Email this site to a contact

 

"Landlords and their aides can do EXACTLY as they please - and Thou will not challenge one of John Prescott's departments. If you do, we'll make you pay for it. You'll see with whom the power rests" (My perception of events in 2004)

Local Government OMbudsman - 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 the Local Government Ombudsman remember that the ROOT CAUSE for his 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 the Local Government Ombudsman 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

The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) is the department 'officially' positioned to address complaints against local government. Officially in inverted commas - for the reasons detailed on this page.

My first contact with this department was in Jun 02, with Jack McKenna, when I complained about the fact that the Kensington & Chelsea Planning department had 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.

The outcome was a continuation of the treatment dished out to me by the planning department: 'Get lost!'; 'Sort it out yourself!' (Planning # 3 ; Doc library # 5.2).

My second contact with the department started in Sep 04 when I sent Jerry White, LGO, a complaint against Kensington & Chelsea housing, as it still had not helped me get the year-end accounts, as well as trustee accounts for Jefferson House (KC from # 1).

My dealings were then with Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman.

Because:

...- these self-important, ego-crazed, power-corrupted monsters 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.

The way I was, yet again, treated, reflects the perception of the Establishment and of its henchmen (like e.g. the LGO) 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.

My battle with the Local Government Ombudsman and Kensington and Chelsea Housing 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)

 

As I discovered subsequently: I am not alone in my dissatisfaction with the LGO -

see 'Campaign against bias and maladministration in the Local Government Ombudsman Service' http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org; Ombudsman Watcher's Resource Centre.

Of note, from the European Court of Human Rights case, E v UK (2003) 36 EHRR 31 (para.112):

"the Local Government Ombudsman was incapable of providing an effective remedy as it only had the power to make recommendations"

The European Court determined the same thing in relation to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

In her 2015 speech, (The Guardian) Her Majesty The Queen announced a "Draft public services ombudsman bill":

"This will merge the existing parliamentary and health service ombudsman with the local government and potentially the housing ombudsmen’s offices." (1)

"The ombudsman is where the public can appeal over the way their complaint has been handled by local services." (2)

(1)- Making it easier to share the 'Get Lost' template for the 'replies' to complainants;

or, as succinctly summed-up by the epitome of the British Establishment, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, in his reply to a taxi driver, on 18 Jun 15: "Fuck off and die!"

(2)- Oh! Yeah! "They can appeal"

= Waste their time and money, not to mention, add to their anguish, distress and sense of being treated, in this island-Kingdom, like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - there to used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL...

....- as undeniably demonstrated by my experience with the local government ombudsman (i), and with the parliamentary ombudsman (ii).

(i)- And other people's experience.

(ii)- And yet more people's experience.

Back to list

 

(1)- My 17.09.04 complaint against Kensington and Chelsea Housing.

I headed my 17.09.04 complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman against Kensington & Chelsea Housing department with:

"Evasion of its duty under Section 34 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, which states:  "Proceedings for an offence under any provision of this Act may be brought by a local housing authority"

and backed-it up with 11documents.

Under para.16, I wrote,

"As so common nowadays with government departments, I have had to push and chase every step of the way.

(If I adopted the same attitude when they ask me to pay for my council tax, no doubt they would not waste any time prosecuting me)"

The 21.09.04 acknowledgment from the Local Government Ombudsman stated:

a reference number for my complaint; and

You should hear from us within the next eight weeks as to whether we will pursue your complaint"

 

In his 05.10.04 letter, Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, informed me:

"...the Local Government Ombudsman [*] has asked me to consider your complaint..."

"...you first made a complaint about the service the Council was giving you when you wrote to Councillor Ritchie on 30 August 2004 [K&C # 2.3]"

So it seems to me the Council may not yet have had a reasonable opportunity to deal with your complaint." (1)

"For the moment you need take no further action on your complaint.

Once the Council has considered your complaint, if you are still unhappy, please send me the papers and say why you are dissatisfied".  

"If I do not hear from you within the next 8 weeks [2], I will write to you again to see if you are satisfied with the outcome"

[*] Identified on the letter as Tony Redmond.

(1)- (i)- By then it was 6 weeks since Shireen Ritchie had forwarded my letter to Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer (her 02.09.04 email).

(ii)- I had been chasing Wild by email and a phone call and, by 15 Sep, he had not established contact with me.

(iii)- Moriarty knew from my 17.09.04 complaint that I had first started to complain in my 06.08.04 letter to John Hutchings, Tenancy Relations Officer, about his fobbing off excuse: "we can't do anything because Steel Services is registered in the BVI"

My 06.08.04 reply had evidently thrown a spanner in the works of the cabal as - typically - it went into silent mode (K&C # 2.2).

(2)- "8 weeks" - For me, this rung the alarm bell to 'very loud' as, by then it was:

  • 10 weeks since Hutchings had sent a 25.06.04 s.21 Notice to MRJ, cc'd CKFT - quoting the legal requirements to comply with the demand "within 21 days" (!!!) (K&C # 2);
  • 4 months had elapsed since I had first approached the Housing department by letter of 06.06.04 (K&C # 1)

Back to list

 

(2)- Local government and Local Government Ombudsman report to the same minister.

Because Patrick Moriarty's above letter had rung the alarm bell for me,...

...it led me to explore where exactly the Local Government Ombudsman fitted within the government organisational structure, and to discover that (at the time) it came under...

Nick Raynsford who also had responsibility for Local Government.

(Raynsford came under John Prescott i.e. part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister).

While I admit to not knowing the detail of the activities, this looked to me like a conflict of interest (similar to e.g. the Law Society, Bar Council, RICS, ICAEW, etc. being both, trade associations and so-called 'regulatory' bodies...

- which leads to the standard 'Get lost!' verdict - and no point going anywhere else, as they have implicit / explicit 'Memorandums of Understanding' e.g. Law Society and police (copy)).

Hence, from then on, I knew that my complaint was a dead duck - but I was not going to let them mess me around.

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

As discussed under the section (K&C # 2.4), 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).

After Gerald Wild's letter, I received a 25.10.04 ridiculous request for documents 'from' John Hutchings, Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington Housing, that was clearly intended to add to the criminal psychological harassment (KC # 2.5).

I played the game. To address the request required my writing this 11.11.04 42-page document, I supported with a c.170-page bundle of 135 enclosures. As in the case of 5 council individuals, I copied Moriarty on the letter, as well as the enclosures, and also copied him on my 11.11.04 reply to Gerald Wild.

In my 11.11.04 covering letter to the LGO Jerry White (wrongly addressed; see below)) , I stated:

"It is now more than 5 months since I first contacted the RBK&C Housing Department for assistance in obtaining the 2002 and 2003 year-end accounts for Jefferson House."

"The amount of time that has elapsed, as well the content of the 15 October 2004 letter from Mr Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer, lead me to the crystal clear conclusion that the department does not intend to assist."

"In order to prevent unnecessary communication, I should add that 'yes, the name of your department makes your coverage and remit absolutely clear' - and additional clarity is provided by the fact that your unit comes under Mr Nick Raynsford's department which also comprises 'Local Government'"

As can be seen below, these letters 'did not go down well' among the ego-crazed, power-corrupted elements.

Back to list

 

(3)- The corrupt henchman, Patrick Moriarty, decided to 'punish me' by dishing out a hefty dose of criminal psychological harassment.

The outcome of the above was that the corrupt henchman, Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, in tandem with his mates in the council decided to punish me...

for, I assume, being a 'daring', insignificant 'Prole', a 'nobody', an "Oik" - or other perceptions in a similar vein - who had 'the audacity' to do that to the 'great' 'almighty' public sector staff.

However, there was another factor also at play: the usual public sector automatic siding and closing of rank in order to protect its tribe members:

  • (1)- between the council and Moriarty - as evidenced in Moriarty's initial letter of 05.10.04 (# 1, above) that was pre my letters challenging their 'Get lost!';

Therefore, they and Ladsky did not want me to have the 'accounts' (as can also seen below, under # 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 (K&C # 2); I had done the same thing with Shireen Ritchie: K&C # 2.3; and then provided ALL with a large amount of supporting evidence in my 11 Nov 04 letter to John Hutchings: # 2, above).

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'.

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).

Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, copied me on his 16.11.04 email to Gifty Elida, Director of Law and Administration, Kensington & Chelsea council - in which he stated:

"I referred this complaint to you on 5 October as a premature complaint [1] and I have seen a copy of the response [KC # 2.4] which was sent to the complainant."

"The complainant has written to us again saying she is not satisfied with this response and asking us to investigate her complaint."

"We will treat this as a new complaint which will be registered in due course." (2) (3)

But reading the copy correspondence you have sent, it seems that the council gave a deadline of 29 October to the landlord and intended to review its decision on prosecution after that date had passed." (3)

"There is presently a six week delay in allocating complaints to an investigator..." (2)

It was clear to me that I was the prime addressee for this email.

(1)- "premature"?!? I repeat my comments # 2, under # 1, above i.e. that by 5 Oct 04, it was:

  • 10 weeks since Hutchings had sent a 25.06.04 s.21 Notice to MRJ, cc'd CKFT - quoting the legal requirements to comply with the demand "within 21 days" (!!!) (K&C # 2);
  • 4 months had elapsed since I had first approached the Housing department by letter of 06.06.04 (K&C # 1)

It amounted to blatant endorsement of the council's appalling conduct.

(2)- Why "treat it as a new complaint"? The council was using bogus excuses, tricks and get out clauses, to avoid performing its statutory duty; that was certainly part of the same complaint.

I repeat my above comments.

(3)- "giving a 29 October deadline" (as stated in Gerald Wild's 15.10.04 letter: K&C # 2.4)...

... when they had quoted legislation, nearly 5 months previously, that "the landlord has 21 days to respond"

Secondly, the '29th October deadline' had passed more than 2 weeks previously. Perhaps it was '29th October' of the following year, or of the year after that,...?

The collusion and conspiring with Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers were glaringly obvious.

In my 17.11.04 email, I replied to Moriarty that, given the contents of his (above) 05.10.04 letter, I assumed that an error had been made.

To this, Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, replied, on the same day, in his (11h03) 17.11.04 email:

"No the statement you quoted is not an error.

Your complaint was closed as a 'premature' complaint on 5 October and sent to the council for it to put through its complaint procedures."

"Premature": I repeat my above comments # 3.

Moriarty's email of 17.11.04 (cont'd):

"You were asked to contact us again if, when the council had considered your complaint, you remained dissatisfied with its response." (1)

Your letter of 11 November to Mr White, the Local Government Ombudsman in Coventry, was passed to me to carry out a preliminary screening as I was the officer who considered your original complaint."

It seemed to me your letter [K&C # 2.4] was an expression of dissatisfaction with the Council's response to your complaint which I took to be its letter to you dated 15 October.

For that reason I decided that your letter be registered as a new complaint (which it must be as your old complaint is closed)". (2)

At the time the complaint was unregistered, and currently there is a delay of about six weeks between receipt of a complaint and its allocation to an investigator." (3)

"At that time I, or whichever investigator is allocated, will consider if it is a complaint the Ombudsman should pursue [4] - at that stage, for example, checks are carried out to confirm that the complaint is in the Ombudsman' jurisdiction." (3)

(1)- Moriarty's (above) 05.10.04 letter - that stated: Once the Council has considered your complaint, if you are still unhappy, please send me the papers and say why you are dissatisfied"

It was glaringly obvious 'from' Gerald Wild's 15.10.04 letter that the council was not going to action my complaint - and more to the point: that it was not going to perform its statutory remit (K&C # 2.4).

This was continuing to be confirmed not only by Patrick Moriarty, but also the following month, in the 16.12.04 letter 'from' Jean Daintith, Executive Director (K&C # 2.6).

(2)- I repeat my above Comment # 2.

(3)- Moriarty ought to have passed the public sector-run courses on How to Frustrate and discourage complaints (header 2) and dish out criminal psychological harassment - with flying colours.

(4)- 2 months since my 17.09.04 detailed complaint - and they still 'had not determined' "whether it is a complaint that the Ombudsman should pursue"!!!

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

All of them sure make a perfect match with Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

 

Patrick Moriarty, whom, by then, I perceived as a corrupt henchman and little dictator with a grossly inflated sense of power (*), ended his email with:

"I cannot confirm at this stage that your complaint will be pursued or what further action will be taken"

To which he could have added: as dictated to by our masters, 'the brothers', we'll keep on stringing you along until you finally give up.

(*) = Another one from the same mould as e.g. Acting Chief Inspector Steve McSorley, Head of 'Professional Standards', at Kensington police.

At least, the benefit of my approach was that I had saved myself endless hours of pointless letter writing and photocopying, as well as a substantial amount in postage.

I then received a 16.11.04 confirming the content of the emails, adding that my "complaint has been given a new reference number" i.e. that my complaint had gone back to square one!

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

 

(4)- The little dictator appeared to have had his cage rattled.

In my 24.11.04 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PHSO # 3), I referred to my experience with the Local Government Ombudsman.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe that this then Ombudsman intervened 'behind the scene' as,...

...I received a 13.01.05 email from Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman:

"I understand that the accounts you were seeking have now been sent to you." (1)

"I have seen a copy of the council's letter to you dated 16 December 2004." (2)

"As it seems you have now received the accounts you were seeking, can you please let me know if you wish to proceed with your complaint."

(1)- No, they had not.

(2)- 'From' Jean Daintith, Executive Director (K&C # 2.6) - I had not wasted my time replying, no doubt causing all considerable frustration.

My not replying, led to another email from Moriarty, on 26.01.05 (this includes copy of both emails), as well as a phone call a few days later. I considered his tone at the beginning of the conversation as dictatorial and commented on it.

In his emails, Moriarty stated: "I understand you have received the accounts". In fact, I had not - which, no doubt, he knew.

In my (7-page) 27.02.05 letter to him, I related, among other, what I had told him during the course of our conversation on 1st /2nd February, namely that in 'her' 16.12.04 letter (K&C # 2.6),

"Jean Daintith, Executive Director, Housing & Social Services triumphantly announced that MRJ had told Mr Hutchings that the accounts had been sent which therefore vindicated the Council's stance" .

2. I had not received the accounts i.e. for 2002 and 2003.

3. In spite of the detailed, comprehensive evidence I provided to the Council, Mrs Daintith opted to (based on her letter) believe that MRJ had sent me the accounts instead of ascertaining that I had indeed received them."

4. I then told you: "what would it have cost the Council to enclose a copy of the accounts? Based on previous years, at most it will be c. 4-5 pages for each year"

5. At this point you replied to me: "There is no hidden agenda".  

I put it to you that any reasonable people when considering the evidence would conclude otherwise"

In his 09.02.05 letter, Patrick Moriarty stated:

"We have spoken by telephone and I have also spoken to the council about the accounts you are seeking."

"The council has now sent me copies of the accounts [1] which it had been told would be sent to you during week commencing 8 November 2004." (2)

"I enclose a copy of these accounts for you [2002 and 2003 so-called 'accounts'].

"It seems to me that this is the remedy you sought in making your complaint...." (3)

(1)- Yeah! right!

(2)- See # 5, below

(3)- It most definitely was not - see # 7, below.

I repeat my above notes.

Back to list

 

(5)- The evidence demonstrates that, like the Local Government Ombudsman, Kensington & Chelsea Housing had also opted for 'punishment'.

In my (above) 27.02.05 letter to Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, I also drew attention to the fact that:

  • Martin only referred to sending, on that day, by fax "the 2003 accounts" (which Hutchings, no doubt on orders from higher up, had not sent me) - not the 2002 accounts.

Leading me to ask:

  • "When were the 2002 accounts received by Mr Hutchings?"
  • "Why were they not sent to me at the time?"

In addition to being another example of the dominant English public sector's psyche, it was also another example from one of John Prescott's departments, that leaseholders who 'dare' challenge a 'sacrosanct' landlord, in particular a Mason and, to top it all, also 'dare' to challenge some of his departments, would not 'get away with it'.

In which part of the private sector would employees be allowed to behave in this manner towards their employer? (As a taxpayer: I pay for the Local Government Ombudsman, as well as for the council).

In the rest of my (above) 27.02.05 letter to the 'little dictator' and henchman, Patrick Moriarty, LGO Investigator, I challenged many other points in the 16.12.04 letter 'from' Jean Daintith, Executive Director of Kensington & Chelsea housing - highlighting the deliberate misinformation, as well as contradictions in the excuses provided.

Among others, in the series of "justification" provided for not prosecuting (see also # 7, below, re. the 12 May 05 'reply' from Moriarty).

I concluded on the section by stating to Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman:

"And you expect me to believe that "there is no hidden agenda"?"  

(The comment made by Moriarty in reply to my saying to him on 1st / 2nd February that:

"it was now very clear to me that the RBK&C Housing Department was protecting Steel Services" ) (= Andrew David Ladsky)

I followed by this relating my experience with him and, in the latter part of my letter wrote:

"Yes Mr Moriarty, there is a hidden agenda which is now very clear to me: a dictate [NB: should be 'diktat'] that landlords are sacrosanct and, quite clearly, some more so than others.

While, as a result of my horrendous nightmare experience now going into its 4th year, I firmly believe that the leasehold system must be abolished, I would suggest that, at a minimum, some discretion is used in implementing the dictate [NB: should be 'diktat'] from the top.

The benefit of doing this ought to be obvious to those with the most at stake"

I concluded with the following:

"The government would like the public to believe that 'customer orientation' is the new 'mot d'ordre' for government departments.  

Quite clearly, this message has yet to filter down to Kensington & Chelsea Housing Department.

Indeed, in her letter of 16 December 2004, Mrs Daintith [the Executive Director] makes it clear that improvements in the service provided by her department are not on the agenda:

[para.2] "To create one central manual containing a "comprehensive repository of lessons learnt from previously identified failings" of this or any other local housing departments as you suggest would be both impractical and unworkable"

Re. the reply from Jean Daintith: good of her to confirm that the failings of her department, as well as others, are so numerous that there is no hope of improvement. What a gem!

Oh well, at least she demonstrated some honesty, unlike David Cameron et.al. who make extensive use of this catchphrase as a way of brushing their accountability and responsibility under the carpet.

(I repeat: note that the conduct of the Local Government Ombudsman and of Kensington & Chelsea Housing are a typical representation of the dominant English public sector psyche). (There are some very brave souls in the public sector but, if they 'dare' stand up for the 'little guy', they are likely to be persecuted: whistleblowers examples).

(NB: 4 years later, this kind of arrogant, know it all attitude led to the appalling death of a toddler in another council. It also shows that councils put down not only their employers: the taxpayers - but also their own staff - see Whistleblowers).

I repeat my above notes.

Back to list

(6) (Moved to # 5, above)

(7)- At the end of August 2006, I finally obtained some of the missing information to the 2002 and 2003 'accounts' - showing that a massive fraud had taken place.

Was Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, aware of this at the beginning of 2005 when he challenged me on my claim that the accounts were not compliant with my Lease, as well as legislation? I am inclined to say: YES!

The last letter was a typical 'Get Lost!', and 'Do it yourself!'

In my (above: 1st, 2nd) 27.02.05 letter to Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, under '1. Enclosures', I also drew attention to the following:

"Page 1 i.e. the commentary for both, the 2002 and 2003 accounts states: "...show how they are reflected in the service charge demands and specifies the amount payable by each lessee" (NB: This is Clause 2(2)(f) of my Lease).

"This schedule was not enclosed for the 2002 accounts, nor for the 2003 accounts"

I attributed this to the fact that Martin Russell Jones, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and their client, Andrew David Ladsky, had something to hide. I was right!

After a (typically) unbelievable one year+ battle with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), in relation to my complaint against the accountants, Pridie Brewster ((A)-snapshot of complaint)...

- with its 29.08.06 correspondence, it sent me the missing parts: detail of the contributions paid by the majority of the apartments.

See Overview # 3 that summarises the massive fraud that took place.

Consider my findings, in the light of the fact that Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, 'replied' to my 27.02.05 letter,...

...by email on 14.04.05 (yes, nearly 2 months later!)

"I have sent you the summaries of service charges to 31 December 2002 and 31 December 2003."

"As I understand it you remain unhappy that the summaries do not show how costs are or will be reflected in demands for service charges."

"I am happy to pursue this matter with the council for you if you can direct me to the wording in the Act which makes this requirement of the summary of costs.

You said to me on the telephone, and indeed mention in your letter, that this is covered by Clause 21(5) of the Act, but I have been unable to find this wording in our office copy." (*)

(*) On page 3 of my 27.02.05 letter, I quoted exactly as per the s.21(5) of the Landlord & Tenant Act Act.

In my 17.04.05 reply to Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, I stated:

"Mr Hutchings sent a Section 21 Request to Ms Hathaway, dated 25 June 2004, in which he stated among others:

"S21(5) sets out the format the summary should take..." [K&C # 2]

"As I explained in detail in my letter to you dated 27 February 2005, the accounts supplied by Mr Barrie Martin, MRJ, do not meet what Mr Hutchings asked MRJ to supply."

= Get yourself a new "office copy" Mr Moriarty or, more accurately: remove your corruption blinkers off.

Further, I also quoted on pages 2 and 3 of my 27.02.05 letter, my Lease - which is a legal contract between the landlord and lessee - very specifically states the requirements under Clause 2(2)(f) - extracts.

Did Patrick Moriarty know about the content of these enclosures? I consider this a fair question for me to ask (*)

In the light of my assessment, above, under # 3: I conclude that the answer to my question is: YES!

I repeat my comments under # 3, Comments # 4.

(*) Of course, it would have been a complete and utter waste of time to ask - as suggested by e.g. a subsequent 4 Dec 06 Guardian article: "Afraid of the daylight" (back-up extracts) - see Falconer # 6 for extracts.

(NB: I highlight that, at the time, I had sent a 06.04.05 'cry for help' to Michael Howard, then Leader of the Conservative party (same party that has had a long-standing control over Kensington & Chelsea council.

In this letter, supported by summaries and enclosures, I related my horrendous experience with the local public sector departments: courts, police and councils (below, my comments # 9).

In the light of the automatic closing of rank between the tribe members, my letter will have added more fuel to the fire they had set up to burn me at the stake.

He did not even acknowledge my letter).

The 12.05.05 'reply' to my above 17.04.05 letter, 'from' Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, falls back on the 'old favourite'

"I understand that you remain unhappy with the accounts..."

"But it seems to me that these accounts comply with s21(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985". (1)

"This too is the view of the council (2)

"And it seems to me that although s34 states that proceedings for any offence under the Act may be brought by a council, this is at its discretion." (3)

"The council takes the view that the courts are not interested in the complexity of the case [4], only that the freeholder has complied with s.21 and s.22" (5)

"For this reason, even if the freeholder had not complied with the terms of s21(5) as you allege [6], it is the council's view that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute the case." (7)

"This is a decision the council is entitled to take and it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise such a decision provided it was taken without administrative fault" (8)

"For this reason it is my decision not to pursue your complaint further"

"It remains open to you to bring a private prosecution against the landlord if you so wish" (9)

(1)- I repeat my above comments.

(2)- Oh well, that 'must be true' then!

(3)- And here start the backout / get out clauses on 'the assessment' that the so-called accounts "are compliant with the Act": 'it is up to the council to decide whether or not not it should perform its statutory remit'!

And it sure was not the first time that it was failing to do this: other examples, K&C # 3.

I repeat my comments under # 3, Comments # 4.

(4)- More backout clauses: using the usual ping pong game of referring to the other party (a 'Frustrate and discourage' tactic (header 2):

the reference now to the lapdog council is now bringing in "the courts" + "the complexity of the case" (another of the favourite ones).

The local corrupt courts sure would not want to deal with that! Would they? I repeat my above assessment under # 3.

(5)- Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! "the courts are only interested in whether the freeholder has complied with the Act"

I repeat my above assessment under # 3 - and also add the below references, under my Comments # 9.

And: "the freeholder" had not "complied with the Act"

(6)- And now, backtracking on the 'must be true version': "even if the freeholder had not complied with the terms of s21(5) as you allege"

I repeat my comments under # 3, Comments # 4.

(7)- And another backout and get out clause: "not in the public interest" - one of the standard hymns of the public sector (another one is about "learning lessons") -which amounts to a typical 'Get lost!'

Others, in addition to Patrick Moriarty, Investigator, Local Government Ombudsman, telling me the same thing at the time:

  • (2)- Gerald Wild, Chief Housing Officer: K&C # 2.4;
  • (3)- Jean Daintith, Executive Director Housing: K&C # 2.6;
  • (4)- John Prescott # 2.3...

...- reflecting the perception of the public sector (set at the top) that 'the Proles' / "the Oiks"` / "the Great Unwashed" / "the Lobbyists" - are there to be trampled upon.

In the light of the above, it certainly would not be "in the [sacrosanct] landlord's interest to prosecute the case" ...(assuming, of course, that it would not have been a kangaroo court...which would be extremely unlikely).

= A 'reply' dictated to the puppets by 'the brothers' - starting with those in the local courts.

Meanwhile the government evidently considered it "in the public interest" to squander £ billions of taxpayer money e.g.

  • Mail on Sunday, 8 May 06 - "The Eurofighter project has been plagued by technical problems for years, resulting in extra costs to taxpayers of at least £20 billion"
  • Independent, 5 Sep 06 article - "A major computer system used to process payments has been shelved, the Government confirmed today...
  • The BBC Radio 4 Today programme reported that it had cost £141 million [US$250] in the three years since it had been first set-up and had been designed to save around £60 million for the taxpayer"

(8) - How about the council's failure to perform its statutory duty?

(9)- Another one of the English public sector's favourite: 'Do it yourself!'

So much for housing departments being the "prosecuting authority for contraventions of Landlord - Tenant legislation"

- as detailed, under para.5 of the 16.12.04 letter from, Jean Daintith, Executive Director, Housing & Social Services for Kensington & Chelsea -

who was quoting from s.34 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

I contend that, to the above 12.05.05 letter, can be added:

'As you know from your first-hand experience with the local:

(1)- West London County Court (kangaroo court # 2) (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me);

(2)- Wandsworth County Court (kangaroo court # 3) (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me);

(3)- police (summaries: Sections overview ; Breaches of the law ; Overall outcome on me)..

...added to, of course, your experience with the local council...

- this is not going to get you anywhere: Landlords are untouchable'.

I repeat my above notes.

Shortly afterwards, I came across an article in The Times of 16.08.05, in which the journalist wrote:

"...LGO Watch... called for the setting up of an independent local government complaints commission to bring order into a system it described as "morally corrupt"

...the 2000 Act was supposed to herald a regime of quality, efficiency and leadership.

In fact, it has meant the introduction of the payroll and pork-barrel politics into English local government, along with the acceleration of an arrogant, managerial style of operation"

(I wrote a letter to the journalist to compliment him on his insights)

 

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA HOUSING, MY WARD COUNCILLOR, AND THEIR THEN OVERALL HEAD, JOHN PRESCOTT CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE - AND THEN MAITAIN IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top