know who controlled my home (For detail, see Owners identity # 1 ; Jersey address - including the threats suffered by Nucleus, the Citizen Advice Bureau who tried to help us ) As evidenced by the above, I can now add: five years on - and I STILL do not know who controls my home. Of course, needless to say that there is no vetting system on the suitability of an individual to be a landlord. In addition, as I explained under the Financial Services Authority section, landlords are not bound by any FSA regulation on the management of leaseholders' monies - which can be several million Pounds. (Take the case of the 15 July 2002 demand for Jefferson House : £736,000 (US$1.3 million) - to be paid to Martin Russell Jones !!!! To get a feel as to why I have used the exclamation marks: have a look at the section headers. See also the short section, Planning applications, for the 'gems' in the swindle from this firm - as well as other parties) Conclusion: you can potentially end-up with individuals who could have a criminal record 'as long as your arm' being in control of your home - and the monies you have paid.No wonder the residential leasehold sector attracts so much vermin!) In addition to West London County Court accepting a claim on which the name of the claimant is different from that listed on the Particulars of Claim, it appears to have also failed to ensure compliance with Civil Procedure Rules - Part 16 - Statements of Case - Practice Direction, Section 2.2 as the address of the 'claimant' is not included. Why has West London County Court failed to ensure this? (I cannot find any reason in the Civil Procedure Rules why it should). And why has Portner and Jaskel not complied with this requirement? (It did when it filed the 26 February 2002 claim against the Elderly Resident). What happened? Its client decided it did not like this requirement? Note how you are automatically assumed to be guilty. A solicitor acting for the landlord / party claiming to be the landlord states - under a Statement of Truth - that you owe the monies - therefore: 'Of course it must be true!' because, after all, the solicitor is a member of the 'clan' / the fraternity - and consequently perceived as 'towering over those inferior, dishonest beings: the leaseholders' ( # 7 , # 8 ) Where is the evidence? What has Portner and Jaskel supplied to West London County Court as proof that I have a contractual relationship allowing it to make this claim against me - and leading West London County Court to accept it? NOTHING! In the Statement of Case, Portner and Jaskel wrote: "Under the terms of the lease dated 10th March 1986, the Defendant covenanted to pay the claimant all service and other charges as they fell due. The claimant will refer to the said lease for its full terms and effect" Why was my lease i.e. my 'contractual obligation' not supplied with the claim? Why did West London County Court not ask for it? This is in breach of CPR, Part 16, Section 7.3 What's the game plan? A repeat of what took place in 2002 and 2003 in West London County Court? Considering Portner and Jaskel's statement "the Defendant covenanted to pay the claimant all service and other charges as they fell due", it suggests an intention to supply a lease that has the same terms as the lease (apparently) for flat 23 that was supplied with the 29 November 2002 claim - FALSELY - claiming (1.1MB) that it was representative of my lease. Sure, it's a very 'convenient lease' as it states - Clause (2)(2)(c) (i):
v. my lease which, under the same Clause states :
And what added to the 'convenience factor' is that West London County Court took no notice of the fact I highlighted this in my defence. At the time, my naïve expectation of the role of a court meant that I did not specify in what way my lease was different from that supplied with the claim. (I thought I would be asked this question at a later stage) (See West London County Court # 3 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.7 ) (By the way: the same thing was repeated by Ms Hathaway when she filed the application to the tribunal - see LVT # 8.1.4 ) As to Portner and Jaskel's statement : "The claimant will refer to the said lease for its full terms and effect" - how is this intended to take place? Will the approach be,
In relation to the Particulars of Claim stating a "Balance to pay" of £8,937 (US$15,760) I draw your attention to an invoice (of which I took delivery on 13 March) from Martin Russell Jones, dated 1 March 2007 i.e. two days AFTER Portner and Jaskel filed the 27 February 2007 claim. Points of note about this invoice:
Nothing else was supplied, other than this document in relation to the electricity charge of £23.80 (which is also 'interesting'.) In relation to my situation on the service charges with my 'landlord '. Heuh? Who is my 'landlord'??? Okay, let's go for Steel Services which is what Martin Russell Jones wrote on the detail of the claim filed against me... by Roostock Overseas Corp - see Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 12 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 , # 4 , # 6.2 , # 6.3 , # 6.4 , # 6.6 , # 6.7 and # 6.8 Among others, my position is that, while I have paid £6,350 (US$11,200) to 'Steel Services' (my 19 December 2003 letter to Cawdery Kaye & Fireman # 4 ), under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 I have a £6,100 (US$10,760) credit, as Martin Russell Jones-'Steel Services' did NOT issue a Section 20 Notice in relation to the appointment of Mansell. I communicated this in my 30 March 2005 letter to Ms Hathaway (on page 3) (See Martin Russell Jones # 29 ) Fifteen months prior to this, in my 31 December 2003 letter to Ms Hathaway, I had communicated "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)". Not only did Ms Hathaway not acknowledge my letters, Martin Russell Jones subsequently sent me the following invoices - without any justification :
Hum! Definitely acts of vengeance - which I knew they were - (by what some people might describe as 'sociopaths') for my challenging Steel Services' application to the LVT - that not only fell flat on their face but actually led to a boomerang effect as they induced me to file a complaint against: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 20 December 2004, and against Martin Russell Jones on 2 February 2005 (overview at the start of the section) The next invoice after the 16 November 2004 invoice arrived fourteen months later. Dated 9 January 2006, it 'mysteriously' states a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900) ('Assuming' (who knows?) that the 16 November 2004 invoice is connected with the previous invoices) what happened to the additional £10,000 (US$17,600) claimed in the 16 November 2004 invoice???? I did NOT pay anything. Should it be viewed as an 'alternative version' of "not a viable proposition"? (See Pridie Brewster # 12 and Martin Russell Jones # 18 for further detail ) Of the many other points I have : I also highlight the fact that a penthouse flat spanning the whole length and width of Jefferson House (as can be seen on the planning application), as well as three other flats have been added to the block (Planning applications section) . God knows what the situation is on the ownership of the block now v. when I did a complete search on the Land Registry at the beginning of last year (My Diary 18 February 2006). When you have 'an army', spending the whole day scheming, it's difficult, very time consuming - as well as very costly - to keep track. (Hence my earlier comment about needing to employ a retinue of 'heavy weight, well connected lawyers on a permanent retainer basis). Whatever the position, it MUST have reduced my 1.956% share of the service charge - pre the start of the works - VERY SUBSTANTIALLY. I have had NO COMMUNICATION TO THIS EFFECT. As detailed under the section for Pridie Brewster e.g. # 12 , not only has it NOT reflected the addition of four flats in the 2006 "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 ", it has not reflected the fact that Steel Services no longer controls/ed(?) the last floor of Jefferson House. Etc., etc., etc. Portner and Jaskel signed the 27 February 2007 claim under a Statement of Truth. (Statement of Truth is dealt under CPR Part 22 - Practice Direction).
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 Considering that Mr Jeremy Hershkorn had been harassing my website Host to close down my site since the middle of January - and had, in the process claimed to my Host that "all the allegations made in [my] website are untrue" - Mr Hershkorn cannot claim to not have had comprehensive knowledge of the detail of my case at the time he filed the claim against me. Actually, on the subject of Statement of Truth: in various parts of the site I have highlighted that the 29 November 2002 claim was filed in West London County Court, under a Statement of Truth - signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones (1.1MB). Part 22 - Statements of Truth - Practice Direction (*) states :
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 (My research indicates that this particular Practice Direction was in application at the time) Nice one West London County Court and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor !(As I explain in my below entry for 18 March 2007, at the time I had near non-existent knowledge of legislation... but I have since learnt! Imagine : if this latest claim had not been filed against me, I would not have found out ! :-) Proves my motto: there is always an upside to everything...but it might take time to show ) (NOTE at January 2008 : see WLCC point # 23 how Her Majesty Court Service 'washes its hands' of responsibility)I give the above breaches of the Civil Procedure Rules as further evidence in support of my perception that West London County Court is just a 'paper pusher' ( as captured under Lord Falconer # 6 and # 12 ; West London County Court # 8 ; Document library # 6 ; My Diary 28 May 2004 ) (NOTE at December 2007: in light of events in 2007, I now view this perception as too simplistic - see West London County Court - Post 2004) To your suffering the anguish of not knowing whether the landlord got up in the morning thinking that 'it would be fun' to file a false claim against you, you then have the added anguish of wondering whether you will be informed of the action. The attached guidance notes sent with the court claim state : "If the claim form was received with the particulars of claim complete or attached, you must reply within 14 days of the date it was served on you" . They also state : "If the claim was sent by post, the date of service is taken as the second day after posting". Rule 10.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, "Consequences of not filing an acknowledgment of service" (i.e. acknowledging receipt of the claim) state:
The claim was not sent by recorded delivery - just normal post. What if it had been lost in the post? (Apparently, millions of items get lost in the post every year) Also, what if I had gone away on holiday? By the time I came back, I would have missed the deadline. Outcome: in all likelihood (given the profile of the parties who filed the claim) I would have ended-up with a judgement against me - on the basis of THAT claim! (NB: Is this what happened to the Seventh Defendant in 2003? (latter part of WLCC # 5 ) What a great 'welcome home' on your return from your holiday - assuming of course you still have 'a home' (email from Leaseholder C, an American Citizen)
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, did you think I was exaggerating when I wrote under point # 4.15 of the home page (last paragraph): "And, very clearly , there is absolutely nothing to stop Mr Ladsky et. al. from filing a false claim against me in court every day of the week" ? In my case, there is a third element of anguish that comes into the equation: the actions of the Royal Mail sorting officeIf you have read other parts of My Diary, you will know that because some of my mail was not reaching me, four years ago I ended-up setting-up a PO Box with the Royal Mail (By the way, a question that had been asked of me by the leaseholder who phoned me at work in January / February 2004) Knowing that I have the PO Box, you may be wondering why I found the court claim waiting for me in the flat. So do I !
Take also the example of a Statutory demand, as detailed above under Saturday 3 March: you have 18 days to challenge it - after which the claimant can start filing a petition to declare you bankrupt.
I give this claim and the handling of it (so far !) by West London County Court as further evidence of my being treated with absolute, total, utter contempt by the courts - a non-entity with no rights, there to be used and abused by a sacrosanct landlord and his aides. ( More on this over the coming days ) (NOTE at December 2007 - my predictions proved to be right: see the summary of events in my 5 December 2007 letter to Her Majesty Court Service) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, did you think I was exaggerating in my conclusion on Lord Falconer's department : "Warning : The Department for Constitutional Affairs can cause serious lasting damage to your health"? I can assure you that it is doing that to mine - and has done so since 2002. See West London Court County and Lord Falconer of Thoroton for detail of my previous experience with West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court. I also draw your attention to what I described under point # 12 as the "weighty voices" that add credence to my claims. (Law schools and observers of the English legal and residential leasehold sector : the case study material keeps on growing by the day. The events could take a whole year or more of course work !) If I were an English lawyer who abides by the rules, having read the above - including the claim - right now, I would be mortified. Certainly, for my part, if a British person was living in my home country, France (*) (there are many nowadays!), and was going through what I have been made to go through over the last five years and continue to go through now - EVERY DAY - I would be absolutely mortified and so ashamed of my country. One thing for sure, I would definitely go out of my way to help this person in whatever way I could. (*) I have dual, French and British nationality (As you can tell from my full surname, I am also of German descent) Should I take the events to date with the claim as a hint that I should prepare myself for an eventful time at the hands of 'the system' over the coming months?
(NB: See 4 April 2007 for my next steps following the receipt of this claim). Sunday 11 March 2007 - Continuation of the battering, but not giving upI have not talked about the impact on my emotional and physical health of being faced with the 16 February 2007 letter and the court claim (see Portner and Jaskel). As you can imagine: it has been very traumatic. This is the continuation of the ongoing battering I have been suffering since 2002 (as evidenced -in part -by the 28 battles I have had to engage in)
This 'warning' was apparently expressed by Mr Ladsky to the then Head of the Residents Association (see also Notices by landlord - 13 Dec 2000) - as captured in her 14 January 2001 letter to him: "...threats to sue the residents of Jefferson House...for punitive damages of £500,000 and / or bankruptcy..." They should look at what I wrote, among others on the home page to the site under # 14 "I will fight like a demon to the very end" and my comment after the quote from Che Guevara. "I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH" I knew from my childhood that I was tough, but I had not realised just how tough. As I wrote in My Diary, 20 August 2006: "nothing is over until it's over. It ain't over yet. I am not finished". Greed-ridden, arrogant, self-serving mob out there: you can be sure of that! I will hang on and fight for my right to get justice and redress for as long as God gives me the strength to do it - in the face of the spineless, corrupt system standing by, watching, and therefore helping Mr Ladsky et. al. achieve their objectives. As it stands, I have at least the comfort of knowing that I have achieved my secondary objective: that my site has been a 'wake-up call'. (I know it has) And hopefully, from there, change will take place which I very dearly hope will mean that other people will be spared from going through the very traumatic, sheer utter hell I have been going through since 2002. Tuesday 13 March 2007 - My complaint against Portner and Jaskel is with the Legal Complaints ServiceThis morning I went to the Royal Mail sorting office to make my 'nth' complaint (I stopped counting; I have made so many), as I returned the 'special instruction' card. I could not help telling the manager that, after so many instances over the last 3-4 years, I had to conclude that somebody was doing this purposely, was paid to do it. The manager explained that it again coincided with a time when my regular postman was away and, that, as previously, it was the same person. He said that he would take disciplinary action. I collected the attached 2 March 2007 reply to my 27 February 2007 letter to Mrs Woolf, President of the Law Society. It states that the handling of complaints against solicitors is now with the Legal Complaints Service, and that it operates "independently of the Law Society". ( * ) Mrs Woolf's Office has forwarded my letter to the CEO of the Legal Complaints Service. I am impressed with this action, as well as the fact that the reply was sent on the day of the receipt of my letter. As to what will happen next (assuming I receive my post !) I shall have to 'wait and see'. (*) I had my doubts about that. I was right - see 12 April 2007 (On that day, I also took delivery of an invoice from Martin Russell Jones - referred to, above, under the entry for 9 March) Saturday 17 March 2007 - The Legal Complaints Service is determining whether it "can help" re. my complaint against Portner and JaskelAnother (very inconvenient) trip to the sorting office from which I picked up this 12 March 2007 (1.1MB) letter from the Legal Complaints Service (LCS), as well as guidance leaflet (also attached), following the referral of my 28 February 2007 complaint against Portner and Jaskel. The letter states that it will determine whether it "can help with your concerns". I note that the LCS is at the same address as the Law Society's previous "Consumer Complaints Service" to which I addressed, for example, my complaint of 20 December 2004 against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - as can be seen in my covering letter of the same date. The "Consumer Complaints Service" was a renaming from "Office for the Supervision of Solicitors" (which was also at the same address) - as can be seen when I filed my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham: # 4, # 5 and # 6 (i.e. nine months previously). As can be seen from the LCS's letterhead and booklet, its proposition is defined as"Resolving complaints about solicitors". Makes a change from its predecessors I came to view - based on my very comprehensive first-hand experience - as "Obstructing complaints". Note at 12 April 2007 - Actually it DID NOT look at my complaint - See entry for 12 April 2007 (By the way, I note from page 14 of the booklet that the person holding the post of Legal Services Ombudsman is the same as when I escalated my complaints in 2004 and 2005 ) Sunday 18 March 2007 - Revisiting the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)Since the early part of the week, I have been revisiting the Civil Procedure Rules and getting updates. In October 2002 when I received the letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, threatening to forfeit the lease on my flat (CKFT # 6.2 ) - it really shook me up to the extent that I was physically sick at work (My Diary 10 October 2002) (Just thinking about it now brings the tears to my eyes - as well as a lot of anger that scums like that are allowed to operate). (No 'allegedly' here). (My complaint against him and Ms Ayesha Salim was not upheld by the Law Society, nor by the Legal Services Ombudsman) Another horrendous shock followed shortly afterwards when I received the 29 November 2002 claim from West London County Court - especially because I (and other leaseholders) had very specifically been told at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing to NOT pay (page 5) the service charge demand until the tribunal had issued its determination, and it had therefore been implemented (My Diary 6 December 2002 ); (It did this seven months after Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor filed the claim in court - see Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) At the time I knew nothing about legislation (other than that regulating my work), nothing about the courts, etc. Why should I? I have always been law-abiding, pay my taxes, etc. This lack of knowledge , combined with my limited financial means, made me an 'easy prey'.
Although I am still going through the CPR with a 'fine toothcomb', I can add a few 'interesting' (used by British people to cover a multitude of meanings) findings in relation to the 27 February 2007 claim... as well as the Statement of Truth for the 29 November 2002 claim (1.1MB). See 9 March 2007 entry. I am getting the feeling that I am going to have quite a few hits on my site over the coming days.
Notting Hill police station is a division of Kensington and Chelsea police - with which I have had the misfortune to have dealings in 2002 and 2003 - 'compliments of Mr Ladsky' (I had never had any dealings with the police prior to this. As I have stated on various parts of this website: I am a law-abiding person) On 16 March 2007, Simon J. Dowling, TDC, of the 'Community Safety Unit', sent an email to my website Host stating:
While in his 20 March 2007 email, also to my website Host, he wrote:
The standard note at the bottom of the email states:
Taking his emails in parts:
Definition of these words in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COED):
No mention in the dictionary that the term 'pig' is / has been used in relation to Jewish people. I have certainly never heard this. However, out of curiosity, next time I see my doctor (of many, many years) who is Jewish, (and whom I trust with my life), as well as one of my very good friends, who is also Jewish, I will put the question to them.
Likewise, no mention that the word 'monkey' is / has been used in relation to Jewish people. Conclusion: I have used the words as per their stated definition in the dictionary. (See below) My mistake to not include these two words and their definition in my list under the 'Abbreviations-Definitions' section.
In his 16 March email Simon Dowling, TDC, implies that I am a "Nazi", and reinforces this in his second email of 20 March by stating that being "franco-german", I "would be aware" of the terms being used "during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people" I view this as outrageously racist and xenophobic comments. In addition to coming across as lacking in his mastery of the English language, Simon Dowling, TDC, also demonstrates a very serious flaw in his understanding of history: who fought against whom during the second World War. (If, like me (contrary to his implied statement), he is not of an age that allowed him to witness it, he ought to read about it).
Simon Dowling, TDC, has, on the basis of my using these two words concluded that I have committed a "crime" Under which law? This is totally unsubstantiated and therefore defamatory. As a result of my website Host asking Simon Dowling whether he was "aware of legislation regarding false reporting", in his 20 March 2007 email, Mr Dowling replied that he was aware of this and stated:
What a change of tune! Is "incident" an alternative term used by the Metropolitan Police to describe a "crime"? I don't think so, and consequently view this as Simon Dowling backing down. Indeed, as Simon Dowling, TDC, concluded that I committed "a crime" - how come that the police 'cannot do anything'? Isn't it the case that when "a crime" has been committed - it IS within the remit of the police to take action? Who knows, maybe they'll turn-up at 06h30 a.m. one day to break down my door and will lock me up in a cell - as they did with e.g. the Canadian Lady (Another person of foreign origin.. and a woman!) (Her 'crime'? She had the courage "to do the right thing" in relation to the shooting of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes ) Consider the conduct of Simon Dowling v. the 11 July 2002 reply from Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, in the context of my complaint against Mr Ladsky in 2002:
Very clearly, this does not apply when the complainant is Mr Ladsky(Covered under Kensington & Chelsea police point # 1 ) Clearly, Simon Dowling's intention was to cause my website Host to suffer fear, anxiety and distress, so that my Host would close down my website. It follows - in my non-lawyer opinion - that Simon Dowling has committed offences under the following (NB: comments in brackets after the Acts are extracted from the Acts):
This is incorrect, as I have used the terms in the context of a significant number of people - in situations where I concluded that they were observing me / following me / harassing me / attempting to scare me / intimidate me. As I explain in the introduction to My Diary: "Up to roughly the end of 2005, I used to refer to the people I believe to be observing / following me as 'my minders'. Since then, I have been describing them as the 'pigs' and 'monkeys' - although it is an insult to both species" "I have noticed two distinct types of people who are engaging in these activities : amateurs, leading them to behave in a disorientated manner when taken at their own game". I follow this by a comprehensive list of examples of the type of event I am referring to. As to the other type, which I call 'type 2', I state that "it is my impression that there is a connection with the police", and explain why, as well as emphasising that "I have no evidence to back-up my claim i.e. I may be wrong (and I certainly hope that I am because of what it would imply)...It may be that there are ex. policemen employed by the private sector" I give one example of this type of event: 15 January 2006. Other examples : 4 January 2006 ; 23 January 2006 ; Rest of week beginning 23 January 2006 ; 17 March at c. 0h15 am ; 17 July 08h10 ; 2 August 2006 - from 22h00 ; 23 August - after midnight ; 25 August 2006 ; 4 September 2006 - 02h45 am (under this latter entry I state: My reference to 'cops' as I simply cannot get out of my mind (for many months now) that the police is somehow involved. However, as I have already stated on numerous occasions in My Diary: I have NO EVIDENCE of this) At the beginning of 2006 when I felt that the word 'minder' was totally inappropriate to express my emotions from suffering the unbelievable amount of ongoing harassment and intimidation, I opted to switch to 'pig' and 'monkey'. As I now revisit My Diary for 2006, looking at the events that have taken place, I now view these words as being far too 'soft'. How do you describe men who think nothing of:
And women as well have taken part in the harassment activities e.g. 20 March 2006 ; 12 May 2006 ; 30 July 2006 ; 5 August 2006 These are only examples from 2006. Many more are captured in My Diary in previous years - and include having witnesses : 26 October 2003 and 1 June 2005 (SUBSEQUENT NOTE: SEE MY DIARY 13 APRIL 2008 for 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 ) As I wrote in My Diary, 23 August 2006 "Visitor to the site, how would you feel if you were being subjected to this kind of treatment every single day - any time of day? And add to that, threatening behaviour. To refer to them as 'pigs and monkeys' is an insult to both species" Do you describe these people as 'pigs and monkeys'? No! If you are a human being with any decency, the words that come to mind (well, certainly to my mind) are : criminal ; morally depraved ; evil ; scums ; despicable ; rejects from the sewer; beneath contempt; low life I have already been using these words on my site (e.g. 19 April 2006 ; 16 May 2006 ; 1 August 2006 ), but not enough. |
