The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
Seven years of harassment, victimisation, intimidation, bullying and blackmail tactics
|
My Diary - 2008IntroductionYear seven of the horrendous, sheer utter hell nightmare (My Diary started in Year 2002) and the first anniversary of my website. At the beginning of 2007 I wrote "Somebody 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" Was I 'blessed' in 2007? If you consider some of the major events: • The threat of bankruptcy and of losing my flat, followed by the 27 February 2007 fraudulent claim filed against me by Portner and Jaskel - which can only be on behalf of Mr Andrew Ladsky (see My Diary 3 October 2006 , Directorships and Advisors to Jefferson House)... • ...claim which, thanks to the 'double act' with West London County Court is - ten months on - still 'hanging over my head' (specifically, see WLCC # 22 and # 23) • ...leading me to go through - so far - ten months of horrendous torment, distress and anguish • False accusations by Kensington & Chelsea police which, in addition, branded me as a "Nazi" (My Diary 20 March 2007). Of course, the source is also Mr Andrew Ladsky • Suffering the fourth malicious leak in two years, that caused extensive damage to my flat (My Diary 20 July 2007); the previous one, at the beginning of the year narrowly missed my flat (6 February 2007) • Renting a room in East London for seven months, starting in April 2007, in order to give me 'some' feeling of security, and bring back 'some kind' of normality in my life (My Diary 2 August 2006) (Of course, during that time, I continued paying the mortgage on my flat, council tax, water rates, etc. - and the flat remained empty: no point renting it as the person would be harassed e.g. Other Residents; malicious leaks) (I might ADD other events relating to my ex. employer) Anybody with a modicum of emotional intelligence would no doubt say: No, 2007 was certainly not a year of 'blessings' for me. It's been hell, a continuation of the 'prison sentence' - in solitary confinement. However, against all of that, I have had the priceless, unfailing and unbelievable support of my US website Host who stood firm in keeping my site online. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to do what my website Host has done - and continues to do for me. While my website may not bring me justice and redress, I now know that it is helping other leaseholders - hence, giving me the satisfaction of knowing that I am achieving my secondary objective. Will 2008 be the year that brings me justice and redress? My last letter in 2007 was my 27 December 2007 response to the 20 December 2007 reply from the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Justice to my 13 November 2007 complaint against West London County Court (see WLCC # 22 and # 23) . I concluded this letter by saying:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 Recently, a journalist (Financial Times Magazine, 22-23 December 2007) (*) talking about the trial of the Nat West Three and Conrad Black in the United States of America, said to be in favour of outsourcing white-collar crime cases to the USA. In light of my experience so far in this country, and on the basis of the tremendous support from my website Host, I sure wish that my case could be transferred to a court in the USA. (*) Article headed "Job done. Outsourcing admin to india makes sense, so why not white-collar justice to the US?" Tuesday 9 January 2008The continuation of what I see as a game being played by the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Service (see WLCC # 23 for the 2 January 2008 follow-up to my 27 December 2007 letter - WLCC # 22 ) has led me...
Before setting out on my protest, I checked the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to ensure I was not breaching the exclusion zone for protests. The Ministry of Justice is outside of this zone (so far! :-) ) (Re. this Act: Yes, in spite of being constantly reminded by politicians that this country is a "democracy", protesting within a large area that includes Parliament and other government buildings is regarded as amounting to "Serious Organised Crime". In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience, I view the title of this Act as being particularly appropriate for the residential leasehold system and its supporting infrastructure - a view shared by e.g. a visitor to my site). Somebody nonetheless contacted the police as I was approached by a male and a female police officer. The man did the talking. He said that they were from Alpha station (?) He asked for my name in order to complete a form which, 'I think' he referred to as "form 1519". In reply to my question about the purpose of the form, he told me that it was to record the fact that the police had stopped me to ask me why I was carrying a placard. That it would not lead to my having a police record (!!!) (NB: Control of people through FEAR!: introduction to My Diary, and to the home page. Anyway, I already have a 'police record' - for 'daring' to report harassment - Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 and # 1) I asked whether I was breaching any laws. "No" was the answer. I consequently challenged him on stopping me, saying that under the Human Rights Act 1998 I have the right to freedom of expression (Article 10). I therefore repeated my question as to his objective in completing the form - to which I was treated to a repeat of the original reply. The officer then told me that I was under no obligation to comply and that I could also raise a complaint if I so wished. As you can imagine, this led me to laugh (see Kensington & Chelsea police). I gave him a little card of my website suggesting he looks at the section on Kensington & Chelsea police. As to my details, he had a pick of c. 900 documents on my website. I then walked off, wishing them a "good day", and continued to pace up and down the front of the Ministry of Justice building. A complaint frequently voiced by the police (in the media) is that it has "too much paperwork" to deal with, taking it away from its policing activities. On the basis of this incident (which, in addition to filing in a form, could have potentially led to dealing with a complaint), it leads me to wonder how much of this 'paperwork' is actually self-generated. What also comes to mind is that it is easier to target me, a non-threatening woman, for no apparent reason - other than, quite clearly, attempt to intimidate me - rather than deal with criminals, including those of the 'white-collar' kind. On the upside, I received support from passers-by, spurring me on to continue with my fight for justice, to not give up. Three people had themselves / had relatives who had a leasehold flat and had recently received massive, unjustified service charge demands from their landlords, one of which was a council (see My Diary 22 November 2008). A man told me that he was reduced to living on £10 per week (US$17) following a battle with his landlord - but he was not going to give up the fight. One person told me: "They are not going to do anything love; they are all criminals in there" as he pointed towards the Ministry. Some people lamented the current state of affairs with government overall. I certainly do. At times I could not fight back the tears from finding myself being reduced to having to do this. All I want are the rights I have been told I have the right to demand. So, I will continue advertising my plight in public places by wearing my back strap, and by holding a placard stating: "Victim of leasehold fraud - Noëlle Rawé - www.leasehold-outrage.com" My 9 January protest had an effect......as it prompted:
w/c 4 February 2008
As previously, I get quite a few people talking to me. It's a great way of finding out what 'the man and woman in the street' think. This week, an MP said on TV that the mood among his constituents is "on the point of insurrection". There is certainly disgust and contempt. I have been told that this country is "turning into a banana republic". I replied "banana kingdom?". The man laughed and said "Yeah! that's right!". An Englishman asked me what my problem was. Having told him very briefly, he said "This town has turned very, very nasty, it's cut throat now; the law of the jungle" (This person came across as having 'class'; what I would describe as 'a real Englishman'. This encounter reinforced my perception that what has been happening to me since 2002 would not have happened some twenty five years ago. This was a very different country then). Another person, of foreign origin, who said to be living in London for the last two years said "There is a lot of corruption here. They say there isn't, but that's not true. The minute you scratch the surface, it's crawling with maggots". Top of mind seemed to be media reports about a Conservative MP claiming very substantial sums of money for one (or more?) family member/s by (allegedly?) falsely stating that the person/s was/were helping him in his work as an MP. One person said "They are all in there to line their pockets". Another person said "It's not the House of Commons, it's the House of Thieves" (Note at May 2009: This person was spot on!) Four years ago, an Australian friend told me that, to him, the country looked like a giant bicycle running with nothing to control it: no frame, no handlebar, no chain. Just looking at my (so far) 28 battles since 2002, I now share his view: there is no control. It's like a giant 'trompe l'oeil'. (see 20 October 2008 for follow-up)
Branding people who expose conduct in breach of legislation / regulations / codes of conduct as suffering from mental disorder appears to be the defence of choice here - a practice that seems to me to be reminiscent of medieval times. I wonder whether the journalist who, in the last few days, also reported being bugged as well as followed will, like me, be branded as "paranoid" ? (NB: on BBC1 early evening news / local news) (See below, 13 April 2008 for surveillance activities by government departments) Subsequent note - In its Review section of 30 November 2008, the Mail on Sunday reports an interview with what appears to be the same journalist. The article is headed "As the Damian Green case (My Diary 7 June 2008) raises the spectre of a police state, local newspaper reporter Sally Murrer tells how her 18-month battle to defend herself against the same charges ended in a judge throwing out the case with a ringing endorsement of free speech" Like Mr Green, the journalist was charged under the ancient common-law offence of aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office. "I was being accused of encouraging a police officer to give me information - stories the police authorities do not want in the public domain. None of the stories could be described as being of national importance... they were searching my car, my house, even my garden shed, asking about documents, bank accounts, notebooks... a WPC...rifled through my purse... they bagged my mobile phone and address book... they fingerprinted me, photographed and stripped me of every belonging...The cell door closed... The following afternoon [I was told] 'you are under investigation for an extremely serious offence. You could go to prison. For life." Weeks of telephone conversations the journalist had with her friend, a police officer, had been recorded. "I felt violated. How dare these people bug my conversations and even download texts from my daughters?" (*) The article reports the journalist's defence as: the State had breached her right to 'freedom of expression' under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998; the police had no right to bug her conversations with her friend, a confidential source; her arrest was unlawful; the stories she had written were accurate, and the information was already in the public domain. The journalist is also reported as saying "Had it gone to trial, the case would have cost more than £4 million, but it still ended-up using more than £1 million of public money". (*) See My Diary home, for extracts from a press article "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police", and another one headed "Minister in 'cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing'" And how about the whistleblower who, also in the last few days, reported that the police has 'apparently' been bugging conversations between lawyers and their clients (in a prison environment) - which is of course illegal. Will he be branded as suffering from 'mental disorder'?
... (after being silent since the end of September 2007), Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner, is continuing with his games: with a covering letter dated 7 February 2008, he sent me a 'List of Documents: Standard Disclosure', dated 4 February 2008 (Portner # 24) Comparing the list of documents supplied by his client with the counterclaims / issues I have raised in my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", it is blatantly obvious that they do not address them. This evidence is to be added to:
(Subsequent note - On 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below 7 June 2008 entry - preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my Witness Statement - and 14 August and 26 August 2008 for the preposterous excuse, as well as: 11November 2008 for a 'snapshot' of events during my 16-month battle with Portner and West London County Court; 22 November 2008 for confirmation that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)
..."Has this country reached the stage where finding a court and a judge committed to operating under the 'Overriding Objective' (*) has become impossible?"... (*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 and stating: "To be absolutely clear: I now have NO CONFIDENCE and NO TRUST in WLCC.... I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person considering what has taken place with this court since 2007, added to what took place in 2002-2004, would have no difficulty understanding my position. "To also be absolutely clear: if your Court Service wants to continue ‘rolling over’ for Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al., I am prepared to continue fighting all of you for my right to justice and redress until the very end..." Yes, I am sure that my 'un-English' way of being very direct and open is 'putting backs up'. At least, 'I' have the guts to say what I think - in a public environment - and to direct it at the people with the responsibility to do something about it - unlike e.g. the spineless, underhanded hypocrites in government who voice criticisms to journalists by only allowing them to attribute their comments to an "unnamed source" . (Since then, there has been one courageous, brave MP prepared to 'speak out' - see My Diary 13 April 2008) (To quote Che Guevara: "It is a sad thing to not have friends, but it is even sadder to not have enemies" ) Secondly, as a tax-paying, (law abiding) British Citizen, I have the right to demand access to the justice system. Thirdly, they have had FIVE YEARS to help me - i.e. perform their remit - before, out of absolute despair, I resorted to launching this website (home page point # 7 , # 10 , # 12 , # 14 , # 15 ) - and endless opportunities to do so. ( Document library point # 3 , battles ) It is now more than one year since the relaunch (*) of my website which, at the time, I hoped would put pressure on resolving my situation - leading me to close it down shortly after launching it. Instead, gigantic egos, (instead of intelligence), have continued to 'attack' me, redoubling in their efforts to 'finish me off' by the most unbelievably underhanded means (e.g. home Introduction). (*) My Diary: initial launch on 19 September 2006 ; Mr Ladsky's threat of libel action on 3 October 2006 ; my ISP caves in by closing my website on 6 October 2006 ; 17 October 2006 I approach my current ISP, who, by end October 2006, agrees to host my website ; relaunch on Christmas day 2006 'Finishing me off' has been Mr Andrew Ladsky's objective for the last five years as, on 3 January 2003, he told me: "I am going to get you this year!" And he certainly was convinced of this, as he continued to secure assistance from: (1) West London County Court, when, on 27 August 2003, he called me "a loser"; (2) the triple act between Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Mr Stan Gallagher and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, when he greeted me with a very arrogant, smug tone, in November 2003. Well, five years on, in spite of being 'heavily bruised and battered', I, "the loser" , am still around - not giving up on my fight for justice and redress against the actions he has instigated against me through his supporting bunch of thugs. (See 15 May 2008 , below) (Subsequent note - A victroy to report: on 6 June 2008 Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - see below 7 June 2008 entry - preceded by 3 June 2008 which covers my Witness Statement. See also My Diary 22 November 2008: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) Evidently, none of them believed me when I said that I would fight to the death. They are clearly incapable of 'stepping out of their mindset' and "walking a mile in my shoes". I have been 'turning the other cheek' too many times already - starting with Mr Andrew Ladsky by paying £6,350 (US$11,200) which, legally, I did not owe (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 3 , # 6.8 , WLCC point # 12 ; Martin Russell Jones point # 18 ).
(There is space on my website to accommodate a lot more... and the option of sending a copy of it on a CD-ROM to an endless number of parties). I am absolutely serious about being prepared to end-up 'on the pavement'. There have been a number of occasions during my (so far) six-year 'prison sentence' - during which I have been subjected to mental torture on a daily basis - when I have considered the option of 'ending it all' e.g.
but every time the thought has crossed my mind, I have kicked it away with great force, because resorting to doing this would be very convenient for my 'attackers' and their supporters who have made me go through absolute, sheer utter hell since 2002. As I continue fighting, the very damning 'black on white' evidence keeps piling up, allowing me to make ever stronger statements / claims / accusations (*) - and add to the horror of my story of what can happen to a leaseholder who 'dares' to challenge a 'sacrosanct' landlord. What has, and continues to happen, in the 21st century, in a country that is a member of the European Community and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights is absolutely unbelievable - as it is actively / implicitly endorsed by the government. (Meanwhile, it lectures other countries on Human Rights. What hypocrisy!) (*) Subsequent note: Sure enough! See e.g. My Diary 11Nov 08 'More games and lies' ; 22 Nov 08 'threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS'
The article, headed "Secret Commonhold consultations" (*) highlights that these consultations "have been taking place for some time between the government and its friends in the property industry through the Commonhold Consultative Working Group. This group is dominated by developers and others with everything to gain from obstructing commonhold tenure and keeping millions of 'homeowners' trapped in the leasehold system". ...and that these consultations exclude organisations representing leaseholders. (*) See Mr John Prescott point # 4 (then overall Head of Housing) for some prior events under 'New Labour' in relation to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose' as this department is evidently continuing in the footsteps of its predecessor, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (*), when its Head, Lord Falconer of Thoroton was reported in 2006 to be "pressing ahead with plans to limit the Freedom of Information Act" (Kensington & Chelsea police # 4 ) (*) Comparing my experience with West London County Court in 2002-2004 v. since the beginning of 2007: it's obvious!
A visitor to my website sent me a comment saying that she "was devastated that the petition about abolishing leasehold was rejected by government". And added "It is more convenient to them to turn a blind aye on this situation". On 21 February 2007, I wrote in My Diary "Let's not raise our hopes...". It is blatantly obvious that nothing would be done: it is now 11 years since 'New Labour' launched 'An End to Feudalism' (Mr John Prescott # 4.1 ). What has happened since? In 2002, a Consultation paper on residential leasehold reform was issued, which again demonstrated awareness of the highly abusive practices of some landlords: "despite all the safeguards, bad landlords have found ways to continue with their old abuses, and have invented some new ones". (In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience since 2002, landlords' aides comprising of rogue lawyers, accountants and surveyors need to also be included). The reply to the petition talks about the introduction of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. See Mr John Prescott # 4.2 on how it has translated in practice. See also the experience of a group of leaseholders trying to buy the freehold on their flats (My Diary 11 Nov 06). One year later, also at the C.A.R.L. AGM, the same leaseholder representative said that they were still battling out in court with the freeholder. The cost to the leaseholders by then? c. £250,000 (US$441,000). (And much higher since: see My Diary 22 Nov 08) I think you will agree that these leaseholders' experience, added to the comments in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, fly in the face of the claim made in the 5 March 2008 response that the 2002 Act "makes the purchase of the freehold...easier". Consider also that, in spite of its very forceful criticisms of the residential leasehold system in its 1997 "An End to Feudalism", New Labour has retained the barbaric forfeiture legislation (Mr John Prescott # 4.3 ). In its 5 March 2008 reply, the Office of the Prime Minister would have us believe that it is concerned about a potential breach of Human Rights if it were to impose a commonhold form of tenure. Why isn't it concerned about forfeiture which IS a blatant breach of Human Rights? The reality is that landowners in this country are a very powerful group - as highlighted by Mr Barry Gardiner, MP, during his 8 January 2002 speech to the House of Commons (Mr John Prescott # 7 ) (See also the 'Great Estates' ; 'Who owns Britain?' ; examples of new entrants). It can also be said that they have very far reaching tentacles. Judged on its performance to date, all that New Labour has done since coming to power is helping them strengthen, rather than loosen their hold (for other examples see e.g. Mr John Prescott # 5 and # 6 ). As accurately stated by C.A.R.L. : "New Labour will be remembered as the party that promoted the expansion of a policy (residential leasehold) that is a millennium out of date"
Why has Deputy Judge (*) McGovern, West London County Court, denied my application for transfer of my case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 24 August 2007?Why am I being treated differently?,Subsequent note - My answer: Because the LVT would have had to recognise the evidence in support of my position that the 27 February 2007 claim is fraudulent. (I certainly would have made sure that it did). So, it was 'best' to keep the case under the control of WLCC. But the plan failed as Mr Ladsky eventually 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 (see below, 7 June 2008) And because it was a set-up (WLCC # 6.1 , # 11 ; My Diary 11 Nov 08 'More lies and games' ; my 19 January 2009 reply to to the points of dispute ; 'court claims = FRAUD TOOLS' ; [ADD]) (*) Practising solicitors and barristers sit as Judges and Registrars in the courts. It is commonly recognised that it can result in unfair judgements. Consider that they can potentially preside over a case involving their own firm. How about that for conflict of interest!
On 13 March 2008, I took delivery of a 7 March 2008 Order from West London County Court, posted on 10 March 2008. It states:
The covering letter states a consequence of this as "the Claimant may apply for judgment" Had I gone to my PO Box one day later (!!!), you can bet your bottom dollar that this what would have happened... no doubt leading all to have a celebration. In light of the threat from West London County Court (*), added to being reminded of other leaseholders' appalling experience with other courts, as well as tribunals, I opted to return the Allocation questionnaire - supported by notes - explaining why I could not answer the majority of the questions. (*) Subsequent note: I have discovered that these terms are stated under Civil Procedure Rules Part 26, Rule 2.5 Given the deadline, I hand-delivered the documents to West London County Court on 14 March - as testified by the stamp from the court on the first page of the Allocation questionnaire. Having given me a 24-hr turnaround, by 13 April, i.e. one month later, I have yet to hear from the court. I wonder why? Has my reply spoilt a plan? I am tempted to compare the pressure placed on me with that previously used in the 27 September 2007 Order. However, it would be unfair as, when it first sent me an allocation questionnaire in January, the court did give me considerable time to reply. It caused a 'bit of a stir'. I don't see why. It's the truth. He could have added: and you will be able to find greed-ridden lawyers, surveyors, accountants, who will happily breach legislation, regulations, codes of conduct on your behalf - as they do not have to worry about sanctions from the 'regulators' (see 6 May 2008 below). Oh yeah! in our country, money can give you carte blanche to do whatever you want, and buy you 'friends' wherever you need them. (Subsequent note - And by that we mean: all the way up to the House of Lords where we can change legislation to suit your specific needs) (As you can see, I was not exaggerating in the claims I made at the time I wrote this entry) Having said that, while many are corruptible (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08 ; Jan 09 ; 11 Nov 08), some deplore the 'blindfold attitude' - and have the courage to say so publicly e.g. 'Letters to the Editor' in C.A.R.L.'s Spring 2008, Issue 23 newsletter, from a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW):
e.g. A member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Managing Director of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 June 2006 issue of the Estates Gazette as saying (in relation to gross over-charging on insurance premiums by managing agents)
See Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors point # 6, for industry observers' comments. And some of our regulators can 'show their teeth' e.g. Office of Fair Trading (OFT) re. allegations of collusion among construction companies - which include Mansell (# 12 on OFT list; company that carried out the works at Jefferson House). Although allegations refer to both, private and public sector contracts, the OFT is limiting its investigation to the latter. 13 April 2008 - A brave, courageous Member of ParliamentUnder the entry for 18 February 2008, I had 'a go' at the "spineless, underhanded hypocrites in government" who voice criticisms to journalists by only allowing them to attribute their comments to an "unnamed source" . What was fresh in my mind at the time was BBC2's Newsnight reporting on MPs' perceptions of the House of Commons Speaker. To demonstrate the response Newsnight had received from the MPs when it asked whether it could quote them, it showed telephone handsets being slammed down, as well as doors being slammed shut. Well, there is at least one MP with courage: today's Mail on Sunday (*) reports that Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP, has spoken out. He is quoted as saying: "No other MPs have so far been willing to speak out. I am the first. Apparently, I am told, it's "just not cricket". It's not what "one does if one wants to get on". Besides, don't I know that if I upset him, Mr Speaker might not call me to speak in a debate again? Well, I'm trying to represent my constituents, not play cricket. I am not in politics to "get on", but to speak up. And if Mr Speaker does take umbrage and not call on me to speak, surely that merely reinforces the point I am trying to make?" In the 'Comment' section, the Mail on Sunday wrote: "At last a lone, brave MP dares to say what others only mutter behind their hands... Douglas Carswell deserves enormous credit for breaking rank..." . Yep! agree. Big tick for Mr Carswell. I know only too well what it takes 'to speak out' - (as do other whistleblowers). Hopefully, unlike me, Mr Carswell will not suffer detrimental consequences. At least, he has some buffer to protect him, not least the fact that he is a man and, I assume, unlike me, not of foreign origin. (My 'double handicap' in standing-up and fighting for my rights in what is a male dominated environment. Add to that the fact that, as a non-lawyer, I am representing myself. In a status-conscious, lawyer-dominated environment, this must be perceived as 'unbelievable arrogance'. However, drawing on my very comprehensive first-hand experience with the legal sector, I am of the view that frustration is top of the list as, by representing myself, it precludes the possiblity of collusion. Oh well, that still leaves the court!). (Note at end April: Yep! as I expected - see 30 Apr 08 - and more evidence at 30 Jan 09 ) I hope that others in government will follow Mr Carswell's lead on 'speaking out', and give priority to their stated responsibility over their personal agenda... my situation is crying out for such a change in attitude. (Fat chance of them doing that. They are too busy lining thier pockets) (Link to 7 June 2008) More people willing to 'speak out'. This time about being spied on by a local council
This is to be added to another example, that of the journalist who reported being followed (as captured above, under w/c 4 February 2008 )
The 15 Mar 08 Daily Mail article also states that the recruitment of undercover agents and informants is permitted by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and lists the situations giving "the right to snoop": "national security; preventing and detecting crime or preventing disorder; in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK; protecting public health; collecting any tax duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; any other purpose prescribed in an order made by the Secretary of State". There is certainly a lot of scope for interpretation... and hence flexibility in the situations where these powers can be claimed to apply - as demonstrated by the above example. I wonder: under which of these headings would challenging the police, court, council, 'regulatory' bodies, etc. come under? "preventing disorder", or perhaps "protecting economic well being"? and for how long would the surveillance be 'deemed to be necessary'? (snapshot in My Diary home) (Subsequent note in 2009: Another unit has been set-up to spy on people: the Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU), and a massive, "secret database" to monitor their travel in and out of the UK - see below) The Daily Mail also reports that "councils have the power to access telephone or mobile records, although not the content of calls" and that "last year they made 1,700 requests to access the information". Councils are just one of "800 public bodies and quangos with this power" (Mail on Sunday, 30 September 2007). (See also My Diary home, for access by the police) As to tax inspectors, they "have been given wide-ranging new powers to bug people's homes and private phone calls. They also have the go-ahead to intercept emails and plant listening devices in suspects' cars and offices" "...the power to sanction the use of surveillance techniques [come] under the same rules that govern the work of MI5, GCHQ and the police" (Mail on Sunday, 24 February 2008). The newspaper reports opposition to the new powers by professional bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Given its member-centric focus (see Pridie Brewster for my experience with the ICAEW), it may be that it views this as 'bad news for business'? In a follow-up article, in its 6 June 2008 edition, the Daily Mail reported that Kensington & Chelsea Council (covers my area) "used RIPA powers to spy on a resident who they suspected of misusing a disabled parking badge". The newspaper also reports that "Last year, councils and government departments made 12,494 applications to use 'direct surveillance', the equivalent of 34 requests every day". Even Members of Parliament appear to not be immune from having their telephone conversations being listened to (My Diary 7 Jun 08) - and nor are journalists (My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08) (See also My Diary home, including extracts from a press article "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police") To this army of snoops must also be added the law firms who, on behalf of their clients, employ private detectives to spy on people, including fraudulently obtaining all kinds of highly personal information e.g. bank acccount and credit card details by using 'blaggers'. They do this by contacting the banks, etc. pretending to be a variety of organisations. Apparently, within a few days, they can obtain a very comprehensive profile of an individual (BBC2, 1 June 2009, ‘Who’s watching you?’) (I know first-hand what this thoroughly corrupt, vermin-infested sector can do e.g. My Diary 2009, Introduction) (As a Reader of The Times wrote "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 Apr 07)) How many thousands of these snoops and criminals are operating across the country at any point in time - spying on people, gathering data on them? It certainly makes it easy to understand how somebody can be under constant surveilance for a very long time: when the snoops are not tailing one person, they are tailing another one. THE POLICE STATE PAR EXCELLENCE! The greater the level of systemic corruption in a country, the greater the need for surveillance of the 'little people'. And there sure is corruption in this country! e.g. My Diary Jan 09 ; 6 May 08 ; police In relation to hacking into computers - The following are brief extracts from an article in The Sunday Times of 4 January 2009, headed "Police to step up hacking of home PCs" with sub-title "Under a new EU rule, officers can snoop on your e-mails": "The Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain to hack into people's personal computers without a warrant. The move follows a decision by the European Union's council of ministers... [It led] civil liberty groups and opposition MPs [to] describe it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state that drives "a coach and horses" through privacy laws... It allows French, German and other EU countries to ask British officers to hack into someone's UK computer and pass on any any material found... An amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 made hacking legal if it was authorised and carried out by the state". The article states that "A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he "believes" that it is "proportionate" and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime - defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years" . If he "believes": My conclusion = offers a lot of scope for misuse of the power as with e.g. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act covered above. The article reports the means for hacking as: (1) A 'keylogging' device in the computer that records and transmits suspect's keystrokes typed [ADD]; (2) "Virus or 'malware' sent as an attachment to an e-mail to monitor all internet activity"; (3) "Surveillance van (*) from which officers can hack into a home or office computer via wireless network" (*) To this I will add: or from surrounding flat/s Subsequent notes at 8 February 2009 In its 8 February 2009 issue, the Mail on Sunday has an article headed "Secret police to spy on British 'subversives". It states that "The Confidential Intelligence Unit (CIU) is a secret police intelligence unit set-up to spy on Left-wing and Right-wing political groups... and will mount surveillance and run informers on 'domestic extremists'. Its job is to build up a detailed picture of radical campaigners...the unit will work closely with Government departments, university authorities and private sector companies to 'remove the threat of criminality and public disorder that arises from domestic extremism..." (NB: Another one that appears to be open to interpretation) "...The CIU will also use legal proceedings to prevent details of its operations being made public. Its chief will play an active part in obtaining Public Interest Immunity Certificates from Government Ministers" = censorship on reporting by the "domestic extremists" and the media? (See 'Fair comment' ; 'public interest') It is clear that this Unit has been operational for quite some time. For example, in its 24 April 2009 issue, The Guardian has an article headed "Police caught on tape trying to recruit Plane Stupid protester as spy". It states that "Undercover police are running a network of hundreds of informants inside protest organisations who secretly feed them intelligence in return for cash, according to evidence handed to the Guardian". In the third tape, the police officers state "We work for the community intelligence section" The 'Plane Stupid' environmental protester said to have had meetings with the police after being released on bail following a Plane Stupid protest in Scotland. "During the taped discussions... (the men who claim to be a detective constable and his assistant) Indicate that she could receive tens of thousands of pounds to pay off her student loans in return for information about individuals within Plane Stupid...that it would be tax free...but warn her that her activity could mean she will struggle to find employment in the future and result in a criminal record...Explain that spying could assist her if she was arrested. "People would sell their soul to the devil" (NB: VERY TRUE!) What can happen if you refuse to be an informant? The Independent's article of 22 May 2009, "Home Secretary was warned of MI5's 'blackmailing of Muslims'", suggests that it can lead to prolonged "blackmail and intimidation... and coercion" and that, in this particular instance, the young Muslim men "were targeted by the Security Service who threatened to set them up as terror suspects" "Domestic extremist" - Considering how 'I' - a LAW-ABIDING, INNOCENT VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - have, and continue to be treated by government-controlled departments, the 'professions', 'regulatory' bodies, etc (snapshot of the outcome of my complaints) - including being branded a "Nazi" by the police and treated as though I am a criminal - should I conclude that my 'daring' to fight for the rights I have been told I have the right to demand categorises me as a "Domestic extremist" or, to be more precise, a "Nazi Domestic Extremist"? Looks to me as though the powers that be are setting-up an environment of total, unaccountable freedom to quash any opposition / dissent (while behind the gigantic trompe l'oeil they are squeezing the 'cash machines' to the tune of millions of Pounds, down to the last penny - without fear of sanction). In addition to the surveillance measures (hacking into people's computer, monitoring their emails, phone calls, etc):
In its 8 February 2009 issue, in an article headed "Spy centre will track you on holiday", The Sunday Times reports that "The government is building a secret database to track and hold the international travel records of all 60m Britons. The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details...for up to 10 years...the spy centre will house more than 300 police and immigration officers. A similar number of technicians will help check travelers' details against police, MI5, benefit agency and other government "watch lists" ..." "...opposition MPs, privacy campaigners and some government officials fear it is a significant step towards a total surveillance society... Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. "A lot of this stuff will have legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it's what else it could be used for that presents a problem"" The article also reports that "In a report last week ('Surveillance: Citizens and the Sate'), the House of Lords constitution committee, whose members include Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice, called for a significant cut back in the state's surveillance powers. It said Britain's traditions of privacy and democracy were under threat from pervasive and routine electronic spying and the mass collection of personal information". The Guardian also reported on this report ('Surveillance: Citizens and the Sate') in its 6 February 2009 issue, in an article headed "Lords: rise of CCTV is threat to freedom - World's most pervasive surveillance undermines basic liberties, say peers". The article states "The peer say Britain has constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world in the name of combating terrorism and crime and improving administrative efficiency..." (NB: "Administrative efficiency" = neutralise "domestic extremists" like me?) "...Although many surveillance practices and data collection processes are unknown to most people, the expansion in their use represents "one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the second world war", the report says. The committee warns that the national DNA database (on which "more than 7% of the population is already logged") could be used for "malign purposes", challenges whether CCTV cuts crime and questions whether local authorities should be allowed to use surveillance powers at all..." "... Lord Goodlad... said there could be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about an individual being recorded and pored over by the state. "The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the long-standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital to democracy." The article states "But the report is silent on proposals from Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, for a "superdatabase" tracking everybody's emails, calls, texts and internet use and from Jack Straw, the justice secretary (or, I prefer to call him: the Injustice secretary) to lower barriers on the widespread sharing of personal data across the public sector" 22 April 2008 - "Man left with a criminal record for overfilling his dustbin"; "Apple core lands man in jail";"A criminal record for forgetting to pay a 90p Oyster fare"Today's media reports that a man who refused to pay a £110 on-the-spot fine for 'illegally' over filling his dustbin by four inches was taken to court where he was ordered to pay £235. Apparently, he was threatened with prison if he failed to pay, and has ended-up with a criminal record. In its Comment section, the Daily Mail wrote "Meanwhile, violent offenders escape with a caution, and shoplifters with a simple £80 fixed-penalty notice. What price common sense?" To which I will add: "Meanwhile, rogue landlords and their equally rogue aides escape with no sanction of any kind" And another group that appears to enjoy immunity from prosecution is the 'Westminster village' (politicians): example of the expense claims from Members of Parliament and Ministers who abuse the system... some, to the tune of several hundred thousand Pounds) (based on media reports). Shortly afterwards, in its 9 May 2008 issue, the Guardian reported in an article headed "Apple core lands man in jail" that "a man spent a night in a police cell after being arrested for dropping an apple core. A police community support officer (*) attempted to issue [the man] with a £50 fixed penalty notice, but he refused to give his name and address. The officer called for help from a police officer who arrested [the man] and took him to Swinton police station, Greater Manchester police… where he was held in custody until he appeared the following day in court". At the second court hearing (!!!) “both charges were dismissed”. (*) Another one of 'those'! see My Diary 20 Mar 07 Meanwhile, they don't put some paedophiles and other cirminals in prison "because of a shortage of space"! A few weeks later, in an article headed "A criminal record for forgetting to pay 90p (£0.90) Oyster fare", the London Evening Standard reported in its 11 August 2008 edition that a woman, a Danish national, received a criminal record for forgetting to swipe her bus fare card – on which she had credit. The article states that the woman, who had her two-week old daughter with her, said that she forgot to swipe her card as she was concentrating on getting her daughter and the baby buggy safely aboard. When approached by an inspector – accompanied by a police officer - she explained that she had forgotten to swipe her card, but nonetheless offered to pay the £20 fine. But, the inspector made her leave the bus and demanded her details. Having first received “a letter from London Bus Services ‘offering [her]’ the chance to plead guilty to avoid appearing”, which she did not take up as “my only ‘crime’ was forgetfulness”, she found herself in court. The magistrate found her “guilty” but reduced the penalty to £50. She was told that her “criminal record would be deleted after six months – but despite this it will always be flagged up when checks are made, especially when she begins applying for a job as a teacher”. The woman is also reported as saying “It really made me quite angry to have a criminal record. My family in Denmark are stunned by the whole thing. They never heard of anything so ridiculous as getting a criminal record for a bus ticket”. My reply to this woman is: imagine the reaction of my family and friends in France to what has been happening to me in this country since 2002! “Stunned” does not begin to express it. See also other examples above These examples, added to my horrendous experience since 2002, further reinforce in my mind what I captured in My Diary - 20 Feb 07 "This country has turned completely upside down". How can anybody not lose confidence and respect in a system that acts in this manner? And 'I' am branded a "Nazi"... as well as "mad"?!?! 23 April 2008 - Two 'ordinary' people, who, like me, feel very let down by the courtsThe Times, 23 April 2008, "Gang victim Gary Newlove’s widow hits out at courtroom ‘disgrace’" reports the comments of two victims of violent crime when they gave evidence at an inquiry. One said
The other is quoted as saying: "that money and power had influenced the decision to grant bail when the man was accused of murder". Until 2002, like them, I also believed that the courts were there for me, and I believed that this was the case irrespective of creed, gender and financial means. As I wrote e.g. on the home page to the site (point # 7) one day, I finally admitted to myself that "I had been well and truly conned" - and my world collapsed. I have since realised that it was very naïve of me to believe in what I had been told. Why was I so gullible? I attribute it to a combination of religious upbringing and being told to respect the law, institutions, etc. Unfortunately, I am now 'stuck' with 'my programming' for the rest of my life - leading me to continue with my fight for justice and redress; to demand what I have been told I have the right to demand. Recently, I told somebody that I was continuing with my fight in spite of the fact that I very clearly was not going to get justice and redress, and that my objective in doing this was to demonstrate what can happen to a leaseholder who 'dares' to stand-up and fight for her / his rights against a landlord. The person disagreed with my view that I would not get justice and redress, citing the example of a Court of Appeal ruling this month that one of the world's most dangerous terror suspects cannot be deported to his home country out of concern that his treatment there might be in breach of his Human Rights, including right to a fair trial. Among others, this man has reportedly made a speech advocating the killing of people. My reply was that seeing this 'makes me hurt' even more, as it leads me to ask:
Following the Court Appeal ruling, one MP is quoted as saying "Yet again, terrorists are laughing at us and remaining in this country's at the taxpayer's expense". I am one of the taxpayers, one who, for six months plus of the year, got up everyday to go to work (*) to give all that I earned to the government in the form of taxes (40% income tax, 17.5% VAT on practically everything I buy, council tax, etc.) - paying in total an estimated £500,000. [(*) In the past because I resigned from my job in January 2008 due to [ADD] What did I - and still currently - get in return since 2002? Repeated kicks in the teeth, 'GET LOST!' messages - as evidenced by the outcome of my battles (list in Document library). Very clearly, I have and continue to be perceived - at best, as 'not worth helping'; 'not worth ensuring that I can exert my rights'. While they all dismiss me, turning their nose up at me, they don't turn their nose up at my hard-earned money that helps pay for their salary, perks, pension, etc. Don't take me wrong: of course it is possible to get justice and redress in the courts - and indeed, as exemplified by the above example, protection of statutory rights. Unfortunately, overall, (based on my experience and that of other leaseholders I am in contact with (e.g. see Lord Falconer # 4) the concepts of justice, protection of rights and redress tend to be interpreted very differently in residential leasehold disputes (Note: see next entry, 30 April 2008, for yet another example in support of my position). (Subsequent note: and My Diary 11 Nov 08 for a snapshot of events with WLCC) As I wrote to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 22 November 2004 "There is a saying: ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’. When I opted to become a British national as a commitment to a country where I have spent all of my adult life (*), I had not appreciated that this saying only applies to a minority of the population resulting in the likes of me, or the ‘Great Unwashed’ as I understand we are called in some circles, having some statutory rights only on paper – not in reality" (*) Up to 2002 this country had been very good to me. Of particularly great importance, it provided me with the opportunity to realise my dream of furthering my education - culminating in an MBA. (In France, I had to start working when I was 14 years old. Hence, I arrived in the UK with no qualification to speak of). (Subsequent note - see My Diary 2009 - Introduction). It also gave me the opportunity to escape an environment associated with very painful memories, etc. The conclusion I have come to since 2003 is that "It does not pay to be an honest, decent, law-abiding citizen with principles and integrity" (as I wrote e.g. in my 6 April 2005 letter to Mr Michael Howard). Recently I have been thinking that, if I had my life all over again, in the world as it is now - and with the knowledge I now have of it - I would be one of the biggest white-collar criminals around. When I say that to people who know me, they laugh out loud, saying that I am "too moral" to do that. They are right. I could not do it. At the end of the day we all have to live - and die - with our conscience.
(NB: WLCC point # 28 contains a more detailed version of this entry) Today, I have hand-delivered this application to West London County Court. (NB: As a result of more 'crash learning', I have discovered that 'making an application' requires using one of the numerous court forms. I now assume that this is what was meant when I was told by HMCS in its 10 January 2008 letter that I "had not made an application for contesting the court's jurisdiction". (WLCC # 23 ) Why didn't it say so - including in its 10 January 2008 letter? It knows that I am a litigant in person. Opted to keep me in the dark in the hope of catching me out again? Well, this time: I HAVE filed in a form! and I am quoting the CPR rules and practice direction in support - and I have paid £40 (US$71) (... the parable of the horse who fell down a well - My Diary 5 Apr 07 ) My application is in response to the 9 April 2008 case management order, issued by District Judge Ryan. This order was posted on 21 April 2008, with this 18 April 2008 'Notice of trial to the Defendant' - giving the date as 21 August 2008. These actions are a follow-up to my filing the allocation questionnaire (as detailed above under 13 March 2008, and under WLCC # 26 ). Reasons for my application? As explained in my application, I have made it "in the interests of justice and efficiency" as the case management directions do not allow time to ensure I am supplied with the information I require to defend myself against the claim - as
In support, I quote: • Practice Direction (PD) 28 - 3.3: “The court’s first concern will be to ensure…that the necessary evidence is prepared and disclosed", and • PD 28 - 3.9 "Where the court is to give directions on its own initiative and it is not aware of any steps taken by the parties other than the service of statements of case, its general approach will be: As I note under Part C of my application, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders to obtain information, stating: "As repeatedly highlighted to the Court and the Claimant – over the last 12 months - in numerous documents (skeleton argument, defence to the claim, notes to the allocation questionnaire, etc.): I need better particulars to be able to defend myself against the claim – including writing my witness statement. By right, I should have been provided with the main evidence I require a long time ago" "Under Rules 26.5(3) and 31.12(1) the court had the option of giving directions / issuing an order for specific disclosure. It opted to not do this - in spite of my highlighting the need in the supporting document to my allocation questionnaire" I follow this by highlighting that "given the claimant's conduct to date, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders for disclosure of information (citing the rules)... (including) against other parties (e.g. accountants for Jefferson House; surveyors involved in determining the percentage shares of service charges), as well as " to obtain further information to clarify matters" I emphasise that all the information supplied to me, as well as already in my possession, must be endorsed by statements of truth from the supplying parties. In this context I highlight the fact that WLCC denied me access to the LVT's expertise by refusing my application for transfer of the case (WLCC point # 11) (NB: Fellow leaseholders: note the following CPR rules, in Part 32 - Evidence)I emphasise that"In highlighting this requirement for statements of truth, I am also conscious of Rule 32.19 (1) Notice to admit or produce documents - “A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial”, and of Rules 32.19(2); 31.16 and 31.11 (see WLCC # 28 for detail), as my 'sixth sense' warned me of a potential plan to present me with "evidence" in situations where I would not be able to challenge it due to e.g. lack of information) I follow this by asking for changes in the directions for the trial bundle, and by a suggested revised timetable. Question for you fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Considering the above, do you view the 9 April 2008 case management directions as reflecting consideration for the Overriding Objective (*) comprised under Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 In justifying my heading for this entry "West London County Court continues to pursue its 'mission to make me pay', I also take the following into consideration: • The fact that it issued a 3 April 2007 'Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed' falsely stating "The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim" (WLCC # 7) • Its total lack of support in ensuring that Portner supplied me with the information I required (WLCC # 9 ) • Its refusal to have my case transferred to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (WLCC # 11 ) • Its 27 September 2007 letter demanding that I pay a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee (WLCC # 14 ) - and the subsequent contradicting explanations (WLCC point # 22 and point # 23 ) - not to mention the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC • It has very clearly ignored my 26 January 2008 letter "To a Judge committed to the concept of Justice" (WLCC # 24) • It had, yet again, 'another attempt' with its 7 March 2008 order that contained the threat to "strike out [my] defence" by giving me a very tight deadline to reply (WLCC # 26) I interpret the above events as attempts to prevent the case from proceeding to a hearing, and conclude from the 9 April 2008 case management order that the objective is to now 'get me' at the trial. Well, WLCC was instrumental in making some of the other leaseholders in 2003-2004 pay a lot more than they were legally liable for (see WLCC , among others, point # 6 , point # 5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 6.3 and point # 6.6 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 ; My Diary 6 May 08 - Evidence of a c. £500,000 theft)... ...and WLCC did this on the basis of a claim that - in my non-lawyer opinion - was in very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as the statement of truth was signed by Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - see My Diary 9 Mar 07 (In addition to being based on false information - which WLCC knew - WLCC point # 2 , point # 3 , point # 4 )
Sure enough: my application was refused - see 3 June 2008
(1) I have since been further vindicated in my claim - see My Diary 22 Nov 08 'Threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS' The above is my introduction to the 'standard disclosure' list of documents I sent to Portner and Jaskel today - as per the directions contained in the 9 April 2008 case management directions (detailed under 30 April 2008, above).
(2) Information in support of my statement: "...innocent victim of fraud..."
"...aided and abetted since 2002 by a supporting cast comprising of lawyers..."
"...surveyors..."
"...accountants..."
"...their professional associations..."(NB: See also 15 May 2008 for expanded detail on some of the following parties) The Law Society for England & Wales
The Bar Council
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
The Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales
"...the Court Service..."
"...LVT..."
"...housing departments..."
"...Ombudsmen..."Legal Services Ombudsman
Local Government Ombudsman
"...Land Registry..."
"...and the police."
OVERALL SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES: GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! ...+ racist comments, malicious accusations and defamation of character by the police For the sake of completeness of the 'GET LOST!' I have received (in addition to those from MPs), another one was from the... ...Financial Services Authority (FSA)
HAVING TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE THERE TO ENSURE MY RIGHTS AS PER LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS, THEIR CODES OF CONDUCT, THEIR REMIT, MANDATE......ALL OF THE ABOVE HAVE LED ME TO GO INTO LONG, DRAWN OUT BATTLES - WITH THE OUTCOME THAT ALL OF MY COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, AND MY REQUESTS IGNORED (home page # 4.24 - cost to me of complaints - by mid 2006)The message is very loud and clear: SHUT-UP! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.In a speech at the NATO conference, Strasbourg, 4 April 2009, Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister said that "There is no intention to infringe the rights of women in Afghanistan". How about applying the same policy at home? How silly of me! Politicians are too busy feathering their nest and building their property portfolio at the taxpayer's expense to worry about this kind of thing. [To the above must be added the actions by .....] (I might ADD 2007 events with my ex. employer ) What can be said about all of them? “They did what they did, said what they said, wrote what they wrote all for the sake of a penthouse flat and three other flats - to generate a multi-million Pound jackpot” - see the summary 'threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Do you see why I wrote "I am the victim of fraud aided and abetted by a supporting cast comprising of..."? (15 May 2008 below contains additional detail) In My Diary, 9 Mar 07, I wrote "I sometimes wonder: are they all standing by, cheering Mr Ladsky on, or are they standing, frozen on the spot, 'passing the buck' back and forth as to whom should take the blame for reducing me to launch this website as a last resort cry for help?". The answer is loud and clear: 'they' have not stopped laughing, clapping and cheering Mr Ladsky on - whilst providing him with all manner of support - and it REALLY is ALL MANNER of support. I repeat the question I captured under 30 April 2008 (above)
It beggars belief that Mr Ladsky (and his associates?) can so freely command such outrageous acts against me (and my fellow leaseholders) (*) - in the 21st century, in a country that calls itself ‘civilised’ and has signed-up to the European Convention on Human Rights. The POWER OF MONEY!... regardless of how it has been obtained - and the power of connections. (*) See also 15 May 2008, below That, will never cease to shock me, and anger me. WHY is it allowed to happen? As I know from my contact with numerous other leaseholders, this is happening across the board (at very great cost to them) . How can it be allowed to happen? Why is it that a man who overfills his dustbin by 4 inches ends-up with a criminal record (22 April 2008, above) while crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides are given 'carte blanche' by 'the system' to do exactly as they please? How can such injustice be allowed to take place? WHY is it allowed to take place? Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, with "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that are your] moral compass" - what is your answer to the questions? As I wrote in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind "The Government has set up a helpline to help people report loan sharks who swindle them out of several hundred Pounds (e.g. Guardian article of 3 March 2009 "Loan shark helpline targets illegal lenders") – and the police and the courts take action against the perpetrators. By contrast, it turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to a landlord and his aides who swindle people to the tune of c. £500,000 – thereby helping them do it. (And I know of many other leaseholders in other blocks who have a similar story to tell). Why the two-tier system?" As I also know from other leaseholders, the more we fight for our rights, generally, the greater the opposition, push back - and the greater the penalty for 'daring' to challenge the system - because the 'little people' don't do that!. I know of leaseholders who, in spite of having a sound position, have ended-up being c. £100,000 (e.g. Lord Falconer # 4 ); c.£50,000; £45,000 worse off. As I wrote in My Diary - 11 Nov 06 "The whole system is geared to test the determination - and financial staying power of the leasehodlers" . Subsequent note: see My Diary 22 Nov 08 for further evidence of this. And, when somebody like me continues fighting for justice and redress... well, my website tells the story: you get persecuted. However, the impact of the recession is forcing leaseholders to 'come out', as they find it increasingly more difficult to "hand on the baton" e.g. The Observer article of 5 April 2009 "Flat owners left flat broke as service charges shoot through the roof" And another example to add: the following is from a communication I received recently from a group of leaseholders in a block of flats in London:
I am not in the least surprised by this communication. Of course Martin Russell Jones is continuing in its ways. It has the blessings of its 'professional' association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Subsequent note - and for further proof of this in August 2008, see RICS # 12 (NB: For other examples of MRJ overcharging leaseholders in other blocks, see Martin Russell Jones point # 42) (Subsequent note: other blocks to be added: see below, 19 May 08 ; 24 Sep 08) The connection with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor also looks like 'bad news' for the leaseholders.
So, message to the organised crime mob - at large - that prefers spending a fortune which, so far, must be many, many times the objectives I want to achieve (and then close down the website and leave the country): go ahead, keep the fight going, keep taking your revenge for my exposing the details of my case on this website - after FIVE YEARS of having all the doors repeatedly slammed in my face - keep adding more and more damning evidence to the absolute horror of my case. Having failed to achieve justice and redress, if I can spare some people from going through the horrendous suffering I have been made to endure, and continue to endure since 2002 - this will at least be one positive outcome. (Every day I ask the question: Dear God, why did you let me buy the lease on this flat?) I really wish I had come across a website like mine in 2002, as I would have paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) - I did not owe - and got out of the block. I know, I would have been another party that helps keep the system in place, but... (I guess you could also argue that, if people react as I think I would have done on seeing a website like mine, my website is actually helping perpetuate the system). Note at October 2008: and I really, really wish I had seen this press article in 2001. 15 May 2008Mr Ladsky IS in "very serious need" of a 'reality check'
Today I came out of the block at the same time as Andrew Ladsky. He told me: "You are in very serious need of help". (Previous instances: My Diary w/c 4 Feb 08 and 19 Apr 05 he told me that I was "mad" - as well as his letter of 26 March 2007 to KPMG, my then employer, in which he wrote that I "display clinical paranoia" (*) Is it - yet another - coincidence that Mr`Ladsky said this to me? See My Diary 2009 - Introduction-Dr P ). (*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector 'mafia' and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 Nov 08 (Not leasehold related: see the comments in a KPMG report about the HBOS whistleblower) Considering the following events... • Telling me "I am going to get you this year" (My Diary 3 Jan 03) • Getting one of his female accomplices to phone me at work to tell me "Don't worry, they won't kill you" (My Diary - Jan/Feb 04 ) • Getting his network to attempt to trap me (My Diary 2009 introduction) • Causing malicious leaks in my flat: My Diary 8 Aug 05 ; 18 Aug 05 ; 20 Jul 07 ; Photo gallery - Bedroom - and one that narrowly missed my flat on 6 Feb 07 • Having my windows hosed late at night / in the early hours of the morning (under the guise of watering the plants on the railing): (My Diary - 6 Sep 05 , 4 Oct 05 , 7 Apr 06 , 4 Sep 06 ; 9 Jan 09 - also in February 2008) • Anonymous phone calls; pressing my door bell late at night; also late at night, throwing hard object at my windows (Kensington & Chelsea police # 1) • Making a complaint to the police that I "swore at [him]" leading to my being threatened with "charges of harassment" and to having "the complaint fully recorded by the police" (Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 ) • Making an unsubstantiated complaint to Kensington & Chelsea police that my website contains anti-Semitic comments, and the police initially implying to my website Host that I had 'committed a crime' - and 'for good measure', branding me "a Nazi" (My Diary 20 Mar 07 ; K&C police # 3) • Contacting the Tenancy Relations Officer at the housing department I had approached for assistance, asking him for all the information I had supplied to the TRO (request refused) (My Diary 5 Nov 02) • Having me monitored (My Diary home page ; Examples: My Diary 26 Oct 03 ; 19 Apr 06 ; 16 May 2006) (NB: I know that Mr Ladsky et. al. - and supporters at large - are focusing on these claims in an attempt to deflect attention away from the very damning evidence I have on my website - because I 'can't prove it' . (However, see - My Diary home page and Dr P in the introduction to My Diary 2009). My guess is that my being a woman, is also given as added weight to their assessment. (Added to being of foreign origin / branded "a Nazi" ??). Maybe I should start putting on my website the photographs I have taken... and the full number plate of the cars. (NOTE at October 2008: I am starting to do that) In the meantime, fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: don't you find it rather 'interesting' that, having looked at what I report in My Diary (examples, My Diary - 20 Mar 07), (given its accusation, you would expect the police to have done this), the only thing that Kensington & Chelsea police considered fit to do was to send an email to my website Host implying that I had committed a crime, and brand me "a Nazi"? Furthermore, it DID NOT contact me. WHY NOT? considering that it implied I had committed "a crime" (K&C police # 3) • Harassment of the person who was running the residents association (Head Residents Association) by means of "aggressive, threatening behaviour", "up to 30 nuisance calls a day", "demanding that I handover the Chairmanship and all the files of the Residents Association to him". Harassment witnessed by another resident "Her experience was horrendous. I was there on two occasions..." (18 April 2002 email) • Harassment of Other Residents through "unprovoked direct verbal and other abuse by Mr Ladsky" "He acted like a petty tyrant, and I am not afraid to put on record that I believe that he is capable of any unscrupulous actions in order to achieve his aims" (1 November 2002 letter); "using a key to try and enter our flat; my wife was alone in the flat" , etc. Harassment of the Elderly Resident who took the initial step for investigating the service charge demands. And harassment of, 'perhaps', Resident K • Harassment of Nucleus, the local Citizens Advice Bureau, through threatening correspondence and abusive phone calls intended to stop Nucleus helping us • As Mr Ladsky has been identified by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP) as "[their] client" (e.g. Advisors: CKFT ; Portner and Jaskel LLP) and, the Law Society's standard reply to points in my complaint against both firms is that they "acted on the instructions of their client" (e.g. Portner # 5.1 ; CKFT # 6.4 ):
• Getting his surveyor, Mr Brian Gale, MRICS - in tandem with Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - to lie to the leaseholders about the true nature of the 'major works' (MRJ # 13 ) • Getting Mr Brian Gale to lie to the tribunal in an Expert Witness report stating "categorically that the specification makes NO provision for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat" (BG # 2 ) and doing this with the support of Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones ( Major works - home page) • Getting Mr Brian Gale to lie about me in his second Expert Witness report to the tribunal, dated 24 February 2003, by falsely claiming that I had been supplied with the priced specifications, and, acting in tandem with him, falsely claiming - in correspondence to the tribunal - that I was "the only tenant objecting to the service charge demand" (BG # 3 , # 4 ) • Getting Mr Brian Gale and Mansell Construction Services to lie to the leaseholders in their November 2004 "description of the works" claiming that the works being performed were "replacing asphalt roof" and doing "general repair and refurbishment " - when, in reality, they were, among others, building a penthouse flat (Brian Gale # 8.1 ; Mansell ; Major works ) • Getting his barrister, Mr Warwick, to make a libellous, scurrilous claim about me during the tribunal hearing by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (My Diary 13 Mar 03) (LVT hearings are public) • Getting MRJ to not supply other essential information e.g. year-end accounts (Kensington & Chelsea housing # 1 ; # 2 ; MRJ # 37 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 ) (In breach of the terms of my lease, I have not been supplied with the year-end accounts since 2004 - yet, Mr Ladsky has filed 'another' claim against me) • Getting Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to issue service charge demands - and threats of proceedings, in the name of a company which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time (MRJ # 24 ; Owners identity # 2 ) • As in the case of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP), getting Martin Russell Jones to threaten proceedings 'galore' to anybody who 'dares' protest against breaches of covenants in their lease and / or their statutory rights (MRJ # 26 ; # 28 ; # 40)... a 'tone' it set within weeks of being appointed as 'managing' agents for Jefferson House in 1989 (MRJ # 1 ) • As a means of securing payment of the service charges by the leaseholders, getting Ms Hathaway to lie to individual leaseholders by claiming that payment had been received from the others (MRJ # 15 ) - and concurrently lie that no objections had been received from other leaseholders (MRJ # 32) • Getting Ms Hathaway to portray me as a liar to the tribunal by falsely claiming that I had been supplied with a priced version of the specification for the works. (She contradicted herself during the hearing, leading the tribunal to postpone the substantive hearing "in the interest of justice") (LVT # 3 ). This had been preceded by the same lie in correspondence (MRJ # 33 ) including to the tribunal ( MRJ # 14 ) - supported by the threat of proceedings if I did not immediately pay the service charge demand ( MRJ # 14 ) • Getting Ms Hathaway to supply a very 'convenient' lease with the application to the LVT, falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases in the block (LVT # 8.1.4 ; MRJ # 23 ) - an action repeated with the court claim (MRJ # 22) • Getting MRJ (through CKFT) to lie to the court that the determination had been implemented, and reflected in the service charge demands (CKFT # 6.6 ; MRJ # 16 ; # 17 ; Pridie Brewster # 18 ) • Getting Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to make outrageous accusations against me in his 4 August 2004 letter stating that " [I] refused to pay [my] contribution [for the works] and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work" (MRJ # 25 ) Mr Ladsky had previously asked his other 'puppets' at CKFT to make these scurrilous accusations against me: (1) in his 25 June 2003 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone wrote, (as he was attempting to force me to strike a deal with his client) "...without going through the costly LVT process which has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project" ; (2) in the 21 October 2003 'offer', Ms Ayesha Salim wrote "...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building." (NB: (1) 'Steel Services' filed the application in the tribunal (LVT top of page); (2) As captured in the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) under point 64 "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered" . This was in response to Mr Ladsky asking the Chair during the hearing whether I would "pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to the hearing?" (My Diary 5 February 2003)... ...and (3) NINE months AFTER the tribunal issued its report, in her 26 March 2004 letter to "All Lessees", Ms Hathaway wrote: "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees...") (My question: Who is in need of "very serious help"?) • Using MRJ to take revenge on me for challenging the service charge demand by, three months AFTER the consent order sealing acceptance of the offer had been endorsed by the court on 1 July 2004, issuing me with: (1) an unsupported service charge demand stating "Brought forward balance" £14,500 (US$25,600) i.e. the same amount as the original demand; (2) another one three weeks later for £15,500 (US$27,300) - equally unsupported (MRJ # 18 ) While I did not pay them - because I knew they were bogus - 14 months later, the next invoice was 'mysteriously' £10,254 less (9 January 2006 invoice) (I repeat my question: who is in need of "very serious help?") • Serious neglect of the immediate areas external to my flat, I view as other vindictive acts:
• Another thing to add: Following the change of the lock on the main entrance door, I sent this 26 July 2005 letter to Martin Russell Jones, asking for two extra keys. As can be seen from the letter, to this effect, I enclosed a cheque for £30.00, as well as a self-addressed, prepaid, special delivery envelop. To this day i.e. nearly three years on, I have not even received an acknowledgement. Outcome: I can't give a spare key to family / friend to come to my aid. Actually, it would require that I can call somebody as, for the last two weeks, during day time, I can't get a signal on my mobile phones when I am in the flat. I can when I am out of the flat. The signal appears to come back on after c.17h30... when people come back to the block. (NB: I am dependent on mobile phones as my landline in the flat was cut-off c. 2-3 years ago - without my consent). (Not because I was not paying my bills). (Subsequent note at July 08: 24 hours after putting this entry on my website, I was able to get the signal on my mobile phones during the day. (See also how the twisted Hutchison 3G deprived me of my mobile phone number for three months: My Diary 29 Dec 08 , 23 Jan 09 ; My Diary home, for what happened with my Vodafone 3G card, as well as extracts from a press article "Minister in 'cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing'", and another one headed "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police") = More evidence that actions are being orchestrated against me, added to the evidence contained in My Diary 2009 - Introduction... and I can add a lot more evidence to this) (ADD; ADD2) • Allowing the accountants to produce accounts that are in serious breach of my lease - and of course, on which the service charge demands are based (Pridie Brewster # 5 ; # 18 ) (Subsequent note: also covered in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) What had Mr Ladsky said in his 25 January 2001 letter to the leaseholders?
...I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would agree with me that the person who is "in VERY serious need of help" is Mr Andrew Ladsky. He certainly fits the profile of a sociopath. (I look forward to Mr Ladsky taking me up on that). (In his 26 March 2007 letter to my (ex.) employer, he wrote that I was "suffering from clinical paranoia" and, in one of his phone calls, said that I was "clinically unwell". The objective of his letter was to secure the assistance of my employer in putting pressure on me to close down my website. As can be seen from his letter, his tactics include: of course, FALSE claims and accusations; highlighting parties covered on my website with which my employer has a working relationship; threatening defamation proceedings. Mr Ladsky had done this previously (i.e.prior to 2006) by jumping on the fact that I had (stupidly) sent a personal fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing on 24 October 2002, copied to the LVT, and one to the LVT, on the same date - on my employer's headed paper. In the fax to K&C, I highlight, among others, the BVI's policy of "protection of assets from expropriation or confiscation orders from foreign governments" and state "(Hence, they could siphon-off - at this stage - £750,000+ from Jefferson House residents and make it disappear)" While in the fax to the LVT, I wrote, among others that "...some flats are owned by people connected with the headlease - namely, Mr Andrew David Ladsky..." Although he clearly had 'no leg to stand on', Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, nonetheless tried to make something out of the above extracts in order to involve my employer by sending this 28 November 2002 letter to my employer, and one to me of the same date - in each instance demanding "compensation" failing which it would "start proceedings". The real motive was vengeance for my communicating, in my fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing, that Steel Services was a non-existent company as it had been "STRUCK-OFF the (British Virgin Islands) register for non-payment of the licence fee" (Owners identity # 2)... with very serious implications on Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Mr Ladsky's other puppets (Owners identity # 2) My 'internal radar' was right: THEFT DID TAKE PLACE e.g. Theft Act s.17 - False accounting ; WLCC # 6 , WLCC # 14 ; My Diary 22 Nov 08: 'threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceeddings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS') (As Mr Ladsky had one of his thugs phone the office, I had sent this 31 October 2002 letter to CKFT)
It really beggars belief that Mr Ladsky et. al. can so freely carry out and command such outrageous actions against me (and my fellow leaseholders). Meanwhile... 'I' am branded "a Nazi". (My Diary 20 Mar 07). Who are the 'Hitlers'... in 21st century England? What I have - and continue to be made to endure -amounts to, among others, a breach of my Human Rights, under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 "Prohibition of torture - No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" 19 May 2008 - Another block to add to the list for Martin Russell JonesI received the following comment on my website: "Martin Russell Jones 'run' [ (1) Area in north London This makes it the second block to be brought to my attention in the last two weeks (see 6 May 2008 above) - to be added to the other three previously identified: see Martin Russell Jones points # 18 and # 42 3 June 2008 - My 'knockout' (74-page) Witness Statement (4-page Main Points) - preceded by, among other, information that the airspace of Jefferson House was transferred from 'Steel Services' to 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' for "£1" on 8 January 2007It took me c. three weeks of solid work to write my Witness Statement. In addition to writing the content, I also had to reference it to 240 supporting documents (list supplied in my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure). Preceding events to my sending my Witness Statement to Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP) on 3 June 2008: - On 13 May 2008 I took delivery of a 9 May 2008 Order issued by District Judge Nicholson who refused my 30 April 2008 application (30 April 2008 - above) stating "If the Defendant wishes to obtain information from the Claimant the Defendant should make a request for the information, and if it is not given the Defendant should make an Application to the court” - I replied on 14 May 2008 (copying the Rt. Hon Jack Straw, MP) that "the court is perfectly aware that the Claimant has not supplied me with the information I should, by right (covenants in my lease, and my statutory rights) have been provided with – a long time ago”. In support of my position of a “game plan to prevent me from getting the information in time to write my Witness Statement, I emphasised that, "given the Claimant’s conduct to date, I would need to make a request for information", and highlighted "PD 18 5.5(2) which requires allowing 14 days for reply before filing an application in court for an order". (In the last paragraph I wrote: "Whatever the outcome: my conscience is clear") - I was proven right: on 19 May 2008, I sent a CPR Part 18 Request to Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP), giving a 14-day deadline for reply by 2 June 2008. It did NOT reply. (See Dr P for another 'interesting' preceding event in the month of May 2008)
One exception re the provision of information: following my 16 May 2008 letter to Portner and Jaskel LLP, asking for documents from its 4 February 2008 standard disclosure (Portner # 24), one turned out to be a 8 January 2007 transaction for Jefferson House's airspace. It states that the:
As I wrote in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, point 51:
(It 'smells' of revenge for my figuring out, and exposing, the scam with the 10 February 2006 "Notice" (Portner # 1 ; more detail in My Diary - 18 February 2006 ). Clearly, the 'boys' don't like being outsmarted by a woman). Rather 'interesting' to note that the "transferor" of the title for the airspace is "Steel Services" - considering that it was the "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessor # 2 ) (And ditto in relation to the 24 May 2006 transfer "by Steel Services" of its title "to Rootstock Overseas Corp" (Headlessors # 3 ) - given that Steel Services was a "lessee" of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors # 2 ) Prior transactions about the 'airspace' also indicate 'internal shuffling of papers' (Headlessors # 4). As I wrote under points 52 to 56 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, the 8 January 2007 transaction still leaves many questions unanswered...(Headlessor # 5 ) My explanation: all these 'paper companies' have the same person trying to hide behind them: Mr Andrew Ladsky (Headlessor # 5 ; # 7 ; Owners identity ; Directorships ; Freehold ownership ; BVI registration ) ('Maybe' the creation of Lavagna Enterprises as a superior headlessor was done for the purpose of borrowing money?) Under point 57 of my Witness Statement, I wrote:
Another of my predictions materialised: - The 9 April 2008 case management directions state “Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday, 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely” - Under point 2 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement I wrote: "Considering the (well documented) conduct of the Claimant, i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (et.al.?), the requirement “serving on themselves” leads me to anticipate that I will not receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement as directed – allowing Mr Ladsky and supporters at large to see my Witness Statement first – in the knowledge that there will be no sanction for not complying with the WLLC Order (as happened with the 19 April 2007 WLCC Order in relation to the skeleton arguments) (Portner # 16 ; # 17 ). I hope to be proven wrong" I knew I would not be proven wrong: I did NOT receive the witness statement from "Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd / Sloan Development" (Portner # 6.1 ) i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky. This is a REPEAT of what took place with the previous fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 - see My Diary 22 Nov 08 - Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS. As I wrote in my 5 June 2008 letter to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP):
As per the 9 April 2008 WLCC directions, I only sent my Witness Statement to Portner and Jaskel... but I am sure that it quickly found its way to individuals connected with the court - and beyond. (Events are also captured in my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute)
Let's not forget also: (1) The 3 October 2006 fax from the corrupt Mr Hershkorn to my then ISP in which he threatened the ISP with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" if it did not "close down [my website] within 48 hours", as well as demanding "an apology...along with your suggestion for damages, which must be substantial...", because "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that). Mr Hershkorn concluded the letter with "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (My 5 October 2006 reply highlighting that he did not provide one single item of evidence in support of his claims - Defamation Act 1996 ) (My Diary - 3 Oct 06 ; Portner and Jaskel # 2 ) (2) Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's repeated threats of "proceedings and damages and costs" to my current website Host - over a period of several weeks - unless my Host closed down my website, by - yet again - making highly libellous, scurrilous claims against me, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (My Diary - 5 Feb 07 ; Portner # 2) Of course, yet again, Mr Hershkorn did not provide any evidence in support of his accusations. (3) When Mr Hershkorn backed off, following my 28 February 2007 complaint against Portner and Jaskel to the Law Society (Portner # 4 and # 5), it led Mr Ladsky to take-up the harassment of my website Host himself, by making several threatening phone calls to my Host - repeating the same libellous, scurrilous claims and accusations against me, and the same threats - thereby continuing with his 'standard approach' e.g. his 26 March 2007 letter to my employer; the 28 November 2002 letter from CKFT to my employer, and its letter to me of the same date; CKFT's letters to two residents Considering that, since the 27 February 2007 claim was filed against me (Portner # 6 ) ALL my documents to WLCC and Portner and Jaskel are based ENTIRELY on the contents of my website: If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why has 'Rootstock' i.e. Mr Ladsky dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (The first fraudulent claim was in November 2002 - Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; WLCC, Martin Russell Jones, LVT, etc.) This (and the rest of my experience e.g. overview under 15 May 2008 and 6 May 2008, above) makes me think of the comment by the Reader of The Times "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 April 2007) As you can see in various parts in the section for Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP) , West London County Court - Post 2004, My Diary - Year 2007, etc., I have always maintained that the claim was fraudulent (*) - and have said so in numerous documents to Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court over the last 16 months. (*) In my - non-lawyer- opinion (with a victory to my credit :-) ) the conduct, including letters and emails, amount to breach/es by Portner (Portner and Jaskel LLP) - and its client (PJ # 5.1 ) - of (NB: comments in brackets after the Acts are extracted from the Acts) :
(See my 19 January 2009 reply to the 'claimant' s points of dispute) They also amount to numerous breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct but, given the attitude of the Law Society (Portner and Jaskel # 4 and # 5, and in relation to my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton - outlined under 6 May 08, above) - I am not wasting my time listing them... ...as, very clearly, like Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, it is viewed by the Law Society as having "discharged its professional duties with [no]thing less than complete integrity and probity" and consequently has no need to worry about "severe sanctions". (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18) Why drop the claim against me now, considering that - just one week previously - Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, had sent me a letter, dated 23 May 2008, (posted on 27 May), on which he copied WLCC suggesting that the claim should be moved from 'fast-track' to 'multi-track' "to allow time for the very voluminous bundle of documents you have submitted as well as hear oral evidence..." I attribute it principally to the strength of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement (4-page Main Points) (3 June 2008 - above) in which I left 'no stone unturned'... ...and to the fact that I was not represented - thereby precluding the possibility of arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal 'advisers' - as happened with the equally fraudulent 29 November 2002 WLCC claim, ref. WL203537, filed against me, also in WLCC (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.12.1) - and,... ...unlike in 2003-2004 (Home # 4.14 ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) (see my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me Knowing that (as with the 29 November 2002 claim: My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement), I would not receive a witness statement from Mr Ladsky, I opted to wait until the day after the (4 June) deadline for the exchange of witness statements to send my 5 June 2008 reply to Portner in which I highlight, among other, the following from the 9 April 2008 case management directions “4) No party may rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order”. NB: In relation to Mr Jaffer's comment in his 23 May 2008 letter “We received your letter of 21st May 2008 enclosing two lever arch files of copy documents you wish to rely upon at the hearing of this claim. The majority of the documents provided (without any request from us)…”: I followed my 'sixth sense' (*) opting to hand-deliver (covering letter of 21 May 2008) an integral copy of all the documents listed in my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure (My Diary 6 May 08, above) - as I explained in my 5 June 2008 letter. (*) There MUST be a bundle for a hearing. (Also playing on my 'sixth sense' was what took place with Dr P at the time i.e. in May 2008) I also wrote to WLCC on the same day, i.e. 5 June 2008, reporting the fact that the 'claimant' had not submitted a witness statement and that it clearly had implications on the management of the case. Somebody suggested an additional factor: "somebody got cold feet". If so, my view is that it is in the 'higher echelons' i.e. parties outside of Mr Ladsky's immediate circle (as he clearly does not have any sense of personal boundaries e.g. other court cases, and 'his puppets' kowtow to his every wish). (NB: Visitor to the site not connected in any way with my case: in reading the rest of this entry, please bear in mind that my website does not contain 'the whole story', namely, some major events since 2007. I 'might' add the 'missing parts' at a later stage).
(*) I thought it was the residential leasehold sector 'mafia' and its supporters' standard way of discrediting women who 'dare' challenge them. I have since discovered that, for the same reason, they can also portray men as 'mad' - My Diary 22 Nov 08 (Not leasehold related: see the comments in a KPMG report about the HBOS whistleblower) Is this going to be the end of this claim? Civil Procedure Rule 38.7 states "
A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if – While it has not changed the overall picture in relation to the flat - at least it's a step in the right direction. Under Civil Procedure Rules 38(6) "...a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom he discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on him" I sent this 26 June 2008 Statement of Costs to Portner and Jaskel, detailing my costs over the last 16 months - a total of £ £7,756 (US$13,676), giving 4 July as deadline for payment. I warned that if my costs were disputed, I would file an application for an order for costs. As expected, more than two weeks past the deadline: no response. So, on 22 July 2008, I sent Portner a 'Notice of Commencement of Assessment of Bill of Costs' (outcome of more 'cramming in' of the CPR), and of researching other sources of information. The deadline for reply is 13 August. With the notice "for information purposes", I also sent my 22 July 2008 draft 'Statement of Case' in support of my position - should the matter proceed to an assessment hearing. (See below, 14 Aug 08 for the preposterous reply and 26 Aug 08 for evidence in support of my assessment, as well as 11Nov 08 for follow-on events - culminating in my 19 January 2009 amended reply to the points of dispute, and the 30 January 2009 hearing at SCCO) In his 1 August 2008 reply "AJ" i.e. Ahmet Jaffer states that my bill of costs has been sent to "Costs Draftmen to settle points of dispute..." For follow-up see below: 14 Aug 08 ; 26 Aug 08 ; 11 Nov 08 - and the 'more of the same treatment' hearing in the Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 Jan 09.
(*) NB: The residential leasehold sector is a very powerful oligarchy e.g. 'Who owns Britain?' ; the 'Great Estates' , examples of new entrants - with far reaching tentacles e.g. New Labour's 1997 'An End to Feudalism' v. 'New Labour 2008 decision to retain residential leasehold ; a history of the landed class blocking legislation. (Land ownership has for centuries been a key determinant of power in this country). I view the sector as having a raft of small-timers feeding on 'the crumbs' from the big 'boys and girls' who dominate this multi-billion £ 'industry'. Whereas the oligarchs 'tend' to sense/know when they should back-off, the small-timers like Mr Ladsky do not (e.g. My Diary 11 March 2007 ; Portner ) - exposing the business model. Outcome: in 'typical style' (A) - the victims rather than the perpetrators are blamed for subsequent events - and are consequently further victimized as the cabal closes ranks. Which is what has happened to me 'big time', but...THEY PICKED ON THE WRONG WOMAN :-) (A) e.g. (i) 13 April 2008, above: quote from the MP "No other MPs have so far been willing to speak out. I am the first. Apparently, I am told, it's "just not cricket". It's not what "one does if one wants to get on..." (ii) Extracts from the 29 June 2008 column of Peter Hitchens, Journalist for the Mail on Sunday: “In a country with proper justice, nobody would dare intimidate a witness. In such country, wrongdoers are afraid of the law. They’d know that such a crime would certainly be prosecuted and that they’d end-up doing at least 15 years breaking rocks. But in modern ‘enlightened’ Britain, bad people are not afraid of anything. It’s the good who are afraid. The police are afraid too, which explains why they pursue the obedient, gentle middle class rather than go after the real crooks and low-lifes. This is actually anarchy. The only thing that makes it bearable is that, so far, the bad people have yet to grasp just how totally free they are to attack, rob, intimidate and terrorise the rest of us. Even they can’t believe our criminal justice system is as feeble as it is…” (iii) At October 2008: it is fascinating to observe in media interviews how the parties who have contributed to the economic crisis deny responsibility, playing 'pass the parcel' / 'ping-pong games', and the uniquely British (probably more accurate: Oxbridge) euphemisms used to play down their actions.
After this long aside......There are hundreds of thousands of leaseholders in this country going through the kind of hell and mental torture I have, and continue to suffer - every day. See e.g. comments # 13 , # 6 , # 19 , # 20 , # 22 , # 24 and # 31 for further - appalling - evidence in support. - all for the sake of feeding the greed of individuals with interests in the residential leasehold sector (e.g. Home page # 9 , # 8) - and there is absolutely NOWHERE to turn to for help (e.g. Home page Introduction, # 7) Look at what has and continues to happen to the people who sent me a comment - and to some of those I know (My Diary 11 Nov 06 ; Lord Falconer # 4 ). Look at what has and continues to happen to me - in spite of the unbelievable amount of 'black on white' evidence against Mr Ladsky and his aides (Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS); the 'mutual help and fellowship' reflected in the concerted actions against me between various parties which, on the face of it, 'should not' be connected (e.g. examples under e.g. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; the Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; also My Diary 15 May 08 and 6 May 08 ) Of course, my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House have also suffered greatly - as evidenced by e.g.
...leading a significant number to give up and leave e.g. Block sale of flats...further reinforcing the business model (Unlike me, the flat was not their main home) - leaving me with trying to prevent others from falling into the trap: My Diary 9 Jan 07 ; 3 Mar 07 QUESTION # 1: Where does it say that landlords and their supporting infrastructure have the right to do the following to leaseholders:
If you know where this is captured, please use the comment section for your reply. There are c. 3 million leaseholders eagerly awaiting the answer. No doubt, it will also be of interest to many other parties e.g. the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. (In its 15 August 2008 issue, The Guardian newspaper has an article headed "Labour warned over limits to freedom of expression - UN report says terror and libel laws are interfering with human rights" What would the United Nations Committee make of the above?). DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU A CIVILISED COUNTRY? This country that I so much liked that I made it my home, has changed beyond recognition. QUESTION # 2: With (so far!) the exception of 'rob them of their property', under question # 1, I have been subjected to / suffered all of the above. Why? Can somebody please tell me. I have done NOTHING WRONG I AM NOT THE CRIMINAL I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME Have a look: my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement See above: 15 May 2008 and 6 May 2008 See 22 November 2008: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS My 'crime' is that: (1) I opted to obey the directions given to me by a tribunal to "NOT PAY" (end of pg 5) the 'service charge' (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) # 1) and ended-up battling with this government department (LVT # 6 , # 7), as well as the courts and other parties as I tried to get the directions implemented - and they repeatedly ignored them (West London County Court (WLCC) # 2, # 6, # 9 , section D incl. my defence and seven letters to the courts; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) # 6.1 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) # 7.7 , # 7.14 , # 7.4 , # 7.4.3, etc. ; Mr Stan Gallagher , # 3.f ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 10, # 17, # 18 , # 19) (2) I have moral principles and a strong belief in justice. Among other, they led me to fight for fair and just treatment of my fellow leaseholders (CKFT # 3 , # 6.3 , # 6.8 ; WLCC # 10 ; Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) # 19 ; Pridie Brewster # 3 , # 18) - but this was held - and used against me (Stan Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.e.2 ; # 4.1 , # 5 ; PSB # 7.14 , # 7.14.1 ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13) (3) Trusting what I was told by government departments, etc., in spite of unbelievable adversity, I took the steps I was told to take - and, after FIVE years+ of many soul-destroying battles, realised that it was impossible to implement what I had been told to do (home # 7, # 4.17, Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) # 7 , # 8 ; My Diary 6 May 08) (4) Having given in once (My Diary 11 Mar 07; MRJ # 18, home # 4.13, # 4.14, WLCC # 13), I will no longer accept injustice (WLCC section C and section D ; LSO # 7 , # 8 ; WLCC Post-2004), being ripped-off (Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS ; MRJ # 18 ; Portner), suffer harassment, victimization, abuse, bullying etc. - in silence (home # 14, # 15) for the sake of crooks getting a multi-million Pound jackpot Why should I let a bunch of criminals walk all over me, allow them to intimidate me through their FEAR tactics - for the purpose of stealing from me? (My Diary Oct 05 ; home # 14) (My victory in relation to the 2007 claim has not changed my overall situation (issues detailed in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement) - nor my objectives) This is the 21st century, not the 11th century. To those saying "why don't I just walk away?" (My Diary Oct 05 ; 16 Jun 06) I say: why don't you give me all that I have lost and compensate me for all that I have suffered - as a result of being conned by a corrupted system? By the way: do you want to buy my flat? Yet, you expect me to deceive potential buyers! "Hand on the baton" like some people have told me I "should" do. And THAT is what has so far cost me what is listed under e.g. Q1 above - and no relationship is 'off-limit' in the recruitment of the ever growing 'firing line' facing me, whether governed by very long-standing friendship, professional codes of conduct (incl. medical ) (yes!: DrG, DrP, MsY), legislation or regulations - and nor is there a limit as to what they are prepared to do to discredit / cover-up the evidence, and 'make me pay' for going public e.g. above And 'I' am branded a "Nazi"?!?! Can somebody please explain to me? Am I on the wrong planet, or they all living in a parallel world? (latest example: RICS) Seven months after this question: no anwer. Why? Don't see anything wrong in the way I have been treated? As it stands: being an honest, decent, law-abiding person who defers to authority is clearly a major handicap in this country. David Miliband (Foreign Secretary) is quoted in the Mail on Sunday, 31 August 2008, as saying (in the context of Georgia) "The British people want a government that stands up for what it believes in and speaks out for the victims of aggression or injustice...". When will New Labour "stand up...and speak out for the victims of aggression or injustice" in the residential leasehold sector (press articles ; Comments) - and implement what it claimed to "believe in", in its 1997 pre-election policy document 'An End to Feudalism'? How many more websites like mine is it going to take to put an end to this barbaric, feudal system that causes so much misery to so many people? Mr Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, with "strongly held moral principles of right and wrong [that are your] moral compass" - what is your answer to the question...having sold-out again to the 'landlords'?
(NB: Regarding the legal sector: it's not just leaseholders who are suffering at its hands e.g.
14 August 2008 - Mr Ladsky's preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim(NB: see also My Diary 26 August 2008 for my reply and filing of an application for a detailed assessment hearing; 11November 2008 and 19 December 2008 for follow-on events) Portner sent its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice, giving, under paragraph 1.4, an absolutely outrageous, preposterous explanation for dropping the claim: that "in June of 2008 advice was obtained from counsel wherein it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord and was therefore invalid pursuant to s.47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It was as a direct result of this that Notice of Discontinuance was filed” No reason was given on the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance, evidently thinking that it would be the end of it, leaving Mr Ladsky and his aides free to promote this preposterous reason, in the knowledge (based on past experience) that they would be highly unlikely to be challenged. (See next entry, 26 August 2008, for my reply) Fascinating to see how the situation is handled when - unlike with the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 - there has not been the option of arriving at 'an arrangement' with members of the fraternity (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7.17 , # 7.12.1 ; Stan Gallagher # 15) - and,... ... unlike in 2003-2004 (Home # 4.14 ; My Diary 11 March 2007 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me. This clearly proves that, in both instances, the claim was used as a TOOL FOR FRAUD - confirming my assessment of the tactic following the first fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 (home # 4.19). 'Unfortunately', the majority of my fellow leaseholders 'caved in' in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim - as evidenced by the fact that 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ended-up paying the FULL amount of the service charge, and a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 6.6 , CKFT # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). THEY DID NOT OWE THE C. £500,000 THEY COLLECTIVELY PAID - AS A RESULT OF FEAR TACTICS - ALL FOR THE SAKE OF GENERATING A MULTI-MILLION POUND JACKPOT. (NB: Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the scam: being persecuted (e.g. My Dairy 15 May 2008 ; home introduction ; being under surveillance) I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately'. The worst part of it is that this kind of conduct is widely endorsed: My Diary 6 May 08 - resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal' instead of the victim - while the criminals are treated as though they are the victims (e.g. RICS # 12 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 , # 3 ; home introduction) - and laughing their head off (outcome of my complaints). Of course, I forgot, silly me: Portner and Jaskel, Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton are evidently viewed by the Law Society as having "discharged their professional duties with [no]thing less than complete integrity and probity" - and consequently have no need to worry about "severe sanctions" (Portner and Jaskel # 4 and # 5 ; outcome of my complaints). (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18) (Subsequent note: The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 4 November 2008) More on this later. (I have many enemies monitoring my website). In the meantime: Exposed in the public domain for malpractice? Adopt the "Tradition with a modern edge" approach: modify the name of your firm; make sure your people cannot be identified = the approach adopted in June/July 2008 by Portner and Jaskel LLP which now trades under 'Portner' - see start of section on Portner for detail. 26 August 2008 - Reply and application to WLCC for assessment hearingThis is my 26 August 2008 reply to the 11 August 2008 'points of dispute', as well as application to WLCC for an assessment hearing. My reply to the preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim (14 August 2008, above) is on page 5, under point 2.2. In summary:
The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 4 November 2008. Subsequent note: I wrote 'due' as I anticipated that more games would be played - see My Diary 11 November 2008 for what happened. (*) Actually, over the 16-month period, I did this a total of 11 TIMES:
Obviously, as in the case of my 8 communications to the courts, including my Defence and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor in relation to the previous, 29 November 2002 equally fraudulent claim filed against me - the ink mysteriously disappears from my documents before they arrive, or shortly afterwards. 4 September 2008 - The RICS' threat of proceedings for defamation - and its - UNBELIEVABLE - prediction - implying encouragement - that "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you" (!!!)See from point # 11 of the section on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. 24 September 2008 - Another block of flats I have alerted to Martin Russell Jones' business practices - to be added to the others: comments # 11, # 12 and # 15 (Others since: # 20 , # 22 , # 30)"I happened upon your website while trying to check-up on Joan Hathaway from Martin Russell Jones. I am extremely concerned. This woman is doing exactly the same to leaseholders in a block where I own a flat. Although I am at the end of my tether with their demands for more and more money for service charges, and her complete indifference to whatever letters I have been sending her, I really thought it was sheer incompetence. I had no idea I was dealing with a confidence trickster [ And the RICS is of the view that "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you"?!?!? October 2008 - The 'giant bicycle' has crashedAt the end of the entry under w/c 4 February 2008 I wrote "Four years ago, an Australian friend told me that, to him, the country looked like a giant bicycle running with nothing to control it: no frame, no handlebar, no chain". I added "Just looking at my (so far) 28 battles since 2002, I now share his view: there is no control. It's like a giant 'trompe l'oeil' ". (snapshot of the outcome of my 'cries for help' and my complaints) Look at what has been happening in the UK in recent weeks: a taxpayer £500bn rescue of the financial sector, and part nationalisation of practically all the major banks. It is only now that mayhem has happened (economic recession, rising unemployment, growing number of home repossessions, etc), that there is consensus on introducing proper regulation. (Subsequent note at Feb 09 - see the entry on the HBOS whistleblower: the CEO of HBOS was also on the board of the banking sector regulator, the Financial Services Authority) What scale of disaster is it going to take to have 'proper' regulation of the professions? How many more websites like mine, relating horror stories, are required to prove that SELF-REGULATION DOES NOT WORK - and that very urgent action is required? Even individuals within the professions are saying this. What is extremely depressing, is to hear a highly respected Member of Parliament - who is genuinely appalled, and concerned, by the state of the legal sector - say, in relation to wrongdoings by a solicitor, that it would take "courage" on the part of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (i.e. the Law Society) to take action against this solicitor "because he works for one of the major firms". Why? (By the way, the Law Society does not even take action against high street firms e.g. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton - overview) Without crooked lawyers, the courts would lose their 'bread and butter'! (see My Diary 20 October 2008) As to the residential leasehold sector, although, like many people e.g. press articles; C.A.R.L. - and the Labour Party before it was elected (it clearly changed its position - and confirmed this in March 2008), I firmly believe that this feudal, barbaric system must be abolished - it MUST, at a minimum, be regulated. What is going on in that sector is absolutely outrageous. A recent case was reported in the Mail on Sunday, 19 October 2008, "Tchenguiz feels force of pensioner power" of 78 pensioners being grossly overcharged for service charges who "have won tribunal hearings leading to cuts in fees worth hundreds of pounds a year, with some residents receiving a rebate of almost £1,000". One pensioner is quoted as saying "All they can see in front of their eyes is pound signs - it's all about money", and another "It is such a mess. We are being ripped-off left, right and centre". The sector certainly is "a licence to print money". The article identifies the companies involved as: (1) flats built by McCarthy & Stone, "which was bought off the stock market for £1.1 billion by a consortium including HBoS, private equity firm West Coast Capital, and another pair of billionaire brothers, Simon and David Reuben"; (2) "managed by Consensus, a property management group chaired by Mr Vincent Tchenguiz". The article states that "It is not the first time that Vincent Tchenguiz's property operations have been challenged over excessive fees to older residents. In December 2005, his Estates and Management business was accused of exploiting vulnerable leaseholders by Labour MP Barry Sheerman..." It also refers to another case where, in this instance, the out of court settlement resulted in residents "receiving rebates worth more than £900" from Consensus. Three cases with one common denominator. Why do elderly people continue to be "ripped-off" and put through the ordeal - and the cost, out of their pension - of needing to take legal action, approach their MP, etc.? It pains me to see that pensioners are being subjected to this kind of treatment. This is sick. 20 October 2008 - I really, really wish I had seen that in 2001Today I joined a demonstration at the Royal Courts of Justice, organised by CASIA (Complaints Against Solicitors, Action for Independent Adjudication). One of the members gave me a copy of an article published in the Daily Telegraph of 5 April 2001, "Yesterday in Parliament". It reports:
While It's good to know that a politician arrived at the same conclusion (The 'Clan') (Lawyers, Courts and LSO home page), I really, really wish I had seen this article at the time, as it would have saved me from having my life being totally destroyed (home # 3 , # 4.20 , # 7 , # 13 , # 14 ; Document library # 3 , # 4 ; My Diary home ; 7 Jun 08 [ADD]). Better still: I wish somebody had explained to me that, unlike in my home country which is only c. 30km from this island, here, you don't 'buy a flat' - and what you let yourself in for is a contract of enslavement (e.g. press articles) with your 'masters' totally free to do as they please (e.g. overview of my complaints) . I feel so betrayed - and conned. Had I known then what I know now...I was so naïve, so trusting of everything I was told by the 'New Labour' administration. When I hit the pavement, I'll put on the other side of my board: "Conned by 'New Labour" - currently headed by Mr Gordon Brown who wants "people to trust him" (his comment to the media) (v. e.g. My Diary 1 Mar 08 , 11 Mar 08) and emphasises "creating a society that both addresses injustice and stresses personal responsibility" - Home # 9) By the way, among the people who took part in the demo, some had / continue to have horrific experiences with courts and lawyers. And there are many, many more who have similarly horrific experiences e.g. see comment # 16 , # 19. But, because the victims are gagged through FEAR, we are all kept in the dark as to what is actually going on - leaving only those like me who have reached the stage of having nothing to lose (home # 13 , # 14 ), going public with their story... and ending-up facing the 'lynch mob' - on their own. (It is fascinating to observe how, having the guts to take the moral stance and stand-up by your principles, stand-up for your rights and speak out against injustice and malpractice - turns you into a pariah and lines you up for punishment... if you happen to be one of the 'little people'. I think you will agree that it speaks volumes for the current state of affairs in this country. It is extremely sad to see that it has come to this). As I have asked before: why is it that the decent judges and lawyers appear to be standing back? Why don't they speak out (as some, bravely do, in the other professions)? Is the legal sector so diseased that there is no cure? Is their silence due to fear of retaliation (e.g. the case of the Scottish lawyer)? What's the reason? For how long are we going to have to suffer from, as one visitor to my site wrote (# 16) "a Judicial system criminally placed before the people"? I think for a long time to come - as I have come to the conclusion that crooked lawyers are the 'bread and butter' of the courts. Imagine how different the landscape would look if all lawyers acted as per their code of conduct, legislation and regulations: after all that I have heard, and seen, I hypothesise that it would lead to a massive drop in the number of cases going to court e.g. the claims filed against me and my fellow leaseholders would not have been filed (e.g. snapshot under My Diary 15 May 2008). And, if in the other parts of the food chain, the other professions (surveyors, accountants, etc.) also did the same? Cases like mine would not exist. I would have been able to continue enjoying my life, keep on building my life savings to give me some security - and I would have had a future to look forward to. All of that has been stolen from me - ALL in the name of GREED! (See Comments e.g. # 13 , # 16 , # 19 , # 24 , # 31 for other examples of lives being destroyed)
On Thursday 30 October 2008, I went to West London County Court to get confirmation that, as per the 12 September 2008 Notice of Detailed Assessment Hearing in relation to my 26 August 2008 Application, the 4 November hearing was still scheduled to take place, at 14h00, in West London County Court. I was told: Yes. On Monday 3 November, at 14h30, I was again in WLCC to get confirmation that the hearing was still due to take place the following day. Yet again, I received confirmation that it was - by the same person. He appears to be in charge of my file as, while he is sitting away from the counter, behind a pillar, every time I go to the court (e.g. previous instances: (1) when I filed my 14 March 2008 Allocation Questionnaire (My Diary 13 Mar 08); (2) when I filed my 30 April 2008 Application to vary the 9 April 2008 Case Management Directions (My Diary 30 Apr 08 and 3 Jun 08) - the person closest to the counter looks at him (before I say anything) and he comes to the counter - in addition to going back to his desk in order to address my requests. As I have a temporary mobile number, prior to going to the court, I wrote it on the 12 September 2008 order (and made a copy because I anticipated another trick) and gave it to the man, explaining that this was the number on which to phone me, if necessary. He did not appear too keen to take it. I therefore turned up (with an acquaintance) on Tuesday 4 November at 13h45, for the hearing, due to start at 14h00. At at the allocated time, we were asked to go in the court. I determined that the judge was District Judge Nicholson (the Judge who refused my 30 April 2008 Application - see My Diary 30 Apr 08 and 3 Jun 08). He told me that, the previous day, the court had received a 3 November 2008 fax from Portner - which he read out to me. (I took delivery of the hyperlinked document on 4 November).
(Examples of previous games, lies and downright collusion:
Not to mention the 'discretionary' application of CPR such as e.g.
= A continuation, by WLCC, of the 'discretionary' application of CPR when it comes to 'Steel Services' aka Mr Andrew Ladsky: see My Diary 9 Mar 07 / the 29 November 2002 Particulars of claim (hyperlink from the 'Statement of truth'): "An agent who manages property or investments for the party cannot sign a statement of truth.... Consequences of failure to verify...a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth" What actually happened? WLCC issued judgments, charging order/s, etc. e.g. WLCC # 5 , # 6 , # 14 , including the appalling judgment against the 5th Defendant (See also my 19 January 2009 reply to the points of dispute - and My Diary 30 Jan 09 for detail of the hearing) As to whether the trigger for those 'games' and 'discretionary application of CPR' is the fact that I exposed, by launching my website at the end of 2006, what took place in WLCC in 2002-04 in relation to the previous fraudulent claim, ref. WL203537 (court claims = FRAUD TOOLS): while it no doubt plays a part (which, of course, it should not), as can be seen from my experience PRE launching the website (and that of my fellow leaseholders) at the time with the courts, and the follow-up to my 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton - I was subjected to unbelievably appalling, and very traumatic treatment. My 'cries for help' resulted in being sent from 'pillar to post' by the Law Society and the Court Service 'Customer Service' in the context of my 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and my 29 June 2004 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton in relation to events with West London County Court in 2002-2004). Yep! 'games' is certainly the operative word! What a 'mafia'! (Subsequent note - 'Fixing' also takes place e.g. in the House of Lords where 'special requests' for changes in legislation can be purchased. The power of money! And if you are a crook facing proceedings, you can also try your luck with a senior MP What else can you expect under a system that is corrupted to the core? e.g. My Diary Jan 09 ; Feb 09 ; It sides with the criminals against the victims e.g. My Diary 6 May 08 ; 30 Jan 09 ; Kensington & Chelsea police - and acts like the criminals e.g. local council ; police ; MPs ; peers) (The lies and the games = the 'bread and butter' of the courts - and those who pay for it are the 'little people' like me and my fellow leaseholders (e.g. home # 4.4 , # 4.11 , # 4.20) - and, e.g. visitors to my site - with the blessings of the Court Service 'regulator' - including the Office of the Minister heading the Ministry of (In)Justice - see WLCC # 20 , # 23 , # 24 , # 25 , # 30 for my letters to / copied to Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary ; summary in my 24 March 2009 letter to my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind) I asked at what time the court had received the fax on 3 November: "At 11h07". I pointed out to the Judge that I had come to the court 3.5 hours later (at 14h30) and that I had not been informed of this. Reply "It takes a while to be put on file". District Judge Nicholson also told me that, in the morning, the staff had tried to phone me. I replied that this was not so. I gave him a copy of the notice I had left with the court staff the previous day, on which I had written my mobile number (in large writing) and said that no calls had been made. He took the copy and said that he would raise it. Judge Nicholson said that, in any case, he had issued an order "at 10h00 this morning" for the case to be transferred to the Supreme Court Costs Office "because it's a detailed assessment". When I asked why this order was made on the day of the hearing, considering that my application was filed more than 2 months previously, on 26 August 2008, the reply was "The Judge made an error" By 11 November, I have not received a copy of the order. (Subsequent note: I took delivery of it on 15 November. It was posted 2nd class post on 11 November 2008) A previous visitor to my site sent me an email, as a result of seeing my temporary entry for the 4 November hearing:
On the right track, but ordering a transfer of the case to another part of the Court Service 4 hours before the hearing is a new one for the visitor to add to his list. As the case is being transferred, I am taking the opportunity to amend my documents starting with the Bill of Cost I sent Portner on 26 June 2008 as, in its 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute, under point # 1.11, it wrote "unfortunately the Defendant's Bill of Costs fails to comply with the requirements of CPR Part 43 and therefore this hampers the Claimant's ability to consider the reasonableness of each and every individual claim for costs made". (My reply of 26 August 2008) As far as I can make out, it may be that I should have split the Correspondence section into sub-groups. I cannot change this because Portner used my numbering for its reply. I have nonetheless made some amendments - including amending the amount of 'loss of pay' for producing two of the documents. (I intended to communicate this during the 4 Nov hearing). I sent Portner my 11 November 2008 Amended Bill of Costs with a covering letter explaining the amendments - including the adjustments to 'loss of pay' - as well as a supporting schedule of my timesheets. In my temporary entry I wrote: A warning sign? The 12 September 2008 notice describes me as the "Defendant" . (No, this is not due to an error on my part - as can be seen on my 26 August 2008 application, I have entered my name as the 'Claimant'... and my £300 cheque has been cashed!). Having raised this with the court, I determined that, while I have filed the application for the detailed assessment hearing, I am still considered as the Defendant. So, I am going to change my 26 August 2008 reply accordingly. (Not easy when it's all new territory and you are doing it by yourself :-) - as one of my 'comrades in arms' testified) According to this 18 December 2008 Notice from the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2009. It did. And as can be seen, it was 'more of the same treatment'. 22 November 2008 - The C.A.R.L. Annual General Meeting. The 'blindfold' has come off many people's eyes - realising that they have been hoodwinked... (and, since February 2009, they should have 20/20 vision)
Teasingly, some told me that one of my compatriots, William the Conqueror, was responsible for the introduction of the leasehold system in this country. I replied that, while this idiot should have limited himself to bringing 'du pain, du vin et du fromage' (bread, wine and cheese) (plagiarizing from a previous(?) advertising campaign for Boursin cheese), countries such as Australia where the British exported the system, had got rid of it. Why not here? After all, this was 1,000 years ago. The world had moved on since. The consensus on the reply: because here it's still a feudal system dominated by individuals with a vested interest in keeping it going. But, like a member wrote to C.A.R.L., The Leaseholder, Autumn 2008-Issue 25, under "Medieval cronyism", "Leaseholders need to stand-up and be counted, and not be intimidated..." (Note at June 2009: The sleaze revealed by the media in the House of Commons and House of Lords has, in recent months, been a great spur to 'emancipation'). The 3 leaseholders who talked about their case, included the leaseholder who, in 2006, provided an update on the decision by the Lands Tribunal in relation to his case. The leaseholders have since gone to the Court of Appeal; next step is the House of Lords. Hence, these leaseholders have now been battling for 4 years: total cost to date? c. £300,00 (US$529,000) and by the time they have gone to the House of Lords? c. £400,000 (US$705,000). (NB: For the sake of consistency, I continue using the same rate of £1 = US$1.76) (See the Leaseholder, Spring 2009, Issue 16, for the ruling by the House of Lords: 'Earl Cadogan v Sportelli).
In the same way that the government does not tell you that, contrary to the way they are positioned, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals have, to quote a leaseholder who attended the C.A.R.L. meeting: "no teeth whatsoever" as they have no power to enforce their decisions. This comment led many others to agree. Hence, these leaseholders agree that, like me (LVT # 8.1.5 , # 8.1.6 , home # 7) they were tricked into believing that LVTs would provide them with an enforceable decision. At which point I said: "it's all part of the game of wearing down leaseholders, getting them to give-up, beating them into submission" - to which there was agreement. These comments were made in the course of a presentation by a representative from LEASE, following my saying to the representative that, 5 years ago, when I was told about the LVTs (e.g. Home # 7), there was no mention of this fact anywhere. Evidently, this is still the case. One leaseholder said to the representative: "Don't send people to the LVTs, it's a complete waste of money and time". Others agreed. (See also e.g. C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder - Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "Tribunal lottery" ) (As can be seen in some of the other issues of The Leaseholder, some leaseholders do get treated justly and fairly by the LVT = it is a "lottery") One thing I noted among many people is that the 'blindfold' has fallen off their eyes e.g.: Members' comments about the LVT:"Within minutes, I felt that there was collusion between the panel and my landlord's party. Their surveyor, who had come across as friendly previously, went into a personal, humiliating attack against me during the hearing. I felt under attack, I was shaking. He revealed himself to be a liar and very dishonest" (NB: Ditto in terms of my perception of collusion / siding with the landlord and his aides when I went to the LVT in 2003, following 'Steel Services' application of 7 August 2003 to the LVT (LVT # 8 to # 11 , # 5) which turned out to be correct: LVT # 6 , # 7 ; the outcome of the determination v. the Case summary on the LVT database) "We were seriously sha***d by the LVT. The only people they could hear in the room were the landlord's barrister and surveyor. And it continued when we took our case to the Lands Tribunal. It's my country. I was born here. But that evidently doesn't give me the right to justice. Makes me sick. I've got to get out of here" "The LVT leaflet, LEASE and the website tell you that you don't need representation in the LVT. Then you turn up on your own, and you find that the landlord has employed a QC to face you. Can you imagine? A QC for an LVT hearing!" (NB: Inequality of arms in the LVTs was a point agreed on by many leaseholders - and tallies with my own experience - LVT # 2 , # 8.1.5, etc.) (See also C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder e.g. (1) Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "Tribunals raise the stakes" ; (2) Spring 2006 - Issue 17 "DGA over charges on insurance...again" ; (3) Autumn 2001-Issue 7 "Leasehold Valuation Tribunals" which reports on the findings from a survey conducted by Sheffield Hallam University) "As I was sitting there, looking around I was thinking: my barrister and my solicitor: paid to be there by me ; the barrister, solicitor and surveyor for the landlord: paid to there by me and my fellow leaseholders - as their costs would, in all likelihood, end-up in one form or another in the service charges - even though the service charge demand of £70,000 they expected me to pay, and similar for the others, was fraudulent ; the members of the panel: paid to be there by me and other taxpayers in this country. So, none of them with any care as to how long it would take and what the outcome would be. Whereas I, I was trembling, thinking: every extra hour is going to immediately cost me several hundred pounds to my barrister and my solicitor - and more later on. I was their meal ticket. They were all feeding on me" Some leaseholders told me that the LVT was "scared" of their landlord because this landlord is particularly litigious. You can guess the outcome on the leaseholders! (See also e.g. C.A.R.L.'s The Leaseholder - Autumn 2006-Issue 19 "LVT caves in to landlord bullies" ) Members' comments about the Lands Tribunal:"You could see from the exchange between the judge and the landlord's counsel that they knew each other well. Of course they do! It's a club, and they know who is buttering their bread: landlords. Same thing in the LVT!" (NB: See Lord Falconer # 4 for the experience of other leaseholders) "A mess" ; "Utter shambles" A man told me that the stress of the ordeal he was put through by the LVT / the Lands Tribunal led him to go and see his doctor, and that he broke down in tears when he met with him. (That's the ultimate objective: get people to break down) Member's comments about lawyers"They are all crooks! In the last 18 months, my freeholder's solicitors have threatened me with forfeiture three times! Can you believe that !?" (NB: Same tactic used in my case by:
The trigger to dropping "ALL of the claim" against me was my ('Litigant in Person') 3 June 2008 Witness Statement (4pg Main Points) - and was the response instead of sending me 'Rootstock Overseas Corp. / Steel Services / Sloan Development' witness statement (as per the 9 April 2008 directions) (My Diary 7 Jun 08 ; 3 Jun 08). The preposterous reason subsequently given for dropping the claim provides additional proof that the claim was fraudulent (I challenged the identity of 'the Claimant' a total of 11 TIMES ! over a 14-month period) It amounts to a 'part repeat' of what happened with the 29 November 2002 fraudulent claim, ref. WL203537 (Particulars of claim), filed against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders) - also in WLCC. Indeed, contrary to the WLCC order that witness statements had to be "served / exchanged by 4.00 pm on 21 October 2003", 'Steel Services', aka Mr Andrew Ladsky, did not supply a witness statement - opting instead to send an "offer" for £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) demand) - nearly two hours after its witness statement was due. Fascinating to see the difference in outcome when - unlike with the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 - there has not been the option of arriving at 'an arrangement' with members of the fraternity (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; CKFT # 6.8 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7.17 , # 7.12.1 ; Stan Gallagher # 15) - and... ...unlike in 2003-2004 (Home # 4.14 ; My Diary 11 Mar 07 ; CKFT ; WLCC ; Lord Falconer), the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me.
'Unfortunately', the majority of my fellow leaseholders 'caved in' in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 - as evidenced by the fact that 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ended-up paying the FULL amount of the service charge, and a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (CKFT # 2 , # 6.6 , # 6.3 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). THEY DID NOT OWE THE C. £500,000 THEY COLLECTIVELY PAID - AS A RESULT OF FEAR TACTICS - ALL FOR THE SAKE OF GENERATING A MULTI-MILLION POUND JACKPOT. . (NB: Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the scam: being persecuted (e.g. I am NOT the criminal, I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME ; home introduction ; My Dairy 15 May 08 ; being under surveillance) I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately')
From Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, following my 24 October 2002 fax to Kensington & Chelsea housing and other parties, in which I highlight, among others, the British Virgin Islands' policy of "protection of assets from expropriation or confiscation orders from foreign governments" and state "(Hence, they could siphon-off - at this stage - £750,000+ from Jefferson House residents and make it disappear)" (NB: Please note that landlords are not bound by any regulation on the management of funds - see e.g. Financial Services Authority) (1) His 28 November 2002 letter to me "...implies that Steel Services, as well as those associated with the company, are dishonest and that they are actual or potential thieves...Your...letter is defamatory of Steel Services...Mr Ladsky because the words used...are untrue and are likely to lower our client in the estimation of right thinking people...Our client requires...Your specific proposals for payment of damages to Mr Ladsky which must be substantial...In the event that you do not comply with these requirements we have firm instructions to commence proceedings against you..." (2) His 28 November 2002 letter to my employer (because I 'stupidly' sent the fax on my employer's headed paper) "In the absence of a proper offer of amends and offer of compensation... we have instructions to commence proceedings..." From Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel LLP (1) In his 3 October 2006 fax to my then ISP that "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged...Our client requires that within 48 hours you... provide...[him] with your suggestion for damages, which must be substantial..." He concluded the letter by stating "We will of course, take all appropriate steps to enforce any judgement obtained in the UK against you" (The threat worked as the ISP closed down my website (My Diary 3 Oct 06)) (2) Aiming to, yet again, try 'his luck', in January and February 2007, Mr Hershkorn sent a massive amount of emails to my current website Host, threatening my Host with legal "proceedings and costs and damages" unless my Host closed down my website, stating "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (My Diary 5 Feb 07 ; Portner # 2) Of course, no payment was ever made to Mr Ladsky - and he never implemented his threats = Blatant use of FEAR tactics by means of malicious communications = his trademark (see also e.g. Elderly Resident ; Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau)
And 'I' am branded a "Nazi"?!?! Who are the 'Hitlers' - in 21st century England? WHAT A MAFIA! The worst part of it is that this kind of conduct - which is ORGANISED CRIME - is widely endorsed and actively supported : My Diary 6 May 08 ; introduction to 2009 - resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal' instead of the victim - while the criminals are treated as though they are the victims (e.g. RICS # 12 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 1 , # 2 , # 3 ; home introduction) - and laughing their head off (outcome of my complaints)... THE POWER OF MONEY! AND CONNECTIONS Of course, I forgot, silly me: Portner and Jaskel, Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton are evidently viewed by the Law Society as having "discharged their professional duties with [no]thing less than complete integrity and probity" - and consequently have no need to worry about "severe sanctions" (Portner and Jaskel # 4 and # 5 ; outcome of my complaints). (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18) Comment from another leaseholder during the CARL AGM meeting: "To pile the pressure on me, and gain advantage, the freeholder's barrister had several inches thick of documents delivered to me the day before the hearing, at 9 o'clock in the evening" A visitor to my site: Comment # 24, also reports late delivery of documents (It 'might' be by the council rather than by a lawyer) (NB: Similar tactics have been used in my case, intended to put me at a disadvantage / take advantage of me i.e. steal money from me e.g.
Members' comments about managing agents/surveyors:You can guess from the above. One of the worst: a service charge demand for £70,000 (US$123,000) for 'major works' - with no explanation - and of course, requiring "immediate payment". (It was not preceded by the proper consultation procedures. Sounds very, very familiar :-) Martin Russell Jones ; Brian Gale) One of the panel of leaseholders said that she had been fighting for 20 years (!!!) and that, as a Litigant in Person, it is an unbelievably harrowing experience. She explained, among others, you have to deal with terminology that is alien to you and, if you get it wrong e.g. not doing things at the right time, in the right way, months of work can go down the plughole - not to mention the often very dire consequences. She gave the example of a legal term, saying that it took her 3 days of "googling" to finally find the definition. Listening to her, I knew exactly what she had been, and continue to go through (e.g. My Diary 24 Mar 03 ; 25 and 30 Mar 03 ; Lord Falconer # 1 ; My Diary 18 Mar 07). It is extremely stressful... which is what the crooked landlords, their aides and the supporting infrastructure are counting on - so that they can 'get you' (Business model # 2). The LEASE representative also talked of social sector leaseholders receiving service charge demands of £25,000+ (US$44,000+) (See also C.A.R.L. newsletter Autumn 2008-Issue 25 for cases of up to £50,000 - reported in the Evening Standard article of 1 October 2008). I already knew about this from attending a meeting in Bethnal Green, referred to in My Diary 26 Apr 06. At the time, I wrote that the leaseholders had no hope of being able to pay. Well, according to the LEASE representative, they have / will have the opportunity to get a loan. Great! Clubber the less well-off with more debts - paying for local councils' mismanagement of their housing stocks. It makes my blood boil. (Meanwhile the 'noble' peers and 'honourable' MPs are feathering their nest at the taxpayer's expense - including demanding payment of a £3,000 flat-screen TV, pleading that it is "natural justice") As we were talking over drinks, one woman told us that the landlord's parties were portraying her as "mad". I said: "Ditto for me (My Diary 7 Jun 08 ; w/c 4 Feb 08 ; 15 May 08). Looks like the standard way in this country of disparaging women who refuse to be trodden on" . One of the men said "Actually, they did the same to me; the landlord and his aides went round the other leaseholders saying this about me". Conclusion: challenge fraud, corruption malpractice and incompetence and you are branded as "mad". Oh! and let's not forget the addition of the "Nazi" label if you happen to have German blood in you (Kensington and Chelsea police 16 March 2007 and 20 March 2007 emails to my website Host - My Diary 20 Mar 07) Overall, the C.A.R.L. members were clearly enraged at the way they were being treated - across the board. We look at the players in the residential leasehold sector from our point of view: we would not treat people as they do. But the majority of the players have no morality whatsoever (we all agreed on that). They are driven by the overpowering need to feed their GREED - and their cowardice and that of the supporting system, leads them to do this by picking on the 'little people' - destroying their life in the process (e.g. My Diary home page ; Christmas 2006 ; Document library # 4 ; Comments # 16 , # 19 , # 24 , # 31 ; Member's 'Letter to the Editor', The Leaseholder, Summer 2008-Issue 24) And, as we all agreed: leaseholders have absolutely nowhere to turn to for help. Like me (brief overview in My Diary 6 May 08), some leaseholders filed complaints, going through all the formal stages, 'the loops' right up to Ombudsmen and got as I did, what amounts to: GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST! GET LOST!... In my case, when I received a reply to my cries for help to MPs, including party leaders, and all the way to the Prime Minister, the response was the same: GET LOST! (Because, likewise, they have no morality whatsoever) - except some help from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the previous Tenancy Relations Officer at Kensington & Chelsea housing (My Diary 6 May 08 ; 5 Nov 02) As a member wrote to C.A.R.L., 'Letter to the Editor', Summer 2004-Issue 12 "There is nowhere for leaseholders to turn to! No prosecuting authority = no law enforcement = anarchy" Having gone, as I have, all the way to the 'top of the tree', both, in terms of politicians, and in terms of complaints against government departments - where else can I go? NOWHERE! There is NOWHERE to turn to - except God - asking for the strength to continue the fight until a miracle happens: somebody in authority taking action. (Subsequent note - I can't stop taking action. So, I have contacted my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind) You either walk away, full of resentment and anger for having suffered injustice, being conned and treated like dirt, a non-entity with no rights, and frequently, having lost a large part of your life savings...or, you set-up a website, as I have done (*) - in the hope of putting pressure on resolving your situation and, failing that, of being a trigger for change - in the meantime, being of help to others who, like you, are going through absolute, sheer, utter hell. (*) A growing number of people are setting-up websites / blogs.
Early December: In 'Today in Parliament', BBC Radio 4, I heard somebody in the House of Lords deplore the impact on the country of 11 years of 'New Labour'. I agree. It is extremely sad. And - what is much sadder than this - is that those who cry "Wolves!" are fired at instead of the 'wolves' (whistleblowers ; I am NOT the criminal. I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME ) - and that this is done with widespread endorsement and extensive participation. THAT'S THE REAL TRAGEDY! 19 December 2008 - The Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2009 at the Supreme Court Costs Office, LondonAccording to this 18 December 2008 Notice from the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Detailed Assessment hearing is 'due' to take place on 30 January 2009 at 14h00. (It did - and as can be seen, it was 'more of the same treatment) In case of interest: these hearings are open to the public - but, based on my experience (My Diary 4 May 07 ; 4 Nov 08), check before turning up. Prior events: (1) I sent my Statement of Costs on 26 June 2008 ; (2) Portner sent the 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute, giving an outrageous, preposterous reason for dropping the claim; (3) while Mr Andrew Ladsky and his solicitor, Mr Ahmet Jaffer continued with their games by requesting that the 4 November 2008 hearing be cancelled on the grounds that they were "unaware" of the hearing until my fax of 31 October 2008, it was cancelled for a different reason: four hours before it was due to take place, Judge Nicholson issued an order for transfer to the Supreme Court Costs Office (My Diary 11 Nov 08). Hence this latest Notice. (Subsequent note - The SCCO hearing did take place - see My Diary 30 Jan 09)
Back in August, it sent me an initial text stating "In one month's time your 3SIM won't work in this mobile, pop into a 3store to discuss the best options...". This was followed by three identical texts until mid September. I opted to buy a phone not linked to any network and put the 3 SIM card in it. It worked until I 'think' c. mid-October (I rarely use my phone) when, following a text message from 3 that I had one or more voicemails I tried to phone the service and could not get through. Upon returning to the same store, on 23 October 2008, I was told that I also needed to change the SIM card. (As can be seen from the above text, this was new information). Secondly, that it had to be a 3 phone. In addition to saying that I had just bought a new one and had no intention of buying one from 3, I also pointed out that (1) it was not a requirement when I switched my mobile number to 3. Had it been, I would have gone somewhere else; (2) other mobile phone service providers do not impose this requirement; (3) this policy must surely be in breach of competition rules. After spending several minutes calling the 'Customer Service' department in order to get a new SIM card, the line went dead when I said that I had no intention of buying a 3 phone. Another call resulted in the same outcome: when I said that I had no intention of buying a 3 phone, the line went dead. On the third attempt (following getting one of the shop assistants to phone), when I repeated that I had no intention to buy a 3 phone, I was told that I would receive a card at the latest by 27 October but that "the card might not work, or it might only work for a few days" - because I did not have a 3 phone. Nearly one week later: still no card. Considering the way I had been treated, added to the fact that the SIM card would probably not work, and that I had immediately sensed that a game was being played, I sent this 29 October 2008 letter requesting the port authorisation code in order to move to another network. It was followed by this 4 November 2008 letter from 3 (the black stains all the way down the left-hand margin are on the original letter) stating, among others, that it was not sending me the PAC number because I had credit which, I would lose, if I were to move to another network. And to use the credit? I needed to have a 3 phone of course! It is obvious from the letter that the writer knew that I did not have a 3 phone - (as I explained in my 8 December 2008 letter - see below). I phoned on 7 November 2008 saying that I still wanted to move immediately to another network. At this point I was asked for the number of the "new SIM card". Of course, by then i.e. two weeks after being told that I would receive it "within 2-3 days", I still had not received the card. The reply was "It was sent yesterday". I did receive it the following day. So, yet again, I phoned 'Customer Service'. I was told "I can’t give you the PAC code because the SIM card has not been cleared. I will phone you on Monday to let you know if it is cleared or not”. The "or not" led me to expect a "not" on the Monday. Also of note: having insisted the previous day that the PAC could not be given to me "because you have not got the card", I was not asked about the number of the card. Hence, what was the purpose of insisting that I had the new card in order to issue me with the PAC number? When I challenged this latest excuse saying that, in light of the fact that the employee had just been “retrieving my details” for the purpose of the call, he obviously had access to the system, he replied “The office is closed on Saturday. It can only be done during week days”. On the Monday, I got a call from 3 which turned out to be as I had anticipated, as I was told “There is a problem with the system. I can’t give you the PAC code. I will contact you in the next 48 hours”. This was a blatantly obvious continuation of a 'game' being played. However, I said very little, partly because I knew that the ploy was to get me annoyed, and partly because I felt that it was staged to ensure a witness to my reaction. (Yes Adrian: I saw right through the game! You really have sunk to a new low!... and after 33 years!!!) Of course, the 3 employee did not phone me back. Clearly, the expectation was that I would keep on phoning to get the PAC number - allowing the mob to have a good laugh at my expense. Instead, I waited for one month, and sent this 8 December 2008 letter to Mr Kevin Russell, CEO, of Hutchison 3G, in which I related events - and asked for the PAC "by return of post", enclosing a self-addressed, 'special delivery' envelop "to avoid any more games". In the letter, I also commented on the irony of the first sentence of the 4 November 2008 letter from 3: “I can understand how upsetting it is for you not able (sic) to use your phone…” Three weeks later, and still no PAC. So, today, I sent this 29 December 2008 letter to Mr Kevin Russell, CEO, quoting from the Ofcom website www.ofcom.org.uk/consumeradvice/mobile/switching:
In addition to, yet again reiterating my demand for the PAC, I wrote:
and
I copied the letter to the Director of Customer Services. I don't know about you, but I describe what has and continues to take place with Hutchison 3G as persecution. Maybe it's part of an 'economy drive': by depriving me from using this mobile number, it leaves it with only one to monitor. (I know that my other mobile is also being monitored. Likewise, it has been taking place for a very long time). (For the avoidance of doubt: NO, I am NOT a criminal. I AM THE VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME... facing very, very sick people) (Subsequent note: further evidence: the threatening 'message' on 2 Jan 09 ; other events in 2008) Until the next chapter (see My Diary 23 Jan 09 for follow-up). In the meantime, I draw your attention to the extracts from a press article headed "Phone firms net £9m for giving data to the police", and another one headed "Minister in 'cahoots with mobile phone firms on price fixing'" - in My Diary home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
] We suspected that they are dishonest in the large demands being sent us as well as other signs and would greatly appreciate any advice or information you could give us. They were 'appointed' over our heads by [
