The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
I view Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim as evil, corrupt and morally depraved individuals - conduct endorsed by the Law Society, Legal Services Ombudsman, West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court
|
Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) & Law Society
Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), 25/26 Hampstead High Street , London NW3 1QA and British Virgin Islands (which 'appears' to be a recent addition). (NB: CKFT is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) See also My Diary 22 November 2008 for further, undeniable evidence that... ...threat of forfeiture, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS(Visitors to my site who commented about CKFT - see comments # 11, # 29) At September 2005, the property section on the firm's website (ckft.com) reads "The property team at CKFT has a wealth of experience in all aspects of commercial and residential conveyancing. They provide practical and pragmatic advice with the focus on results - which means getting the deal done quickly and building in all necessary protections for the client" At September 2005, CKFT's website stated for: • Mr Lanny Silverstone: "Partner Head of Employment Department Litigation and Family Law. Areas of Practice: commercial and property related litigation; contentious landlord and tenant work." • Ms Ayesha Salim : "Assistant Solicitor Litigation Department" Their 21 August 2003 "Statement of costs" (they expected to be awarded against me at the 26 August 2003 hearing ( not granted )) states, under "Description of fee earners" : • Robin Lanning Silverstone [grade A] which is described later on as "Solicitors with over eight years post qualification experience including at least eight years litigation experience" • Ayesha Salim [grade C] , described as "Other solicitors and legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience" I view Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim as evil, corrupt, morally depraved individuals... but, as demonstrated in this section : they have the blessings of their 'professional' assocation, the Law Society, to act as they do. (= same as Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Watton, as well as Mr Jeremy Hershkorn and Mr Daniel Broughton, then at Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP - and no doubt this would also apply to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel)...and the Law Society has the blessings of the Legal Services Ombudsman. I first became aware of CKFT as a result of conducting desk research on Mr Andrew Ladsky in 2000 which led me to identify that CKFT had instructed counsel in the TSB Bank v. Arthur Ladsky 1996 Court of Appeal case. My first exposure to CKFT's method of operating came from being copied by two leaseholders on an identical letter they had received from Ms Ayesha Salim, dated 11 October 2001 - letter to Leaseholder A (see Elderly Resident), letter to Leaseholder B. (It 'seems' to me that this letter amounts to harassment and intimidation of witnesses - which is a very serious offence) It is abundantly clear that Mr Andrew Ladsky and Steel Services are one and the same client of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor• In her identical letter of 11 October 2001 to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B , Ms Ayesha Salim wrote "We are solicitors instructed by Mr Andrew Ladsky" (Elderly Resident ; Other Residents) • Mr Lanny Silverstone letter to me of 4 February 2003 - when he joined in 'on the act' with Kensington & Chelsea (K&C police # 2) - in which he states "We are writing on behalf of our clients, Steel Services Limited. It has come to our attention from (NB:!!!) Mr Ladsky, the tenant of flat 35...". • By sending his 28 November 2002 letter to my employer, and one to me of the same date, following my 24 October 2002 fax to K&C Housing and 24 October 2002 fax to the LVT (detail in My Diary 15 May 2008), Mr Lanny Silverstone confirmed the connection between Mr Ladsky and Steel Services • It can also be seen, for example, in the 7 October 2002 letter sent to me by Mr Lanny Silverstone in which he - illegally - threatened to forfeit my lease. This letter has the reference 'LAD'; the 1 July 2004 Consent Order has, likewise the reference 'LAD'. • CKFT acted for Mr Arthur Ladsky, instructing counsel, in the TSB Bank v. Arthur Ladsky 1996 Court of Appeal case. Messrs Andrew Ladsky and Arthur Ladsky were both directors of Combined Mercantile Securities. (See Directorships for related information) (I do not know whether CKFT acted for Mr Andrew Ladsky in the case reported in the article in the Sunday Times (printscreen of site) , referring to a relationship he had with a model that "culminated in a court battle over a floor-length sheepskin coat and two paintings" ) • CKFT acts for Steel Services - as evidenced in numerous documents, including the Particulars of claim for the 29 November 2002 - false - claim (ref:WL 203537) filed in West London County Court (NB: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) • In the context of the several transactions probably best described as further 'carving out' and 'reshuffling' in the named owners of Jefferson House which took place late 2005 and early 2006 (see Freehold ownership , Headlessors , Owners identity ), Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor became the nominated solicitors for 'Steel Services' on the Land Registry (Title NGL 373 333 ) - in the process taking over from Laytons, solicitors, London EC4Y 0LS • See also Headlessor for transactions driven by 'Steel Services' • CKFT acted for Steel Services prior to 2002, as can be seen in the 15 October 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for the block, in reply to Nucleus, (local Citizens Advice Bureau) who gave CKFT's address as contact. At the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing when Mr Andrew Ladsky was asked by the Chair what his interest was in the proceedings, he replied: "I am just a tenant" . (His name is stated on the 29 October 2002 directions issued by the tribunal). However, throughout the four-day Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearings, Mr Ladsky was a member of Steel Services party, holding frequent discussions with: Mr Warwick, Steel Services' counsel (My Diary 13 March 2003 ; LVT # 8.2 ) ; Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, 'Steel Services' surveyor who, during the hearings, confirmed that Mr Ladsky was a prior client ; Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones , 'managing' agents for the block. (In spite of seeing this, the tribunal continued to use Mr Ladsky's initial answer - as can be seen in its 17 June 2003 report under point 4
Please note that in the "summary of contributions to the major works" attached with the ICAEW's letter of 29 August 2006, Mr Ladsky who is the registered owner of flats 34 and 35 since the year 2000, has not paid any contribution towards the major works. Furthermore, in its 10 February 2006 so-called "notice", Portner and Jaskel, solicitors, said to be acting "as agents for Steel Services" (see Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006). Eight months later, in its 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP, it identified its client as being Mr Andrew Ladsky (My Diary 3 October 2006) Also, in 2002, I approached the Tenancy Relations Officer at Kensington & Chelsea Housing to obtain, as per my statutory rights (under Sections 1 and 2 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 ), the identity of the landlord, as well as the name and address of every director and secretary of the landlord. In his 5 November 2002 email, the Tenancy Relations Officer informed me that he had
(The next day, 6 November 2002, the Tenancy Relations Officer sent me an email saying: "...we will not be releasing any documents to Mr Ladsky. The councils legal department believes you are entitled to a degree of confidentiality when you have sought assistance from us and this is why we have taken this decision") Sections
(1) The evidence suggests that, at least for a while, Mr Silverstone claimed to be acting on behalf of a company that did not exist. This included threatening to forfeit my leaseIn 2002, my first contact with CKFT was of an indirect nature. As related above, in January 2002 , I had approached Kensington & Chelsea Housing department to help me obtain - as per my statutory rights - the name of the directors for Jefferson House. (See Owners identity for additional information) In a letter dated 1 August 2002 to the Housing department, CKFT wrote
At this point I contacted the British Virgin Islands Authorities because:
The 8 August 2002 reply from the BVI stated that Steel Services had been
To this should be added that, by August 2002, the outcome of the various searches undertaken by myself and Kensington & Chelsea Council housing department (and previously Nucleus, our local Citizens Advice Bureau) had led to a 'nil' return: there was no record of the company in the UK. Among others, this includes the 10 October 2001 reply from the Land Registry to Nucleus:
(See Owners identity, BVI registration, Headlessors and Jersey address ). Detail of events is captured in my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, under points 12 - 22. The outcome is that I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that the evidence suggests that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (Martin Russell Jones, and the accountants, Pridie Brewster) were, at least for a while, claiming to be acting on behalf of a company that did not exist. (See Freehold ownership, Headlessors , Owners identity ) This includes, among others, Mr Lanny Silverstone threatening me with forfeiture and prosecution "on behalf of Steel Services" in his 7 October 2002 letter. (NB: Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL) This 7 October 2002 letter amounted to 'my turn' to being at the receiving end of what I view as a highly unscrupulous, evil and immoral method of operating. In this letter (received on 10 October), Mr Silverstone threatens to forfeit my lease (see 'Abbreviations and Definitions for an explanation of forfeiture) unless I paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded by 10 a.m. on 14 October 2002. Needless to say that this illegal tactic (illegal because it was, among others, in breach of my statutory rights) had the intended effect of causing me extreme alarm and distress - to the point of actually being physically sick. (I was at work when I read it). (See My Diary 10 October 2002 ) At the time, I had near non-existent knowledge of landlord-tenant legislation - which, of course, is what Mr Lanny Silverstone was relying on in sending me this letter. Based on information I received from LEASE, as well as managed to gather from other sources, I held firm with CKFT and replied to its letter on 17 October 2002 in which I repeated what I had already stated on two previous occasions to Ms Hathaway:
By the time I wrote this letter, I had received notification from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (dated 8 October 2002 ) that Steel Services had made an application
Subsequent note: In -my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2) (2) CKFT knowingly committed an abuse of process of court by filing a claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders)Consequently, in my 17 October 2002 letter to CKFT, I asked whether it was aware that its client had taken this step. In his 21 October 2002 reply, Mr Lanny Silverstone states
Two weeks later, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing which, as can be seen from the tribunal's directions , was attended by, among others, CKFT's client Mr Andrew Ladsky, Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS of Martin Russell Jones , and Mr Brian Gale, we (leaseholders) were asked by the Chair whether we had paid the 15 July 2002 service charge demand. We all replied that we had not because we had not been supplied with a breakdown of the costs. At this point, the Chair told us that if we paid, the tribunal would not be able to help us. To emphasise the point, we were handed a booklet 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5 states:
In spite of the fact that leaseholders had, in effect, specifically been told by the tribunal to NOT PAY (the Chair, pressed the Daejan Properties case upon us), CKFT nonetheless proceeded - one month later - to draw-up a claim (WL 203537) against 11 leaseholders, including myself , who represented 14 flats, stating:
This claim, filed in West London County Court on 29 November 2002 i.e. precisely one month after we had been told by the tribunal to NOT pay the 15 July 2002 service charge demand - was endorsed by a Statement of Truth, signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones See also events in 2007 - My Diary 9 March 2007 re. the very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as the Statement of Truth signed in 2002 by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' ; and see West London County Court point # 23 for Her Majesty Court Service's reply to my highlighting this very serious breach Subsequent note: In -my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail, the Defamation Act 1996, the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 (3) Very clearly, the objective of the action was to bully and coerce me (and other leaseholders) into paying an amount not due and payable - failing that, through 'striking a deal'Typically, this widely-used tactic by abusive landlords and their equally abusive aides works. Indeed, as leaseholders incur ever-increasing costs fighting the abusive landlord they end-up, either of their own volition, or under increasing pressure from 'their advisers' making a 'commercial decision' i.e. pay the landlord - thereby preventing progression to trial. (See Business model) The expectation of being able to 'strike a deal' - resorting to, in the process - bullying, coercion and extortion tactics in order to achieve the objective, is evidenced in the next few paragraphs below. It is also found in the correspondences I exchanged with Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham. (NB: At the time, I had just appointed Piper Smith & Basham) (Now Piper Smith Watton) In my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean following a conversation with her, I wrote:
In this letter, I also referred to my 9 August 2003 letter to the court (on which I copied CKFT; I also gave a copy to Ms McLean), in which I wrote, among others:
But, as can be seen in Ms McLean's letter of 4 September 2003 , she and CKFT were not giving up on the idea:
I replied as follows on 9 September 2003
From liaising with Piper Smith Basham, CKFT and its client realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered the 21 October 2003 'offer' which, in 'typical style' included a demand for £143 (US$250) of interest. (See Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher for detail of events) I was not prepared to 'shut up' and pay monies I did not owe.
My wanting this undermined, what I now view as the highly lucrative Business model for which the foundation is that once everybody has become quite fat one way or another at the expense of the leaseholder, the pressure starts mounting on the leaseholder to 'make a commercial decision':
(NB: When, at the 24 June 2003 West London County Court hearing, I told Mr Lanny Silverstone (in front of a witness) that I found it absolutely outrageous that West London County Court had been instrumental in making seven residents pay BEFORE the LVT had issued its determination (ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02) (printscreeen of site) , he replied: "They made a commercial decision" ) The leaseholder not playing the game sends the lawyers and their clients on a chase 'to snare the prey'. They keep threatening court proceedings - and, of course, 'costs'! (the major weapon) - but have no intention of going that far.
So, more of the 'artillery comes out': the salvo of threatening letters goes into full swing (as can be seen in the next few paragraphs), as well as applications to the courts for 'case management hearings' (that are granted with much haste by the courts) - all aimed at bullying and coercing the leaseholder into striking a deal. It works, as the rapidly mounting fees leads to more leaseholders to 'cave in' e.g. Mr Silverstone's 23 May 2003 correspondence. All the follow-up actions from Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim - which (so far!) have led to the last contact being in June 2004 - were in a similar vein to the 7 October 2002 letter. For detail, see below, Law Society section which covers my complaint against CKFT, as well as West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court (Subsquent note in 2008 - My above assessment proved to be correct: in relation to the second fraudulent claim, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me by 'Rootstock Overseas Corp. / Steel Services / Sloan Development' aka Mr Andrew Ladsky, on 27 February 2007, also in WLCC, the fact that I represented myself throughout the process, precluded the possibility of arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal advisers (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; point # 6.8 below ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3 , # 7.14 , # 7.15 , # 7.17 , # 7.12.1 ; Stan Gallagher # 15) - and the ploys and 'games' in 2007-08 failed to make me cave in - in spite of their 'renewed vigour', including failed to lead me to appoint legal 'advisers' (WLCC # 9 , # 11) = second time round: the FEAR tactics had NO hold on me.. Outcome: after a 16-month battle with Portner and WLCC "ALL of the claim" against me was discontinued - as can be seen in the 6 June 2008 Notice of discontinuance (My Diary - 3 June 2008 ; 7 June 2008 ; 14 August 2008 and 26 August 2008 ; Portner and Jaskel # 29 ) This clearly proves that, in both instances, the claim was used as a TOOL FOR FRAUD - confirming my assessment of the tactic following the first fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002 (home # 4.19). 'Unfortunately', in 2002-2004, it worked with the majority of my fellow leaseholders as evidenced by the fact that 9 out of the 14 flats listed on the claim (Particulars of claim and list) ended-up paying the FULL amount of the service charge, and a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (point # 6.3 , # 6.6 below ; WLCC # 6 , # 5 , # 14 ; Pridie Brewster # 18). (NB: Considering what has happened to me for 'daring' to fight back against the scam: being persecuted (e.g. My Dairy 15 May 2008 ; home introduction ; being under surveillance) I should say 'fortunately', instead of 'unfortunately'). The worst part of it is that this kind of conduct is widely endorsed: My Diary 6 May 2008 - resulting in my being treated as 'the criminal' instead of the victim - while the criminals are treated as though they are the victims (e.g. RICS # 12 ; Kensington & Chelsea police # 2 , # 3 ; home introduction) - and laughing their head off (outcome of my complaints). Of course, I forgot, silly me: Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, like Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Portner and Jaskel are evidently viewed by the Law Society as having "discharged their professional duties with [no]thing less than complete integrity and probity" - and consequently have no need to worry about "severe sanctions" (outcome of my complaints). (And ditto from the Bar Council in the case of Mr Stan Gallagher : # 16 , # 17 and # 18) (4) Triggers to filing the complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor with the Law Society(Subsequent note: For update, see Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004, and my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) What prompted me to file the complaint against CKFT were the possibility that it might file proceedings against me for alleged breach of agreement, as well as the fact that I received another demand from Martin Russell Jones, dated 21 October 2004 , stating a 'Brought forward balance" , of £14,452 (US$25,600). Yes, the same "amount as the original sum demanded in July 2002 There was no explanation whatsoever as to what the sum refers to i.e. there was no supporting documentation. I do NOT owe this sum -as:
Three weeks after the 21 October 2004 invoice, another invoice followed from Martin Russell Jones, dated 16 November 2004 , this time, stating "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever. This invoice was sent with a covering letter, dated 5 October 2004 . (Yes, this letter dated six weeks previously, was the covering letter with the invoice). I knew that these invoices were bogus, an act of revenge - and hence did NOT pay them. They were followed by an invoice dated 9 January 2006 ( i.e. 14 months later) (*), this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. (*) I attribute the gap to the fact that I filed a complaint with the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 20 December 2004, which I escalated (in vain!) to the Legal Services Ombudsman # 2 , as well as filed a complaint with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones on 2 February 2005 (1.1MB)
Some other points of note about this invoice (which further demonstrate the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Ladsky et. al and their aides) are:
This is FRAUDULENT given that Steel Services no longer had control of the last floor of Jefferson House (See Headlessors, Owners identity and Pridie Brewster ) It was followed in June 2006 by an invoice stating a "Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200). As with the prior invoices: no explanation as to the composition of the sum. The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase £2,995 (US$5,300) over the 9 January 2006 invoice, which states a half-yearly service charge in advance of £815 (US$1,435). As can be seen from the 30 June pack , my half-yearly service charge BEFORE the addition of four new flats, including a penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of the top floor, and BEFORE the complete overhaul of Jefferson House was £680 (US$1,200). Outcome: what is the amount currently 'deemed' by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides to be hanging over my head? £14,500 (US$25,600)(?), £15,500 (US$27,300)(?), £5,625 (US$9,900)(?), £8,621 (US$15,200)(?) or all four combined making a total of £44,246 (US$78,000)? Who knows, considering the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their retinue of thugs - as can be seen from some of the evidence compiled in this pack (2.4MB) (Subsequent note: see Portner and Jaskel for update: another claim was filed against me in February 2007 and, after a 16-month battle, was dropped in June 2008 = court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, you would think that somebody with two brain cells, facing somebody like me - who had nonetheless paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) that was NOT due and payable - would have backed-off. Such is the profile of Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. and their aides - and the extent of their arrogance and greed... as well as their 'justified' belief in the supporting infrastructure of lawyers, courts, tribunal, accountants, local councils, etc.- as can be seen from the summarised outcome of my complaints in e.g. My Diary 6 May 2008 In addition to viewing this as an act of vengeance by Mr Ladsky et. al. for my challenging the LVT application , I read in this an abundantly clear message of an intention to ruin me by hoping that it will again force me to pay for legal advice. And, if I am declared 'bankrupt', they will be able to get my flat for next to nothing. (To some people, these actions by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides 'might' conjure up sociopathic traits) (Subsequent note: they do fit the profile of sociopaths - My Diary 15 May 2008). I believe it is fair comment for me to say: given that the courts have 'worked for Mr Ladsky' last time, he is bound to, yet again, file a false claim against me. Indeed, to borrow a leaseholder's comment about his own landlord, Mr Ladsky et. al. "...seem to have turned intimidatory litigation into an industry" (Judging from the article in the Sunday Times, even girlfriends can end-up being subjected to this treatment) Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides know that (as demonstrated by events in West London County Court ) the courts will totally disregard any evidence I provide against the claim. (Subsequent note: I was proven right! see Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP and West London County Court - Post 2004) In addition to these fraudulent service charge demands, Mr Ladsky will probably add other claims as well depending on his fancy - as indicated, for example, by the 28 February 2005 'diktat' "from" Ms Hathaway (i.e. from Mr Andrew Ladsky) which threatens to enforce - yet again through proceedings - another breach of my lease . (This is Clause 5 (5) (b) which makes it an obligation for the landlord "to remove. from the flat all domestic refuse and rubbish." . I highlighted the breach of my lease in my 30 March 2005 reply to Ms Hathaway and in my 21 March 2005 letter to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ). In fact, like the other parts of the 'triple act' ( Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale ), Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS will do whatever Mr Ladsky dictates, regardless of the glaringly obvious - and very damning - evidence and facts. Subsequent note: I was proven right - see Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP In the process, they demonstrate an endless capacity for flaunting the laws of the land, amoral conduct, matched by an equally endless amount of gall.NO, I am not going to write 'allegedly' as I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person will agree that the body of evidence in support of my assessment is overwhelming. There are also numerous examples of this under Martin Russell Jones, as well as under Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP. One example that has to be seen to be believed is the 2 May 2006 (2.3.MB) reply from Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS to my criticisms of his firm and of Mr Brian Gale:
Consider this reply in the context of the evidence contained in the above 2 May 2006 pack - as well as in the context of this pack (2.3MB) containing, among others, a compilation of documents issued by Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones and their client. The reason they flaunt the laws of the land? Because they know that they have 'carte blanche' to do it.(5) Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim have a high propensity to threaten proceedings - always "with costs"(NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) Of course, in CKFT, in particular Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Mr Ladsky has the 'ideal' firm of solicitors to assist him in his dishonest objectives - as they very clearly don't give a damn about committing criminal offences - in this instance under: Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail (= same attitude as Mr Ladsky's other puppets: Portner and Jaskel # 3 ; Martin Russell Jones # 25 ; # 26 ) Indeed, the threat of proceedings - of course, always "with costs" - is their favoured approach, as exemplified by the following which amounts to, bullying, blackmail, extortion and intimidation to make me pay a sum not due and payable and force me into making a deal with their client - through FEAR: • Mr Lanny Silverstone's 7 October 2002 letter to me:
• Mr Lanny Silverstone's 21 October 2002 letter to me:
• Mr Lanny Silverstone's 4 February 2003 letter to me (when he joined in 'on the act' with Kensington & Chelsea police - K&C police # 2):
• Mr Lanny Silverstone's 25 June 2003 letter to me
• Mr Lanny Silverstone's 24 July 2003 letter to me:
• Mr Lanny Silverstone's 7 August 2003 letter to my solicitors (of a few hours):
• Ms Ayesha Salim's 21 August 2003 letter to me in which she expected me to pay £708 (US$1,250) for her "clients costs" (Not granted by West London County Court ) • Ms Ayesha Salim, through the intermediary of Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith & Basham, who recorded in her 24 September 2003 correspondence to me:
(See Piper Smith Basham # 7.18.5 for further detail) • Ms Ayesha Salim's 21 October 2003 "offer" faxed to Piper Smith Basham:
• Ms Ayesha Salim's 28 May 2004 letter to me:
The effect of this was that over a period of 20 months I suffered unbelievable harassment, alarm, distress and torment with serious consequences on my physical and emotional health, great financial loss and a highly detrimental impact on my quality of life... ...and continued to suffer long afterwards due to the judge in West London County Court: # 14 deciding to offer Ms Salim the 'freebie' of having the action against me "stayed" (See also Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 4 ) Visitor to the site, I give as evidence the fact that I have numerous witnesses to the state I was reduced to - including medical evidence. (See My Diary Year 2003 11 November , 12 November , 13 November , latter part 13 November , 14 November , November 2003 , Latter part of November 2003 , December 2003 , Christmas 2003 ) Given CKFT's method of operating, added to the fact that there appears to be nothing to stop Mr Ladsky from filing a false claim against me in court every day of the week, I concluded that my only solution for stopping him - at least for a while - was to file a complaint against CKFT. Subsequent note: In -my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease - committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail (6) My complaint to the Law Society and its repliesThe complaint I filed with the Law Society against CKFT comprises of:
Given my experience with the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith & Basham, I decided that, in filing my complaint against CKFT, I had to gain as much knowledge as possible in order to 'pin down' the Law Society . Over several weeks, I spent evenings and weekends researching the solicitors code of conduct, numerous Acts, the Civil Procedure Rules, etc. Indications are that I succeeded in doing this as the 8 February 2005 reply did not leave the door open for further communication. (Unlike the case of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham where it was clear that the Law Society wanted to keep me running 'like a hamster on a wheel' until I accepted its ludicrous assessment) As can be seen from, among others, the summary of my complaint, it is my - non-lawyer - opinion that... ...CKFT has breached many of the rules in the handling of the case, rules comprised under the solicitors code of conduct and Civil Procedure Rules. Also, that it has committed criminal offences. Well, CKFT's trade association, the Law Society, does NOT share my views about breaches of the solicitors code of conduct and Civil Procedure Rules - as evidenced by its reply of 8 February 2005 which concludes with:
I responded to this letter on 19 February 2005 . To this letter, the Law Society replied on 17 March 2005
I also highlight that in her 11 July 2005 reply, the Legal Services Ombudsman has endorsed the Law Society's response. The sentence in the penultimate paragraph reads:
In other words the Law Society considers that Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim "discharged their professional duties with nothing less than complete integrity and probity"HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!In light of this reply, on 1 August 2005 , I just sent an acknowledgement capturing the above sentence. I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing the site, instead of wasting it writing a letter drawing attention to points and evidence I had already supplied. As they were not acknowledged the first time round, nor would they be the second time round. Although not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against CKFT The following are examples of some of the key points in my 20 December 2004 complaint. (6.1) CKFT committed an abuse of the court process(NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) Under point 1.1.4 in the summary of my complaint, headed 'Principle (f) (duty to the court)' of the solicitors code of practice, I stated: "CKFT breached its duty to the Court by pursuing proceedings which amounted to an abuse of process of Court" (i.e. the 29 November 2002 claim , ref: WL 203537) - giving as reasons: • The fact that leaseholders had been told at the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing to NOT PAY the service charge until the Tribunal has issued its determination - and it had been implemented • The fact that CKFT was fully cognisant of this action as, in reply to my 17 October 2002 to CKFT in which I asked
Mr Lanny Silverstone's reply of 21 October 2002 states:
(A copy of these letters was included in the supporting enclosures to my complaint to the Law Society. In the main body of my complaint, I refer to the 17 October 2002 letter under points 72, 73 and 75. While I refer to the 21 October 2002 letter under points 75, 178 and 179) I also supplied the Law Society with a copy of the 29 November 2002 court claim ref. WL 203537, drawn-up by CKFT , including the Particulars of Claim (1.1MB) and, in my complaint, under point 82 , I reproduced the content of the Particulars of Claim which states , among others : "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" I followed this, under point 82, by stating "This claim, written by CKFT, is false on several counts". In first place, I wrote : " 1. As previously explained, payment is not due as the LVT told residents to not pay until it had issued its determination and therefore until it had been implemented" One of the responses from the Law Society's 8 February 2005 reply to this part of my complaint includes
I draw your attention to the fact that some of the Law Society's own members do NOT share its view - (thereby vindicating my 'non-lawyer' position) e.g.• The 12 December 2002 letter from one of the leaseholder's solicitor to CKFT:
• The 9 April 2003 letter from Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, to my then solicitors:
I included this letter as part of the supporting enclosures to my complaint for the purpose of substantiating point 136 in the main body of my complaint - under which I captured extracts from the above letter. See my reply of 19 February 2005 to the Law Society in which, among others, I refer to parts of the solicitors code of conduct. Another of the responses from the Law Society to this part of my complaint includes:
Please note that: • Under point 78 in the main body of my 20 December 2004 complaint, I quote from the booklet that we, leaseholders, were handed at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing. As can be seen, I captured the exact text which states that
• I copied the first 5 pages of the booklet, including the front cover, which I included as part of the enclosures with my complaint to the Law Society • I covered this issue / referred to it among others, under points 75, 81, 82, 83, 92, 97, 131, 139, 143, 150, 157, 179, 181 in the main body of my complaint. In other words: at least 12 times . • Under point 114 in the main body of my complaint, I highlighted part of point 64 (page 15) of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database)
And the Law Society is of the view that
HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!See also my reply of 19 February 2005 to the Law Society Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Subsequent note - In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Defamation Act 1996, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception ( 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 (6.2) CKFT made inappropriate use of forfeiture legislation in an attempt to force me to pay monies that were not due and payable(NB: Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL) (NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) The second example is recorded under point 1.2.2.1 in the summary of my complaint that "CKFT inappropriately used Forfeiture legislation, as well as threatened to contact my mortgage lender as a means of obtaining from me monies not due and payable" . This refers to the 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone in which he demanded that I immediatedly pay the sum of £14,400.19 (US$25,400)
(As evidenced by Mr Lanny Silverstone 's reply of 21 October 2002 ) CKFT knew that its client had applied to the LVT "to determine the reasonableness of the service charge demanded" ) I read this letter at work. It caused me so much distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary - 10 October 2002 ) In the main body of my 20 December 2004 complaint, this is covered, among others, under points 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 178 and 179. Under point 70, I also highlighted Mr Lanny Silverstone's very different style in the treatment ( 12 days later ) of a leaseholder represented by a solicitor, as evidenced by his 21 October 2002 letter to the leaseholder's solicitors:
I also included a copy of this letter as part of the enclosures . In my complaint (under point 1.2 in the summary and under points 68 and 69 in the main body ), I recorded Mr Silverstone's 7 October 2002 letter to me as amounting to an offence under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968: "Blackmail" (Subsequent note: to which I could have also added criminal offences \under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and an offence under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2)) To this, the Law Society replied
My 19 February 2005 response was:
I also added: "I refer you again to the Administration of Justice Act 1970, Section 40" (Subsequent note: I have changed my mind about this - see my note under the extracts ) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (6.3) CKFT demanded monies not due and payable(NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) The third example refers to my complaint to the Law Society that CKFT had:
This is captured in the summary of my complaint under points 1.1.2.2., 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.5 and 1.1.3.6.
• Under point 148 in the main body of my complaint I highlighted the fact that, in its 23 May 2003 Case Management Conference application to West London County Court, CKFT states:
One example can be seen from the consent order faxed by CKFT to West London County Court on 2 April 2003. It reads:
Please note the date. This is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING (see (see Lord Falconer # 1 , WLCC # 5 ) Please note that the LVT signed its determination, LVT/SC/007/120/02 nearly one month AFTER Mr Silverstone's 23 May 2003 application, as it is dated 17 June 2003 (ref #992 on the LVT database) In my complaint to the Law Society, I provided comprehensive detail of the LVT determination under section 5 "Determination by the LVT - 17 June 2003" (points 103 - 123), supported by documents, including a copy of the LVT report and the reports from my surveyor. This included my surveyor's assessment of 31 July 2003 that the LVT determination had NOT been reflected in the document produced subsequent to the 24 June 2003 hearing (My surveyor, Mr Brock, is a Chartered Surveyor, member of the RICS. To which I will add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity) Based on my surveyor's assessment (as the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - 'conveniently' for Steel Services - failed to provide a global assessment of the sum demanded - thereby failing to perform its remit : Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 , # 6 , # 7 , # 10.7 ), the outcome of the LVT determination, in relation to the original global sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and 11% management fees) was:
Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded . In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) was not considered as reasonable . (point 48, 29 August 2004 ) (*) In the £500,000 (US$882,000) I have included £141,977 (US$250,400) of contingency fund. My then Counsel raised it as an issue during the hearing as Steel Services / Martin Russell Jones had not used it as contribution towards the costs - and were refusing to do so, in spite of, among others, having stated this in the 7 June 2001 letter. (This is captured under point 34 of the LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination, ref #992 on the LVT database). However, it subsequently did in my case, as can be seen in the 21 October 2003 'offer' drawn-up by Ms Ayesha Salim. I believe this to be because, among others, I had the 7 June 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway. (As detailed towards the end of the section on Pridie Brewster, it is clear that this was not taken into consideration for - at least - some of the other leaseholders. Which is clearly WRONG) (See also Martin Russell Jones point # 20) Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force Steel Services to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2 (2)(e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the LVT report), under points 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code. • Under point 114 in the main body of my complaint, I highlighted part of point 64 (page 15) of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination
• Under point 150 in the main body of my complaint, I highlighted that:
I also stressed that:
• I repeated this under for example, point 164 in the main body of my complaint by highlighting the contents of the 9 August 2003 letter I had sent to the court - and on which I had copied CKFT. • Under point 159 of my complaint, I highlighted Mr Lanny Silverstone's 17 July 2003 letter to the LVT, in which he wrote:
• Under the same point, I captured the LVT's reply of 21 July 2003 :
• To this I added my note: "Thereby confirming again that the determination of the LVT is for the global sum demanded and therefore: the decision applies to every resident in the block"• In his 21 July 2003 reply to the LVT's letter of the same date, Mr Silverstone wrote:
• Equally, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, had full knowledge that the LVT determination applies to the whole block, as evidenced by his letter to the tribunal, captured under point 50 of the LVT report :
• As did his 'other puppet', Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, as can be seen in 'her' 16 December 2002 letter to me (I believe this letter was written by Mr Andrew Ladsky ):
(This is addition to the fact that Ms Hathaway filed the 7 August 2002 application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal "to determine the reasonableness of the works" ) (NB: Please note that (after a battle) Mr Stan Gallagher eventually admitted (point 4(1) of his 11 October 2004 reply:
As with everything else, I included a copy of these documents in the enclosures to the Law Society (but not Mr Gallagher's 11 October 2004 reply) To these, the Law Society 's replies in its 8 February 2005 letter were:
My 19 February 2005 reply to these included
The outcome : 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed breaches under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Theft Act 1968 s. 21 Blackmail, s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception, the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (6.4) CKFT actively supported the breach of covenants in my leaseUnder point 1.1.3.2 in the summary of my complaint I wrote "CKFT has repeatedly refuted my defence that the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease opting instead to align itself with its client in spite of the evidence" In the main body of my complaint, under point 98, I wrote
In the main body of my complaint, under points 103 - 115, I provided comprehensive detail on the LVT determination, and wrote in my introduction
I also added
The Law Society's 8 February 2005 reply was
Hence, in filing the claim under a ' Statement of Truth ' Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor who produced the claim - breached Clause (2)(2)(j) of my lease... in addition to committing a very serious breach of CPR - see My Diary 9 March 2007 Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed breaches under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Defamation Act 1996, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Theft Act 1968 s. 21 Blackmail and s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception ( 9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 (NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) I hold the view that CKFT, Martin Russell Jones , Piper Smith Basham and Mr Stan Gallagher insistence that the demand was an "interim demand" can only be interpreted as a shared understanding between them that another demand for the "major works" would be sent to leaseholders. In this context, consider in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 West London County Court hearing - Ms Ayesha Salim 's comment about me that
'Helpfully', the judge (who admitted that he had not read the document/s) then offered to have the action against me 'stayed' (open to further proceedings) - as can be seen in the court order of that date. (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4 and # 6 ) for the outcome of my complaint to the Court Service) As detailed earlier on, I was absolutely right (and further vindicated subsequently: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) . Indeed: • In spite of accepting in my 19 December 2003 letter to CKFT, Mr Ladsky et. al.'s ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the major works (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). • Wandsworth County Court endorsing the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004 which had been preceded by Ms Ayesha Salim, stating in her 28 May 2004 letter to me acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 . • I nonetheless received, three months later, an invoice from Martin Russell Jones, dated 21 October 2004, with a "Brought forward balance" of £14,500 (US$25,600) - without any explanation whatsoever. I did not respond. • Another invoice followed three weeks later from Martin Russell Jones, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,500 (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever. Knowing that they were bogus, I did not acknowledge them and consequently, did not pay anything. Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously, I informed Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones that I had accepted the offer in settlement of my share of the major works and had paid £6,350 (US$11,200). • In January 2006 i.e. 14 months later, I received another invoice from Martin Russell Jones, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Hence, 'mysteriously' £10,250 less. Yet again, no explanation provided. And, as explained earlier on, at least one document on which this invoice is based is FRAUDULENT. • In June 2006 I received another invoice stating a " Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200). As with the prior invoices: no explanation as to the composition of the sum. The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase £2,995 (US$5,281) over the 9 January 2006 invoice, which states a half-yearly service charge in advance of £815 (US$1,435). As can be seen from the 30 June pack , my half-yearly service charge BEFORE the addition of four new flats , including a penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of the top floor, and BEFORE the complete overhaul of Jefferson House was £680 (US$1,200). What is the reason for the fraudulent service charge demand so eagerly pursued by CKFT?Mr Ladsky et. al and their aides deciding that I and other leaseholders would be made to pay for works for which we are not liable. The overwhelming evidence in support of my statement can be seen from the compilation of documents in this pack (2.4MB); overview - and here Threat of forfeiture, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc. Mr Ladsky et. al. had absolutely NO intention of implementing the LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database ) - and NEVER did. Hence, the reason for the bullying and harassment tactics used by Mr Silverstone to force me"to meet" with its client to strike a deal (Letters from Mr Silverstone of 25 June 2003 , 24 July 2003 and 7 August 2003 ). As I wrote under point 174 of my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT:
I wrote the same thing (under point 67 of my reply to the Law Society of 30 November 2004 ) in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham. And, similarly, in the context of my complaint to the Bar Council against Mr Gallagher - under point 64 of my 29 August 2004 reply
Of course, Ms Ayesha Salim continued with the attack by, among others, blaming me for the LVT proceedings in her 21 October 2003 ' offer ' - in the process, defaming my name and my character (Defamation Act 1996) by making scurrilous claims against me:
Against her above claim, I draw your attention to point 64 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) :
Clearly, my not 'running scared' (FEAR tactics) from having a false claim filed against me in court, from being bombarded by harassment, coercion, extortion and intimidation tactics did not fit into the game plan. Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones -"under instructions from their client" Mr Ladsky - have, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Defamation Act 1996, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (9 out of the 14 flats on the claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount - Pridie Brewster # 18 ), the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 Contrary to the claim made by CKFT, Martin Russell Jones and their client Mr Andrew Ladsky that the demand was an "interim" service charge demand e.g. Particulars of claim filed against me in West London County Court - IT WAS NOTNB: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS I give the following evidential documents in support of my position: • The 17 July 2002 demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) was a demand for full payment, being 1.956% of the £736,206 (US$1.3 million) demanded in the 15 July 2003 letter from Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - based on the Killby & Gayford's overall sum. • While this letter states that "the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification or to problems encountered while the works are in progress" , the 7 August 2002 application by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones to the LVT was for "determination of the reasonableness of the global sum demanded for the works " . • The sum quoted by Killby and Gayford referred to ALL the works. This contractor responded to the specification produced by Mr Brian Gale. • The works / nature of the works detailed in Mr Brian Gale's specification are so comprehensive that they amount to a total overhaul of the block: new roof; new lift; new boiler plant; new carpet throughout; new doors; new entrance; new lighting; new area for the porter; total repainting internal and external; installation of mechanical ventilation; replacement of some windows; re-pointing, etc. (Parts of the specification stem from lack of proper maintenance and upkeep of the block over a period of 12 years - and therefore in breach of the lease) (See Martin Russell Jones, section #36 ) • The LVT's remit is captured under point 2 of its 17 June 2002 report
• And further confirmation that the LVT's remit was to consider the GLOBAL SUM for the works , is also found in: • The LVT's 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing directions • The LVT's reply 21 July 2003 to Mr Silverstone, CKFT, letter of 17 July 2003 (detailed above) • The reply from Mr Silverstone dated 21 July 2003 (detailed above) • Ms McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:
As also detailed earlier on, Mr Andrew Ladsky and his 'puppets' were fully knowledgeable of this, as evidenced by: • The letter that Mr Andrew Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the LVT report :
• The 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Ms Hathaway (but I believe to have been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky ) is also quite clear on this point:
• In her 20 August 2002 letter Ms Hathaway asks that:
This "payment" is the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) - which is 1.956% of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) And it was an extortionate demand as the impact of the LVT determination was to reduce the original demand by nearly 70% (includes use of contingency fund)In my complaint to the Law Society against CKFT I provided comprehensive evidence against CKFT's position that the demand was an "interim" demand - under points 89 - 99. These included an argument against the likely duration of the works. My position has been amply vindicated, among others, by the fact that the works were started in August 2004 and were still taking place in May 2006 i.e. nearly two years after being started - and therefore FOUR YEARS after the original demand - as can be seen from the photos of the corridor taken on 1 May 2006 . See also Photo gallery for other evidence on the duration of the works, including broken step (1.6MB), filth around my flat , floor of the entrance corridor (not to mention the lack of concern about health & safety ). As amply demonstrated, not only do Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim could not care less about their client breaching covenants in my lease - they actually take an active part in doing this. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (6.5) CKFT persistently ignored the evidence against its client's claimUnder point 1.1.1.2 of the summary of my complaint I wrote that "CKFT had ignored the evidence I supplied". Among others, this includes my 17 October 2002 letter to CKFT to which I had attached 'back-up evidence'. (Hence, a letter sent six weeks before the claim was filed in West London County Court ). This is covered in the main body of my complaint under points 72 - 74 To this, the 8 February 2005 Law Society replies include, among others:
My 19 February 2005 response to this was:
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Defamation Act 1996, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (9 out of the 14 flats on the claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount - Pridie Brewster # 18 ), the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 (6.6) CKFT knowingly made false statements against me to the court - including under a Statement of Truth(NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) In relation to my stating under point 1.1.4.4 of the summary of my complaint "...it knowingly made statements that were untrue and accompanied these by signing a Statement of Truth.." First false statement made by Ms Ayesha Salim - under of a Statement of TruthThis issue is covered under points 82, 165, 175 and 179 in the main body of my complaint. It refers to the fact contrary to what is stated in CKFT's 6 August 2003 application for a hearing ( signed under a Statement of Truth by Ms Ayesha Salim ) that
The document attached to the application, " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised ", demonstrates that the sum demanded has been revised down by 24.19% i.e. the same amount as for the 24 June 2003 hearing The only difference is that in this instance the document covers the 35 flats (which was the total number of flats at the time). It is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that Ms Ayesha Salim has made false claims to West London County Court - under a 'Statement of Truth: • The amount demanded is the same as it was two months previously, on 24 June 2003 • At the West London County Court hearing on 24 June 2003, JUST 10 minutes before seeing the judge, Mr Lanny Silverstone, handed me three documents I had NOT seen previously. They included a " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " produced by Martin Russell Jones for which, in my case (and that of the other five leaseholders), the original sum demanded was reduced by just 24.19% - in my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) . Mr Silverstone did not provide me with any supporting document as to how this reduction had been achieved . The remaining two documents are a " Draft Order and Case Summary " which, among others, state:
This is NOT TRUE - as demonstrated earlier on under # 6.3 In addition to this, a Section 20 Notice had NOT been issued following the LVT 17 June 2003 determination. In my letter of 15 July 2003 to West London County Court, I wrote
and detailed the main points of my surveyor's assessment of the LVT's determination. I also wrote
As can be seen, I copied Mr Silverstone, CKFT on this letter. This led Mr Silverstone to send me a letter, dated 17 July 2003, with which was enclosed "Part III" of the specifications for the works with "Revised price" written as heading (Included in the hyperlinked pack). My surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the document handed to me at the 24 June 2003 hearing i.e. " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised ". Hence, it still fell very far short of the LVT determination. In addition - as can be seen - there was no supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at (consequently amounting to a breach of my statutory rights). Therefore: Ms Ayesha Salim's claim - under a Statement of Truth - was NOT TRUE. NB: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Defamation Act 1996, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (9 out of the 14 flats on the claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount - Pridie Brewster # 18 ), the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 In fact, Ms Salim made another false statement in this applicationIn her 6 August 2003 application to West London County Court she wrote, on page 2
As explained earlier, the " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised " she attached shows a reduction of 24.19% for each flat The 2002 and 2003 "summary of contributions to the major works fund" sent to me by the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 letter (not surprisingly, Ms Salim's client - Martin Russell Jones never provided me with these) show that 9 out the 14 flats listed on the West London County Court claim were charged the FULL amount originally demanded by Ms Hathaway in her 15 July 2002 letter. These amounts are listed in the Particulars of the claim (1.1MB) (contains my analysis of the contributions paid by the leaseholders, as well as supporting documents) accompanying the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim - DRAWN-UP by CKFT - and filed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth.
As 'acting solicitors' on the claim filed in West London County Court, Ms Ayesha Salim obviously KNEW the amount that had been paid for each of - at least by then - seven of the 11 leaseholders. Indeed: (1) In his 23 May 2003 application for a Case Management Conference to West London County Court , Mr Lanny Silverstone wrote:
(2) In her client's 21 October 2003 'offer' to me, Ms Salim wrote
How does Ms Ayesha Salim reconcile her claim - under a Statement of Truth - in her 6 August 2003 application that the
with the "summary of contributions to the major works fund" produced by Pridie Brewster - (which I have analysed)? Ms Salim KNEW what these leaseholders had been made to pay. SHE / her firm FORCED these leaseholders to pay these amounts at 'gun point' i.e. by issuing - and pursuing - the FALSE claim against them. Ms Salim also made a third false claim to the courtPrior to seeing the judge for the 26 August 2003 hearing, a conversation took place between Ms McLean, counsel and Ms Salim (I did not join this conversation). Given my position, it resulted in 'an understanding' to get me to pay the costs I had recognised in my 9 August 2003 letter to the court. (NB: Although bear in mind that the demand was NOT compliant with the terms of my lease as it was not supported by certified accounts - as explained previously ) To induce me to make this payment, Ms McLean and counsel had told me that, if I did not do this, it would be held against me. Considering the conduct of West London County Court to date, I believed them. In any case, I had always recognised that works were needed to the block and that consequently I would need to pay my share - as evidenced by my Witness Statement. (Fact also recognised by Mr Lanny Silverstone) I therefore agreed to do this, paying the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) (slightly less than my own calculations) (I have never been able to determine from Ms McLean how she, counsel and Ms Salim arrived at this amount) During the meeting with the judge, Ms Salim's explanation for the fact that her application referred to the full amount ("...the Claimant asks the court to enter summary judgement...") when, in fact, now, the sum proposed was less than what she claimed in her application, she replied: "it was a clerical error" . And this was accepted by the judge without the blink of an eyelid (West London County # 11 ) (Evidence in support: (1) On 28 August 2003 , I sent a copy of Ms Salim's 5 August letter to Ms McLean; (2) To this, she replied on 1 September 2003 "I note the documents enclosed and in particular the correspondence from CKFT in relation to the application for summary judgement. The matter has now been concluded on the 26th August and I am not sure as to its relevance now." (3) My reply of 3 September 2003 was "I included it in case it became relevant at a later stage. (My not having it on 26 August was probably not important given the Judge's acceptance of, in my view, CKFT's lie that "it was an error" ) The Law Society's 8 February 2005 reply to my claim that "...[Ms Salim] knowingly made statements that were untrue and accompanied these by signing a Statement of Truth.." was:
To which I replied in my 19 February 2005 letter
(Subsequent note: see Portner and Jaskel # 6.3 for the Civil Procedure Rules regarding witness statements) It should be noted (as captured under point 173 of my complaint ) that, in spite of my repeatedly saying, including to the courts, that the LVT determination had very clearly not been implemented, Ms Ayesha Salim, still made the same claim in the 21 October 2003 ' offer ' for £6,350 (US$11,200) vs. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400). (In 'typical style', there is also a demand for £143 (US$250) of interest (NB: !!! ) ). Indeed, the 'offer' she wrote starts with:
In other words, the same amount claimed at the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearings. This is NOT true. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with CKFT and its client, Mr Ladsky (as well as his other 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones, Mr Brian Gale and Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP ) - do you believe that its client would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) if it had been the outcome of the LVT determination?Furthermore, consider also that I have NOT acknowledged any of the invoices sent by Martin Russell Jones since October 2004. (Subsequent note: see Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP ; my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement ; (4pg) Main Points ) Considering MRJ and its client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, have turned "intimidatory litigation into an industry" - how come that they have not taken action against me? (Well... at least, not yet!) (Subsequent note: they did set on a path of revenge, but : got defeated in 2008 - Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP # 31 ) What must also be noted in the 21 October 2003 ' offer ' is the comment that
I fully accepted the LVT determination (as I had stated in my 15 July 2003 letter to West London County Court). As evidenced by the above statement, it is 'Steel Services' that kept on challenging the LVT determination - and has never implemented it. (My subsequent requests - IN VAIN - to the Head of the LVTs was to ensure that the LVT captures a summary of its decision i.e. perform as per its remit - which it captured, among others, under point 1 of its report ; its 29 October 2002 directions) (THANK YOU Mr John Prescott AND Ms Siobhan McGrath, Head LVTs for the POISONED CHALICE!) Court claims = FRAUD TOOLSFair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Defamation Act 1996, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (9 out of the 14 flats on the claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount - Pridie Brewster # 18 ), the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 (6.7) CKFT accompanied the claim to West London County Court with a lease falsely claiming that it was representative of my lease(NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) The 29 November 2002 Particulars of Claim drawn-up by CKFT, with a Statement of Truth signed by Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, also state:
This is NOT TRUE, as I highlighted in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim
Indeed, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) 'apparently' for flat 23 , is materially different from mine on a critical aspect in relation to this clause, as it reads:
Whereas Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) in my lease reads:
The Clause in the lease (apparently) for flat 23 is, in my view, equivalent to saying: "Give your cheque book to the lessor who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice" I find it extremely difficult to believe that a leaseholder would agree to such outrageously unfair contract terms . My highlighting in my defence that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine, led Mr Silverstone to request, in his 23 January 2003 letter, i.e. two months AFTER filing the - false - claim against me, a copy of my lease. (As can be seen from the attached, I complied with this request). In my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT, I raised this under points 83 - 86. Outcome: Ignored by the Law Society. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from its client" Mr Ladsky - has, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Defamation Act 1996, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and s.16 Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (9 out of the 14 flats on the claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount - Pridie Brewster # 18 ), the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 Ch. 41 s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 (6.8) CKFT acted in tandem with Piper Smith Basham with the objective of forcing me to strike a deal with its clientThe Law Society also opted to ignore the events surrounding the time I took back control of my case in mid-December 2003 . I did this because Mr Twyman, Piper Smith & Basham, had sent a reply to the 'offer' on 13 November 2003 - without my consent (see Piper Smith Basham/Watton for further detail). I sent my 'own' version of the Notice of Acceptance to CKFT on 19 December 2003 . As by mid-January I had not received a reply, I asked a firm of solicitors to send, on 16 January 2004 , a copy of the documents I had sent to CKFT on 19 December 2003. My reason for doing this was that, given CKFT's modus operandi, I could not exclude the possibility that it might claim it had received post from me on 22 December 2003, but that it was just an empty envelop. Eventually, I received a letter from Ms Ayesha Salim , dated 27 January 2004, in which she wrote
Hence, this was five weeks later ! (Please note that I had sent the letter by 'special delivery next day' (as can be seen in the attached 19 December 2003 letter) and had received confirmation from the post office that it had been delivered). My conclusion is that my taking back control of my case had 'thrown a spanner in the works', upsetting the game plan (whatever this was).(NO, I am not going to state 'allegedly' as I believe that any reasonable person considering the evidence would arrive at the same conclusion). Indeed, the 27 January 2004 letter from Ms Salim was sent one week AFTER Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, had sent me her 21 January 2004 letter in which she wrote:
Please note that there was NO "concluded agreement" , as evidenced by her 24 November 2003 letter asking me to "confirm that the consent order may be signed ". To this I replied on 26 November 2003 "I am not endorsing a reply that does not in any way challenge the offer letter .It was your firm's responsibility to ensure it was captured in the letter and it is now your firm's responsibility to ensure that it is." . And as also evidenced in Mr Gallagher's initial reply to my complaint, as he wrote that he "simply (could) not understand why NKDR changed her mind and was not prepared to endorse the draft consent order " (point 80, 9 June 2004 ) Contrast the 21 January 2004 letter with the previous letter I had received from Ms McLean, dated 12 December 2003 (i.e. six weeks previously )
How about that for the use of FEAR tactics?! (Ms McLean was referring to my 2 December 2003 letter to Messrs Berns and Skuse) My conclusion from this is that the 21 January 2004 letter amounted to a ' last ditch attempt ' at making me agree to the reply that had been sent - without my consent. In fact, it is clear that, from the very beginning of my relationship with Piper Smith Basham, the intention had been that the (false) claim against me would be resolved through striking a deal. I give the following as evidence: • In my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean I had made it very clear that I was not prepared to strike a deal, stating that it
• In my letter of 9 August 2003 to West London County Court - copied to CKFT, and of which I had given a copy to Ms McLean, I wrote, among others:
• But, as can be seen in her 4 September 2003 letter, Ms McLean and CKFT were not giving up on the idea:
• I replied as follows on 9 September 2003
From liaising with Piper Smith Basham, CKFT and its client realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered the 21 October 2003 'offer'. The last thing they wanted to do was proceed to trial. Hence, the events which took place at the time of the reply - and subsequently (See also Stan Gallagher and Piper Smith Basham/Watton) Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton - at the instigation of Mr Ladsky - have committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2) (6.9) The evidence suggests that, for a while, CKFT was demanding monies and threatening me with proceedings on behalf of a company that did not exist(NB: Events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74pg) Witness Statement; (4pg) Main Points) Earlier on in this section I highlighted that the outcome of the various searches on Steel Services undertaken by myself, Kensington & Chelsea Council Housing department and Nucleus Citizen Advice Bureau led to a 'nil' return. There was NO RECORD of Steel Services in the U. K. , Jersey and the British Virgin Islands as, in their 8 August 2002 reply, the authorities had stated that Steel Services had been "Struck-off the register for non-payment of licence fee" (Please note that, among others, in its 10 October 2001 reply to Nucleus, the Land Registry stated: "Steel Services Limited is in fact an overseas company and therefore does not have a companies registration number" ) (See also Owners identity , Headlessors, BVI registration and Jersey address ). Yet, one week earlier, in a letter dated 1 August 2002 to the Housing department, CKFT wrote
In light of this, in the summary of my complaint against CKFT, under point 1.4 I wrote, "CKFT also committed offences under the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002" (NB see also guidance from the Law Society England and Wales) While under sub-point 1.4.1.4, I wrote, "Failing to check the identity of its client, resulting in its claims, over a period of at least three months that it was acting on behalf of an entity when, in fact, the evidence demonstrates did not exist" In the main body of my complaint, the details are included under points 12 - 22. As with all my other allegations of criminal offences, the Law Society did not make any comment on this , other than state that it viewed all my allegations of criminal offences as falling within the domain of the police. Hence, nothing to do with the Law Society. (For other evidence against CKFT, see also Piper Smith Basham # 7.18 and Martin Russell Jones # 43 for events in relation to my 20C application in which Ms Ayesha Salim played a major part in what I consider as the use of extensive bullying, coercion and intimidation tactics - in collusion with Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - to which the LVT provided some 'very helpful assistance - LVT # 5 ) Subsequent note: In my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Martin Russell Jones - at the instigation of Mr Ladsky - have committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (6.10) CKFT failed to observe proper standards of workUnder point 1.1.3.8 of the summary of my complaint - I classified under 'Principle (e) (standard of work)' - that " CKFT has also failed to observe proper standards of work..
Among the several other points, I included (under 1.1.3.3):
This offer, which in fact was a 'pre-action' offer was not compliant with the CPR Rules as defined by Lord Woolf's in the Ford v GKR Construction Ltd [2000] 1 All ER802 case as I was not supplied with the information necessary for me to assess it. (NB: My own 'advisers', Mr Twyman, Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher did not come back to me with any comment following my identifying this case from desk research (in my 13 November 2003 fax) and hence, requirement for the working of Part 36 Offers) To all of these points, the Law Society 's reply was,
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (7) Overall, in relation to numerous points in my complaint, the Law Society said to be unable to consider them citing one of the following three reasons:
• Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 which states that it is illegal to make "threats that are calculated to cause alarm, distress or humiliation" (Subsequent note: I have changed my mind about this - see my note under the extracts ) • Section 4A of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1984 which makes it a "...criminal offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress with intent by using threatening words" • Theft Act 1968 - Section 16(1) : "...by any deception dishonestly obtaining for another any pecuniary advantage." • Theft Act 1968 - Section 21 : "Blackmail - (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces." To avoid misunderstanding, I also included the definition of 'blackmail', 'bullying', 'fraud' and 'extortion' I sourced from four different English dictionaries and, in the case of 'bullying', also from the website of charity organisations who deal with this particular issue. To these can also be added, a breach of: • Court and Legal Servcies Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "...duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice" • Protection from Harassment Act 1997 "A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which he or she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other" • Malicious Communications Act 1988 - "(1) Any person who sends to another person (a) a letter, electronic communication...which conveys (ii) a threat or (iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender...is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated" as well as, 'it seems' : • Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - Money laundering offences - considering the above breaches and Section 413 of the Act which provides a definition of 'criminal conduct'... ...Section 327 "Concealing" , Section 328 "Arrangements"; Section 329 (b) "Acquisition"', as well as the requirement to "Know your client" The Law Society in England and Wales provides comprehensive guidance to its members on its website, including stating that "...almost all solicitors will now be within the regulator sector.." A point to note about the Act is Section 413 (5) "It is immaterial (a) whether conduct occurred before or after the passing of this Act, and (b) whether property or a pecuniary advantage constituting a benefit from conduct was obtained before or after the passing of this Act" Furthermore, Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim have committed offences against me under the Defamation Act 1996 by falsely portraying me to the court - and the public at large - given that the documents were given to other leaseholders, as a dishonest individual who defaults on her contractual obligations. As I captured under point 1.5 in the summary of 20 December 2004 complaint :
(8) I filed a complaint with the Legal Services Ombudsman against the Law SocietyIn my 20 February 2005 covering letter to the LSO, I provided my answer to the Law Society's comments relating to actions it viewed as falling within the domain of the court / police. I did this by relating my experiences with both, and concluded by stating that in light of my first-hand experience with West London County Court , Wandsworth County Court and Kensington & Chelsea police I summarised my chances as "nil" .
Consequently, if I am to refer to the assessment of the Law Society and the Legal Services Ombudsman, MY COMPLAINT AGAINST CKFT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS 'MY ALLEGED ACCUSATIONS' Yet, although not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against CKFT. I do not believe that it requires the brain of a genius to see that. I will add that I have not heard anything from CKFT since filing my complaint. Considering that CKFT is 'litigation-happy', I view this as endorsement of my position. (They are definitely keeping away from me as, in spite of being Steel Services representative , for the 'scam' (1.1MB), the so-called 'notice of first refusal' of 10 February 2006, Mr Andrew Ladsky used another firm of 'cowboys', Portner and Jaskel - See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 ; Portner and Jaskel # 1 ... and # 4 for the Law Society's approval NO, I am not going to say 'allegedly' after my describing CKFT and Portner and Jaskel as 'cowboys' as I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person - having read the 'black on white' evidence against both firms - will have no difficulty understanding that events have led me to form this perception. In fact, at June 2008 I add: evil, corrupt, morally depraved scums. At March 2007: I can add further evidence in support of my position: see Portner # 6 ; 9 March 2007 for the fraudulent claim filed against me by Portner and Jaskel in West London County Court (My reply WLCC # 2 ; # 7 ) - and, at December 2007, I have compiled even more evidence against Portner and Jaskel - see Portner and Jaskel... ...and at June 2008? After a 16-month battle that started with the 16 February 2007 threat of "bankruptcy proceedings", "forfeiture" of my flat, and "costs" unless I paid the fraudulent sum of £10,357 (US$18,262): Mr Andrew Ladsky has dropped "ALL of the claim" against me - Portner and Jaskel # 31 ; # 29 (my Wtiness Statement) Consider that Portner and Jaskel started by threatening me with bankruptcy - # 3 = Further proof that the threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy, as well as the court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) Yes: definitely evil, corrupt, morally depraved scums. The battle with the Law Society and escalation to the Legal Services Ombudsman cost me c. 200 hours of my life. Hence: c.200 hours of my life down the drain! 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'? These events lead me to fully endorse Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)
Following the findings from the review by Sir David Clementi, the Legal Services Bill proposes setting-up a Legal Services Board with, it 'seems', some 'teeth'. As can be seen in The Times article of 25 July 2006 , the head of the Law Society is strongly opposed to this calling it "truly scary" (I bet!) and that "if a regulator is given a power, it will use it" (Heuh...yes, that's' the idea!) She is also concerned about the proposed "extensive powers for the lay-dominated board" . She had been given reassurances by the (then) clan's big chief, Lord Falconer, " that it was intended to be light-touch regulation but instead we have Model A (the most heavy) by the backdoor" Reading this means that I am not holding my breath as I fear that we are going to end-up with a re-sprayed version of the existing system. (Subsequent note: a year later, in 2007, nothing had changed - as can be seen from the Law Society's reply to my complaint against Portner and Jaskel: # 4 ) (9) And finally, at the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides - among others, Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim - deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE . (This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc.)
To be more precise:
( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006) UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT? MR LANNY SILVERSTONE, MS AYESHA SALIM, PIPER SMITH & BASHAM, MR STAN GALLAGHER, THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . |
