Email this site to a contact

 

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

 

(NOTE: This section is c. 30 pages in length)

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)

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 asMr 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)

•  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

•  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

"attended by.Mr A Ladsky, the owner of flats 34 and 35 ", as well as under point 50 "It is noted that apparently the majority of the tenants wish all the works to be carried out. A letter from Mr Ladsky, the lessee of flats 34 and 35 dated 28 April 2003 stated: "31 or 32 of the 35 tenants have paid their contribution." )

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

"...received a telephone call from Mr Ladsky. He has asked for copies of all correspondence that you have sent me"

(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 lease

In 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

"All we can say is Steel Services Limited is an existing entity, and we have provided you with all of the information we have so far been instructed to supply"

At this point I contacted the British Virgin Islands Authorities because:

(1) a claim filed by Portner and Jaskel against the Elderly Resident in Central London County Court on 26 February 2002 gives the claimant as Steel Services "Freehold owner" , with an address in the British Virgin Islands (see Freehold Ownership, Headlessors, Owners identity, British Virgin Islands Registration, Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 , as well as Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP for its other 'activities' )

(2) in her 25 January 2002 letter to the Housing department, Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, wrote "The Directors and secretary of Steel Services are F.M.C. Ltd" and gave an address in the British Virgin Islands (Owners identity)

The 8 August 2002 reply from the BVI stated that Steel Services had been

"Struck-off the register for non-payment of licence fee"

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:

"Steel Services Limited is in fact an overseas company and therefore does not have a companies registration number"

(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.

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:

"I require additional information before I can agree to the demand" .

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

"to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded"

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) 

Back to list

(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

"We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal"

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:

". a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid except under certain circumstances"   (NB: bold type face as per the leaflet)

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:

"The Defendants have failed to pay the service charges, details of which are set out in Schedule 1and there is now due and owing from the Defendants to the claimant the sums set-out in Schedule 1 payable by way of payment..."

This claim was filed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) - 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

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

Back to list

(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:

"About CKFT's offer "to discuss" with them i.e. try to strike a deal.   I am not prepared to do this.

This would be a very unwise move as it would allow them to get away with the need to redraw the specification, thereby leaving me exposed to further demands at a later stage which, I can guarantee, would be made (letters from MRJ of 26 March 2002 and 15 July 2002 ).

By forcing them to do this, it will put a line under the costs i.e. they will not have any comeback and, if they do come back, I will be in a much better position to challenge them.

Last but not least, I am also hoping that by doing this they will give up on the block as I am taking away their opportunity to illegally charge works to the residents "

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:

"The LVT has made a determination on the reasonableness of the service charge for the block -as a whole - not just for myself.

There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees.

Nowhere does the lease state that the share of the service charges payable by individual lessees is dependent on their amount of 'backbone' and courage to challenge a demand for money they do not owe.

Their resistance to prolonged harassment and intimidation.

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-MRJ in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT)"

But, as can be seen in Ms McLean's letter of 4 September 2003 , she and CKFT were not giving up on the idea:

"Incidentally (NB !!!) , I took a call from CKFT today and, in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals (NB !!!)

I said that I had noted that you had previously refused to deal with them but in the event that they wished to make an offer (NB !!!) I was, as they well know, obliged to put it to you (NB !!!)

They intimated that they will make a Part 36 offer (NB !!!)

The relevance of this is that if they make an offer which is rejected and, following trial the judge makes a determination that is no better than the offer that they had made then you will have to pay their costs from the time the part 36 offer had been made up until the trial"   (NB Please note the threat)

I replied as follows on 9 September 2003

"I maintain what I said: the situation is the result of Steel Services/Mr Ladsky and MRJ's doing - not mine (nor indeed that of the other residents).my position has remained unchanged:   'No' as this does not achieve my objectives "

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.

•  I wanted to enforce the terms of my lease, as well as exert my statutory rights.

•  I wanted to comply with the instructions that had been given to me by a tribunal.

•  And I wanted to abide by my moral principles, my integrity: I wanted to pay my just and fair share of the costs for the major works.

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':

"Com'on, look at what you have spent so far. It's nearly as much as what our client is asking. Make a commercial decision. Let's strike a deal. Accept the 'offer".

(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.

Why?

In my view, because a trial results in an official record of evidence available in the public domain - unlike when the leaseholder accepts / is made to accept 'an offer' which allows the rogue landlord and his equally rogue aides to come out 'smelling of roses' (and with their coffers substantially fuller than they should be).

(This consideration is even more important in the case of a defendant like me who has an overwhelming body of evidence against the landlord and his aides).

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

Back to list

(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:

(1) in my 19 December 2003 letter to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, I accepted its client'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) (For reasons see e.g. My Diary December 2003 ; Mr Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.e. 2 , # 3.f.2 , # 9 ; Home page # 3 , # 4.13 , # 4.14 )

(2 ) Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004

(3) It was preceded by Ms Ayesha Salim, stating in her 28 May 2004 letter to me acceptance of the Consent Order, 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.

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:

•  It includes a "half yearly service charge in advance - to 23 June 2006" of £815 (US$1,435)

•  With the invoice, Martin Russell Jones enclosed a document headed "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " from which I conclude that it was 'somehow' used to arrive at the sum of £815 (US$1,435) (I do not understand how this sum was arrived at

•  This document claims that the £76,167 (US$134,300) of expenditure is attributable to "All flats" .

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 2006)

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 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.

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 'dictate' "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:

"Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it"

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.

Back to list

(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:

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone's 7 October 2002 letter to me:

"In the event that payment is not received by Martin Russell Jones by 10 am on Monday 14 October, we have instructions immediately to commence proceedings for recovery of the debt"

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone's 21 October 2002 letter to me:

"Your consistent failure to pay such sums is a matter that could be taken into account by the court in considering the weight to be given to your complaints now"

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone's 4 February 2003 letter to me:  

"...will take injunctive steps prior to other proceedings."

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone's 25 June 2003 letter to me

"...the costly LVT process has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project"

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone's 24 July 2003 letter to me:

"Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court has to deal with the determination of this issue..we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to any subsequent issue as to costs"

•  Mr Lanny Silverstone's 7 August 2003 letter to my solicitors (of a few hours):

"She has declined to accept those offers. We shall contend that this is a relevant matter in relation to the question of costs "

•  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:

"...receiving a voicemail from Ayesha of CKFT...she said that she had been instructed that there was now an issue with the Section 20C LVT application. If that was the case, she was then instructed to commence proceedings within the next 48 or 72 hours "

(See Piper Smith Basham # 7.18.5 for further detail)

•  Ms Ayesha Salim's 21 October 2003 'offer' faxed to Piper Smith Basham:

"If the offer is rejected and your client is held liable at the trial."

•  Ms Ayesha Salim's 28 May 2004 letter to me:

"...we will be seeking an order for our client's costs."

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

Back to list

(6) My complaint to the Law Society and its replies

The complaint I filed with the Law Society against CKFT comprises of:

•  a summary dated 20 December 2004, supported by

•  detailed background information , dated 20 December 2004, as well as

•  a pack of 132 enclosures , also dated 20 December 2004

With these I enclosed:

•  a covering letter , dated 20 December 2004, and

•  a completed form , dated 20 December 2004

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 am not in a position to take any of your concerns any further"

I responded to this letter on 19 February 2005 .

To this letter, the Law Society replied on 17 March 2005

"...read through your letter and do not believe that I can add anything further over and above what is cited in my letter of 8 February 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 the circumstances... I take the view that the Law Society's response was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified."

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.

Back to list

(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

"Are you aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for determination of the reasonableness of the charge for major works?"

Mr Lanny Silverstone's reply of 21 October 2002 states:  

"We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal"  

(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

"...CKFT on a client's instructions were at liberty to issue proceedings" (ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!)

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:  

"We are surprised that proceedings have been issued at West London County Court whilst consideration of your client's claim is currently before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.  

We have written to you concerning this.our letter dated 28 October 2002.

We will refer to this correspondence to the court. Please confirm that you will arrange for the proceedings issued at West London County Court to be suspended pending resolution of the issues before the LVT."

•  The 9 April 2003 letter from Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, to my then solicitors:

"We shall be contending that the county court proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

It could be said in our view that having issued an application to the LVT. to thereafter commence proceedings in the county court seeking the recovery of those same charges could be an abuse of the process of court".

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:

"..the information which you have provided does not demonstrate that CKFT acted as alleged above as they were at liberty to issue a claim at court for the Court to consider"

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

"...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid. "

•  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)

"...the Respondent and other tenants could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and / or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal"

And the Law Society is of the view that

"...the information [I] provided does not demonstrate that CKFT acted as alleged." (ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!)

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

Back to list

(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: 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)

"Our client requires payment of the above sum within seven days of the date of this letter.

Our client reserves the right to take action to forfeit your lease for breach of covenant and to communicate with your mortgagee (if any) if such action becomes necessary"

(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:

"We note that you have made no proposal on behalf of your client to pay all or part of the interim service charge.  

We would be grateful if you would clarify whether your client does in fact have any objection to the cost of the major works."

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

"You claim that CKFT improperly demanded money from you that was not due. This, in itself, is a legal issue which this office cannot consider."

My 19 February 2005 response was:

"Your assessment is incorrect: "Rule 17.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - Letters before action - When writing a letter of claim a solicitor must not demand anything other than that recoverable under the due process of law" .

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'?

Back to list

(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:

"obtained orders before the LVT issued its report" ; " ...demanded monies that were not due and payable - as ruled by the 17 June 2003 determination by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, and under the terms of my lease" ;

" consequently that it led to residents being charged differentially for the works. CKFT's client cannot charge differentially "

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:  

"The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following: 1st., 2nd., 5th. and 7th. Defendants" .  

One example can be seen from the consent order faxed by CKFT to West London County Court on 2 April 2003. It reads:

"Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003..."

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:

•  Amount disallowed by the LVT because improvements: £169,498 (US$299,000) (£129,958 (US$229,200) excl. VAT and fees) = 23% of the global sum demanded (point 48, 29 August 2004 )

•  Amount for which the LVT could not make a determination due to lack of specification = £188,784 (US$333,000) (£144,745 (US$255,300) excl. VAT and fees) = 25.6% of the global sum demanded (point 48, 29 August 2004 )

•  A view supported by the LVT (*) , considering the terms of the lease, as well as RICS best practice, that the reserve fund should be used as contribution: £141,977 (US$250,000) - or 19.3% of the global sum demanded (point 48, 29 August 2004 )

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

"...the Respondent and other tenants (NB!!!) could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and / or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal"

•  Under point 150 in the main body of my complaint, I highlighted that:

(1)   " As consistently provided and confirmed by Martin Russell Jones, the amount of service charge for each flat is a fixed percentage.

(2)   The global sum to which these fixed percentages are applied must be the same for all the 35 flats in the block.

I also stressed that:

(3)   these percentages were supplied by CKFT-Steel Services-MRJ to West London County Court at the 24 June 2003   and 26 August 2003 hearings, and the full list of percentages was attached to Steel Services-MRJ's 7 August 2002 application to the LVT.

(4)   As to the global sum for the works, it has to be the same for all lessees. Hence, Steel Services cannot charge differentially, other than on the basis of individual lessee's fixed percentage share of the service charge"

•  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:

"Our client's Council has advised us that the LVT was asked to make a determination of the specific amount of the service charge payable the tenant of flat 3, Ms Dit-Rawé." .

•  Under the same point, I captured the LVT's reply of 21 July 2003 :

"It is not the duty of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness , or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant"

•  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:

"We are mindful of the fact that the LVT was, in fact, in a position to make a determination of the sums that it considered to be reasonable based on the evidence that it received at various hearings"

•  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 :

"Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works."

•  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 ):

"...the Chairman of the tribunal's instructions where he indicated that the tribunal was concerned with the reasonableness of service charges as set out in Section 19 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985"

(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:

"I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" (point 8) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.3 )

"I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" (point 6) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.3 ) )

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:

"CKFT were at liberty to enter into negotiations with the parties to the litigation in spite of the pending action in the County Court"

"...it would be for those individuals to have taken appropriate legal advice in order to protect their position."  

"This is not a matter for this office and should have been raised before the Court for it to determine the jurisdiction of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal over the Court's jurisdiction in respect of CKFT's client's claim"  

My 19 February 2005 reply to these included

"It is a matter for your Office as there has been breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct"

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 )

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'?

Back to list

(6.4) CKFT actively supported the breach of covenants in my lease

Under 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

"'Even if' lawyers want to argue that the sum demanded is an "interim payment" (although I simply cannot see how this could be demonstrated in view of the facts), I would like to draw the attention to Clause (2)(2)(j) of my lease (attached) :

". nothing shall disable the Lessor from maintaining an action against the Lessee in respect of non-payment of any such interim payment as aforesaid notwithstanding that the Accountant's Certificate had not been furnished to the Tenant at the time such action was commenced subject nevertheless to the Lessor establishing in such action that the interim payment demanded and unpaid was of a fair and reasonable amount having regard to the amount of the Service Charge ultimately payable by the Lessee"

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 will now demonstrate that the £14,400.19 (US$25,400) demand I received was very far from being "fair and reasonable" as the impact of the LVT determination meant that it should be reduced by nearly 70% to £4,615" (US$8,200)

I also added

"It will also demonstrate that Steel Services is in breach of Clause (2)(2)(b) of my lease which states:   "The lessor will use its best endeavours to maintain the annual service charge at the lowest reasonable figure consistent with due performance and observations herein". I will demonstrate in the following that this has most definitely not been the case."

The Law Society's 8 February 2005 reply was

"CKFT owed a duty to their client to act in their clients best interests and put forward their arguments.

Therefore, the rebuttal of your defence would be the normal course of the litigation process.

This aspect cannot be taken any further as in refuting your defence CKFT would have been relying upon their client's instructions and utilising their professional judgement on the evidence before them and their interpretation of the law"

I replied

"You are endorsing the position that it is proper conduct for an officer of the court to assist its client in breaching statutory requirements and contractual obligations..."

"Your conclusion suggests that, if for example, Mr Ladsky instructs Mr Silverstone and/or Ms Salim to shoot you because he is unhappy with the reply you have provided to my complaint against CKFT, they would be under a duty to do so. This, to me, is the logical extension of your position"

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