Email this site to a contact


Denial of leaseholders’ statutory rights, combined with the use of deceit, intimidation, and harassment tactics - as well as aimed at inflicting criminal psychological harassment - with the objective of satisfying Andrew David Ladsky and his mafia's addiction to sadistic kicks

Notices by Landlord - for Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX


(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:


If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: '' and click 'Add').



(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

1999 - 2000




2015 - 2016

(See also EXTORTION)



Under Section 5 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 lessees must be given 'first refusal': 'A notice by landlord to qualifying tenants of proposed disposal'.

The first 3 so-called "notices" issued, to Feb 06, demonstrate very serious malpractice by solicitors - to be expected as they have 'carte blanche' to do exactly as they please by their 'professional' association, the Law Society for England and Wales (e.g. 'reply' to my complaint against Portner and Jaskel - see summary # 2.6)...

added to the 'replies' to my other complaints against lawyers - from: (1)- the Law Society- summaries header # 2; (2)- the then Legal Services Ombudsman: summaries header # 3.

The 4th "notice" that appeared in early 2011, and was resurrected - 2.6 years later - in Aug 13 is a continuation of a fraud that started in 2002.

Back to list


(1)- THE PRETENCE 22.12.99 "Notice of disposal by landlord" - through Laytons = Andrew David Ladsky.

Laytons, solicitors, London EC4Y 0LS, issued two so-called "s.5 L&T Act 1987 Notices" (Notice of first refusal) - acting as "agents for Steel Services Ltd ("the landlord").

The first one, dated 22.12.99, stated:

3. "The landlord intends to sell the leasehold interest in the property, as defined in paragraph 4 below"

4. "The Property" means the Building"

5. "The consideration for the proposed disposal is £380,000..." (US$670,000)

Contrary to the claim that "the Schedule of Notice of Leases is annexed" it was - deliberately - not provided (e.g. 07.02.00 letter from the Head of the Residents Association) - because there was no intention of seeing it through = a con.

Another tell-tale sign: it was sent just before Christmas - a typical tactic used by landlords (and their ever obliging henchmen) to undermine lessees' ability to respond within the statutory timeframe, and thereby allow landlords to 'press ahead' with their plan.

The Head of the Residents Association wrote to the leaseholders to determine the interest. Nothing appears to have come of it. (At the time, I was working in Germany).

(See next section for the 2nd "Notice")

Back to list


(2)- The PRETENCE 13.12.00 "Notice of disposal by landlord" - through Laytons = Andrew David Ladsky - laced with threats, and supported by harassment and intimidation tactics.

The psychos withdrew it after they had had their fun - while some shuffling of ownership nonetheless took place.

This 13.12.00 so-called "s.5 L&T Act 1987 notice", also sent by Laytons, solicitors (above), and also acting as "agents for Steel Services Ltd ("the landlord")..." - stated:

3. "The landlord intends to sell the leasehold interest in the Property as defined in paragraph 4 below"

4. "The Property" means the Building"

5. "The consideration for the proposed disposal is £131,000" (US$231,000) (Note that, 12 months previously, it was £380,000 - # 1, above)

This so-called "notice", was, likewise, another con - making use of the frequently used dirty tricks of the trade - clearly intended to prevent us from pursuing the offer:

(1)- It placed heavy emphasis on the threat of litigation and "associated burden of costs". Among others, it stated:

" obligation on the part of the purchaser to submit and pursue (at its own cost) a planning permission to make variations to the existing planning application... for erection of an additional storey at roof level....

as may be necessary the proposed purchaser will pay to the landlord an additional sum of £75,000.. " [US$132,300]

"The property is also sold subject to the burden of ongoing litigation.

The landlord has been served with an application for an injunction seeking to restrain the landlord from implementing the current planning permission and damages"

This was ALL concocted by vampiric, Rachman crook Andrew David Ladsky.

(2)- It claimed that documents describing the property on offer were attached. It was not true, as none were supplied. Hence: a repeat of the 22 Dec 99 "notice" (# 1, above) (see below, the trick used by Laytons - and hence: by Ladsky)

(3)- What was also a repeat of the 22 Dec 99 "notice": it was sent shortly before Christmas.

Unfortunately, at the time, I was like the majority of leaseholders: I did not know about leasehold legislation - and was a million miles from imagining the systemic corruption in the legal sector connected with residential leasehold, and the latter being a bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption.

The response to the 'offer' was coordinated by Leaseholder H, the person running the Residents Association.

Actions by Rachman Andrew Ladsky following the issue of the "Notice" confirmed the overriding objective of dissuading lessees from considering the purchase of the headlease.

They also indicated that this would be achieved with scant regard to the terms of our leases and our statutory rights - including resorting to harassment and intimidation tactics.

As I was a member of the Residents Association Committee, Leaseholder H, kept me abreast of developments. This included:

Leaseholder H, 18.12.00 letter, in which she wrote:  

"Since arriving in the block, Mr Ladsky has persisted in demanding that the block is refurbished inside and out.but he wishes this to be done at a cost that is extremely high - possibly as much as £1 million.

He feels that the reserve fund should be emptied and residents should be forced to pay him for the extra costs...

...he has approached me demanding that I handover the Chairmanship and all the files of the Residents Association to him. He became rude and threatening when I refused"


Leaseholder H copied me on her letter to Ladsky, dated 14.01.01:

"On 30 December 2000 you rang me at home to tell me that you were buying the headlease of Jefferson House .You made it clear that the residents could not take up first refusal to buy the headlease.

I have informed the committee of your demand (made on 27 November 2000) that I hand over to you immediately the office of Chairman of the Association together will all its books and records..

.. your conversations with me and calls to me list a catalogue of statements that can only be described as threats.

These include threats to sue residents of Jefferson House if they do not allow you to act as you wish, suing them for punitive damages of £500,000 [US$882,000] and/or bankruptcy [*] if they take up the option to buy the headlease, taking me to court for contradicting your opinions.

I also know that you have made a very large number of telephone calls to my home. There is no reason for you to persist in ringing, including after midnight.

People visiting me have witnessed this"

(*) A trademark of supremacists Ladsky and his mafia e.g. the 16.02.07 threat of "bankruptcy and forfeiture" (copy of definition) against me: Portner and Jaskel # 3

In copying me on this letter, in her 14.01.01 covering note, Leaseholder H wrote:  

"Given the extreme nature of the behaviour, and the fact I am getting no peace, I have written...

The conversation with Mr Ladsky was one sided, consisting simply of him ranting and becoming increasingly offensive and threatening.

Mr Ladsky was immensely aggressive. His last call to me was at 12.40 am, which can hardly be described as reasonable..."


In her letter of 29.01.01, Leaseholder H wrote:

"Ladsky does not want to buy this block, redecorate it and be a landlord;

he proposes to force residents out by making the financial situation intolerable, intervening to block sales (already done once) and cutting off rental income. He then forces residents to sell to him at a loss.

To fight is one thing, but to be the focus or harassment in your own home by a resident landlord is not something I would wish on anyone." [I certainly know what she means: my experience with "[my] neighbour, Ladsky"!]


While in her letter of 31.01.01, she wrote:

"I have no need to an alarm - I am getting 30 nuisance calls a day again only now he keeps the line open if I reply"

The Head of Residents Association reported the harassment and intimidation by Ladsky not only to me, but also to other leaseholders, including having a leaseholder as a witness - as evidenced by e.g. the 18.04.02 email from Leaseholder E to me.

As can also be seen in this email, Leaseholder H had complained to Kensington & Chelsea police, from which, according to Leaseholder E, she received in reply the suggestion to "fold her tent and go"

= Another evidence of protection of Ladsky by that extremely corrupt to the core police station...which, like everyting else in this island-kingdom, has no fear of sanction - because not regulated...added to the fact that Ladsky is Jewish.

In her letter of 11.01.01 to leaseholders, Leaseholder H wrote:

"It may also be necessary to take legal advice on the positive obligation in the offer to build another floor onto Jefferson House, and if that is done, to pay the landlord a further £75,000. At present, it is not clear whether such a clause is realistic in the circumstances."

"If we do not buy the head lease, it will be bought by an individual resident who wishes to be the sole landlord of the block."

"The Residents' Association has been contacted by this resident, who has described himself as a property developer.

He has indicated that if he buys the head lease, he proposes to carry out extensive work to the block, including internal and external re-decoration and the possible building of a new roof, although the preferred option he has is to build the additional storey." [As happened]

The works are to be done as soon as possible. As the reserve fund will fall far short of the total costs of the work (estimated to be at least £300,000) [US$529,000]..."

Despite the ongoing harassment and intimidation by Ladsky, Leaseholder H proceeded with coordinating the leaseholders' response to 'the offer'.

It led vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky to send an identical letter to leaseholders, dated 25.01.01. In this letter, he wrote, among other:

"..the tenants must purchase the property with the burden of ongoing litigation which has serious implications both in terms of the costs and damages that could follow...

..the litigation could impose upon those participating, and in addition to the acquisition cost, a serious financial burden which is yet to be determined".

This was clearly concocted by him - so that nobody would 'dare' exert their right.

Ladsky also made various other claims, on which I have commented in pages attached to his 25.01.01 letter.

In a follow-up to Ladsky's (above) 25 Jan 01 letter, Leaseholder H wrote to leaseholders, on 31.01.01:

"Some residents have received a letter from Mr Ladsky. The minimum sum of £350,000 [US$617,000] for repair to the block came from Mr Ladsky himself.

He quoted this figure twice - on 27 November and 30 December 2000.

Residents cannot be charged for the building of a new floor on the roof [NB: With Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers + the very active help of 'the Brotherhood' = YES!] to a building cannot be carried out without a proper report and estimates.

Mr Ladsky is incorrect in suggesting that this is not a legal requirement."

In February 2001 we appointed a firm of solicitors to advise us.

I pointed out that, contrary to what was stated in the Notice, no annex had been attached. A trawl of leaseholders by Leaseholder H, dated 10.03.01, confirmed that none of the other leaseholders had received an annex, as evidenced by Leaseholder H's correspondence of 12.03.01.

Laytons informed our solicitors that we needed to form a company in order to release the documents to us. This was another trick to make us waste valuable time - and money - as the document is available to the public at the Land Registry.

Further, Laytons had (falsely) stated that it had 'enclosed' the documents.

In her 21.03.01 letter, Leaseholder H communicated having set-up a company.

One month went by. With one week left to the deadline, on 26.04.01, Leaseholder H informed leaseholders that no reply had been received from Laytons.

In her letter of 14.05.01, Leaseholder H told me that 'Steel Services' (= Rachman Ladsky) "has withdrawn the offer" - on the basis that "the offer was invalid as it did not include annexed documents".

What a thoroughly evil mafia - and that it includes Laytons.

It 'seems' from this that Laytons also committed a breach of section 5(2) of the L&T Act 1987

In her letter of 23.05.01, the Leaseholder H wrote:

"I have been told that the ownership of the landlord's company Steel Services has been transferred to an 'unknown buyer'.

The head lease has been sold along with the company" .  

"The selling of the company to another party, as done by our landlord, is a means by which the obligations of the Landlord and Tenant Act can be avoided."

Hooray for the so-called 'legislation' that pretends to give statutory rights to leaseholders...with the compliments of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then headed by John Prescott (the "innocent big John").

The fact that Laytons:

(1)- contrary to what it had stated in the 13.12.00 "notice" - did not include an annex i.e. "particulars of the property for disposal"

(2)- had not replied to our solicitor within a week of the deadline for reply...

...had led me to the conclusion that the "notice" was a pretence at complying with the legislation or, to put it more succinctly: that the "notice" was A CON. I was right!

Laytons had helped Rachman Andrew Ladsky have fun giving us the run around = another member of the vile, corrupt, vermin infested legal sector.

What was actually taking place in parallel - in the background - was a 'reshuffle' in the ownership of the block.

Indeed, 10 days later, the Land Registry recorded the following on the Title for Steel Services, NGL 373 333:

"Note on title for Leasehold:   '1 June 2001 - RESTRICTION: .

pursuant to clause 6.7 of an Agreement dated 26 July 2001 made between (1) Steel Services Ltd (2) Canso Properties Ltd and (3) Patrick May O'Connor "

So, Patrick May O'Connor (ex. Acrepost and Langhaven Holdings (ultimate holding company)) 'resurfaced' in the ownership of the block. (See Headlessors for detail, as well as Directorships).

As suggested by this restriction, neither Patrick May O'Connor, nor Canso Properties were previously mentioned under this title - as can be seen for example on the Land Registry copy dated 01.06.01 (the date on which the Land Registry recorded the restriction).

Assuming that section 10A(1) of the L&T Act 1987 was in operation at the time: the above amounts to 'Steel Services' having committed a criminal offence. But yeh! no worries: Ladsky and his gang know they are at liberty to operate 'above the law'.  

The name of Patrick O'Connor and Canso Properties remained on the Land Registry during at least the next two years (e.g. they were still listed at 06.03.03). By 26.04.04 they had been removed.

In its 13.12.00 Notice Laytons stated, at the end:

"You are advised that this notice contains important legal rights for the benefit of you and other qualifying tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987."  

= 10/10 for irony!

Not only did Ladsky et. al. achieve the objective of stopping leaseholders from buying the headlease, Rachman Ladsky also succeeded in making the Head of Residents Association leave...

...- thereby achieving another key objective: getting rid of the residents association = getting rid of coordinated opposition. (See Business model).

Back to list


(3)- The FRAUDULENT 10.02.06 "Notice of disposal by landlord" - through Portner and Jaskel = Andrew David Ladsky - intended to inflict more criminal psychological harassment on me - but, instead, allowed me to have a bit of fun, by turning the table on them.

(NB: Events are also covered under Portner and Jaskel # 1- and in detail in My Diary - 18 Feb 06 ; 29 Apr 06)

In spite of having Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT) as the nominated solicitors for 'Steel Services' on the Land Registry e.g. Title NGL 373 333, at 31.01.06, Portner and Jaskel, another one in the Rachman Ladsky gang of racketeers, acted for 'Steel Services' in this context.

It sent me what it described as a "Notice by landlord to qualifying tenants of proposed disposal, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Section 5" , dated 10.02.06. Among others, this notice stated:

"We Portner and Jaskel as agents for Steel Services Ltd ("the landlord") give you notice as follows:

"1.This notice is given under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ("the Act") Section 5 and relates to the leasehold land and buildings [NB: "Buildings" is in the plural] known as Jefferson House 7 to 13 (odd) Basil Street , Chelsea , London SW3 ("the building")."

2. "The landlord has a leasehold interest in the building."

3. "The landlord intends to sell the leasehold interest in the property as defined below"

4. "The property" means the building" (NB: "Building" is in the singular)

5. "The consideration for the proposed disposal is £120,000" [US$211,600]

6. "It is intended that the proposed disposal will be subject to the leases tenancy agreements and other interests set out in the schedule to this notice"

7. This notice constitutes an offer by the landlord to dispose of the property on the terms mentioned in paragraph 5 above"

"The headleasehold interest is intended to be sold subject to the subleases set out in the schedule of notice of leases registered at the Land Registry a copy of which is annexed to this notice and other matters referred to in the charges register of the above mentioned title (copies of which are also annexed to this notice)"

I immediately suspected something 'fishy'.

•  (1) - The "offer" price of £120,000 (US$211,600). Indeed, it was fascinating to see how the price of a "headlease" for a block of apartments in Knightsbridge had tumbled over the last 6 years:

... - especially when compared with average UK property prices

(sourced from statistics published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).


(PDF of: graph 1 ; graph 2 )

•  (2) - Pages 1 and 2 of the Land Registry title for Steel Services were not included with the "Notice" (I remembered what happened with the above, December 2000 "Notice" !).

•  (3) - I had previously heard of Portner and Jaskel, as it had filed a 26.02.02 claim against the then Elderly Resident (74 years old) - clearly on the order of Rachman Andrew Ladsky who did not 'like' being challenged (see Elderly Resident for detail - including the letter that preceded the claim).

This 10.02.06 "notice" led me to obtain, from the Land Registry, ALL the titles for Jefferson House. This cost me c. £200 (US$350), as well as numerous hours mapping out the ownership.

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


(PDF of above diagram - at Feb 06)

(Subsequent changes took place in 'the ownership' of titles - see Headlessors and Freehold ownership)

I stated in my 30.04.06 letter to Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, that I viewed its sending of this "notice" as a malicious act, as it was unlikely that the number of apartments met statutory requirements: it seems that I was right: in addition to Owners identity see also Block sale of apartments.

My 30.04.06 reply to Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, summarises events, and comprises - my non-lawyer - assessment leading me to conclude with:

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

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

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

Some of the main points in my letter that led me to write this conclusion:

Although Steel Services no longer owned the headlease interest on the last floor (as it had sold it to Lavagna Enterprises: Headlessors # 2, as well as "the airspace": Headlessors # 4),...

...and the penthouse was a 'lessee' of Lavagna Enterprises: Headlessors # 2) - the wording used in the 10.02.06 "notice" did not reflect this in any way.

In fact, the wording used to describe "the disposal" was identical to the other so-called 's.5 "notice of disposal" previously issued by Laytons solicitors, on behalf of Steel Services, on 22.12.99 and 13.12.00 (above, # 1 and # 2), namely:

"This notice relates to the leasehold land and buildings known as Jefferson House 7 to 13 (odd) Basil Street Chelsea London SW3 ("the building")."

"The landlord has a leasehold interest in the building..."   "the property" means the building"

In reply to my 03.03.06 letter, in which I wrote:

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

Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, responded on 06.03.06:

"I confirm the notice relates to the property known as Jefferson House, 11-13 Basil Street (odd), London SW3 1AX"

As this address was different from that contained in the "Notice", in my letter of 11.03.06, I asked him to "confirm the address to which the "Notice" relates" .

In his 14.03.06 response, Broughton stated that the address captured in his 06.03.06 letter was a "typographical error" ,and he confirmed that the correct address was that captured in the 10.02.06 "Notice" : "7 to 13 (Odd) Basil Street , Chelsea , London"

Hence: Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel - falsely - confirmed that the "Notice" related"to the building, as it stands now, in its entirety i.e. the whole of Jefferson House" (My 03.03.06 letter).

•  In light of these affirmations, in my 30.03.06 letter to Daniel Broughton, I wrote:

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

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

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

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

In his reply of 03.04.06, Broughton wrote:

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

I replied, in my 30.04.06 letter:

"Therefore, it is not as "per the content of the notice"

"In fact, although your client, 'Steel Services', had - barely 10 days - before you sent me the "notice of disposal" sold its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises Limited, the wording you used in the 10 February 2006 "notice" to describe "the disposal" is identical to the other 'so called' S.5 "notice of disposal" previously issued by your client:

Hence, your "may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd" in your 3 April 2006 letter is rather amusing - or might it be that you are suggesting that the information held on the Land Registry is false?"

In his 03.04.06 reply, Broughton also wrote:

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

To which I replied in my 30.04.06 letter:

"Deliberately omitting" to include pages one and two of the Land Registry title for NGL 373 333 which, among others, had the effect of supplying a list of flats - without the name of Steel Services, nor the address showing anywhere on the pages supplied - does not amount to compliance with the above section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Hence, I consider your assessment that "our client is not required to provide this information" as wholly incorrect"

•  In addition to having, quite clearly, intentionally provided a false and misleading description of the "disposal" , I pointed out to Broughton that indications were that he had also misrepresented the ownership status of his client as the "notice" described Steel Services as the "headlessor".

Against this, I highlighted the following:

•  In the 26.02.02 county court claim Portner and Jaskel filed against the Elderly Resident, it described Steel Services as the "freeholder"

•  In his letter of 05.10.04, addressed "To All Lessees of Jefferson House", Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), specifically identified Steel Services as "the freeholder", as he wrote:

"We have been informed by the solicitors acting for the freeholders of the above, Steel Services Limited .."

(see detail in Freehold ownership)

Back to list


(3.1)- I concluded in my 30.04.06 letter to Portner and Jaskel that it had breached several Acts, as well as rules under the Solicitors Code of conduct - which, of course, it could not care less about - knowing that it had nothing to fear from its lapdog 'regulator', the Law Society.


•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, s.5(2) as the "notice" did NOT "contain particulars of.the property to which it relates." , NOR did it reflect the true "interest in that property."

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, s.4 which states that

"(a) references to a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to a contract to make such disposal"

"(b) references to making a disposal of any description shall be construed as references to entering into a contract to make such disposal"

As Portner and Jaskel had subsequently gone back on the "notice" - by stating that "The disposal being not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd" ...

...I concluded that this action amounted to breach of contract - and quoted, from the Solicitors code of conduct, rules:

Rule 18.01 "Definition of undertaking" and Rule 18.09 "Undertaking on behalf of clients"


"...suggests that this rule might be of relevance in this instance" . (The "might be" because I was less certain that these were the relevant rules in this particular situation).

Whatever rule/s apply/ied, my 'non-lawyer' view is that Portner and Jaskel committed breach of contract - especially when considering s.4 of the L&T 1987 Act.

•  Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 and, concurrently, Rule 26.01 of the Solicitors code of conduct which requires/d that:

"solicitors must comply with the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 and regulations made under it"

As I noted in my 30.04.06 letter:

"It 'seems' that, in this instance, the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 takes precedence over the Fair Trading Act 1973 and Consumer Protection Act 1987"

•  3 principles, and another Rule in the Solicitors code of conduct:

  • Principle (a) - independence and integrity;
  • Principle (d) - repute of solicitors' profession;
  • Principle (e) - standard of work, as well as
  • Rule 12.02 "A solicitor must not act where the instructions would involve the solicitor in a breach of the law ."

As discussed under Portner # 5.2, the Law Society rejected my 28.02.07 complaint - on the grounds that events were "more than 6 months old".

(And for extremely shocking conduct that was 10 days old? It not only turned a blind eye as well, it also endorsed it!: Portner # 4 and # 5)

Back to list


(3.2)- As to 'Steel Services', that it had committed criminal offences


In relation to 'Steel Services', in my 30.04.06 letter, I highlighted - in the context of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, s.10A(1), that it had:

"committed criminal offences by not offering me 'first refusal' " in relation to:

•  the leasehold interest title NGL 373333, Steel Services Limited

•  the 'Airspace of Jefferson House', title BGL 51266

I emphasised that the outcome of these transactions between Steel Services and Lavagna Enterprises - (which were not communicated to me) - was that Steel Services no longer had control of the roof, as it was now in the hands of a superior headlessor - Lavagna Enterprises.

Consequently, Steel Services could not keep within its covenants in my Lease, as it could no longer perform the proper management of the building.

In support of this, I quoted the case of Kintyre Ltd v Romeomarch Property Management Ltd in which the Land Registry Adjudicator dismissed the application to register the lease, because:

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

And endorsed the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination (LON/ENF/1177/04)

"...that the maintenance of the roof itself, or any structure placed upon the roof, such as an aerial, depends upon the proper management of the airspace"

(The above events are also recorded in My Diary under 18 Feb 06 and 29 Apr 06. Typically (Overview # 7), Her Majesty's Land Registry told me to, in effect: 'Get Lost!': Headlessor # 10)

NOTE: What I could have added as well in relation to the discrepancy between Steel Services being described as the "headlessor" v. the "freeholder" is the fact that Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, committed a breach under the Money Laundering Regulations 2003: "Know your client", as well as possibly other parts of these regulations.

(Broughton's trade association, the fertiliser for malpractice, the Law Society does recommend its members "to protect against the committing of an offence under the statutory criminal law" - but, as amply demonstrated by the Law Society's conduct: like everything else, it's just for decoration).

Back to list


(4)- The FRAUDULENT 16.02.11 "Notice for renewal of boilers and overhauling of central heating system" from Martyn Gerrard, = Andrew Ladsky, provided (subsequently confirmed: # 5 and # 6, below) evidence of an intention to subject me to more criminal psychological harassment.

With his 16.02.11 correspondence (MG # 2), Tom O'Kane MCIOB, Assoc. RICS, from "the RICS, ARMA (and then) ALEP regulated" Martyn Gerrard - sent me:


"The works to be carried out under the agreement are Renewal of boilers and the overhauling of the central and domestic heating system to the property" (1)

"The Notice/consultation period will end on 23rd February 2011 (see Note 3 overleaf " (2)

"You are also invited, if you wish to propose within 30 days of the date of this Notice..." (2)

(1) - NOTE the irony - as they disconnected my only radiator in July 2010.

(See my comments under 2 of 5, below following the 23.12.13 demand of £3,505).

(2) = Another example that is typical of the sadism and perversion of that satanic (*) mafia:

"you are invited to propose within 30 days" - This is a statutory requirement.

"the consultation period will end on 23 Feb 11"

I received the 16.02.11 so-called 'notice' on 18 Feb 11 (!!!)

(*) I repeat my comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

For obvious reasons I ignored the so-called 'notice'.

NOTE the statement made by Tom O'Kane MCIOB, Assoc RICS, in the 16.02.11 covering letter to the 'notice':

"I have also included a Section 20 Notice in regard to the boiler house.

Whilst we are still carrying out investigations and looking at the reports that have been passed to us by Martin Russell Jones, it would appear that there is no doubt [1] that works need to be carried out this year to ensure that the heating will function correctly next winter." (2).

To this end whilst preparatory work is going on we have started the legal consultation progress (sic) so that hopefully the work can commence during the summer months." (2)

(1) "it would appear that there is no doubt" - that this is another Ladsky mafia SCAM that comes under the banner of Extortion and criminal psychological harassment.

(2) "works need to be carried out this year to ensure heating will function correctly next winter"

The follow-up to it? NONE... until 913 days / 31 months / 2.6 years later! (see # 5, below)

= In the same vein as the letters from Gerrard's predecessor, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) ('Major works' - Note) - because all instigated by the same satanic, psycho puppet master: Andrew David Ladsky - who, very clearly, has no problem finding individuals in his image.

Back to list


(5)- Andrew David Ladsky -Martyn Gerrard resurrected the 16.02.11 'notice' (# 4, above) by sending, 2.6 years later, an identical 16.08.13 'notice' - followed by a 03.10.13 "£180k - £200k estimate" - falsely claiming that "as per [my] lease [I] will be responsible for a proportion of the total cost of these works" (1 of 5).

Ignoring the fact that I have - already - paid for the boiler, in their 23.12.13 letter, they demanded payment of £3,505 (US$6,180) (2 of 5)

The 16.08.13 'notice' from Saul Gerrard MA FICBA MRICS, of the "RICS, ARMA and then ALEP regulated" Martyn Gerrard:


"The works to be carried out under the agreement are Renewal of boilers and the overhauling of the central and domestic heating system for Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX." (1)

"The Notice/consultation period will end on 20 September 2013 (see Note 3 overleaf)." (2)

"You are also invited, if you wish to propose within 30 days of the date of this Notice..." (3)

(1) - Contrast with the above (# 4) 16.02.11 'notice' i.e. 2.6 years previously. YEP! identical!

I draw your attention to the statement made in the then (above) covering letter:

"it would appear that there is no doubt that works need to be carried out this year to ensure that the heating will function correctly next winter."

Further: it is sent in summer, implying that 'the works' - on "the central heating system" - would be carried out in the middle of winter! (Actually: see below, 2 of 5)

(2) - An 'improvement' over the previous one, for which 4 days was regarded as 'compliance with the 30-day requirement' (# 4, Com # 3, above)

(3) - In addition to being very blatantly a continuation of the criminal psychological harassment - I ignored it - for the reasons detailed under 2 of 5, below.

Actually, there was one difference relative to the previous 'notice': Andrew Ladsky kept another, no doubt, offshore 'man-and-a-dog outfit' busy - by, yet again, adding another name to his collection of paper companies:

= The same psycho Rachman Andrew David Ladsky.

I wonder: is this a repeat of demanding payment "on behalf" of a company that does NOT exist?

Back to list

(1 of # 5) - Martyn Gerrard = Andrew David Ladsky, sent me a malicious 03.10.13 letter, 'quoting' "estimates from £179k to £202k' "for carrying out the works" (# 5) - and stating: "In accordance with the terms of your lease, you will be responsible for a proportion of the total cost of these works".


03.10.13 letter from Martyn Gerrard = Andrew David Ladsky - addressed "To all leaseholders":

"We have now obtained estimates in respect of the works to be carried out. We have selected 3 estimates from which to make the final choice of contractor:


Estimate (£)

10% fees (£)

s.20 Admin fees (£)

VAT (£)

Total (£)

Elmes Plumbing & Heating






C&B Mechanical Services






Lynton Services Mayfair (1994)






"In accordance with the terms of your lease, you will be responsible for a proportion of the total cost of these works." (*)

(*) Satanic (*), criminal vermin (*)! They sure pay 'a lot of attention' to "the terms of my lease"!

(*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

Back to list

(2 of # 5)- The (above) "estimates" were followed by a fraudulent 23.12.13 demand for payment of £3,505 (US$6,180) as "[my] contribution for the boiler" - followed by other correspondence.


This demand and covering letter amount to an absolute continuation of the criminal psychological harassment by the Ladsky mafia.


The 23.12.13 demand from Martyn Gerrard includes:

Major works – Boiler 2014 for the period 01/01/2014 to 30/06/2014: £3,504.82

The £3,504.82 demand (US$6,180) is "based on 1.956% of £179,182.80 [US$315,951]" (# 1 of 5, above).

It was my share of the service charges prior to the addition of 4 apartments. Hence it CANNOT be 'my share' now - see Gerrard # 2.

(The demand was repeated in the 27.01.14 'reminder' - see Martyn Gerrard # 19).

It was followed by:

10.01.14 letter from Jon Wolbrom MIRPM, Martyn Gerrard (*) - stating:

Recently the notices have expired for the boiler [1] works and at the time of writing this letter your contribution for the boiler works are currently being added to your service charge demands which you will receive shortly.”

As anticipated these works will commence in early spring and I must ask you to ensure that payments are prompts (sic) in relation to the boiler works as we wish to complete these works before the boiler reaches the end of its natural life.” (2)

We have unfortunately had a number of problems with the boiler and I am concerned about providing hot water and heating to the building [3] which is why the notices were issued.”

Wolbrom also states:

"I have had numerous conversations with PAWEL SMIGLELSKI [4] who as you are aware is the porter [5]... He is obviously very competent at his job..." [6]

(*) 'MIRPM = Member of the Institute for Residential Property Management = another one of those!

For the record:

(1) - Note that, relative to the above previous correspondence, “boiler” is now in the singular.

(2) - Boilers last for at least 30 years.

As to reaching “the end of its natural life” – 12 years ago – in his Feb 02 “Condition survey”, Brian Gale, MRICS, wrote that “the boiler [had] reached the end of its useful life” (Gale # 7).

(3) - NOT my problem!

As stated in the c.Feb-Mar02 “Specification” by Brian Gale, MRICS:

Para.16.07(ix) Once completed the contractor must ensure that the system operates efficiently enough to heat all parts of the building efficiently

(4) - "Conversations with Pawel Smiglelski" entailing briefing him on how to monitor me and report on me? e.g. 5 Nov 12 ; 1 Nov 13 ; 22 Nov 13

(5) - Needless to say that "[I was not] aware".

(6) - "very competent"...'in aiding and abetting criminal activities'? Other examples: 11 Feb 07 ; 9 Jan 09 (and subsequently: 18 July 14).

Aiding and abetting criminal activities is a criminal offence under e.g.


16.01.14 letter from Jon Wolbrom MIRPM, Martyn Gerrard - stating:

Whilst I appreciate that it has been some time since the original notice has been issued [*] I must advice (sic) that the works are required and cannot be funded from your service charges paid annually.”

Therefore this demand has been made to you as a one off charge for the boiler works.”

(*) As I did not respond to any of the communications, it demonstrates that the Ladsky mafia (added to many others, including the police and judiciary) – of course – monitors what I report on my website on a regular basis: I loaded my comment about “resurrecting the notice 2.6 years later” on 22 Dec 13.

As I wrote in my 10.02.14 document to Martyn Gerrard (MG # 19) (to which the only response has been to add to the demands, as well as increase the reprisals: MG # 28):

I have paid for (among many others) “the replacement of the boiler and all associated works”…

…– by paying, BY Dec 03, £6,350 (US$11,200) “in full and final settlement of my share of the costs of the works”...

...(as a result of threats from 'my' corrupt solicitor, Lisa McLean, following receiving Ladsky's 'Part 36 offer').

Boilers last for at least 30 years.


Feb 02 “Condition survey” (report with photos) by Brian Gale, MRICS (Gale # 7):

General – Property description”`- “…with special regards to lifts, plumbing and heating. Again the majority of these components are showing their age and will need to be renewed as they have reached or are reaching the end of their useful life.”


c. Feb-Mar02 “Specification” by Brian Gale, MRICS:

Para.16.06 - “Central heating installation” – para.16.07 – “The contractor is to:

“(i) Remove and replace with new the boiler plant and all associated pipework”;

“(v) Renew / replace the four circulating pumps and any associated works”;

“(ix) Once completed the contractor must ensure that the system operates efficiently enough to heat all parts of the building efficiently

Etc., etc. of related items.


15.07.02 so-called "notice" from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ (Overview # 1):

Killby and Gayford: 564,467” + VAT @ 17.5% £98,781.73 + “Professional fees @ 11%” £62,091.37 + VAT @17.5%

= £736,206.09” (US$1.3m)

“…it is the intention of Steele (sic) Services to instruct Killby and Gayford to carry out the work


MRJ's 17.07.02 demand from me (Overview # 1):

For Major works contribution: £14,400.19” (US$25,400) (1.956% of the above £736,206.09)


07.08.02 Application to the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal by MRJ-'Steel Services' (= Andrew David Ladsky) (Overview # 2):

Statement of reasonableness: Our client, Steel Services, considers the works to be undertaken as essential…and…the price received from the contractor is reasonable


13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report, by Brian Gale, MRICS (Gale # 7):

Para.3.05 - “I confirm that, in my opinion, the extent of the works required is reasonable…and that the cost of works as detailed in the revised and final tender document provided by Kilby (sic) & Gayford on 8th June 2002 and totalling (sic) £5564,467 represents a reasonable assessment of the cost of carrying out all necessary works

Para.4.01(3)(1.2) – “Kilby (sic) and Gayford’s tender is based entirely upon the detailed Specification and Schedule of Works and Tender Documents and which is in turn entirely based upon the initial Schedule of condition and detailed building survey…”

Para. – “The Kilby (sic) & Gayford tender sum still includes a number of p.c. and provisional sums, which with regard to the information to hand ought to be sufficient” [NB: Amounted to at least, a massive £110,000] (Gale # 6)


21.10.03PART 36 offer” from CKFT, on behalf of “Steel Services (Overview # 3), to Piper Smith & Basham, solicitors, meant to be ‘acting for me:

“…our client has, once again, reviewed the revised apportionment dated 24th June 2003

[NB: From MRJ stating a 24.19% reduction in the sum demanded from £14,400 down to £10,917 (US$19,250)] (WLCC # 8 to # 11)

“…our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund to reduce the total figure and, accordingly, your client’s apportioned liability

Accordingly, the without prejudice reduced figures are set out below:

Total amount revised”: £466,662.58”;

Less reserve fund: £141,977 = £324,685.58

After applying your client’s percentage (1.956%), this leaves your client with a liability of £6,350.85 plus interest” [NB: I refused to pay] (of which £2,255.07 was paid on 10 September 2003)

This offer is made pursuant to Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules…”

(See the 23.10.03 letter from 'my' solicitor, Lisa McLean, then at Piper Smith Basham(Watton), using threats to make me accept 'the Part 36 offer'.

For an overview of events with 'my' advisors, in relation to the "Part 36 offer" - see Gallagher-Summary of events)

Further, as discussed below and under e.g. Martyn Gerrard # 2, Comment 1 (also covered under Overview # 5) - I have a £6,100 credit that has never been acknowledged.

Aside from the above - irrebutable - evidence that I have paid for the boiler - I also draw your attention to the following:

  • ...and hence, my £6,100 credit.

Back to list


(6)- The boiler which, 12 years previously, had been described as "having reached the end of its useful life", appears to have finally been replaced in May-Jun 14. It was taken as the opportunity to subject me to yet more criminal psychological harassment:

(1)- causing more criminal damage to my apartment (1 of 6); (2)- supplying false information and delaying communication through securing the participation of the contractor, Lynton Services Mayfair (1994), and of my PO Box provider (2 of 6), as well as other false information (3 of 6).


(1 of 6) (6.2) - On 8 May 14 - For the 6th time, the psychos caused more criminal damage to my bathroom - doing this on the day that "water hygiene treatment" was taking place.

The preceding events to "the boiler works" are covered, above, under # 4 and # 5.

The 03.10.13 estimates "for the works" are captured, above, under 1 of # 5. The company chosen was Lynton Services Mayfair (1994).

Following the false 'notice' of 24.04.14 (3 of 6, below), the 3rd 'notice', also headed 'Lynton Services Mayfair (1994)' announced more "water hygiene treatment on 8th May, requiring unhindered access to ALL flats between 9am and 5pm".

Around 14h00, Lynton's sub-contractors came to my apartment wanting to run the taps in my bathroom. I refused, because I have not been using the bath, nor handbasin since July 09.

(Reason: I need to change the bath = the whole bathroom. I have not done it because: (1)- If assistance is required to shut off the water outside of my apartment, it will not be provided; (2)- I am obviously not prepared to spend a large sum of money doing it - in light of the fact that the insane Andrew David Ladsky is set on the ongoing dilapidation of my apartment; see (and hear) the 'grand show' on 18 July 14).

It made it the 6th time that multi-criminal Ladsky caused / had criminal damage caused to my bathroom. The previous occasions were: 11 Mar 02 , 18 Aug 05 , 21 Oct 13 , 17 Jan 14 and 26 Apr 14.

So, these considerations - added to the 15 Jun 09 death threat: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" (*) - mean that, since July 09, I have been washing myself in the kitchen sink. (*) An implied death threat was added on 14 Jun 14).

Following my refusal, the sub-contractors came back with the porter who handed me his mobile phone to speak to Saul Maurice Gerrard, Martyn Gerrard (the one who sent me: (1) the above 16.08.13 'notice' about "the boilers" ; (2) the August 13 letter about the addition of "Greyclyde Investment": Freehold # 2)...and his, of course, a member of 'professional' associations).

After a heated conversation, during which he raised the threat of "extra costs ", I agreed, in much anguish, for the sub-contractors (I did not get their name) to open the taps.

Shortly after the sub-contractors left, a leak occurred from the toilet cistern.

Then, at 15h49, water started to suddenly gush through from around the spotlight that is situated roughly in the middle of my bathroom’s ceiling (same as on 21 Oct 13, and subsequently on 18 Jul 14).


(Click on right-hand square, bottom of frame, for full screen view)

It stopped as suddenly as it had started about 2 minutes later.

Judging from the amount of water that fell directly onto the carpet and into the bucket I placed under the spotlight - I estimate the total amount of water that fell through the ceiling during that time at about 10 litres.

The length of the trail of the water – in spite of falling on a thick carpet, under which there is an underlay, demonstrates further the strength of the flow and quantity of water that fell through – which, by the way, was brown – as can be seen from the mark on the carpet.

If the objective of the evil Ladsky mafia was to test my assertion, under My Diary 21 Oct 13, that 'I am way past the point of caring' - it got the answer as to its truth: my reaction was to laugh, as I was filming the water gushing through.

(NB: Evidently determined to, yet again, test the veracity of my statement, the mafia followed this by 'a grand show', on 18 Jul 14 - and got the same answer...and more than it was not counting on...

including a bonus: my setting up an account on YouTube to place the videos - and more since).

By the time the sub-contractors arrived 30 minutes later (as they said they would) some water was still dripping from the spotlight.

On seeing what had taken place, they said that it was not connected with them, as the only thing they had been doing was to put chemicals in the water and, subsequently run the taps in the apartments.

I knew that the bathroom for the apartment above mine, apartment # 8, is immediately above mine. (A leak had occurred from his bathroom, in 1991: header 13.9, pg 116-117 of my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS against MRJ; MRJ's 24.03.92 letter).

Following a referral by my insurance company to a loss adjustor, on his suggestion, I wrote this 11.05.14 letter to Resident of apartment 8: reporting the events; stating that shortly afterwards I had seen him walk out of the block, and asking what had happened - to ensure it would be addressed.

In his (misogynistic, insulting) 12.05.14 reply, the Resident categorically denied that the water originated from his apartment. He stated that “the engineer [doing the "water hygiene treatment"] came within 5 minutes after 15h45 and did whatever he needed to do…”.

This timing coincides exactly with the time the water started gushing through my bathroom ceiling.

(NB: On 13th June, at 14h15, the Resident of apartment 8 was in the corridor as I came in - totally ignoring him. He told me: "You owe me an apology!" - to which I replied: "For what?". "Before you use a solicitor, accusing me of causing a leak in your flat".

I replied that he was referring to something that had happened more than 20 years ago, and that he had led me to do this. (Actually, it was in 1996, and it referred to the floorboard in his apartment when I offered him, and eventually gave him £200 to have them nailed down). I told him: "If you are looking for a fight, go and fight with yourself" and then continued walking to my apartment).

I wrote a 15.05.14 letter to Graham H Garland, Lynton Services Mayfair (1994) reporting the above events - and enclosing the above exchange of correspondence with the Resident of apartment 8.

In 'his' 30.05.14 letter (to which my Comments are attached), Garland denied having anything to do with the escape of water - and made some laughable 'assessments' I challenged in my 22.06.14 reply e.g.

  • an implication that "a drain" - with some 'unexplained intervention' - 'fails to function on demand' and, likewise, 'fixes itself on demand';
  • the ("non-categorical") claim that Resident of apartment 8 "never uses his bathroom" - I counteracted by saying that "then he should feature as a unique case in the medical journals" as e.g. he usually spends Friday night in the apartment, where I can hear him walk, and open his sofa bed after midnight.

In my 22.06.14 reply, I maintained my position that there is an obvious link.

Considering other events related to Garland, in my letter I concluded "a double act between him, Martyn Gerrard -" (see # 2 of 6, below).

Of note: the kitchen for studio apartment # 9 is on the same side as that of studio apartment 8 – although, not in line.

I assume (plumbing logic) that the bathroom for apartment # 9 is, as in the case of studio apartment # 8, placed after - and therefore:

  • contingent to that of apartment # 8;
  • and, consequently, above my bathroom – immediately to the left (when facing the building).

I conclude that Andrew David Ladsky was in ‘the Jefferson House concentration camp’, at least on the previous evening i.e. 7th May, at c. 23h00 (in apartment # 34 / # 35 (?)) (his 19.06.03 objection to a planning application by Harrods – stating ‘F34’).

The studio apartment he uses as ‘his office’ is # 9 (e.g. his 26.03.07 letter to my then employer, KPMG).

Subsequent events, including cutting off the hot water in my apartment for 3 days (after "the boiler works" were completed), support the conclusion of, yet again, a criminal act.

= Continuation of the persecution (Case summary).

What my bathroom ceiling looked like on...

26 May 14, and...

on 1 Dec 13 - following the 21 Oct 13 malicious leak

What took place most definitely qualifies as a criminal offence under s.1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (added to many other criminal offences, since 2002, under the same Act: Persecution # (1)(16) ; other examples under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997)...

...- BUT where shall I turn to for help in this island-Kingdom? There is nowhere!

s.6 of the Act states that "the prosecuting authority is the local council". Looking at my previous experience with Kensington & Chelsea council in 2004, and in 2002 - the kind of 'help' I am going to get is predictable: NONE!...

...(as has been the case with others in the (throughout) Conversative-run borough of Kensington & Chelsea: the police, the court: 1st, 2nd, 'my' then MP: Rifkind, preceded by Portillo) - and therefore what the Ladsky mafia is counting on.

(The Conservatives are nicknamed "the nasty party"...although the Labour party is in the same bag e.g. forfeiture legislation).

Welcome to "Britain [, that] has a strong and exemplary record on human rights"!...

...that became a tyrannical hellhole for me many years ago.

Back to list

(2 of 6) (6.3) - Securing the participation of the contractor, Graham Garland, Lynton Services Mayfair (1994), in giving me conflicting information, as well as that of my then local PO Box, in the retention of a letter - resulting in my having very little time to have works carried out in relation to my radiator.

Further to the 30.05.14 letter 'from' Graham H Garland, Lynton Services Mayfair (1994) (to which my Comments are attached), 'in reply' to mine of 15.05.14 (1 of 6, above)...

...- in my 22.06.14 letter to Garland I stated my conclusion of “a double act between Garland, Martyn Gerrard – Andrew David Ladsky:

03.04.14 letter from John Wolbrom, MRIPM, Martyn Gerrard - stating:

“…the boiler works for Jefferson House will commence on 28th April 2014 and are anticipated to take approximately 5 weeks

During this period…there will be an opportunity for any lessee who requires new thermostatic valves stored on their radiators to have them installed by Linton (sic) Services(1)

Linton (sic) Services are the only company that has authority to carry out these works [1] and they can provide you with a direct quotation for these works(2)

If you decide that you wish to have them carried out at a later time, you will obviously be responsible for the costs of draining down the system [3] and it seems to make good sense to have these works carried out whilst the system is drained down”.

Whilst on site yesterday with the contractors we visited 2 of the flats and have to advice (sic) that the pipe work to the radiators was in poor condition and it may well be that extra works are required to both the pipe leading to the radiator so as to unable a thermostatic valve to be installed(4)

(1) - The assertions could not be any clearer.

As to "carrying out the works": this is false information, as Graham H Garland, Lynton Services Mayfair (1994) used sub-contractors:

(1)- CMB Services to carry out "the boiler works";

(2)- another sub-contractor for "the water hygiene treatment" (below) and 1of 6, above).

(2) - In my 15.05.14 letter to Garland (1 of 6, above) - I questioned this - stating:

"I do not understand why ‘I can only use you’ to carry out the works - even more so in light of the fact that you subcontract the works. Please, explain."

I followed by asking for "a quotation" - asking to "provide a breakdown of the costs, including specifying the mark-ups, as well as VAT."

As asked by Wolbrom, I copied him on my letter - and its enclosures.

Reply from Garland, on pg 2 of 'his' 30.05.14 letter (to which my Comments are attached):

I advise you our company are not the only company who have to carry out radiator valve replacements…”

As I wrote him in my 22.06.14 letter:

"The assertions in John Wolbrom's letter of 3rd April 2014 cannot be any clearer. I will not accept that you did not discuss this with Martyn Gerrard."

(3) = Pressure to lead me to do it.

(4) = Psychological harassment tactics - the speciality of the Ladsky mafia. (The plumber I eventually employed to do the works told me that the pipes were fine).

Overall conclusions on the above 3 Apr 04 letter:

Wolbrom set-up his plan to maximise the likelihood of adding to his and Ladsky -’s sadistic kicks - I conclude, among other, because he did ‘not like’ my exposing his and Ladsky’s scam about “the boiler works (2 of 5, above) (see also # 6.1, below),... well as in my 10.02.14 ('Special Delivery Next Day') correspondence (MG # 19) (to which the mafia never responded - other than by adding numerous reprisals: MG # 28).

As has happened to me since 2002 (many examples under My Diary # 2.4), another party also aligned itself with the criminal Ladsky gang, this time, with the objective of causing me distress: my then local PO Box provider.

As can be seen at the back of the 30.05.14 letter 'from' Graham Garland, Lynton Services (1st referred above, under 1of 6), 'his' 'reply' to me - for which he used the 'Special delivery Next Day' envelop I had supplied - was delivered to the office of my PO Box provider on 31 May 14.

Garland 'wrote' the letter 2 weeks after receiving mine of 15.05.14 'because' - as stated at the beginning of the 30.05.14 letter: "[He] just returned to [his] office following vacation..."

(He, director of what appears to be a small company, who has sub-contractors carrying out a £135k job (1 of 5, above) - "[goes] on vacation" during that time?

Expecting a reply to my 15.05.14 letter (1st referred above, under 1 of 6), I made frequent visit to the PO Box.

On Thursday 12th June, as I was on my way out, a staff called me asking me if my PO Box number was [X]. To my replying that it was, she handed me the letter - hence 12 days AFTER it was delivered.

Their practice was to put a slip in my PO Box, so that I could go and ask for the letter at the desk.

As I had a German language test, I came back afterwards to challenge what had happened. One of the staff, instead of the manager - I could see in the office - came to the window.

I said: "I have come here at least twice since the letter arrived, and nobody remembered. Then, on the 3rd visit: miracle! Somebody remembers that there is a letter for me!"

Reply from the manager: "It was a human error". And the excuse that "It was different staff" - which is utter rubbish as, on the previous occasions, the staff knew me.

I reminded the manager that I am paying them nearly £200 a year for 'the service'.

(In 2007, I refused to believe that the (same) manager was party to making me miss my uncle's funeral. Now, I DO!)

Is there anybody who is not going "to sell their soul to the devil"? Another one to be added to the already very long list (My Diary # 2.4)!

The outcome of the above meant that it left me only from Thursday 12th June, afternoon, until Sunday 15th June, evening - to have the valves replaced on my radiator - as demonstrated by the following, part of the overall scheme clearly intended to cause me distress:

30.05.14 letter 'from' Graham H Garland, Lynton Services Mayfair (1994) (to which my Comments are attached) (given to me 12 days after delivery (above)) - stating, at the end of ‘his’ letter:

“…the central heating system will commence to be refilled imminently.

Therefore any work required to heating pipework, radiators or radiator valves within flat 3 should be carried out as soon as possible following which, we can not be held responsible should any water leaks occur within flat 3 on the heating installation.”


10.06.14 letter from Nigel Martin, Head of Block Management, Martyn Gerrard – stating:

“…change over from the temporary boiler to the main boiler plant is due to take place on Monday 16th June and at that time Lynton Services will be a in a position to recharge the heating installation.

For this purpose, access to all flats will be required so that venting and purging can take place to prevent air lock

On Monday 16th June, early afternoon, when they ALL knew (from having me monitored and hounded) (not to mention the very sick psycho who came to deliver his 'message' in front of my windows) - that the valves had been replaced on my radiator, on Saturday 14th,...

...a ‘notice’ from Lynton Services was pushed through my letter box – stating:

Heating installation is to be refilled and recharged with water on Wednesday 18th June 2014”.

I am repeating what I stated, most recently, about the accountants Errington Langer Pinner (MG # 15):

What else can you expect from somebody prepared to work for multi-criminal Rachman Andrew David very amply demonstrated by the rest of his gang of racketeers’.

Proving that I hit the nail on the head with my above 22.06.14 reply to Garland - that was delivered on 24 June:

Immediately: NO hot water for 3 days (one of the typical ‘punishments’: Persecution (1)(16) - for ‘my daring’ to expose evidence).

Hence: another criminal offence committed against me under (among others) s.1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Back to list

(3 of 6) (6.1) - Informing me falsely, with a less than a 12-hour 'notice' - that "on 24th April 2014, access to [my] apartment would be required all day"

The 1st notice, from Lynton Services Mayfair (1994), announcing "water hygiene treatment on 28th March and requiring access to each flat " was hand-delivered about 10 days previously. The contractors did come on that day.

The 2nd notice, I found on my return to the apartment on Wednesday 23rd April, in the evening. It announced more or less the same thing as the first - this time stating that "[it would be] taking place on the 24th" - thereby 'considerately' giving me a 12-hour notice.

Knowing, from what took place on 28th March, that the contractors would not come first thing, on Thursday 24th, I went to buy some groceries.

At 09h25 - as I was getting close to the Waitrose grocery store (same as e.g. on 16 Jul 05 ; 20 May 10 ; 4 Nov 12 ; 28 Jan 13 ; 1 Nov 13) - I saw the porter for 'the concentration camp' (the one "who is very competent at his job": # 5.2, above) coming from the direction of the store, and carrying a Waitrose shopping bag.

I got back to the apartment at 09h55 and stayed until 15h00. Nobody came to knock on my door, and it was blatantly obvious that nothing was taking place in the block.

As I left, singing, the porter looked at me in a way, I concluded, expecting me to ask why nobody had come. Bad luck! Missed on getting the sadistic kicks!

Thursday was the day of my German language class (a fact known by the mafia: e.g. My Diary 4 Mar 14 ; 5 Jun 14). Conclusion: the objective was to make me miss my class...

...- because, 'of course', as in the case of e.g. the actions by Her Majesty's police helicopters (e.g. 4 Sep 13 ; 2 Oct 13) - the pursuit of the objective by Ladsky, his mafia and supporters of destroying me totally - means my being absolutely and categorically prevented from doing anything that makes me forget my situation...

...while, in the process, giving the extremely sick psychos endless sadistic kicks.

As it happened, I did not have class on this day - and had planned to stay in to study. So: wasted effort vermin! (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

Needless to say that no reference was ever made to this 'notice' - as could have been done in e.g. the subsequent notice of 8 May 14 (above, 1 of 6).

I conclude: frustration at failing to get a reaction from me, led multi-criminal psycho Rachman Andrew David Ladsky to - 2 days later, on 26 Apr 14 - come / get one of his flunkeys to come into my apartment to pour water on my bathroom floor (detail under My Diary 26 Apr 14) - thereby:

  • repeating what he had done / had had done on 17 Jan 14;

And more was yet to come!

Back to list


(6.1) - (6.4) - Events provide further confirmation of the FRAUD that took place in 2002+. 'Of course', my 10.02.14 document did not stop the Ladsky mafia from repeating the initial fraudulent 23.12.13 demand for payment of £3,505 (US$6,180) "for [my] share of the cost of the boiler works".



Having failed to even acknowledge my 10.02.14 document (MG # 19) - in his 03.04.14 letter (2 of 6, above), the satanic (1) criminal vermin (1) John Wolbrom, MRIPM, Martyn Gerrard - states:

I must also remind you that we have issued demands for the boiler works in accordance with the notices issued previously [2] and if you have not paid your contribution would you please ensure that this is paid urgently so as to ensure that the works can commence on 28th April.”

(1) I repeat my comments under Persecution (1)(4)

(2) 3 years ago, in Feb 11! (# 4, above)

And, continuing to ignore my 10.02.14 document (MG # 19) (thereby endorsing my assessment as to their (and supporter's) (typically) sinister, Machiavellian plan - as well as conclusions in my document...

...more than 4 months later - vampiric Martyn Gerrard - Rachman Andrew David Ladsky - yet, again, repeated the initial 23.12.13 demand for payment of £3,505 (US$6,180) "for [my] share of the boiler" (2 of 5, above ; MG # 17) with the 16.06.14 demand for ground rent (MG # 22).

Since then, (at Dec 15), they have repeated this in their demands of:

= 4 times since my 10.02.14 document - in which I very clearly, and irrebutably demonstrate that I do not owe anything "for the boiler" - because I have already paid for it - 2 of 5, above.

The satanic (*) Ladsky mafia is doing this in part to back-up its claim to whoever is prepared to give it the time of day that: "[I owe] the money it is claiming from [me]" - e.g. My Diary 12 Oct 15.

(These repeated demands are in addition to numerous other reprisals since my document: MG # 28).

(*) I repeat my comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

Up to the point when “the major works” were finally completed in 2006 - NO communication took place, other than those reported above from # 4.

REASON: in spite of getting the money for “replacement of the boiler and associated works” e.g.

…- “The works” were not carried out.

Hence, also the claim by Jon Wolbrom, MRIPM, Martyn Gerrard, in his 10.01.14 letter (2 of 5, above):

“…we wish to complete these works before the boiler reaches the end of its natural life

I repeat: Boilers last for 30+ years!

On what were the £500,000 spent by Andrew David Ladsky?

Principally: Building a penthouse and adding 3 other apartments - so that he could make his multi-million £s jackpot.

So, 12 years later, in the 03.10.13 letter, Ladsky-Martyn Gerrard asked for £180,000 (US$318,000)for the boiler works (1 of 5, above)…

…including a “10% fee of £13,400” + a “£1,800 administration fee”.

A 10% fee for “managing” what? Nothing!

It employed Graham Garland, Lynton Services Mayfair (1994), who, (in spite of impressions), in turn, actually sub-contracted all “the works”. What are his mark-ups?

Back to list


(7)- Martyn Gerrard signaled having some 'fun' in store: Gavin Putney MIRPM's 27.03.15 "Notification of major works during the summer" at the 'concentration camp'...

of course, in the totally unactionable format (CLRA s.151) dictated by the sacrosanct landlord lobby to its flunkies in Parliament.

19 months later, Jeremy Doran MIRPM followed it by a near repeat in his 27.10.16 "notice"


(1)- The 27.03.15 "notice"


The 27.03.15 correspondence from Gavin Putney AIRPM (*):

1. 27 Mar 15 letter

"...enclosed the 1st Section 20 consultation notice for major works to be carried out over the summer [1] at Jefferson House."

"We are going to have the internals and externals of the block re-decorated and any repairs made that are needed." (2)

"We are also going to implement some [3] of the suggestions highlighted in the fire risk assessment..."

"We would be hopeful [4] that the majority of the works will be covered by the reserve fund but there may be a small contribution [5] to the works to be made by way of an invoice to be sent prior to the works..."

"Please take the time to read the notice. [6] If you have any me at the office on [tel] or alternatively by email and one of the team or I will be happy to assist" (7)

2. Notice of Intention to carry out work

"1. It is the intention of Greyclyde Investments Limited [8] to enter into an agreement to carry out works..."

"2. The works to be carried out...are as follows: internal and external redecorations and repairs [2] and works recommended by the fire risk assessment" (9)

"3. ...necessary to carry out the works because they are required to ensure the property remains in good appearance [10], repair, safe and watertight." (11)

"4. We invite you to make written observations...[12]. The consultation period will end on 26th April 2015..."

"5. We also invite you to propose, within 30 days from the date of this notice, the name of a person from whom we should try to obtain an estimate for the carrying out of the proposed works described in paragraph 2 above..." (13)

(*)- 'AIRPM' = Associate of the Institute for Residential Property Management = another one of those!

(1)- "The summer" arrived and went. By Dec 15: no further communication on this subject.

Perhaps, as in the case of "the boiler", this "Notice" will be resurrected in 2.6 years time: above, section # 4 to section # 6.

(2)- "redecorate and repair where needed"

As happened in during the last "repair and maintenance works" in 2004-06...

...that actually entailed:

(*) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30.

(3)- Note the "some" - that is missing in the notice (Comment 8, below).

(4)- "would be hopeful": an 'interesting' expression!

(5)- The mafia's definition of "small contribution"?

(6)- "take the time to read the notice"

Which will not take you too long - as it is, of course, as per the format (CLRA s.151) dictated by the sacrosanct landlord lobby to its flunkies in Parliament.

(7)- "contact me and one of the team or I will be happy to assist"

Translation: And we will ignore your communications - as we did with:

  • your 10.02.14 correspondence, that also includes a statutory notice (MG # 19)

(8)- "intention of Greyclyde Investments Limited"

= The paper company that has "Sheila Greyclyde Investments Ltd" (!!!) as a director and shareholder of G.H. INVESTORS Ltd - for which the address is Martin Gerrard. (Freehold # 2).

(9)- "works recommended by the fire risk assessment" - Contrast that with the letter that states: "some of".

(10)- "the property remains in good appearance" - ...while hiding the bunch of thoroughly evil crooks who control it.

(11)- "ensure the property remains watertight"...

...of course, aside from the multiple criminal floodings (latest 18 July 14) we instigate against leaseholders who dare challenge us on our multi-criminal activities or,... our most esteemed friend, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May puts it: our "cherished contributions"

Oh, by the way, our quest to "ensure the property remains watertight" excludes providing this 'reassurance' to leaseholders' insurers - as we do NOT reply to their loss adjusters' letters e.g. 22.08.14.

(12)- "invite you to make written observations"` - I repeat my # 6 Comment.

(13)- "within 30 days propose the name of a person from whom we should try to obtain an estimate"

On the basis of the information given: How can you get somebody to provide an estimate? Impossible! (Consider also the range of expertise potentially required).

Also, consider that it is Martyn Gerrard that "obtains the estimates". In fact, the legislation, attached to the notice, under s.4(b) - states: "must try to obtain". No points for guessing what would happen.

So, what do you do?

  • Write? You won't get a reply.
  • Go north of town to the mafia's office to inspect 'the specifications' - needing to make an appointment first - and in relation to which you will, for sure, be messed around.
  • If you manage to get to that stage - (based on past experience, with Brian Gale), you'll then discover that 'the specifications' are totally useless = you cannot get independent parties to quote for the works.
YEP! That's the product of the landlords' flunkies in Parliament!


(2)- The 27.10.16 "notice of repairs and internal and external decorations and replacement of the communal carpet" from Jeremy Doran MIRPM

This notice from Jeremy Doran MIRPM (what happened to Jon Wolbrom MIRPM (above) and Gavin Putney AIRPM?) is the same "notice" as the above 27 Mar 15 "notice" = of 19 months ago- except:

  • (1)- now stating "replacement of the communal carpet";
  • (2)- not stating the intention "to implement some of the suggestions highlighted in the fire risk assessment"...

...- perhaps because they are, instead, removing the door closers e.g. corridor door next to my apartment: My Diary 21 Sep 16...and continuing.

I consequently repeat my above Comments.

= Also another example of the absolute sheer utter hell of being a leaseholder:

You never know what the landlord and his henchmen and henchwomen are going to dream of demanding from you from one day to the next.


The residential leasehold system = a GIGANTIC hellhole of utter misery and slavery for millions... because this island-Kingdom has sold out to crime, and is consequently controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime.

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted




  C O M M E N T S

Back to top