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'. Three notices were issued to February 2006.

All three demonstrate very serious malpractice by solicitors... to be expected as they have 'carte blanche' to do 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 Portner and Jaskel # 4 )

Sections

• (1) 22 December 1999 "Notice by landlord"
• (2) 13 December 2000 "Notice by landlord"
• (3) 10 February 2006 "Notice by landlord"
• (3.1) I concluded in my 30 April 2006 letter to Portner and Jaskel that it had breached several Acts, as well as rules under the Solicitors Code of conduct:
• (3.2) As to 'Steel Services', that it had committed a criminal offence
• (4) The outcome for me is that it has further imprisoned me in the flat

(1) 22 December 1999 "Notice by landlord"

Two notices were issued by

Laytons, solicitors, London EC4Y 0LS, issued two 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 December 1999, was therefore sent just before Christmas. This is a frequently used tactic to undermine lessees' ability to respond within the statutory timeframe and thereby allow landlords to 'press ahead' with their plan.

The "notice" states that documents are annexed to the notice. None were supplied. Hence: a bogus notice.

The Head of the Residents Association (Leaseholder H) wrote to the leaseholders to determine the interest. Nothing appears to have come of it.

Back to list

(2) 13 December 2000 "Notice by landlord"

This second "notice" of 13 December 2000, also sent by Laytons, solicitors, and also acting as "agents for Steel Services Ltd ("the landlord")..." is, likewise, another con - making use of the frequently used dirty tricks of the trade - as it was clearly intended to prevent us from pursuing the offer:

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

"...an 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"

(2) It claims that documents describing the property on offer are attached. This was not true. Hence: a repeat of the 22 December 1999 "notice" (point # 1 above) (see below, the trick used by Laytons)

(3) What is also a repeat of the 22 December 1999 "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.

The response to the 'offer' was co-ordinated by the person running the Residents Association.

Actions by Mr 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, the Head of the Residents Association, kept me abreast of developments. This included:

Her 18 December 2000 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"

She copied me on her letter to Mr Ladsky, dated 14 January 2001 :

"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"

In copying me on this letter, in her covering note of the same date i.e. 14 January 2001, she 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 January 2001 she 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."

While in her letter of 31 January 2001 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"

Leaseholder H reported harassment and intimidation by Mr Ladsky not only to me, but also to other leaseholders, including having a leaseholder as a witness - as evidenced by e.g. the 18 April 2002 email from Leaseholder E to me.

As can also be seen in this email, Leaseholder H had complained to Kensington & Chelsea police who, according to Leaseholder E, had received in reply the suggestion to "fold her tent and go"    (See Police section for more detail)

In her letter of 11 January 2001 to leaseholders, Resident H wrote

"The Residents' Association has been contacted by this resident who has described himself as a property developer...he proposes to carry out extensive work to the block... the total costs of the work (estimated to be at least £300,000)." (US$529,000)

Despite the harassment and intimidation by Mr Ladsky, Leaseholder H preceded with co-ordinating the leaseholders' response to the offer. It led Mr Ladsky to send an identical letter to leaseholders, dated 25 January 2001 . In this letter, he wrote,

"..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".

Mr Ladsky also makes various claims on which I have commented on three pages, included with his 25 January 2001 letter.

In a follow-up to the 25 January 2001 letter, I and other leaseholders had received from Mr Ladsky, Leaseholder H wrote to leaseholders on 31 January 2001

"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...works 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 March 2001, confirmed that none of the other leaseholders had received an annex, as evidenced by Leaseholder H's correspondence of 12 March 2001.

Laytons informed our solicitors that we needed to form a company in order to release the documents to us. I doubt that this is correct and see it as trick to make us waste valuable time - and money. Furthermore, Laytons does not state this in the "notice". Indeed, it (falsely) states that it is 'enclosing' the documents. Leaseholder H communicated having set-up a company in her letter of 21 March 2001 .

One month went by. With a week left to the deadline, on 26 April 2001, Leaseholder H informed leaseholders that no reply had been received from Laytons.

In her letter of 14 May 2001 Leaseholder H told me that Steel Services has withdrawn the offer on the basis that the offer was invalid as it did not include annexed documents.

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 May 2001 the Head of the Residents Association 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" .  

Leaseholder H also wrote

"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

The fact that Laytons had:

(1) contrary to what it had stated in the 13 December 2000 "notice" not include an annex i.e. "particulars of the property for disposal"

(2) had not replied to our solicitor within a week of the dealine 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 'bogus'. I WAS RIGHT!

Laytons had helped Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. have fun giving us the run around. Another firm of corrupt solicitors to note in the 'black book'!

What was actually taking place in parallel - in the background - was a 'reshuffle' in the ownership of the block. Indeed, ten 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, Mr 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 Mr 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 1 June 2001 (the date on which the Land Registry recorded the restriction).

Assuming that section 10A(1) of the L&T Ac`t 1987 was in operation at the time: the above amounts to 'Steel Services' having committed a criminal offence.  

The name of Mr 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 6 March 2003 ). By 26 April 2004 they had been removed.

In its 13 December 2000 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 Mr Ladsky et. al. achieve the objective of stopping leaseholders from buying the headlease, Mr Ladsky also succeeded in making the Head of Residents Association leave - thereby achieving another key objective: getting rid of the residents association.   (See section Business model)

Back to list

(3) 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord"

(NB: Events are also covered under Portner and Jaskel # 1- and in detail in My Diary - 18 February 2006 ; 29 April 2006 )

Events in relation to this notice highlight what some people might describe as "conjuring up sociopathic character traits, including the belief of being 'above the laws of the land', as well as malice / perversion"

In spite of having Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT) as the nominated solicitors for Steel Services on the Land Registry (NGL 373 333), Portner and Jaskel is also acting 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 February 2006 . Among others, this notice states

"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'.

•  Firstly the "offer" price of £120,000 (US$211,600). Indeed, it is fascinating to see how the price of a "headlease" for a block of flats in Knightsbridge has tumbled over the last six years - especially when compared with average UK property prices (sourced from statistics published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

(PDF of: graph 1 ; graph 2 )

•  Secondly, pages one and two of the Land Registry title for Steel Services were not included with the "Notice" (I remembered what happened with the December 2000 "Notice" !).

•  Thirdly, I had previously heard of Portner and Jaskel as, on 26 February 2002 , it had filed an - unjustified - claim against the then Elderly Resident (74 years old). It had preceded this by sending a letter to the Elderly Resident, dated 28 January 2002 , stating among others:

"...unless we are in receipt of the aforementioned sum [£1,337.50] (US$2,400) by 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 31 January next proceedings shall be issued against you to recover without further notice. Should our client company be obliged to commence proceedings in addition to the costs we will seek interest on the above sum at the rate of 8% per annum until payment"

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

NOTE at January 2007: I stated in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) reply to Porter and Jaskel that I viewed its sending of this "notice" as a malicious act as it was unlikely that the number of flats met statutory requirements: it seems that I was right: in addition to Owners identity see also Block sale of flats

( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)

(Subsequent note: there have been changes in the ownership of titles since - see Headlessors)

My reply of 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) to the Portner and Jaskel contact, Mr Daniel Broughton, 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 have led me to write this conclusion:

•  Although Steel Services no longer owns the headlease interest on the last floor (as it has sold, to Lavagna Enterprises (the recently added superior headlessor), the 'Airspace of Jefferson House' which includes, as 'lessee', the penthouse flat) the wording used in the 10 February 2006 "notice" does not reflect this in any way.

In fact, the wording used to describe "the disposal" is IDENTICAL to the other 'so called' S.5 "notice of disposal" previously issued by Laytons solicitors on behalf of Steel Services on 22 December 1999 and 13 December 2000 (see points # 1 and # 2 above) , 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 3 March 2006 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"

Mr Broughton responded on 6 March 2006

"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 March 2006 , I asked him to "confirm the address to which the "Notice" relates" .

In his 14 March 2006 response, he stated that the address captured in his 6 March 2006 letter was a "typographical error" and he confirmed that the correct address was that captured in the 10 February 2006 "Notice" :   "7 to 13 (Odd) Basil Street , Chelsea , London "

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

•  In light of these affirmations, in my 30 March 2006 letter to Mr Broughton, I wrote:

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

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

one Title covering the airspace of Jefferson 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 3 April 2006 , Mr Broughton wrote:

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

I replied in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) 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 3 April 2006 reply, Mr 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 April 2006 (1.1MB) 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 Mr Broughton that indications were that he had also misrepresented the ownership status of his client as the "notice" describes Steel Services as the "headlessor"

Against this, I highlighted the following:

In the 26 February 2002 county court claim Portner and Jaskel filed against the Elderly Resident it described Steel Services as the "freeholder"

In his letter of 5 October 2004 addressed "To All Lessees of Jefferson House", Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, specifically identifies 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 April 2006 letter to Portner and Jaskel that it had breached several Acts, as well as rules under the Solicitors Code of conduct:

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Section 5 (2) as the "notice" does not "contain particulars of.the property to which it relates." , nor does it reflect the true "interest in that property."

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Section 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 has subsequently gone back on the "notice" by stating that "The disposal being offered...is not any interest in the property that may be held by Lavagna Enterprises Ltd" ...

...I concluded that this action amounts 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"

stating that

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

Whatever rule/s apply/ies, my 'non-lawyer' view is that Portner and Jaskel has 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 that

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

As I noted in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) 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"

•  Three principles 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 ."

Back to list

(3.2) As to 'Steel Services', that it had committed a criminal offence

In relation to Steel Services, I highlighted - in the context of Section 10A. - (1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 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) - is that Steel Services no longer has control of the roof as it is now in the hands of a superior headlessor - Lavagna Enterprises.

Consequently, Steel Services cannot keep within its covenants in my lease as it can 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 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 February 2006 and 29 April 2006)

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 suggestion that Mr 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. (Mr Broughton's trade association, the Law Society does recommend its members "to protect against the committing of an offence under the statutory criminal law" )

Back to list

(4) The outcome for me is that it has further imprisoned me in the flat

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

The worst part of it is that they do it because they know that - on this island - there is absolutely nothing to stop them. (If there was the risk of sanction, they would not do it).

(The lack of sanction is also being noticed by British-based Human Rights groups e.g. one of these groups was quoted in The Independent, on 13 November 2006, (article headed "Government inquiry into firms 'fuelling Congo war' attacked") as criticising "The British government's failure to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable corporate behaviour...")

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

(The Land Registry told me to 'get lost' on 4 April 2006 and again on 25 April 2006 following my reply of 18 April 2006. (See Headlessors for detail, as well as My Diary 28 March 2006). This is in addition to the outcome of my complaints against the lawyers, their trade associations, and the courts. See Lawyers, Courts & LSO)

Bad luck to the leaseholders with limited financial means and no influential connections who end-up in a property owned by these abhorrent individuals... ... as, the more they want to fight for their 'so called' rights,... ... the greater the assistance provided by the system to these evil individuals to keep the leaseholders under 'their thumbs', free to use and abuse them.

THIS is the United 'Kingdom' in the 21st century. An island only a few kilometres from the coast of mainland Europe yet, still in the dark ages.

MR ANDREW LADSKY ET. AL. AND PORTNER AND JASKEL CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

Back to top