Email this site to a contact

 

Kensington & Chelsea Housing: 'Landlords and their aides are always right. Consequently, lessees are liars' (My interpretation)

Kensington & chelsea housing & LGO Home

 

As detailed, under point 5 of the 16 December 2004 letter from the Executive Director Housing & Social Services for Kensington & Chelsea, councils' housing departments are the

"prosecuting authority for contraventions of Landlord - Tenant legislation"

(NB: Kensington & Chelsea housing is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

Sections

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

In light of this remit, I contacted the Housing department on 6 June 2004 to request its assistance in obtaining a copy of the 2002 accounts for Jefferson House as Steel Services / CKFT and Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for the block, had repeatedly ignored my requests over a period of nearly one year.

(These requests / notifications included:

(1) my 9 October 2003 letter to Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones;

(2) my 19 December 2003 Notice of Acceptance to CKFT;

(3) my 19 May 2004 letter to Ms Hathaway, on which I copied CKFT;

(4) my 18 July 2004 letter to Ms Hathaway)

Yet again, this request for assistance to a government department led me to go into an unbelievable battle.

The unbelievable battle I had with Kensington & Chelsea Housing department to get it to obtain for me a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts for Jefferson House, to which I added the 2003 accounts when they became due and, subsequently, with the Local Government Ombudsman, spanned from June 2004 to May 2005 - without being fully resolved.

This battle cost me, among others, over 250 hours of my life (the page details the list of correspondence)

And, as I explained in my 27 January 2005 letter to the Local Government Ombudsman Investigator, even after all of that, I still do not have accounts that are even compliant with landlord-tenant legislation - and nor indeed, my lease.

In fact, these accounts are not worth the piece of paper they are written on (see Pridie Brewster for detail)

As related under the section Owners identity , this battle was preceded by a 10 months struggle in 2002 (as detailed in my 30 August 2004 letter to my Ward Councillor). It led nowhere.   At the time, I was not wise to the tricks used by the Housing department to avoid performing its obligations.

Back to list

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

As I had not heard from the Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO) following my 6 June 2004 letter, on 14 June 2004, I phoned the department and discovered that another person had taken on the role. The new TRO told me that he needed to retrieve my file from archives and that he would then contact me.

As he had not done so, by 22 June 2004 I sent him a letter pressing upon him the fact that I needed his assistance   

Our letters had crossed as I received one from him dated 21 June 2004 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 June 2004 .

On 25 June 2004 the TRO sent a Section 21 request to Ms Hathaway, relating the fact that I had not been supplied with the year-end accounts. This was a breach of, not only the terms of my lease (by then 10 months had passed since the year-end for the accounts) but also of statutory requirements, as emphasised by the TRO in his letter.

Of particular note in this letter, the TRO 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"

On 2 July 2004 , I sent the TRO a letter asking whether he could help me in relation to getting a copy of the trustee accounts because, as in the case of the year-end accounts, Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones were refusing to send these to me.

Back to list

(2.1) Readiness to believe lies

I once again chased the TRO by phone.   When I managed to speak to him on 19 July 2004 he told me that Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, had contacted him by phone (?) / letter (?) to say that he had sent me a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts for Jefferson House.

Also, that in reply to the request for the 2003 year-end accounts, Mr Barrie Martin had said that these were not yet available. The TRO copied me on the letter from Mr Barrie Martin of 16 July 2004 in which he states that the 2002 accounts had been sent to me.

I received a very similar letter from Mr Barrie Martin, dated 19 July 2004 stating that

"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 the TRO in my letters of 22 July 2004 and 25 July 2004 , 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 the TRO that he requests Mr Barrie Martin to send him a copy of the accounts directly.

Back to list

(2.2) Falsely claiming that no action could be taken against Steel Services

On 5 August 2004, I phoned the TRO 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. two months after my letter of 6 June 2004), he then said:

"[the previous TRO] has already told you before: we can't do anything because Steel Service is registered in the BVI"  

To which I replied:

"So, they are above the law in the country?"  

He replied affirmatively to this.

I had been fobbed-off before (the previous time I had requested assistance - detailed under Owners identity ), but not this time.

I considered this to be misinformation and wrote to the TRO on 6 August 2004 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 (FALSE) claim against 11 residents in West London County Court, on 29 November 2002 (ref: WL 203537)

•  It had been made to comply with a court order, dated 24 June 2003 , to pay my costs for the day (and that of the other leaseholders present at the hearing).

With this correspondence, I supplied a copy of the order, as well as the claim filed in West London County Court on 29 November 2002 against myself and 10 other leaseholders. (The claim had been drawn-up by CKFT, and filed - under a Statement of Truth - by Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - as can be seen from the Particulars of claim (1.1MB))

As by 13 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 had not received any communication. By then, three months had elapsed since I had first contacted the Housing department, and over two months since the TRO had sent the 25 June 2004 letter to Martin Russell Jones threatening proceedings "within 21 days" (NB!!!) .

Back to list

(2.3) My Ward Councillor added to the misinformation and pushback following my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman

Consequently, on 30 August 2004 , I opted to write to my Ward Councillor, requesting her assistance.

My Ward Councillor referred my letter to the Chief Housing Officer.   I chased an answer by email on 10 September 2004 and again on 15 September 2004.  

As none was coming, I filed a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman on 17 September 2004 .

I concluded that my complaint triggered my Ward Councillor to send me a letter dated 30 September 2004 . This letter contained misinformation which I highlighted in my reply of 5 October 2004 , as well as excuses which I counteracted.

 

The misinformation included a claim that

"The statutory time limit for bringing a prosecution in relation to the 2002 accounts has expired" .

As to the excuses, they included,

"consideration of whether it is in the public interest to prosecute"

(A favourite excuse used by government departments for not doing their job - see Local Government Ombudsman and Mr John Prescott # 2.3 )

To this I replied:

"With respect, 'I' have suffered a violation of my rights.

I would point out that:   (1) I pay my council tax; (2) I pay my income tax; (3) I am a British Citizen.  

I am therefore entitled to ask and expect to receive assistance when my rights are violated"

Back to list

(2.4) The Chief Housing Officer added to the pile of misinformation, excuses and 'get out clauses', in the process, demonstrating - 'allegedly' - blatant siding with Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones

I then received a 15 October 2004 letter from the Chief Housing Officer. This letter made my blood boil.

The overall message of the letter from the Chief Housing Officer is a refusal to take action - but without having the guts to say it outright.

It piles excuses on top of excuses, connects issues that are most definitely not connected, ignores the evidence, uses what I described as 'get out clauses' and provides misinformation

And these people claim the payment of a salary and benefits from the taxpayer... as well as a pay-related pension!

By then, I had become extremely tired of the pushback letters I kept receiving from government departments I turned to for assistance. I had also caught on the '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 give up, I made it bluntly clear in my 11 November 2004 reply that I understood the underlying strategy.

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

I wrote:"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.

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

Several comments in the letter led me to form the opinion of - 'allegedly ' - blatant siding with 'Steel Services' - Martin Russell Jones. Among others, his comments that

"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:

"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'"

In relation to another of his comment, that

"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 received this information"

I stated:

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

As to another of his comment, I replied:

"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 [the TRO] will enlighten you"

I also wrote:

"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"

As done by my Ward Councillor (as well as by the Local Government Ombudsman ) (see also Mr John Prescott # 2.3 ) , he also used the government standard, favourite reply "whether it was in the public interest to prosecute"

To which I replied:

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

Very clearly, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not share my view - thereby leaving, (among many others), Martin Russell Jones to, not surprisingly, repeat its 'winning formula' in other blocks - see Mr John Prescott # 2.3 )

Towards the end of my letter I wrote:

"Since 6 June 2004 :

•  I have written 12 letters to your department , including the 2 letters to [Councillor] .

•  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 Document library for detail)

"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"

I concluded my 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 - (as we succeeded in doing with you 2 years ago, including by giving you misinformation)."

Back to list

(2.5) If the Housing department was hoping to fob me off with its ridiculous request for documents, it got caught at its own game

I then received a letter from the TRO dated 25 October 2004 . As I noted in my reply of 11 November 2004 :

"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";  

"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 November 2004 reply was a 42-page letter supported by 135 enclosures . This is what was required to give him an accurate reply to his request.

I copied my 42 page reply with its 135 enclosures to five individuals at the council, as well as to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Very clearly, this was not the reply expected, as evidenced by the Executive Director's letter of 16 December 2004 :

"...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 [ ] of 11 November)... related matters about which you have gone into much detail, would be better pursued through the LVT or the County Court"

Well, why ask me for all this unnecessary information?

As I wrote in my 27 February 2005 letter to the Local Government Ombudsman Investigator:

"The reason I provided all of this information was because of the request from [the TRO] . 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.

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 [the Executive Director] from using this"

Indications are that, like the Local Government Ombudsman, the council decided to 'punish me'

(See Local Government Ombudsman # 5 ) - which suggests that the council (and the levels above) can be as perverse as rogue landlords and their aides. Well, there is a saying

 

'Birds of a feather flock together'

Back to list

(3) The point is that councils not only lack the will to enforce the law, they 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

2005 issues of the local newspaper, the Informer, indicate (not surprisingly) that I am not the only one complaining about the Council e.g. letter from Nigel Wilkins (Chair of C.A.R.L. ), 6 January 2005:  

"...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 February 2005, highlights that:

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

He also states:

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

I most certainly know exactly what this person means having been at the receiving end of the same treatment myself.

(See also My Diary - 26 April 2006 re. a meeting of public sector leaseholders)

Not surprisingly, the same downright refusal by housing departments to perform their 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 December 2003, 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 Kensington & Chelsea police extended a somewhat 'helpful' hand to Mr Andrew Ladsky - See Police )

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

My battles with Kensington and Chelsea Housing have cost me c.150 hours of my life ( = over four weeks, based on a 35-hour week )

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress' on this island?

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND MY WARD COUNCILLOR CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING

Back to top