Email this site to a contact

 

Kensington & Chelsea Housing: 'Landlords and their aides are always right, and always tell the truth. Consequently, lessees are liars. And if you dare challenge us: we'll make you pay for it. You'll see with whom the power rests' (My interpretation)

Kensington & chelsea housing - Re. 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: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Kensington & Chelsea Housing, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for its actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable...

(1) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Kensington & Chelsea Housing joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

...to do what Ladsky did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it?

So: why the across-the-board unfailing support?

Firstly, because this island-Kingdom is controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime - resulting in its being "fantastically corrupt".

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Secondly, because he is 'Jewish' and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him.

 

In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham).

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

As discussed under Owners' identity ('Steel Services') # 1 and # 2, in Jan 02, I first called on Kensington & Chelsea council for assistance in relation to its statutory power in demanding information on the identity of the Jefferson House's landlord.

Although, after 10 months, I was still left in the same situation of not knowing who controls my home, the then Tenancy Relations Officer I dealt with, Mr Sandy McDougall, appeared to me to do - within his knowledge - all he could to assist (snapshot- Doc library # 5.1).

It led nowhere - because it is another so-called 'right' that is very clearly "not a freestanding right".

Also, at the time, I was not wise to the tricks used by the Housing department to avoid performing its obligations i.e. to the public sector's typical 'Frustrate and Discourage Game tactics' (header 2).

In Feb 02, the council's Planning Applications department granted a 13.11.01 application to 'Steel Services' (= Andrew David Ladsky) to build a penthouse. It breached the maximum permitted height of the building.

When I reported this to the department, I was told to, in effect, 'Get lost!' and 'Sort it out yourself!'. (It led me to escalate my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman - with the same effect: Doc library # 5.2)

In Jun 04, I called on the council for its assistance in getting, as per its statutory powers, the accounts for Jefferson House (from # 1, below).

The Kensington & Chelsea council individuals involved, comprised of:

  • Derek Myers, Chief Executive;
  • Jean Daintith, Executive Director of Housing and Social Services;
  • Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer;
  • Gifty Edila, Director of Law and Administration;
  • John Hutchings, Tenancy Relations Officer;
  • Shireen Ritchie, 'my' Ward Councillor.

Because:

  • (1)- I was 'daring' to challenge them - my employees (as a taxpayer);

- these self-important, ego-crazed, power-corrupted monsters, in tandem with Patrick Moriarty, Local Government Ombudsman, decided to punish me by indulging further in the criminal psychological harassment tactics...

- thereby aiding and abetting the ongoing harassment I was being subjected to by Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

My battle with Kensington and Chelsea Housing and the Local Government Ombudsman spanned nearly one year, and cost me:

  • c. 300 hours of my life (based on a 35-hour week = 9 weeks), and

(See Doc library # 5.3 and # 5.4)

The way I was, yet again, treated, reflects the perception of the Establishment and of its henchmen and women (like e.g. the council) of the 'little people' 'like me' - who 'dare' to stand-up against their, and hangers-on's belief of being entitled to self-enrichment at the expense of 'the little people' - as:

pieces of dirt, non-entities who do not have the right to have rights, there to be used, abused and tormented at will - BY ALL...

...with women, in particular, perceived as ideal targets for ill-treatment.

Of course, this perception is also shared by other State departments and representatives in the borough of Kensington & Chelsea:

  • the judiciary and court staff in West London County Court: 2002-04 and 2007-08;
  • in fact, as I state, below, under # 2.3- Comments # 1 - I concluded that, in 2004, it manipulated the council;

However, in addition to Mr McDougall, I highlight one other exception: Ms Yemah Barlay, Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau, in 2001; another highly dedicated professional, with integrity; she aimed to help us, Jefferson House leaseholders, quite literally: as much as she could.

(NB: Councils' housing departments can act in the same criminal way as the criminal private sector landlords - from which they are supposed to protect leaseholders (!!!) - see below # 3 e.g. Channel 4 Dispatches, 20 Aug 12 ; Comment # 31).

(Other examples of the treatment of 'the little people' by other councils.

Also indicative of the state of the local councils: in each of its issues, Private Eye has a full page, headed 'Rotten boroughs'; I am sure it could easily quadruple the number pages - in each of its issues).

Back to list

 

(1)- My 06.06.04 request for assistance in obtaining the 2002 and 2003 accounts.

 

As detailed, under para.5 of the 16.12.04 letter from Jean Daintith, Executive Director Housing & Social Services for Kensington & Chelsea, councils' (# 2.6, below):

"housing departments are the prosecuting authority for contraventions of Landlord - Tenant legislation"

(Power pursuant to section 34 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985)

In the light of its remit, in my 06.06.04 letter, I asked the Housing department for its assistance in obtaining a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts, as well as trustee accounts for Jefferson House...

- as Steel Services (= Andrew David Ladsky) - CKFT and the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for the block, had repeatedly ignored my requests over a period of more than one year.

(These requests / notifications included:

Yet again, this request for assistance to a government department led me to go into an unbelievable battle (see snapshots under Doc library).

Indeed, my battles with Kensington & Chelsea housing, to get it to obtain the above accounts, to which I added the 2003 year-end accounts when they became due - and subsequently with the Local Government Ombudsman - spanned from June 2004 to May 2005 - without being resolved (see Intro- Costs to me).

As I explained in my 27.01.05 letter to Patrick Moriarty, Local Government Ombudsman Investigator, "even after all of that, I still do not have accounts that are compliant with my Lease."

In fact, as I concluded in my 04.10.11 reply to the GLA survey on 'service charges' (My Diary 6 Oct 11) - these so-called 'accounts' are not worth the piece of paper they are written on (see Pridie Brewster for detail).

(I highlight that I have not had Lease-compliant (but unverified) accounts since the 1993 accounts).

(NB: As I report in My Diary 6 Oct 11, I copied my reply to 'my' GLA member, Sir Merrick Cockell, who, at the time, was also Leader of Kensington & Chelsea council. (A 16 Apr 13 Guardian article reported: "LGA chair Sir Merrick Cockell steps down as council leader").

He did not acknowledge my letter. Why? Might it be because he was on the side of the 'sacrosanct' landlords and property developers? E.g.

Private Eye, # 1411, 5-18 Feb 16, pg 18 - "Rotten boroughs - Bully for you"

"...Cratus Communications, which lobbies councillors on behalf of developers.

Colleagues include former Tory Kensington & Chelsea Council leader Sir Merrick Cockell..."

Back to list

 

(2)- Events in relation to my attempts at obtaining the year-end accounts for Jefferson House.

As, following my (above) 06.06.04 letter, I had not heard from the Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO), on 14th June, I phoned the department, and discovered that another person had taken on the role.

John Hutchings, the new TRO, told me that he needed to retrieve my file from archives and that he would then contact me.

I sent him a 22.06.04 chaser letter, pressing upon him the fact that I needed his assistance.   

Our letters had crossed, as I received one from him dated 21 Jun 04, in which he wrote that he intended to familiarise himself with my case. I therefore assumed that he had retrieved my file.

To help him - as well as emphasise the genuineness of my request - I took the opportunity of sending him more recent background information in my correspondence of 25.06.04 - supporting it with 20 enclosures.

On 25.06.04 John Hutchings sent a Section 21 request to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ - relating the fact that I had not been supplied with the 2002 and 2003 year-end accounts.

This was a breach of, not only the terms of my Lease (by then, 2.5 years had passed since the 2002 year-end, and 18 months re. 2003), but also of statutory requirements, as 'she' (=Ladsky) had ignored my numerous requests (# 1, above) - as emphasised by Hutchings in his letter:

Of particular note in this letter, John Hutchings states:

"Section 25 makes it a summary criminal offence to fail to comply with the requirements of Section 21 or Section 22 without reasonable excuse.

The Council prosecutes such contraventions and if convicted the landlord could face a substantial fine.

Please respond to this letter within 21 days, failure to do so may result in this authority instigating prosecution proceedings (*)

A copy of this letter has been forwarded to your solicitors CKFT"

(*) It turned out to be an empty threat - as can be seen from what followed, including under # 2.6, below.

In my 02.07.04 letter to John Hutchings, I noted that he had failed to mention my request for the trustee accounts - and provided him with 6 documents, that included my 4 requests to MRJ and CKFT for these accounts, starting in May 03 - that had all been ignored. I reiterated my point in my 05.07.04 letter to him.

(NB: Re. the trustee accounts, the following year, I also battled with the then Financial Services Authority (reincarnated in Apr 13 as the Financial Conduct Authority) - with a predictable outcome - in this totally unregulated Kingdom).

Back to list

(2.1)- Readiness to believe the lies by the Andrew David Ladsky's gang of racketeers - and evidently concluding that I have nothing better to do with my life and my money, than write and send letters making 'false claims'.

I again chased the TRO, John Hutchings, by phone. When I managed to speak to him on 19th July, he told me that Barrie Martin, FRICS, of then Martin Russell Jones, had contacted him by phone (?) / letter (?) claiming that:

  • the 2003 year-end accounts were not yet available.

Hutchings copied me on the 16.07.04 letter 'from' Barrie Martin, in which he claimed having sent me the 2002 accounts.

I received a very similar letter 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ (=Ladsky), dated 19.07.04 stating:

"all lessees have received a copy of the 2002 accounts whilst those in respect of 2003 are with the auditors"   

This was definitely not the case, and I communicated this to Hutchings in my letters of 22.07.04 and 25.07.04 - stating:

"Please, believe me: I have not received these accounts. If I had, I would not be wasting your time, nor mine, as well as my money sending you these letters" .

To circumvent Martin Russell Jones' typical delaying tactics, I asked Hutchings to request Barrie Martin to send him a copy of the accounts directly, and then forward them to me.

(See below # 2.3- my comment # 1, re. the 30 Sep 04 letter 'from' Shireen Ritchie).

The wonders of the Establishment, in "fantastically corrupt", very sick Britain - in which the State acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

I also repeat my above note, as well as my comments under the Introduction.

Back to list

(2.2)- Falsely claiming that no action could be taken against Steel Services - "because registered in the British Virgin Islands".

On 5th August, I phoned the TRO, John Hutchings, to determine what actions he was taking to ensure that I was provided with the accounts.

As in my previous conversations with him, I got the very distinct impression that my case was annoying him (the sighs were a telltale sign). Having first told me that he had "not as yet retrieved [my] file" (i.e. 2 months after my above letter of 06.06.04), he then said:

"[Mr MCDougall, the previous TRO] has already told you before: we can't do anything because Steel Services is registered in the BVI" (*)  

(*) When it pays / paid the licence fee! (BVI # 1)

To my saying: "So, they are above the law in the country?" - he replied affirmatively.

I had been fobbed-off before (the previous time I had requested assistance - detailed under Owners identity) - and was determined that I would not be this time.

I considered this to be deliberate misinformation, and wrote to Hutchings on 06.08.04 - pointing out that Steel Services was not immune from prosecution in this country. In support of this, I highlighted the fact that:  

•  Steel Services had used the British Courts to file a (fraudulent) 29.11.02 claim (Ref. WL 203537), in West London County Court, against 11 residents (representing 14 apartments) (Overview # 3);

•  it had been made to comply (26.08.03 Order) with a court order, dated 24.06.03, to pay my costs for the day (and that of my fellow leaseholders present at the 'case management hearing').

With this correspondence, I supplied a copy of the documents.

As, by 13th August, I had not heard from the TRO, I phoned him to determine what he had done. He said that he had passed my case on to the legal department. I asked him when he expected a reply, to which his answer was that he did not know.

When I insisted on getting an answer, it led to more sighs and the reply that he could not chase them. I explained that what I wanted was an indication of timescale.  

By the end of August, I still had not received any communication

= my reply had thrown a spanner in the works of the cabal (as can also be seen by what followed)...

and, typically, it was going into silent mode.

By then, 3 months had elapsed since I had first contacted the Housing department, and over 2 months since the TRO, John Hutchings, had sent the above 25.06.04 s.21 request to Martin Russell Jones...threatening proceedings "within 21 days" (!!!)

I repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(2.3)- Shireen Ritchie, 'my' Ward Councillor added to the deliberate misinformation and pushback following my 17.09.04 complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The lack of action by the TRO, led me to send a 30.08.04 letter to Shireen Ritchie, 'my' Ward Councillor, requesting her assistance - stating:

"3 months since my first contact, and 2 months since John Hutchings sent the letter to MRJ threatening proceedings for failure to respond within 21 days" (# 2, above) - and I still did not have the accounts.

I supported my letter with a (90 page) bundle of 42 documents (partly to help identify the name of the parties for prosecution, and partly to back-up what I was reporting).

In her 02.09.04 email Ritchie told me that she had "asked Mr [Gerald] Wild, Chief Housing Officer, to look into this case".

I sent Wild a chaser email on 10.09.04. With still no contact, I tried phoning him on 15th Sep, and spoke to a Ana Carretas, and followed this by 15.09.04 email.

Gerald Wild's continuing failure to contact me led me to file a 17.09.04 complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman. I concluded that my complaint...

...triggered a 30.09.04 letter 'from' Shireen Ritchie (1) - stating, among other:

"...the question arose whether to prosecute....as Steel Services Ltd are based in the British Virgin Islands [2] they were thought to be outside the jurisdiction of British law" (3)

"The Council's Legal Department is now in the process of deciding whether it is in the public interest to facilitate a prosecution" (4)

"The statutory time limit for bringing a prosecution under Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is six months from the date of the commission of the offence.

On the information available, it is highly likely that the statutory time limit in respect of the request for the 2002 accounts has expired and that no prosecution can be bought." (5)

With regards to the 2003 accounts, the agents had one month to comply with the Council's request, so technically an offence has been committed." (6)

"However, the advice from Legal Services is to continue to contact the agents (and their accountants if necessary) for them to provide an estimate of when the accounts will be available for inspection" (7)

Their response could determine whether it is appropriate to prosecute"

(1)- 'from' in inverted commas because I concluded that the letter had in fact been dictated to Ritchie by the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood'...

- most likely the local corrupt 'brothers' in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court who were still in the process of actively helping 'the brother' Andrew David Ladsky rip-off the Jefferson House leaseholders.

Therefore, they and Ladsky did not want me to have the 'accounts' (as can also be seen from what took place with the LGO Investigator, Patrick Moriarty, # 7), because I knew that he and his gang of racketeers had lied to the leaseholders in order to defraud them (Overview from # 1 to # 3)...

- and I knew this for a fact - as I had been challenging the demand in the London tribunal: # 4. (With my 25.06.04 letter to Hutchings I had provided him with evidence of the fraud, and had done the same thing with Shireen Ritchie).

Also, at the time, I was battling with both courts, and had sent a 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton (snapshots under Doc library # 1.3 , # 1.4 , # 1.5)...which would have translated among the tribe as 'more reasons to help'.

In the light of:

  • the outrageous excuses, connecting issues that are most definitely not connected;
  • ignoring the damning evidence of fraudulent activities I communicated to the council;
  • the failure to act by ignoring legislation;
  • the fobbing off tactics and 'get out clauses';
  • ALL in the context of the blatant siding with, and protection of the Ladsky mafia...

- that had taken place to date - and continued afterwards, as well as with Patrick Moriarty, the Local Government Ombudsman...

it all amounted to the Establishment typically closing rank with the objective of blocking information that would help expose the part it played in the criminal activities (Overview ; Extortion).

(2)- When Ladsky pays the fee!

(3)- Translation: We = 'the Brotherhood' tried to con you, and you came up with arguments we could not deny: my 06.08.04 reply, above, under # 2.2.

(4)- Hhha! The favourite fallback excuse for not taking action - used, in my case by the council on 2 other occasions: below, # 2.4 and # 2.6, and by the Local Government Ombudsman - summary of links- LGO # 7.

Translation: To which can be added: especially when the 'sacrosanct' landlord concerned is a Mason.

(5)- Why was no action taken following Hutchings' 25.06.25 s. 21 Notice (above, # 2) - as I asked in my 05.10.04 reply.

I also stated that there were at least 2 of my requests to MRJ that fell "within the statutory time limit".

I highlighted the fact that Hutchings had sent the s.21 Notice proved that the housing department upheld the view that a criminal offence had been committed - and asked: "Why the change of position now?"

Also that, if MRJ had sent me the accounts as claimed, it could have sent me 'another copy' - and that "it must be obvious to the housing department. Why is it opting to put blinkers on?".

I also quoted Regina v Brimtal Ltd (1993), a case Kensington & Chelsea housing had brought against a local landlord for failing to supply accounts, under section 21.

(6)- And we are "technically" going to ignore it because, as in the case of the British Establishment, any of its 'brothers' and protégés are: above the law!

(7)- In my 05.10.04 reply, I stated that I did not want to go and "inspect the accounts". What I wanted was, as per my rights: a copy of the accounts, certified by an accountant.

I repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(2.4)- The Chief Housing Officer, Gerald Wild, added to the pile of misinformation, excuses and 'get out clauses' - in the process:

demonstrating - blatant colluding and conspiring with 'Steel Services' - the then Martin Russell Jones = the 'brother' Andrew David Ladsky; in effect, branded me a liar - and then punished 'my audacity' by withholding the accounts.

I then received a 15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer.

'From' in inverted commas because, as in the case of Shireen Ritchie (above) I hold the view that it was actually the input of the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood' - and the henchman dutifully obliged.

= A continuation of the treatment to date...for the same reasons stated, above, under # 2.3- my Comments # 1.

This letter made my blood boil. It is a typical British Establishment's 'response' to 'cries for help' and complaints, that comes under the banner of criminal psychological harassment - The frustrate and anger game (header 2).

The overall message was a refusal to take action - but without having the guts to say it outright.

By then, I had become extremely tired of the pushback = 'Get lost!' letters I kept receiving from government departments I turned to for assistance (Summary of my complaints).

On the upside, they had made me aware of the psychological manipulation tactics and tricks used by these departments to get rid of 'persistent' people like me.

Hence, to short-circuit my being made to go through any more 'loops' all with the aim of wearing me down so that I gave up, I made it bluntly clear in my (8-page) 11.11.04 reply that I understood the underlying strategy.

(What also prompted me to make the various comments was my experience with the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (Overview # 2). Like Local Government, it also reported to the then head of the department, John Prescott).

In my 11.11.04 letter, I identified and responded to 19 comments in 'his' 15.10.04 letter and, as he had done with his letter, copied the following:

  • Derek Myers, Chief Executive;
  • Jean Daintith, Executive Director of Housing and Social Services;
  • Gifty Edila, Director of Law and Administration;

to which I added:

  • Jerry White, Local Government Ombudsman;
  • John Hutchings, Tenancy Relations Officer

And also copied all of them on my 11.11.04 reply to Hutchings (below, # 2.5).

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer:

"Local authorities have the power to prosecute people for offences under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 but they are not under a duty to do so."

My 11.11.04 reply:

"If so, then it seems that whether or not you do is dependent on your whim e.g. the case of Regina v Brimtal Ltd (1993) I referred to in my letter of 5 October 2004 to Mrs Ritchie..."

"It was the DLA's opinion that the evidence supplied by you and forwarded to them on 27 August, was insufficient to justify the instigation of proceedings under Section 25 of the Act in relation to both the 2002 accounts and 2003 accounts."

I asked why I had not been informed of this at the time

"In reaching that view, the DLA applied the Crown Prosecution Service's Code of Practice and considered whether there was sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction..."

I asked:

"How do you reconcile this statement with the letter of 25 June 2004 sent by Mr Hutchings to MRJ and CKFT?" (above, # 2)

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (cont'd):

"...and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute."

My 11.11.04 reply (cont'd):

"Isn’t it in the public interest to stop individuals from breaking the law?"

As done by 'my' Ward Councillor, and subsequently by Jean Daintith, and the Local Government Ombudsman (see also John Prescott # 2.3) - Gerald Wild was using one of the public sector's favourite standard response (he subsequently repeated in his letter).

"In relation to the 2002 accounts, the DLA attached considerable weight to the possibility that the reasonableness of the 2002 service charges had been fully explored at the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) and that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute in respect of that period.

The DLA did not have a full copy of the pleadings, court orders or the decision of the LVT which made it difficult, if not impossible, to assess the extent to which the 2002 accounts had been examined by the LVT."

"I find your reluctance to assist me in getting the 2002 year-end accounts most interesting." (*)

"The outcome of the determination by the LVT and the court orders have nothing to do with my statutory rights under the L&T 1985 Act to be provided with the 2002 and 2003 year-end accounts for Jefferson House – certified by an accountant.

If these conditions are written in the L&T 1985 Act then, please, let me know where."

(*) NB: I repeat my reference above # 2.3- Comments # 1.

I then stated that, while I had "supplied a copy of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination to Mr Hutchings" (below, # 2.5), for his benefit - and as I had already done in my 25.06.04 letter to Hutchings - I was now providing him with a summary of the impact of 'the determination' - I did as per e.g. LVT # 4.

I followed this by stating, "As you also want to know about the court action (Mr Hutchings' letter of 25.10.04) [below, # 2.5]..." - and followed by this reporting some of the key events that had taken place:

I also reported that I had sent a 29.06.04 complaint to Lord Falconer of Thoroton...but they, for sure, knew this already.

I followed this by reporting that:

(NB: You can see why the knives are out against me...and are being continuously sharpened! e.g. My Diary)

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (cont'd):

"The DLA also took into account the fact that the landlord said, by letter dated 16 July 2004 [*], that it had supplied the 2002 accounts to you, although it was subsequently noted that you refuted that you had ever received this information."

(*) Above, # 2.1

My 11.11.04 reply (cont'd):

"What I conclude from this comment is: 'the landlord is telling the truth and I am not'"

(NB: The same thing had happened, 2 years previously, with Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal that had an equally deliberate policy of 'believing' the many lies by the Ladsky gang of racketeers: LVT # 2 , # 5.4 summary of lies).

This is criminal psychological harassment, and a breach of s.7(3A) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - by wilfully aiding and abetting the harassment by the Ladsky gang of racketeers.

"Since 6 June 2004 :

•  I have written 12 letters to your department, including the 2 letters to Mrs Ritchie".

•  I have also written a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

•  This correspondence has entailed copying numerous documents comprising of letters, reports, etc.  

•  In total the amount of photocopies attached in support of my correspondence is in excess of 500 pages.

•  The cost of postage is probably nearing £100 (US$176)

•  In total, this correspondence has taken in excess of 150 hours of my life. (See Intro- Costs to me ; Doc library # 5.3)

"Do you actually think that I would be doing this if I had been provided with the accounts?  

Evidently, my answer is going to surprise you: I can assure you that I have better things to do with my life - and my money"

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (cont'd):

"In relation to the 2003 accounts, which it was presumed were not considered at the LVT, the DLA has taken the initial view that the landlord is technically in breach of his statutory duty to provide a summary of the relevant costs under Section 21 of the Act within the statutory timescales, namely by 25 July 2004."

My 11.11.04 reply (cont'd):

"Technically”? Laws are there to regulate various aspects of society. Whoever is concerned by the various laws can, in my view, only find himself / herself in either of 2 situations: abiding the law, or being in breach of it."

"In my case, Steel Services-MRJ are in breach of section 21 of the L&T 1985 Act by ignoring my numerous requests to be provided with the year-end accounts for 2002 and 2003."

"Also, the deadline for issuing the year-end accounts certified by an accountant is 30th June, as the year-end for Jefferson House is 31 December. Section 21(4) of the L&T 1985 Act requires the request to be complied “within six months of the relevant period".

"However, at this stage the DLA does not consider it would be in the public interest to prosecute."

"As I previously stated: Isn’t it in the public interest to stop individuals from breaking the law?"

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (cont'd):

"...the DLA has been advised that [the TRO] has been in regular phone contact with the landlord (whose demeanour has been cooperative)."

To which I replied, in my 11.11.04 letter:

"If they are so "cooperative": how do you explain the above timeframes - and non-compliance to date?

It seems to me that you have a most unusual interpretation of the word 'cooperative'"

"Actually, I must admit that I do see quite a lot of similarities between your department and Martin Russell Jones, in particular:  

misinformation (telling me that you could not pursue Steel Services because it is BVI registered [*]; giving me the same reason in 2002 when I requested your department's assistance in obtaining - as per my statutory rights - the name of the directors for the ownership of Jefferson House);

endless excuses and delaying tactics to avoid complying with requests"

(*) When it pays the licence fee! (BVI # 1)

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (cont'd):

"...the DLA has suggested that the best approach would be to set the landlord a deadline of 4 p.m. on 29 October to supply the summary of relevant costs for 2002 and 2003.

The position should then be reviewed in the light of all the information then available."

"The DLA has noted that there is no guarantee that if the Council prosecutes the landlord that the Section 21 summaries will be forthcoming.

Therefore, there has been no final decision to proceed or not to proceed".

"I am totally baffled by your comment - and also note your ‘safety net /get out clause’: “Therefore, there has been no final decision to proceed or not to proceed” (‘Safety net / get out clause’ - my coding for letters I receive from government bodies: a statement on which the sender will subsequently rely upon if I manage to counteract his/her excuses / delaying tactics – and follow this by a complaint.

At this point these ‘safety net’ statements will be brought to the fore along the lines of: “but we never said that we would not do it and look, here is the proof!”)"

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (cont'd):

"The case is still being investigated and, as stated above, will be reviewed on 29 October.

It may well be the case that with further investigation there will be sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it will be in the public interest to prosecute."

"I view this as another 'get out' clause."

"...it should be noted that the prime purposes of the Council's Tenancy Relations Service are the prevention of homelessness and illegal evictions."

"It is a front line, reactive service and although it has powers of prosecution, it is unlikely to be the first action pursued with regards to any instances of leasehold infringements."

"Another 'get out clause'!"

"I very strongly resent your value judgment on the merit of my case – especially on limited knowledge. I trust that this letter and my attached reply to Mr Hutchings will enlighten you."

"Furthermore, I would remind you that you can claim the costs of prosecution from the landlord."

15.10.04 letter 'from' Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (cont'd):

"I hope this information clarifies the Council's position for you…

However, if you are still dissatisfied with this response, under stage 3 of the complaints process, you can request that your case be reviewed by the Executive Director of Housing & Social Services, Jean Daintith

I concluded my 11.11.04 letter by stating:

"I read and conclude the overall message as:

Our intention is to not do anything.

Although, in case you continue with your complaint we've put enough in our letter to say: but look, we did not say that we would not do it. We just said that we 'might not'.

Using, as appropriate, statements from either side of the fence, we are going to string you along and make you go through the loops telling you that if you are not happy with a reply then you should address your complaint to another person, and so on, and so on.

That way we are going to buy ourselves a lot more time until, hopefully, we wear you down and you give up [header 2] - (as we succeeded in doing with you 2 years ago, including by giving you misinformation)."

Continuing to make a perfect match with their master Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers,...

my employees, the rotten to the core monsters: Gerald Wild, Chief Executive Officer ; Jean Daintith, Executive Director, and John Hutchings...

- 'decided' or, more likely, agreed with the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood' (above, # 2.3- comments # 1) - that I should be punished for 'my audacity'...

by not sending me the 2003 'accounts' they had received on 05.11.04 from Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ.

This provided provided all with many more weeks of fun - as can be seen in the 16 Dec 04 letter from Daintith (1st line of the letter), followed by Patrick Moriarty, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO # 4 and # 5).

I repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(2.5)- If the Housing department was counting on its 25.10.04 ridiculous request for documents to add to the criminal psychological harassment, it got caught at its own game - as I deluged it with c.1,700 pages.

Following the 15.10.04 letter from Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (above, # 2.4), I then received a letter 'from' the TRO, John Hutchings, dated 25.10.04.

'From' in inverted commas because, as in the case of Shireen Ritchie, and Gerald Wild, (# 2.4, above) - I hold the view that it was actually the input of the Jewish-Freemason 'Brotherhood' - and the henchman dutifully obliged.

= A continuation of the treatment to date...for the same reasons stated, above, under # 2.3- my Comments # 1.

As I noted in my reply of 11.11.04:

"I am totally baffled by your request to send you items 2, 3, 4 and 5 given that the assistance I have requested on numerous occasions from the Housing Department over the last 5 months relates to my statutory rights to be supplied with a copy of the year-end accounts for Jefferson House - certified by an accountant"

These items were:

"2. A full copy of the decision by the LVT in 2002" (NB: It was in 2003);  

"3. Copies of the pleadings" ;  

"4. Copy of the final order";  

"5. Final hearing date at Wandsworth County Court"

As can be seen, my 11.11.04 reply was a 42-page letter, supported by a c.170-page bundle of 135 enclosures. This is what was required to give him an accurate reply to his request.

As with my 11.11.04 letter to Wild (# 2.4, above), I copied my 42-page reply with its 135 enclosures to 5 individuals at the council, as well as to the Local Government Ombudsman = c.1,700 pages! (Doc library # 5.3)

Very clearly, this was not the reply expected, as evidenced by the 16.12.04 letter from Jean Daintith, Executive Director:

"...officers have on occasions experienced difficulty and spent disproportionate amounts of time in trying to identify salient points relevant to the Council's remit in some of your submissions (I would cite as an example here your 42 page letter to Mr Hutchings of 11 November)... "

(NB: As evidenced by other parts of her letter (discussed below, under # 2.6), they did not look at the evidence I supplied, or more accurately: opted to totally ignore it).

= Oh! dear, Oh! dear: their criminal psychological harassment tactics had backfired!...lining me up for more punishment by the mafia (see # 2.6, below).

As I wrote in my 27.02.05 letter to the Local Government Ombudsman Investigator:

"The reason I provided all of this information was because of the request from John Hutchings. He asked me for, among others: 1.Copies of the pleadings, 2 .Copy of the final order, 3.Final hearing date at Wandsworth County Court .

In relation to item #1, there were several 'pleadings' subsequent to the false county court claim filed on 29 November 2002. These had to be provided as they conclusively demonstrated that it was a false claim. (NB: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = fraud tools)

Ditto with items #2 and #3 - I had to explain events - as well as substantiate them.

Without this information, the Council would have had an erroneous understanding of the case.

Evidently, it would have been happier with that. Being provided with the facts (substantiated by some 130 enclosures) made it 'potentially' more difficult to use what is no doubt one of the 'standard responses': "we had no reason to disbelieve the landlord/ its agents".  

'Potentially' as it did not stop Jean Daintith from using this"

I repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(2.6)- The 16.12.04 letter 'from' Jean Daintith, Executive Director, provides further evidence that, like the self-important, ego-crazed, power-corrupted LGO Investigator, Patrick Moriarty,...

the council decided to punish me - by indulging further in the criminal psychological harassment tactics - thereby aiding and abetting the harassment against me by the Ladsky mafia.

In his letter of 25.11.04 (and identical letter of 07.12.04) Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer, had informed me that, because I was "clearly dissatisfied with [his] response" (# 2.4, above), he had referred my complaint to Jean Daintith, Executive Director.

Other parts (in addition to the above), of the 16.12.04 letter 'from' [see, above, # 2.3- my comments # 1], Jean Daintith, Executive Director:

Introduction - "I am aware that these documents have now been received by the Council and have also been sent to all lessees" (1)

Para.1 - "while the council has powers of prosecution, it is unlikely to be the first course of action pursued with regards to enforcing leasehold matters". (2)

Para.1 - "In any case it is standard legal practice to send a letter before action to someone who may be sued or prosecuted and it does not necessarily follow that a person will be prosecuted or sued if they not respond to the warning in the required manner." (2)

Para.4 - "The DLA [Director of Law and Administration] advised Mr Hutchings that there was a lack of information, which made it difficult to to decide whether or not a prosecution should be brought.

Mr Hutchings was at that time still hopeful that Martin Russell Jones would provide the information you sought...[3] [he] sought additional clarification on the case from the DLA and his manager before eventually writing to you on 25 October to request more information."

"While Mr Hutchings was acting in good faith and was trying to obviate the need for you personally to have to provide copies of what transpired to be a substantial number of documents, with hindsight I agree that you should have been advised of this development at an earlier stage and apologise that this was not the case". (4)

Para.5 - "The Council is the prosecuting authority for contraventions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and it considered prosecuting in this case. It could have resulted in a prosecution but in this case it did not." (5)

Para.6 - "The DLA advise that in this particular case, the evidential test was not satisfied when they examined the paperwork that had been presented [6] and, therefore decided that it was not right to prosecute [2].

It is unlikely to be in the public interest [7] to prosecute where the court is likely to impose a nominal penalty [8] and where the defendant has put right the loss or harm that may have been caused." [9]

Para.7 - "While the Council does not doubt your claim of not having received these documents as per your request to the landlords under Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, equally the Council had no reason to doubt that this information had not been provided to you by the landlord as they have claimed.

Without more evidence that would prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, [10] it was not possible for the DLA to advise that it had reasonable prospects of securing a conviction."

Para.7 - "Additionally, it is the view of the DLA that it was quite possible that the accounts, supporting receipts and documentation for the financial year 2002 were provided as part of the proceedings in the LVT [11].

If these documents had been made available as part of the LVT proceedings, then no purpose whatsoever would be served by prosecuting the landlord for breach of its duty under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985."

Para.9 - "If the summary of the relevant costs for 2003 and all the accounts had been supplied as part of the proceedings in the LVT then it would have made no sense to prosecute for breach of the duty under section 21 of the Act." (12)

Paras 12 nd 13 - "The attitude of the Landlord and/or his agents is a factor that needs to be taken into account in deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to proceed to prosecution." (13)

Para.14 - "The account summaries have now been supplied" (1)

And so it goes on, including suggesting that:

Conclusion - "the related matters about which you have gone into much detail, would be better pursued through the LVT or the county court" (14)

(See LGO # 4 and # 5, for other parts of Daintith's letter)

(1)- "these documents have now been received by the Council and have also been sent to all lessees"

I had not received them. (See above, # 2.4 ; LGO # 4 and # 5).

(2)- The "powers of prosecution...unlikely to be the first course of action pursued"

The length they will go to to assist criminal landlords and their aides!

= the above 25.06.04 letter was an empty threat - and, very clearly, the Ladsky mafia knew that.

(3)- John Hutchings knew from my above 06.06.04 letter that, over the previous 12 months I had sent 4 letters to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, and one to CKFT asking for the accounts...

... - and he was "still hopeful that Martin Russell Jones would provide the information"

Unbelievable!

(4)- "obviate the need for you personally to have to provide copies of what transpired to be a substantial number of documents"

I repeat what I state above: their criminal psychological harassment tactic had backfired - by my supplying what they asked for.

(5)- "It could have resulted in a prosecution but in this case it did not".

Anything to assist 'Steel Services' = 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Andrew Ladsky'

As detailed above, under # 2.2, they first attempted to get rid of me by claiming that they could not take action because "Steel Services was registered in the British Virgin Islands". (NB: When it pays / paid the fee! (BVI # 1))

(6)- "the evidential test was not satisfied"

= Typical of my experience with ALL the State's departments (and other English institutions) I have had contact with since 2002 (Snapshots of the outcomes of my complaints) (Case summary): they redefine the concept of extreme blindness to the evidence.

(7)- "unlikely to be in the public interest".

It is "not in the public interest" to prosecute a landlord who breaches legislation!!!

That is one of the standard hymns of the public sector - above

= Typical of this country - especially when the 'sacrosanct' landlord concerned is a Mason.

(8)- "where the court is likely to impose a nominal penalty".

Or, in the case of 'Dear Mr Ladsky': not only no penalty, but where Her Majesty's judiciary will also help him crush his victims.

(9)- "where the defendant has put right the loss or harm that may have been caused".

I repeat that I had not received the accounts. (I repeat my above comment, under # 2.4).

Further, what I was sent subsequently by Patrick Moriarty, Local Government Ombudsman Investigator - was not compliant with my Lease and legislation (LGO # 7)

Also: I have not been 'compensated' for the sheer utter hell I was put through trying to obtain the accounts. Hence: nothing was "put right".

(10)- "the Council had no reason to doubt that this information had not been provided to you by the landlord as they have claimed. Without more evidence that would prove the case beyond reasonable doubt".

Absolutely unbelievable!

Would have I put myself through that kind of hell if I had the accounts? (as I reported e.g. in my above 11.11.04 letter to Gerald Wild) (Ditto about repeating my comment under # 2.4).

Like Her Majesty's judiciary, police, etc. - they are licking a certain part of the anatomy of 'certain' criminals so hard, that you can barely see their feet sticking out.

(11)- "it is the view of the DLA that it was quite possible that the accounts, supporting receipts and documentation for the financial year 2002 were provided as part of the proceedings in the LVT"

She writes that after all the evidence I supplied with my (above) 11.11.04 letter and its 135 supporting enclosures????

I also repeat: Would have I put myself through that kind of hell if I had the accounts?

What a mafia of thoroughly evil, rotten to the core monsters!

This is blatant criminal psychological harassment.

(12)- "If the summary of the relevant costs for 2003 and all the accounts had been supplied as part of the proceedings in the LVT"

What a stupid, nonsensical comment - as (among other) the then London LVT hearings took place in the first 6 months of 2003.

Was this also a suggestion from the corrupt 'brothers' in West London County Court Court?

= Further, blatant criminal psychological harassment - 'the frustrate game' (header 2).

(13)- "The attitude of the Landlord and/or his agents is a factor that needs to be taken into account in deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to proceed to prosecution".

And more accurately: their 'behind the scene connections'.

Probably devised with 'the brother' Ladsky. They must have been rolling on the floor with laugher when they wrote that.

(14)- "the related matters about which you have gone into much detail, would be better pursued through the LVT or the county court"

= Another opportunity for a good laugh - as they knew, from my correspondence (e.g. 11.11.04 letter) (above, # 2.5), about my experience with both.

No doubt, another input from them, in particular the West London County Court mafia.

In addition to dishing out the criminal psychological harassment, ALL the parties also breached s.7(3A) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997- by wilfully aiding and abetting the harassment by the Ladsky gang of racketeers.

As the saying goes:

 

'Birds of a feather flock together'

I repeat my above notes.

 

(3)- Aside from the obvious 'hands-off' policy when it concerns Masonic landlords - councils also have a serious conflict of interest, since they are among the largest landlords in the country - owning and mismanaging a lot of freehold properties themselves - as well as also ripping-off leaseholders.

 

At the time of my battles, 2005 issues of the local newspaper, the Informer, indicated (unsurprisingly) that I was far from being the only one complaining about the Council e.g. letter from Nigel Wilkins (Chair of C.A.R.L.), 6 Jan 05:  

"...the council is the prosecuting authority in respect of criminal offences under landlord and tenant law.

Its consistent failure to match up to its obligations under this legislation demonstrates that it is soft on crime".

And this example from another local leaseholder, who, in his letter published on 25 Feb 05, highlighted that:

"the tenant management organisation (TOM) fails to answer legitimate complaints from leaseholder" and "service charge irregularities". (1)

"the TOM was somewhat confrontational by tying up my reasonable request in bureaucratic procedures and circumlocutionist correspondence by making woolly use of legislation" (2)  

(1)- In Aug 12, Channel 4 Dispatches reported councils ripping-off leaseholders.

(2)- YEP! Add to that the extreme blindness to the evidence, and the criminal psychological harassment (# 2.5 and # 2.6, above)

(See also: My Diary - 26 Apr 06 re. a meeting of public sector leaseholders; Comment # 31 for somebody else's experience with a council)

Unsurprisingly, the same downright refusal by housing departments to perform their legal remit in relation to contraventions of landlord-tenant legislation is also found among other councils.

e.g. the case of the leaseholder covered in the Evening Standard article of 3 Dec 03, headed "Left homeless for £25" (US$44):

"...neither the police nor Hastings borough council will act" .  

(Yes, ditto as well for me in the case of the police, except that in my case the Kensington, Chelsea & Notting Hill police stations perceive themselves to be at the exclusive service of 'certain' criminal landlords i.e. 'brothers').

In 2005, The Times published a damning article on local government in general - see Local Government Ombudsman.

 

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA HOUSING AND 'MY' WARD COUNCILLOR CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE AND THEN MAINTAIN IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top