Email this site to a contact

 

I view Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim as thoroughly evil, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, corrupt, amoral, sociopathic individuals - conduct endorsed by the Law Society, as well as by Her Majesty's: Judiciaries in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court; Legal Services Ombudsman - and ultimately by her Ministry of 'Justice'

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) And Law Society - re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:

 

If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and the Law Society remember that the ROOT CAUSE for their actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

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

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

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

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

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the then London LVT),

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

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

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom CKFT, and in particular, the thoroughly corrupt, amoral, evil, vampiric, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic and perverse monsters and racketeers - Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, as well as the Law Society

joined the other assassins- in saying:

Yes! Of course, no problem! We'll do absolutely anything for money!

Because...

 

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

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

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction, including supporting evidence of CKFT acting for Andrew David Ladsky.

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), 25/26 Hampstead High Street, London NW3 1QA, is also registered, at least, in 2006, according to the 22.02.06 Land Registry title for Steel Services, in the British Virgin Islands.

(As summarised on the British Virgin Islands Registration page, its client, Andrew David Ladsky, also has / had at least 5 paper companies 'reportedly' domiciled in the BVI).

At Sep 05, the property section on the firm's website (ckft.com) read:

"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"

 

Individuals who approached me from this firm were, on CKFT's website, at Sep 05, described as:

•  Lanny Silverstone: "Partner Head of Employment Department Litigation and Family Law. Areas of Practice: commercial and property related litigation; contentious landlord and tenant work."

•  Ayesha Salim : "Assistant Solicitor Litigation Department"

In their 21.08.03 "Statement of costs" (they were expecting to get from me at the 26 Aug 03 so-called 'hearing' in West London County Court (WLCC # 11); not granted (below)), they were described as :

•  "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"

In the light of my experience with them (added to what they did to the Elderly Resident) - my perception of both of them is a captured under 'Root cause' (top of page)...

...and therefore a perfect match with their client: Rachman Andrew David Ladsky - as well as fitting in perfectly with the rest of his gang of racketeers.

'Great ambassadors' for the Jewish community that frequently complains of being "victims of antisemitism in society"!...

a claim that attracts heavy state support.

BUT, as demonstrated on this page (below): their conduct is endorsed by their 'professional' association, the fertiliser for malpractice, the Law Society (= same as in the case of Jeremy Hershkorn and Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel),...

... followed by the endorsement of the then Legal Services Ombudsman (= same as in the case of Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton).

Further, as also discussed on this page, and summarised under e.g. Advisors to Jefferson House and Kangaroo courts, they also had the endorsement of some of Her Majesty's judiciaries in West London County Court (Overview # 3), as well as Wandsworth County Court - and,

...ultimately, that of her then Department for Constitutional Affairs, headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton (subsequently renamed the Ministry of 'Justice').

(NB: CKFT is also covered in:

See also visitors to my site who commented about CKFT: Comments # 11, # 29)

It is abundantly clear that Andrew David Ladsky and 'Steel Services' are / were one and the same client of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT). Further, that Ladsky is the leader of the gang of racketeers.

•  CKFT acted for Arthur Ladsky, instructing counsel, in the TSB Bank v. Arthur Ladsky [1996] EWCA Civ 579 (14th August 1996) Court of Appeal case (extracts), in which the bank demanded repayment of £3 million. Andrew Ladsky and Arthur Ladsky were both directors of Combined Mercantile Securities. (See Directorships for related information)

•  In her identical, malicious letter of 11 Oct 01 to Leaseholder A (Elderly Resident), and Leaseholder B (Other Residents), Ayesha Salim wrote "We are solicitors instructed by Mr Andrew Ladsky"

•  Lanny Silverstone's malicious, and illegal letter to me of 07.10.02 - in which he threatened to "forfeit [my] lease", and to "contact my mortgage lender" - "acting on behalf of Steel Services Limited" (below ; Overview # 1).

This letter has the reference 'LAD'. The 01.07.04 Consent Order (below ; Overview # 3) has, likewise the reference 'LAD'.

CKFT acted for Steel Services prior to 2002, as can be seen from the 15.10.01 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for Jefferson House - in reply to Nucleus, local 'Citizens Advice Bureau', in which she gave CKFT's address as contact.

•  Silverstone's 28.11.02 letter to me, in which he accused me falsely of having made "defamatory remarks about Mr Ladsky" (in my 24.10.02 fax to Kensington & Chelsea Housing and in my 24.10.02 fax to the then London LVT (police # 2 - Background)).

Silverstone repeated the same false accusations against me, in his 28.11.02 letter to my then employer, KPMG (police # 2 - Background ; My Diary 15 May 08).

•  Silverstone filed, in West London County Court, on behalf of Steel Services, the fraudulent 29.11.02 claim (ref: WL 203537) against me, and 13 other apartments (below ; Overview # 3).

•  Silverstone's 04.02.03 letter to me (when he joined in 'on the act' with Kensington & Chelsea police, in making Ladsky's false accusations stick against me: police # 2 KP(13) , Background) - in which he wrote: "We are writing on behalf of our clients, Steel Services Limited. It has come to our attention from Mr Ladsky, the tenant of flat 35 [NB:!!!]...".

•  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 (Freehold ownership ; Headlessors ; Owners identity), CKFT 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.

(I do not know whether CKFT acted for 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" ).

•  At the 29 Oct 02 then London LVT pre-trial 'hearing', when Andrew David 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 29.10.02 directions issued by the tribunal).

However, throughout the 4-day tribunal hearings, Ladsky was a member of 'Steel Services' party, holding frequent discussions with: (1)- Mr Warwick, Steel Services' counsel (My Diary 13 Mar 03) ; (2)- Brian Gale, MRICS, 'Steel Services' surveyor who, during the hearings, confirmed that Ladsky was "a prior client"; (3)- Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ.

(In spite of seeing this, the tribunal nonetheless continued to use Ladsky's initial answer - as can be seen in its 17.06.03 report under para.4: "attended by.Mr A Ladsky, the owner of flats 34 and 35 ", and para.50, quoting from a "28 April 2003 letter from Mr Ladsky, the lessee of flats 34 and 35")

•  In the "summary of contributions to the major works" attached to the ICAEW's 29.08.06 letter to me, Ladsky who is / was at the time, the registered owner of apartments 34 and 35 since the year 2000, had not paid any contribution towards "the major works".

•  (1) In its 10.02.06 so-called "notice of 1st refusal ", Portner and Jaskel, solicitors, said to be acting "as agents for Steel Services" (Portner # 1 ; Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006);

(2) 8 months later, in his 03.10.06 letter to my then website host, Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner, identified "[his] client" as being "Andrew Ladsky" (Portner # 2 ; My Diary 3 Oct 06)

•  In 2002, I approached the Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO) at Kensington & Chelsea Housing to obtain, as per my statutory rights (and in line with the legal power of councils), the identity of the landlord, as well as the name and address of every director and secretary of the landlord (Owners identity # 1).

In his 05.11.02 email, the TRO 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"

(In his 06.11.02 email to me, the TRO wrote: "...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") (NB: This TRO is one of the very few people I have come across, since 2002, who acted with integrity).

A smaller detail: on 27 Aug 03, the day after the West London County Court so-called "hearing" (WLCC # 11), on seeing me walking near 'the concentration camp', Ladsky told me: "Loser!"

Back to list

Summary of events - Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - 2002-04:

(See, below, Breaches of the law)

(See also: Advisors to Jefferson House -CKFT ; Extortion ; Kangaroo courts # 1 and # 2)

(1)- Using a typical extortion tactic used by criminal landlords and their aides in the residential leasehold sector, in his 07.10.02 letter, Lanny Silverstone illegally threatened me, on behalf ofSteel Services= Andrew David Ladsky, with “forfeiture” (copy of definition)...

...and “contacting [my] mortgage lender” if I failed to pay immediately the fraudulent 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) sent by his other organized crime member, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) (pt # 1).

Lanny Silverstone made these threats and demand in the name of a company that did not exist – as ‘Steel Services’ had been “struck-off the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of the licence fee”.

Further, the Jersey address was also false (pt # 1).

(2)- In spite of knowing that his client had filed a 07.08.02 Application in the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, “to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,200 [US$1.3m] in the 15.07.02 demand"...

...– and of his gang, having attended the 29.10.02 pre-trial ‘hearing’, at which, we, leaseholders were specifically told to not pay...

...– one month later, Silverstone proceeded with filing, in West London County Court, a 29.11.02 claim against me (and 13 other apartments) – for the full amount demanded in the July 02 demand (pt # 2).

(3)- With the aim of assisting further the extortion, with the claim, Silverstone provided a lease ‘said’ to include the following: “The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor…to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor” – falsely claiming that it was “representative of all the leases”.

As a result of my raising this in my 17.12.02 Defence, in his 23.01.03 letter, Silverstone asked me for a copy of my Lease i.e. 2 months after filing the claim against me (pt # 6.7).

(4) - Silverstone’s next attempt to defraud me was at the 24 Jun 03 'case management hearing' he had requested – in spite of the fact that we, leaseholders had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. It included Silverstone handing me, just 10 minutes before seeing the judge, 3 documents I had not seen before.

They included a “Major Works Apportionment” from MRJ, for which the demand from me had been reduced from £14,400 to £10,917 (US$19,250) – amounting to a 24.19% reduction (pt # 6.6).

It fell very short of the tribunal’s findings that had the effect of reducing the global sum demanded of £736,200 (US$1.3m), by £500,000 (US$882,000) (including the contingency fund, ‘said’ to amount to £142k (US$250,350)) = a reduction of nearly 70% (pt # 4).

(5)- Having absolute knowledge that their client, Ladsky, had not implemented the 17.06.03 tribunal findingswith the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable – over several weeks, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim persecuted me by sending me a salvo of malicious, threatening letters – as well as portrayed me – falsely – as a liar in a 17.07.03 letter to District Judge Wright (pt # 3).

(6)- Knowing full well that the tribunal findings applied to all the leaseholders, Silverstone attempted, in his 17.07.03 letter to the tribunal, to get the tribunal “to determine how much [I] should pay”.

To this, in its 21.07.03 letter, the tribunal replied: “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" (pt # 6.3).

Hence: yet again confirming that the tribunal's findings apply to each and every one of the leaseholders… (practically ALL of whom were made to pay before the tribunal issued its report: pts # 4 , # 6.6).

(7)- Having failed in their various attempts, Ayesha Salim filed a fraudulent 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder) (pt # 6.6).

In this, she claimed the sum of £10,917 (US$19,250) by providing a 06.08.03 ‘Major Works Apportionment’ from MRJ – falsely claiming that it reflected the tribunal findings.

The only difference was that the 24.06.03 'apportionments' covered 5 apartments, including mine, while the 06.08.03 'apportionments' covered all of the then 35 apartments at Jefferson House. In each instance, the sum demanded of each apartment had, as previously, been revised down by only 24.19%. Contrast that with the 70% reduction (pt # 6.3).

In my 09.08.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, I had stated the impact of the tribunal’s findings on ‘my share’. After a discussion with ‘my’ so-called ‘advisors’, Salim used this during the ‘hearing’ – asking for £2,255 (US$4,000) (slightly less than my calculations).

Her excuse for accepting this sum, instead of the £10,917 (US$19,250) demanded? “It was a clerical error”. (District Judge Wright accepted this without batting an eyelid) (pt # 6.6).

(8)- From then on, ‘my’ so-called ‘advisorsPiper Smith Basham/Watton and Stan Gallagher (who were batting for Ladsky e.g. Gallagher-Summary of events) went into overdrive to force me to pay the rest of the amount claimed.

As per the 26.08.03 court’s directions, I wrote a 19.10.03 Witness Statement that was clearly passed on to Ladsky by ‘my advisors’ - as it resulted in a 21.10.03Part 36 offer’ of £6,350 (US$11,200). (I did not get a Wit.Stat. from Ladsky).

From there followed more bullying, intimidation, coercion and double-dealing – that included Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton sending a 13.11.03particularly convenient’ reply to ‘the offer’, drawn-up by Stan Gallagher - falsely claiming that I had “agreed to it” (pt # 4).

(9)- The ensuing, extremely traumatic battle led me, in mid-Dec 03, to take back control of my case, and send CKFT my – own – 19.12.03 version of acceptance of ‘the offer’ - stating that I was doing this “for the sake of bringing an end to the dispute”. (Legally, I did not owe this amount either) (pt # 4).

My doing this threw in a spanner in the works of the cabal (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat) – leading to my being subjected to a further 6 months of very traumatic treatment by the Ladsky mafia, as well as judiciary and staff in West London County Court, followed by Wandsworth County Court – and finally resulted in Salim sending me a 01.07.04 court-endorsed consent order (pt # 4).

(10)- The follow-on punishment by Ladsky was to, 3 months later, ask MRJ to send me a 21.10.04 totally unsupported demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) i.e. the same amount as the 17.07.02 demand.

(NB: The fraudulent demands have continued ever since, by MRJ, followed by its successor, Martyn Gerrard. See also Overview # 19 -Overall outcome).

What took place (as well as in 2007-08: Overview # 10, # 11, # 12) provides undeniable evidence that the threats by the Andrew David Ladsky mafia of "forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings and costs", as well as court claims = fraud tools.

The continuation of the attacks against me led me to file complaints - including against CKFT. See, below, Snapshot of my complaints.

YES: Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim could only do what they did with the active support of Her Majesty’s judiciaries and staff in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court, and of her tribunal - who not only turned a blind eye to the evidence, breaches of legislation, of CPR, and of covenants in my Lease – they actually assisted them - very actively.

Further, they knew that they had carte blanche from their ‘professional’ association, the fertiliser for malpractice, the Law Society, to act as they did.

My name for all of that? ‘The wonders of 'the Brotherhood', in very sick, "Corrupt Britain" - in which the Establishment acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

(Adding credence to my conclusions - see the Jan 14 Indy articles that report on findings of "corruption of the criminal justice system et.al. by Freemasons").

Overall outcome on me - below

Back to list

Breaches of the law - Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - 2002-04:

(See, above, Summary of events)

In - my non-lawyer opinion (*) - Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and their client, Andrew David Ladsky, have (like Portner and Jaskel, MRJ and Brian Gale, MRICS) committed breaches of Civil Procedure rules, of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as breaches of my Lease:

(*) I contend that it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to arrive at the conclusions.

Note that their 'brothers' in Her Majesty's West London County Court not only turned a blind eye and deaf ear to ALL their breaches - they actively helped them in committing them - summaries: Events; Breaches of the law.

 

•  Civil Procedure Rules

•  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, chp 41, s. 17 (see extracts):

  • (2)- The salvo of malicious letters over a period of several weeks (pt # 3).

•  Theft Act

  • They knew that the documents which, in the case of the 06.08.03 application for Summary Judgment, Ayesha Salim endorsed with a statement of truth - were false.
  • (1) 07.10.02 illegal threat of "forfeiture" - demanding monies that were not due and payable;
  • (2) The salvo of malicious letters over a period of several weeks (pt # 3), and other letters (introduction).

•  Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - "Know your client" (see extracts) (Guidance to solicitors from the Law Society) (= criminal offence)

  • 07.10.02 letter making threats and demands on behalf of a company that did NOT exist.

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s.19(2) ; s.20(4) (link to extracts):

  • (1)- 07.10.02 illegal threat of "forfeiture" - demanding monies that were not due and payable.
  • (3)- 06.08.03 fraudulent application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder).

•  My Lease

•  Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A (see extracts) (= criminal offences):

  • (1)- 07.10.02 illegal threat of "forfeiture" - demanding monies that were not due and payable;
  • (3)- 06.08.03 fraudulent application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder);
  • (4)- The salvo of malicious letters over a period of several weeks (pt # 3), and other letters (introduction).

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2 (see extracts) - including breaching s.7(3A) by aiding and abetting the harassment on behalf of Andrew David Ladsky (= criminal offences):

  • (1)- Deliberately ignoring CPR, statutes and my Lease - as detailed in this section.
  • (2)- The salvo of malicious letters over a period of several weeks (pt # 3), and other letters (introduction) - preceded by the 07.10.02 illegal threat of "forfeiture" (copy of definition) - in the process, deliberately ignoring my evidence / dismissing my counterclaims.
  • (2)- 06.08.03 fraudulent application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder).
  • (3)- Demanding the 24 Jun 03 case management hearing when, in fact, I (and fellow leaseholders) had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
  • (4)- Taking 6 months to finally issue me with a 01.07.04 court-endorsed consent order sealing the agreement;
  • (5)- ALL in the context of the fraudulent 29.11.02 claim.

•  Defamation Act 1996 (see extracts):

  • (2)- 06.08.03 fraudulent application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholders).

•  Data Protection Act 1998

•  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 4A (see extracts) (= criminal offence):

  • Prior to the 24 Jun 03 WLCC case management hearing, in front of members of the public, Silverstone handed me documents - falsely portraying me as a dishonest individual.

Back to list

Snapshot of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), followed by Law Society and then Legal Services Ombudsman

The lies by ‘my advisors’ and the Ladsky mafia, as well as the follow-on fraudulent demands - led me to file a complaint with the Law Society, against CKFT (pt # 6 ; Doc library # 2.5).

In my complaint that comprised of, among other:

  • 20.12.04 pack of 132 supporting enclosures.

- I reported and discussed all of the above, under Events and Breaches of the law - and more.

I summarised my complaint as:

"...for committing criminal offences against me and causing highly detrimental consequences on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position - in the process of supporting its client Steel Services' unlawful claim against me of a service charge demand of £14,400"

Predictably, in its 08.02.05 ‘reply’, the Law Society made a blanket rejection of my - legitimate - complaint (discussed from pt # 6.1) - in the process:

  • (1)- it turned a blind eye to the very damning evidence;
  • (2)- made some absolutely outrageous comments;

Clearly unable to challenge my 19.02.05 reply, in its 17.03.05 letter it stated: "this office cannot take any of your concerns any further". (At least I had gained the Law Society not attempting to get me to run like a hamster on a wheel, as it had done in relation to complaint against Piper Smith Watton: Doc Library # 2.2).

My filing a 20.02.05 complaint with the Legal Services Ombudsman against the Law Society, equally predictably, resulted in a 11.07.05 rejection of my complaint (Doc library # 3.3 ; LSO # 2).

Outcome of my complaints:

c. 170 hours of my life, and significant costs: ALL down the drain!

Back to list

Overall outcome on me of the above Events and Breaches of the law - as the innocent victim of crime (Case summary):

As a result of the collusion and conspiring between this satanic (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)), vampiric Andrew David Ladsky mafia and:

(1)- Over a period of 20 months - I suffered unbelievably traumatic treatment, torment, anguish, distress, bullying, intimidation, harassment - with serious consequences on my physical and emotional health.

And I continued to suffer long afterwards, due to Her Majesty's District Judge Madge, in West London County Court (WLCC # 13) deciding to offer Ayesha Salim the 'freebie' of having the action against me "stayed" (below ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 4).

(2)- Loss of £40,000 (US$70,000) (Overview # 4) from my very-hard-earned life savings, spent on 'professional' fees, including £30,000 (US$53,000) for a deliberately near-useless report from the tribunal (Overview # 2).

(3)- Many other costs, including: loss of earnings; over 500 hours of my life (on a 35-hour basis it amounts to 4 whole months of my life).

For what?

A fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) against which I failed to get justice and redress - for the benefit 'the brother' Rachman Andrew David Ladsky (above).

Back to list

(1)- The evidence suggests that, at least for a while, Lanny Silverstone was making monetary demands and threats on behalf of a company that did not exist - including threatening me - illegally - with "forfeiture", in his 07.10.02 letter.

As briefly stated above, in Jan 02, I approached the Kensington & Chelsea Housing Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO), who sent Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, an 08.01.02 s.2 Notice under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, asking for "the name and address of every director and the company secretary of Steel Services Ltd" (detail under Owners identity # 1)

In his 01.08.02 letter to the TRO, Daniel Fireman, Partner, 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" [Owners identity # 2]

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

(1)- a 26.02.02 claim filed in Central London County Court by Portner and Jaskel, against the Elderly Resident, gave 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, as well as Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006, for Portner's other 'activities' in relation to 'Steel Services')

(2)- in her 25.01.02 letter to the TRO, Hathaway wrote: "The Directors and secretary of Steel Services are F.M.C. Ltd" and gave an address in the British Virgin Islands (Owners identity # 1)

The 08.08.02 reply I received from the BVI (i.e. written just 1 week after the above letter), stated that Steel Services had been

"Struck-off the register for non-payment of licence fee" (BVI # 1)

To this should be added that, by Aug 02, the outcome of the various searches undertaken by myself and the TRO (and previously by Nucleus, our local 'Citizens Advice Bureau': Owners identity # 1) had led to a 'nil' return: there was no record of the company in the UK.

My contacting the Jersey Authorities, as the 'service charge' demands (e.g. 17.07.02) stated an address in this jurisdiction - led me to discover that this address was also false.

The 10.10.01 reply from the Land Registry to Nucleus, was:

"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 under paras.12-22 of my 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society, against CKFT.

The outcome is that I believe it to be 'Fair comment' for me to say that: the evidence suggests that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (as well as Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), and the 'accountants', Pridie Brewster) were, at least for a while, claiming to be acting on behalf of a company that did not exist - and, concurrently, using a false address.

BUT, given the UK's corporate laws, in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, it was evidently perceived as 'immaterial'.

It included Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, making a totally unsupported demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m) for "the major works", in 'her' 15.07.02 letter and, in the 17.07.02 invoice, of £14,400 (US$25,400) from me (Overview # 1) (My identical Comments are attached to the demands).

I knew that this demand was fraud, and that the objective was as detailed, above, at the top of this page.

Also of key importance, note that 6 months prior to making the above demand, in her 21.12.01 letter to the leaseholders, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature. Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund":

My 'daring' to challenge the demand (*), led Ladsky to involve...

... his other racketeer, Lanny Silverstone who, in his 07.10.02 letter, wrote:

"In the event that payment [the 17.07.02 demand for £14,400 ( US$25,400)] 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"

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

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

(Overview # 1 ; see also, below, the Law Society's 'response' to my complaint).

(*) This was a continuation of the persecution by Ladsky, that had started in early 2002, as soon as I 'dared' to challenge the true nature of "the major works" e.g. police # 1 - Background.

At the time, I had near non-existent knowledge of landlord-tenant legislation - which, of course, is what the vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) racketeer, Lanny Silverstone, was relying on in sending me this letter (Business model)

Based on information I received from LEASE, as well as managed to gather from other sources, I held firm - repeating in my 17.10.02 reply to Silverstone, what I had already stated on 2 previous occasions (11.08.02 and 16.09.02) to his other gang member, Joan Hathaway, MRICS: "I require additional information before I can agree to the demand" .

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(2)- Lanny Silverstone knowingly committed an abuse of process of court by filing, in West London County Court, a (fraudulent) 29.11.02 claim against me (and 13 other apartments) and, concurrently, breached Civil Procedure Rules by having the Statement of Truth endorsed by the "managing agents for the property" - which meant that the claim could not be pursued.

Understandably, the above demand caused a mini-revolt among the leaseholders.

It led Ladsky to, 3 weeks later, file a 07.08.02 Application in the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunalto determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded” (Overview # 2)

In response to Silverstone's 07.10.02 threat of "forfeiture" (above), in my 17.10.02 reply, I asked whether he was aware that his client had made an application to the tribunal.

In his 21.10.02 letter, Silverstone replied:

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

Two weeks later, at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (10.10.02 letter from the tribunal) (LVT # 1.4), which, as can be seen from the tribunal's directions of 29.10.02, was attended by, among others, CKFT's client Andrew Ladsky, and his mob comprising of: Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, and Brian Gale,...

...we (leaseholders) were asked by the Chair whether we had paid the 15.07.02 'service charge' demand (Overview # 1). 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 (LVT # 1.5).

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),...

...Lanny Silverstone nonetheless proceeded - 1 month later - to file, in West London County Court, a fraudulent 29.11.02 claim (WL 203537) against 11 leaseholders, including myself - who represented 14 apartments (WLCC # 1), 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..."

Aside from amounting to a blatant abuse of process of court (same assessment by 2 lawyers: WLCC # 2(1) / Overview # 3, letters: 09.04.03 to my then solicitors ; 12.12.02 letter, to CKFT, from the solicitors of a fellow leaseholder)...

...CKFT also had the Particulars of claim endorsed with a Statement of Truth, signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ...

...- thereby amounting to another serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules, as PD 22, para.3.11 states:

"An agent who manages property for the party cannot sign a statement of truth".

The implication (para.4.1) was that 'Steel Services'

"could NOT rely on the contents of the statement of case as evidence."

HM judiciaries' in West London County Court, also turned a blind eye to this (WLCC # 2(2)).

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(3)- Continuing with their objective of securing from me monies that were not due and payable, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim demonstrated their arsenal of extortion and criminal psychological harassment tactics, by sending me a salvo of highly threatening letters.

Of course, in CKFT, in particular Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky has the 'ideal' firm of solicitors to assist him in his criminal activities - as (like the rest of his gang of racketeers), they very clearly don't give a damn about committing criminal offences (see above).

Indeed, the threat of "proceedings" - of course, always emphasising the threat of "costs" - is a key element of their arsenal of extortion tactics - as demonstrated by the following malicious letters:

(In reading the following, note that the subsequent findings by the then London LVT reduced the sum demanded by 70% (incl. contingency fund): LVT # 4.1)

•  Silverstone's 07.10.02 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"

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

 

•  Silverstone's 21.10.02 letter to me:

"If it becomes necessary for it to do so our client will also refer to your substantial delays in making payment of service charges and other sums during the past several years." (*)

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"

(*) Of course, very conveniently ignoring the reasons for my doing this - see MRJ # 1.

•  Silverstone's 04.02.03 letter to me (when he joined in 'on the act' with Her Majesty's Kensington & Chelsea police):  

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

The due process of law is under way to claim the perfectly proper service charges that are due from you"

(NB: So "proper" that, 8 months later, in the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' (below), he knocked off more than £8,000 from the £14,400 (US$25,400) demand in the 17.07.02 invoice, and 29.11.02 WLCC claim)...

...- leaving £6,350 (US$9,900) that was still not due and payable: WLCC # 12 ; police # 2: KP(13) ; background) (Overview # 3)

•  Silverstone's 25.06.03 "Without prejudice" letter to me

It is our view and that of our client that to continue with enormously expensive legal proceedings make no sense whatsoever, particularly now that the LVT have given their decision. Save for the improvements, the LVT allowed virtually all of our client’s proposals… " (1)

"Our client has informed us that they invited you to attend a meeting...Apparently, you chose not to attend this meeting which could have resolved any concerns you had without going through the costly LVT process..." (2)

"... which has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project" (3)

(1)- As I wrote under para.157 of my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT to the Law Society (# 6, below): "A blatantly false statement" (see # 4, below / LVT # 4.1).

And, under the same point: "CKFT is blaming me for causing the situation and therefore the resultant costs and is consequently putting the onus on me for ending it: by paying… an amount that is not due and payable"

(2)-

(1)- Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, sent the 07.11.02 'invitation' just 3 days before (my reply of 12.11.02);

(2)- as I captured under paras 9 and 10 of my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (page: 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement): the leaseholders were still not provided with the information to which we were entitled - as demonstrated by the fact that some ended-up on the 29.11.02 claim.

Further, the so-called 'specification' produced by Brian Gale, MRICS, was unusable because, as was confirmed later - by the tribunal (Gale # 6):

  • "lack of detail";
  • "works not clearly identified, not measured, not specified";
  • "there was duplication";
  • "impossible to judge the standard to be achieved";
  • "could not determine that costs were reasonable";
  • "could not compare tenders";

etc.

(3)- Outcome of conniving and conspiring between the Ladsky mafia and the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: see 'Summary' # 1.1 ; LVT # 7.

Under para.157 of my 20.12.04 complaint, I wrote: "CKFT is blaming me for causing the situation and therefore the resultant costs and is consequently putting the onus on me for ending it: by paying… an amount that is not due and payable"

Note that Silverstone then sent a 17.07.03 letter to District Judge Wright - falsely accusing me of being a liar (WLCC # 9). He also sent a 17.07.03 letter to the tribunal asking how much I should pay - see below, for the reply

•  Silverstone's 24.07.03 letter to me:

"Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court has to deal with the determination of this issue..." (1)

"As we suggested on numerous occasions, this is a matter which could be dealt with between the parties at a round-table meeting. We note your complete failure to respond to our repeated invitations in this regard." (2)

"In the circumstances, we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to subsequent issue as to costs(2)

(1)- To blackmail me into 'striking a deal' (Overview Note 4).

(2)- Under para.161 of my 20.12.04 complaint, I wrote:

"in spite of being fully aware of the position i.e. that its client has not implemented the LVT recommendations - CKFT continues with its blackmail, intimidation and harassment tactics for the purpose of obtaining monies not due and payable"

•  Salim's 05.08.03 letter to me:

"We write further to our letter dated 24th July 2003 [above] and note that we have received no response from you. In the circumstances, we have made an Application to West London County Court for Summary Judgment against you..." (*)

(*) See # 6.6, below

•  Silverstone's 07.08.03 letter to my solicitors (for only a few hours):

"Your client has made no payment in respect of the proposed works which were the subject of the LVT application.

At the very minimum we would expect your client to pay those sums that she admits are due in light of the LVT determination"

"We recognise that this matter will have to go to trial if it is not resolved by agreement…

You will see that we have made numerous offers to meet with your client in order to try and resolve this matter by negotiation.

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

Under para.163 of my 20.12.04 complaint, I wrote:

"The reason for my not making a payment was: as I had been told by the LVT [# 2, above], I waited for Steel Services to fully implement the LVT determination [# 4, below / LVT # 4.1], issue a Section 20 Notice, send me a revised priced specification and an invoice – in compliance with the terms of my lease.

Steel Services DID NOT DO THIS. AND CKFT KNEW THIS"

•  Salim's 21.08.03 letter to me, in which she expected me to pay £708 (US$1,250) for her "clients costs" (below).

(NB: Not granted: WLCC # 11.

In fact, the 26.08.03 Order confirmed the 24 Jun 03 ruling that Ladsky had to pay my costs for the day (and those of my fellow leaseholders who attended) - as we had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal: WLCC # 8) (as I reported under para.156 of my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT to the Law Society (# 6, below)).

•  Salim, through the intermediary of 'my advisor', Lisa McLean, Piper Smith & Basham(Watton), who recorded in her 24.09.03 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"

(NB: With the objective of making me abandon my 20C tribunal Application, to stop Ladsky from putting his tribunal-related costs on the service charges for Jefferson House - unbelievable collusion and conspiring took place between CKFT, MRJ, 'my advisors', and the tribunal: LVT # 5 ; PSB # 7.18)

•  Salim's 21.10.03 "PART 36 offer'" (below), faxed to Piper Smith Basham:

"Your client's decision to challenge both the LVT decision [1] and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own.

Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building." (2)

"...other lessees and residents of the building who have, quite rightly, paid their apportioned liability" (3)

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

(1)- I was not "challenging the LVT decision" - as what I was challenging was the fact that the London tribunal's Panel failed to perform its statutory remit by not including a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded".

BUT, Salim, was taking her cue from Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs = from 'the brother': Andrew David Ladsky (LVT # 7).

(2)- I repeat my above note

'Of course', other members of the Ladsky organized crime mafia were also implementing the same strategy e.g.

.Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, in 'his' (=Ladsky's) 02.08.04 letter to me:

" [I] refused to pay [my] contribution and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the works" (Overview: # 5 ; 'Major works' - Note)

(3)- Unbelievable! See below.

•  Salim's 28.05.04 letter to me:

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

These extortion tactics, using criminal psychological harassment, are typical of the tactics used in the - deliberately unregulated - residential leasehold sector, by the many Rachman landlords like Andrew David Ladsky who dominate the sector,...

...and by their, equally - deliberately unregulated - gangs of racketeers - hell-bent on enforcing on leaseholders - by whatever means - their standard off-the-shelf formula (see Overview, Note 4).

See the Introduction for other malicious letters from Silverstone.

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(4)- The tribunal's findings reduced the 15.07.02 demand by £500,000 (US$882,000). Following my 19.10.03 Witness Statement, Andrew David Ladsky made me a 21.10.03Part 36 offer’ of £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 originally demanded).

Although I did not owe this amount either, I accepted it to end the dispute. Another 6 months of hell nonetheless followed before CKFT issued me with a 01.07.04 court-endorsed Consent Order.

As explained under e.g. Overview # 2 / LVT # 1, thanks to the collusion and conspiring between the Ladsky mafia and the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, I ended-up being the main leaseholder challenging Ladsky's 07.08.02 application to the tribunal (LVT # 1.6).

(As detailed under para.50 of the 17.06.03 tribunal's report: "another unhappy lessee was represented on the last day of the hearing") (LVT # 1.2).

My decision to challenge the application by 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky - was amply vindicated - as demonstrated by the following:

Note that the following is based on the 31.07.03 assessment by my Chartered Surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners, member of the RICS (to which I add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity)...

... - because, as discussed under LVT # 4.2, the members of Her Majesty's London tribunal Panel: the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - failed to perform its legal remit - as defined under s.19(2B) of the L&T Act 1985 - "to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded".

(As explained under Overview # 2, and detailed under LVT # 7, the then President of the then LVTs, Siobhan McGrath, refused to address this major failing). ('Thank you' John Prescott and Siobhan McGrath, for the poisoned chalice!).

To those who will automatically opt to discredit my surveyor's assessment - because he worked for me (and, 'of course', 'only the landlord and his party tell the truth' (LVT # 5.4)) - see LVT # 4.1.

(NB: Kensington & Chelsea housing is another one which, like the then London tribunal (LVT # 2) believes that 'only the landlord and his party tell the truth': K&C # 2.4 ; # 2.6).

The total sum demanded in the 07.08.02 application was £736,207 (US$1.3m) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and management fees of 11%) (LVT # 4.1).

Disallowed / breach

Amount

% of global sum

"Because improvements" (1)

£169,498 (US$298,900) (£129,958 (US$229,200) excl. VAT and "management fees")

23%

"Could not make a determination due to lack of specification" (1)

£188,784 (US$332,900) (£144,745 (US$255,200) excl. VAT and fees)

25.6%

Considering the covenant in the lease (para.59), as well as RICS' best practice (para.62) - "opinion that the reserve fund should be used as contribution" (2)

'Said' to contain £141,977 (US$250,400)

19.3%

(1) See Brian Gale, MRICS, # 6 for extracts from the tribunal's 17.06.03 report.

 

(2) Although the tribunal said to not have the jurisdiction to force 'SS' to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2(2)(e) of the lease (captured under para.59 of its 17.06.03 report), under para.62, the tribunal quoted from the RICS Code. While, under para.63, argued that:

"The wording of the clause relating to the contingency fund or reserve fund in the lease is unambiguous. It refers to costs expenses and outgoings "not being of an annually recurring nature", and as such surely envisages the type of works proposed at the subject property.

 ...the Tribunal considers it inequitable that this fund should not be used in part to fund the works, and cannot accept Mr Warwick's (Steel Services) contention that to divest or reduce the contingency fund would be "wrong"

 

The refusal to use the contingency fund amounted to a change of position relative to the 07.06.01 letter to "All Lessees" from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, in which she wrote:

"At present, there is approximately £125,000 [US$220,400] in the Reserve Fund, but in view of the scope of works required to be carried out it is anticipated that the sum will be inadequate to meet the costs." (1)  

This means that once the Specifications have been prepared and estimates obtained, a Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Notice will be served on you giving details of the additional payment required from you." (2)

(1)- As noted under # 1, above, 6 months later, in her 21.12.01 letter, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote: "Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

(2)- As discussed under West London County Court # 12, in his 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' to me, Ladsky took the amount of the contingency fund into account - because, among others, I had referred to (and supplied a copy) of the above 07.06.01 letter with my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (my 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 2)...

...- and had also raised it with my so-called 'advisors' Piper Smith Basham/Watton in, among others, my letters of 21.09.03 and 29.09.03.

BUT: as discussed under WLCC # 6 - did NOT do the same thing with my fellow leaseholders - as the majority were bullied and terrorised into paying the full amount originally demanded.

In the light of what took place (e.g. below ; Overview # 3), note that Rachman Andrew David Ladsky - himself - admitted to the police - that: This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly”. (police # 3 KP(3)(1)(5))

How does Ladsky (and Silverstone and Salim) explain that v. the amount that was paid by the leaseholders of the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - and kept? (29.08.06 letter to me from the ICAEW ; Pridie Brewster # 18)

NOTE the requirements of s.19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - which states:

"Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable."

 

Hence, taking the contingency fund into account - left an amount that 'could' be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original £736,207 (US$1.3m) demanded in the 07.08.02 application.

In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was not considered "reasonable".

'Could' be charged - as, in the end, the Ladsky gang of racketeers opted to ignore the tribunal's 'very inconvenient' findings, and appointed a new contractor, Mansell (02.08.04 letter)...

... - in breach of consultation procedures - which meant that the maximum that could be demanded of each of the then 35 apartment was £250 (US$441), or a total of £8,750 (US$15,429) for the whole block (Overview # 5 and Note 2)...

...v. the £500,000 (US$882,000) that was paid - and kept (summary detail under Overview # 3).

(This data is from my analysis, attached to information sent to me by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) with its 29.08.06 letter, following my 19.07.05 complaint against Pridie Brewster, 'accountants' for Jefferson House (Pridie Brewster: # 2 , # 3 , # 8 , # 10 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19).

These findings demonstrated the very blatant lies and intended fraud by Brian Gale, MRICS = his client Andrew Ladsky, in 'his' "Expert Witness" reports of 13.12.02 and 24.02.03 to the tribunal, as well as 20.02.02 'condition survey': see Gale # 7.

(NB: See e.g. Summary of events for my so-called 'advisor', Stan Gallagher's 'assessment' of the tribunal findings, and his change of position, following a drawn-out battle in the context of my complaint against him to the Bar Council (Gallagher # 3.a.3)).

(Skipping a lot of very traumatic events, summarised in the Overview under # 3 / Kangaroo courts), West London County Court's 26.08.03 directions required the exchange of witness statements by 21 Oct (WLCC # 12).

I wrote one, dated 19.10.03 (page: 19 October 2003 Witness Statement), I hand-delivered to 'my advisor', Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, on that day.

The exchange of witness statements is meant to be instantaneous. I did not get one from Ladsky.

Piper Smith Basham/Watton had very clearly passed mine on to Ladsky (WLCC # 12 ; 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1).

Through Ayesha Salim, Ladsky made me a 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) (v. the £14,400 originally demanded in the 17.07.02 invoice, including through the threat of "forfeiture" (above), as well as through proceedings (above)).

The 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' started with:

"Our client maintains that, as a result of the LVT decision dated 17th June 2003, it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917.27..." (*)

(*) But - 'out of his extremely generous, kind heart', our client, 'Dear Mr Ladsky' - decided to only demand £6,350!! Believe that, considering the conduct to date of that evil vermin? (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

Reality: detailed above - including the above admission by Ladsky's to the police.

Of course, the mafia had also the nerve to demand payment of interest. Typical of the Ladsky mafia, in the 'offer', it also continued with the lies: below: # 6.4 ; # 6.6.

And, likewise, typically, Salim continued with the attack (above) by, among others, (thanks to the ongoing, 'very obliging' assistance of the then London LVT: 'Case Summary' # 1) - blaming me for the then London LVT proceedings in the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer'...

...- in the process, continuing to defame my name, character and reputation (Defamation Act) - by making scurrilous claims against me:

"...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own.

Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building..."

(NB: Another one in the Ladsky gang of racketeers that happily smears the reputation of leaseholders for the purpose of covering-up its fraudulent demands is Martyn Gerrard (MG # 3). (As HM The Queen's police and courts wilfully smear my name, character and reputation: Why not indulge in the same practice!)

Against Salim's above claim, I draw your attention to para.64 of the 17.06.03 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database):

"Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered"

As explained in my Comments on the 13.11.03 Stan Gallagher's 'Draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance', and under Gallagher-Summary of events, from then on, 'my advisors' went into overdrive attempting to coerce me and bully me into accepting 'the offer' i.e. attempting to make me fit into the standard-off-the-shelf formula (Note 4)

Of course, on terms that left the door wide open to 'Dear Mr Ladsky' to come back and ask for more (Summary of events ; Malicious Communications Act 1988 - PSB and Gallagher).

Gallagher was also agreeing to the payment of interest because, of course, doing that, implied I had owed the amount claimed (Gallagher # 8).

(NB: Ladsky attempted to repeat this with one of his scum, in relation to his subsequent fraudulent claim against me of 27.02.07 (Overview # 11), through his other racketeer solicitor, Jeremy Hershkorn - see Portner and Jaskel # 14)

After weeks of being subjected to very traumatic, extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic treatment by the cabal (My Diary 2003: 22 Oct to 28 Oct, and 6 Nov to November 03), in mid-Dec 03, to the cabal's extreme frustration and fury, I took back control of my case (My Diary December 2003).

It threw a spanner in the works of the cabal, making its strategy backfire (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1 ; PSB # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3) - and lined me up for more 'punishment': WLCC # 13.

From being made to pay over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax since arriving in this country (33 years previously), as a law-abiding, British National, I had the understandable expectation that (among others) the courts would be there for me if I ever needed to call on them to act as per their legal mandate. (YES: I very naïvely believed the State's propaganda (Overview Note 8)).

Having faced the obvious reality that the courts are, (like the rest of 'the system'), not there for me, but to assist and protect 'certain crooks' i.e. 'brothers', against my moral principles I had so far managed to upheld in spite of the truly horrendous treatment I was subjected to, and for the sake of my health (by then, I was - literally - near collapse (My Diary 2003: 11 Nov ; 12 Nov ; 13 Nov ; November 2003 ; Christmas)), and, yet again, contemplating suicide - I accepted the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200) - even though, legally I did not owe this amount either.

I stated in my 19.12.03 Notice of acceptance to CKFT that I was doing this "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end". I wanted to put an end to this horrendous nightmare. I was so repulsed by what had happened to me (including also with the police: Overview # 17), that my plan was to leave the country - never to return - as it is no longer the country I decided to make my home and committed to by taking on the British nationality.

Once they ALL had their fun, after a further 6 months of sheer, utter hell (Overview # 3, WLCC # 13) , with her 14.07.04 letter, Ayesha Salim finally sent me the 01.07.04 court-endorsed Consent Order sealing the agreement.

However, I should have known better that what I was hoping to achieve was like trying to take a bone away from a dog - and an extremely vicious one at that (see next header).

Back to list

 

(5)- However, evil Rachman Ladsky decided to 'punish me' for 'my daring' to stand-up to him et.al. and interfere with his fraud - by having his racketeer 'managing' agents, Martin Russell Jones, send me repeatedly unsupported, fraudulent demands.

Indeed, as summarised under Overview # 6, the satanic (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) Rachman Andrew David Ladsky, asked his racketeer 'managing' agents, Martin Russell Jones, to send me the following invoices (my identical Comments are attached to the invoices - and cover subsequent invoices):

NOTE that: (1)- by then, I had reached agreement with the Ladsky racketeers e.g. 28.05.04 letter from Ayesha Salim ; (2)- 5 months previously, I had sent a 31.12.03 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, informing her that I had paid CKFT ‘my share’ of “the major works” (19.12.03 letter, above).

  • (2)- a 21.10.04 invoice i.e. 3 months after the court-endorsed Consent Order, stating: "Brought forward balance: £14,400 " = £1,000 was added - ditto: no supporting evidence. Hence, as though no 'offer' had been made (above), accepted, paid, and sealed by a court-endorsed Consent Order (above).

My ignoring the demands because I knew it was theft, led to a repeat in

Enough was enough. I had already given in once to the racketeering, satanic mafia, I was not going to give in a 2nd time. (Re. 'satanic': I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)).

I decided to file a complaint against CKFT (next header), with the Law Society, (among others: see Doc library # 2 ; RICS # A ; Pride Brewster-ICAEW # A)...

...- hoping to get better treatment from the 'regulators', than I had received from Her Majesty's tribunal, West London County Court judges (and staff), her 'Customer Service' department (not to mention her police, in 2002 and in 2003). In my dreams!

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(6)- The triggers to my filing a complaint with the Law Society against CKFT were: (1)- the lie by my so-called 'advisors', Piper Smith Basham/Watton that I had 'given my consent' to the 13 Nov 03 reply they sent to CKFT; (2)- the repeated fraudulent demands 'from' Martin Russell Jones.

I opted to file a complaint against CKFT with the Law Society (among others: Doc library # 2 ; RICS # A ; Pridie Brewster-ICAEW # A) - because:

While I had several documents to produce in evidence, least of all the fact that in her 24.11.03 letter Lisa McLean had asked me to confirm that "the consent order may be signed" (My 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1), I thought that filing a complaint would be another key element in my line of defence. (In my dreams!)

My complaint to the Law Society against CKFT, comprised of:

•  20.12.04 complaint;

•  20.12.04 summary;

•  20.12.04 pack of 132 supporting enclosures;

With these I enclosed:

•  a 20.12.04 covering letter;

•  a 20.12.04 completed form.

I summarised my complaint as:

"...for committing criminal offences against me and causing highly detrimental consequences on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position - in the process of supporting its client Steel Services' unlawful claim against me of a service charge demand of £14,400"

In the light of my experience with the Law Society in relation to my 16.03.04 complaint against Piper Smith & Basham/Watton (Doc library # # 2.2), I decided that I needed to gain as much knowledge as possible in order to 'pin down' the Law Society. Consequently, over several weeks, I spent evenings and weekends researching the solicitors code of conduct, numerous Acts, the Civil Procedure Rules, etc.

In summary:

As can be seen from my 20.12.04 complaint, its summary, it is my - non-lawyer - opinion that Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim 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 committed criminal offences (above).

OUTCOME? A typical rejection by the Law Society of all of my - legitimate - complaint - as evidenced by its 'reply' of 08.02.05 which concluded with:

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

 

In my 19.02.05 reply, I challenged its replies by responding comprehensively, including quoting from the solicitors code of conduct - stating that I was doing this, for the purpose of referring a complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman.

In its 17.03.05 letter, the Law Society replied:

"...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 viewed this reply as having achieved my objective of 'pinning down' the Law Society - as it did not leave the door open for further communication. (Unlike in the case of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham(Watton) (PSB # 5) 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 I wrote in My Diary 2004 - Complaint against CKFT: 'Got you Law Society!' (NB: But: they ALL decided to 'get me' by, among other, letting the goons lose on me - as I had become a threat to the Establishment e.g. Overview # 15)

The outcome from referring my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman (below ; LSO # 2 )? Ditto: a typical rejection - in her 11.07.05 'reply':

"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."

 

Hooray for 'self-regulation' - in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, in which the Establishment acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

Although not a lawyer, I most strongly contend that I have a legitimate complaint against Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim. Indeed, it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to see that.

The following are examples of some of the key points in my 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society, its replies, and mine.

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.1)- CKFT committed an abuse of process of court.

Under para. 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. filling of the 29.11.02 claim, ref: WL 203537 (WLCC # 1))

- citing the reasons detailed, above (see also WLCC # 2(1)) and, in relation to which, I provided the Law Society with the various documents.

In my complaint, I referred to my 17.10.02 letter to Silverstone asking him whether he was aware that his client had filed an application in the then London LVT, under paras 72, 73 and 75.

As to his 21.10.02 reply: "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" , I referred to it under paras 75, 178 and 179.

Having supplied the Law Society with a copy of the 29.11.02 claim and Particulars of claim, in my complaint, under para.82, I extracted, among others, the following:

"The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true"

and followed this by stating: "This claim, written by CKFT, is false on several counts".

In this context, I stated: " 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" (above)

08.02.05 reply from the Law Society:

"...a solicitor is required to act upon his/her client's proper instructions and in his/her client's best interests"

...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 members do not share its view - (thereby vindicating my 'non-lawyer' position) e.g.

•  The 12.12.02 letter to CKFT, from one of my fellow leaseholder's solicitors:  

"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 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 09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, 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 supplied a copy of this letter to the Law Society, for the purpose of substantiating para.136 of my 20.12.04 complaint.

Another of the 'responses' from the Law Society, to this part of my complaint included:

"..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"

Note that:

•  Under para.78 of my complaint, I quoted from pg 5 of the booklet (as well as supplied the first 5 pages) that we, leaseholders, were handed at the 29.10.02 pre-trial 'hearing', at the then London LVT (LVT # 1.5):

"...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." (NB: Emphasis as per the booklet)

In my complaint, I covered this issue / referred to it - at least 12 TIMES. Among others, under paras 75, 81, 82, 83, 92, 97, 131, 139, 143, 150, 157, 179 and 181. Hence, it most definitely could NOT be missed.

In my 19.02.05 reply to the Law Society, I wrote:

"This reflects another blatant bias on your part.

While what has taken place conjures up the Wild West – which you quite clearly endorse - CKFT was not “at liberty” to issue the claim: (i) it knew that the action in the LVT was taking place (Mr Silverstone’s letter to me, dated 21 October 2002); (ii) its duty as an officer of the court; (iii) the L&T legislation, as well as the legislation impacting on LVTs".

•  Under para.114 of my complaint, I extracted the following from para.64 (pg 15) of the 17.06.03 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (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's view was that:

"...the information [I] provided does not demonstrate that CKFT acted as alleged."

Absolutely unbelievable!

08.02.05 reply from the Law Society:

"A solicitor is not required to go behind a client's instructions to check their veracity"

My 19.02.05 reply: :

"Rule 21.21(4) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct – “In general, there is no duty upon a solicitor to enquire in every case where he or she is instructed as to whether the client is telling the truth.

However, where the solicitor’s instructions or other information are such as should put him or her upon enquiry, a solicitor must, where practicable, check the truth of what the client says to the extent that such statements will be relied on before the court or in pleadings (now statements of case) or affidavits”

Rule 21.01 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct – “Duty to not mislead the court - Solicitors who act in litigation, whilst under a duty to do their best for their client, must never deceive or mislead the court”

Rule 12.02 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct: "A solicitor must not act where the instructions would involve the solicitor in a breach of the law …"

Among others, the LVT determination, the L&T legislation, my lease, my letters in reply to CKFT’s threat to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage were all “…information are such as should put him or her upon enquiry” .

(I hold the view that my answers to the Law Society (and in the context of my other complaints around this time) - led the 'Thought Police' and its 'Ministry of Love' (Orwell's 1984) to 'get on my case').

What a mafia!

(I repeat my above note)

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.2)- CKFT made inappropriate use of forfeiture legislation [copy of definition] in an attempt to force me to pay monies that were not due and payable.

This is captured, among other, under para.1.2.2.1 in the 20.12.04 summary of my complaint, under which I wrote: "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".

It refers to the 07.10.02 letter from Lanny Silverstone, in which he demanded that I pay immediately the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (above)

(As stated earlier, in his 21.10.02 letter to me, Silverstone had confirmed knowing that his client had filed an application in the then London LVT).

I read the 07.10.02 letter at work. It caused me so much distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 Oct 02)

In my 20.12.02 complaint, I covered it, among others, under paras 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 178 and 179.

Under para.70, I also highlighted Silverstone's very different 'style' in the treatment (12 days later) of one of my fellow leaseholder, represented by a solicitor - as evidenced by his 21.10.02 letter:

"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 para.1.2 in the summary, and paras 68 and 69 in the main body, I recorded Silverstone's 07.10.02 letter to me as amounting to an offence under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968: "Blackmail"

(NB: 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))

08.02.05 reply from the Law Society:

"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 19.02.05 reply:

"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 wrote:

"You have totally overlooked what I captured under this point – and in my complaint (points 67-70, 75,178 and 179) that I maintain that, because I was not represented, CKFT, its client (and agent Ms Joan Hathaway, MRJ) “saw me as fair game for blackmail”"

To threaten forfeiture prior to issues being determined by a court or a tribunal is illegal. It is a fraudulent act as the intention was to frighten me in order to extort monies not due and payable. It is also an abuse of position.

Rule 12.02 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct: "A solicitor must not act where the instructions would involve the solicitor in a breach of the law …"

(I also referred, wrongly, to the Administration of Justice Act 1970, Section 40 - see my note under the extracts).

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.3)- CKFT demanded monies not due and payable.

The 3rd example in my 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society refers to the fact 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 paras 1.1.2.2., 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.5 and 1.1.3.6.

•  Under para.148, in the main body of my complaint, I highlighted the fact that, in his 23.05.03 Case Management Conference application to West London County Court (WLCC # 6), Lanny Silverstone stated:  

"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 the court, on 02.04.03. It reads:

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

It is absolutely outrageous that my fellow leaseholders were bullied and terrorised into paying monies that were not due and payable, and concurrently denied access to information to which they were legally entitled in order to defend themselves against the 29.11.02 claim (Particulars)...

...- as the then London LVT report, LVT/SC/007/120/02, was issued nearly 1 month after Silverstone's application - as it is dated 17 Jun 03 (ref #992 on the LVT database) (and hence, in the case of e.g. "the Seventh Defendant" 5 months after the "28 January 2003 Judgment") (For detail, see WLCC # 6 ; Lord Falconer # 1).

As explained, above, the impact of the findings from the tribunal hearings was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) in the sum demanded.

(As also explained above, this is based on the assessment of my (RICS) surveyor as, the tribunal's Panel - deliberately - failed to perform its statutory duty).

As summarised under Overview # 3, leaseholders were bullied and terrorised into paying £500,000 that was not due and payable.

•  Re. the contingency fund - see # 4, above, about the issue.

•  Under section 5 (paras 103 - 123) of my complaint, I provided comprehensive detail of the tribunal's findings, supported by documents, including a copy of the 17.06.03 LVT report, and a copy of the 31.07.03 report from my surveyor.

I stated that the findings had not been reflected in the 24.06.03 'Major work apportionments' produced by Martin Russell Jones, for the 24 Jun 03 case management hearing (WLCC # 7 , # 8) - nor in its 06.08.03 'apportionments' for the 26 Aug 03 'hearing' (WLCC # 10 , # 11).

And, under para.150 of my complaint, stated:

(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" (NB: See WLCC # 6 where I also discuss this)

I repeated this under e.g. para.164 of my complaint, in the process, highlighting the contents of my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright, in which I had stated this - and on which I had copied CKFT. (I, likewise, supplied a copy of this letter to the Law Society).

Under para.159 of my complaint, I highlighted Lanny Silverstone's 17.07.03 letter to the then London LVT (WLCC # 9), 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 then London LVT's reply of 21.07.03 :

"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 the following:

"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"

•  Silverstone and his gang of racketeers knew - of course - that this was the case e.g.

  • 28 Apr 03 letter from Ladsky, captured under para.50 of the 17.06.03 LVT report: "Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works."

(This is addition to the fact that Hathaway filed the 07.08 02 application in the tribunal "to determine the reasonableness of the works" )

•  Under para.114, I highlighted part of para.64 (pg 15) of the 17.06.03 LVT report

"...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"

(NB: Note the absolutely outrageous comment from the ICAEW in its 29.08.06 letter, as I result of my raising the issue (following my 19.07.05 complaint against Pridie Brewster): "What is crucial in the decision is that the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs should they wish to do so". See Pridie Brewster # 18 for my comments)

To the above points in my complaint, the Law Society's 'replies' in its 08.02.05 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"

 “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."

(NB: (1)- As detailed above, like me, 2 'of the Law Society's members' held the view that the action was an abuse of process.

(2)- As listed under WLCC's section (D), over a period of 7 months, I communicated the tribunal action to the court a total of 7 times! The following year, I raised it for the 8th time, in my 22.07.04 letter to Wandsworth County Court).

My 19.02.05 reply to these included

"No it was not. It resulted in the breach of contractual obligations defined under the terms of the lease.

Considering this reply and others in your letter, it is no wonder that solicitors such as CKFT act in this manner."

This 'reply', and other replies from the Law Society are typical of the Establishment's so-called 'regulators' who collude and conspire with State parties / other State parties: sending the complainants, 'the Proles' / "the Oiks / the Great Unwashed" from pillar to post - using the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' (header 2).

See WLCC's section '(D) How the 'Clan' sends people 'like me' from pillar to post' - under which I have captured more of these examples from the Law Society in relation to my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT.

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.4)- CKFT actively supported the breach of covenants in my Lease.

Under para.1.1.3.2 in the summary of my complaint to the Law Society, 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 para.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"

Under paras 103 - 115, I provided comprehensive detail on the then London LVT's 17.06.03 tribunal's findings, 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) (above)

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 08.02.05 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"

You can see why this island-Kingdom is now controlled by crime - for the benefit of crime.

My 19.02.05 reply:

"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"

You are endorsing CKFT’s judgement as being the proper, professional way to advise a client – and act upon it. This leads me to wonder the purpose of the code of conduct for solicitors. Very clearly, your replies suggest that you view Mr Silverstone and Ms Salim as being totally exempt from complying with it."

I hold the view that the insistence by CKFT, Martin Russell Jones, and 'my advisors', Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Stan Gallagher 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 the comments from Ayesha Salim about me, in the 28.05.04 transcript of the so-called 'hearing' on 28 May 04 in West London County Court (WLCC # 13(2)):

"The consent order that she submitted has included works that may possibly take place in the future to the property and not just the amount that is claimed within this claim" .

('Helpfully', in his 28.05.04 Order, Her Majesty's District Judge Madge (who admitted that he had "not read the document/s"), then offered Salim the freebie of having the action against me "stayed" (open to further proceedings... so as to ensure that the tormenting regime would be maintained) - doing this in spite of knowing that agreement had been reached: Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4 and # 6).

(As detailed earlier, what then took place, was sending me fraudulent upon fraudulent demands (WLCC # 13(4)) - and, 3 years later, filing another fraudulent claim against me: Overview # 11).

As explained earlier, because Rachman Ladsky 'did not like' the tribunal's findings, he and his gang of racketeers totally ignored them.

Hence, the reason for the (typical) bullying and harassment tactics used by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim (above) to force me"to meet with [their] client to strike a deal".

As I wrote under para.174 of my 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society, against CKFT:

"WHY DID STEEL SERVICES MAKE ME AN ‘OFFER’? [NB: above] Why did not it instead: (1) revise the specification in light of the LVT determination; (2) issue a Section 20 Notice: (3) provide me with the priced specification; and then (4) demand payment in a manner compliant with the terms of my lease?

I did not want an ‘offer’. This is not the basis on which the service charges operate, doing a deal with one resident, another deal with another resident, and so on, and so on"

(NB: I wrote the same thing, under para.67 of my reply to the Law Society's letter of 30.11.04, in relation to my 16.03.04 my complaint against Piper Smith Basham/Watton. And, similarly, in the context of my 05.04.04 complaint to the Bar Council against Stan Gallagher - under para.64 of my 29.08.04 reply).

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.5)- CKFT persistently ignored the evidence against its client's claim.

Under para. 1.1.1.2 of the 20.12.04 summary of my complaint to the Law Society, I wrote that "CKFT had ignored the evidence I supplied".

Among others, it included my 17.10.02 letter to Lanny Silverstone in which I asked whether he was aware that his client had filed an application in the tribunal (above), and to which I had attached 'back-up evidence'.

(Hence, I sent the letter, 6 weeks before Silverstone filed the 29.11.02 claim in West London County Court (above)). I covered this under paras 72 - 74 of my complaint.

To this, the 08.02.05 Law Society replies included, among others:

"...solicitors are not required to reply to correspondence received from a third party especially if they have been so instructed by their client"

Unbelievable!

(NB: As detailed above, Silverstone did reply, by letter of 21.10.02, stating that he knew that his client had filed an application in the then London LVT)

It would be for CKFT to decide what information they were to utilise and rely upon as they owed a duty of care to their own client

My 19.02.05 response was:  

"Annex 21I of the code of the Solicitors Code of Conduct:  "The courts expect litigation to be started as a last resort after attempts have been made to settle the dispute by negotiations or other means.

The courts also expect parties...to have exchanged information (a 'cards on the table' approach): for claimants to provide to defendants detailed letters of claim (letters before action) to which defendants are expected to respond also in detail"

08.02.05 letter from Law Society:

It would be for CKFT to decide what information they were to utilise and rely upon as they owed a duty of care to their own client

My 19.02.05 reply:

"Your statement implies endorsement of a solicitor disregarding legislation – and therefore a breach of Rule 12.02 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct: "A solicitor must not act where the instructions would involve the solicitor in a breach of the law …

In other words, you are endorsing CKFT’s deceitful and illegal conduct as it knew that the sum demanded of me [and 29 Nov 02 claim] was not due and payable"

What a mafia!

The Law Society = fertiliser for malpractice.

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.6)- CKFT knowingly made false statements against me to the court - including under a Statement of Truth - in relation to a 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder).

In relation to my stating under para.1.1.4.4 of the 20.12.04 summary of my complaint to the Law Society: "...it knowingly made statements that were untrue and accompanied these by signing a Statement of Truth.."

1st FALSE statement made by Ayesha Salim - endorsed by a Statement of Truth

This issue is covered under paras 82, 165, 175 and 179 in the main body of my complaint.

It refers to Ayesha Salim's 06.08.03 application for Summary Judgment against me and a fellow leaseholder (who was still fighting valiantly against the fraudulent 29.11.02 claim (above) (WLCC # 10). It stated:

"We CKFT intend to apply for an Order that

(1) There be Judgement for the Claimant against the Second Defendant and Fifth Defendant under CPR Part 24.2

(2) The Defendants do pay the Claimant's costs of those proceedings - Because

The Claimant believes that the Second (and Fifth) Defendants have no real prospects of successfully defending the Claim [1] and the Claimant knows of no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at Trial" (2)

"Following the decision on 24th June 2003, Martin Russell Jones issued a revised Major Works Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants at the property". (3)

A copy of the revised estimate and apportionment is attached to this application"

"Despite the decision of the LVT and despite being served with the revised apportionments, the Second and Fifth Defendants have failed to pay the sums determined to be reasonable by the LVT" (3)

Accordingly, the Claimant asks the court to enter summary judgement against the Second and Fifth Defendants with an order for payment of the Claimant's costs of these proceedings"

(1)- As explained, above, the Ladsky mafia never implemented the tribunal's findings - because 'inconvenient' to Andrew Ladsky who 'needed' to extort monies from the leaseholders in order to make his multi-million £ jackpot.

Hence, the demand was, among others, theft under the Theft Act, s. 17 False Accounting. (The Fraud Act was not in operation at the time).

(2)- = the Business model approach (# 24.6): by not going to trial, the damning evidence against the crooks does not enter the public domain.

(3)- As stated above, under section 5 (paras 103 - 123) of my 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society, I provided comprehensive detail of the then LVT findings, supported by documents, including a copy of the 17.06.03 LVT report, and a copy of the 31.07.03 report from my surveyor.

In this context, I stated that the findings had not been reflected in the 24.06.03 'Major work apportionments' produced by Martin Russell Jones, for the 24 Jun 03 case management hearing (WLCC # 7 , # 8) - nor in its 06.08.03 'apportionments' for the 26 Aug 03 'hearing' (WLCC # 10 , # 11)

In each instance, the sum demanded of each apartment had been revised down by only 24.19%. The only difference was that the 24.06.03 'apportionments' covered 5 apartments, including mine, while the 06.08.03 'apportionments' covered all of the then 35 apartments at Jefferson House.

In my case, relative to the 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (above), the demand now was £10,917 (US$19,250).

Contrast the 24.19% reduction with the 70% reduction (above) = it is glaringly obvious that the findings from the tribunal hearings were NOT taken into consideration.

Demonstrating, yet again, another example of the Ladsky mafia's extortion tactics, on 24 Jun 03, just 10 minutes before seeing District Judge Wright (WLCC # 8), Lanny Silverstone had handed me 3 documents I had not seen previously:

"Majority of s/c expenditure approved" (Unbelievable! Contrast with the above)

Where not approved, LVT said that because lack of sufficient detail in specification rather than because outside scope or not reasonable" (Unbelievable! See extracts from the 17.06.03 report under Brian Gale, MRICS, # 6)

In my 15.07.03 letter to District Judge Wright, WLCC, I wrote

"Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal"

...and detailed the main points of my surveyor's assessment of the tribunal's findings. I also referred to, among other, the 24.06.03 'apportionments', stating that I obviously disagreed with it.

Further, that I had written a 06.07.03 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, reporting these facts i.e. unsupported reduction; reduction still well below the LVT findings - and quoted from these findings, in support. I copied Silverstone and Hathaway on my 15.07.03 letter, and Silverstone on my 06.07.03 letter.  

It led Silverstone to send me a 17.07.03 letter, to which was attached a "Revised Price Part III" of "the specifications for the works".

My surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " given to me by Silverstone at the 24 Jun 03 hearing (WLCC # 8).

Hence, it still fell very far short of the tribunal's findings.

In addition - as can be seen - there was still no supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at (consequently amounting to a breach of my statutory rights).

FURTHER (to the above)

With its 29.08.06 letter (rejecting, 'of course', my - legitimate - 19.07.05 complaint against Pridie Brewster, 'accountants' for Jefferson House), the ICAEW provided me with a copy of the 2002 and 2003 "summary of contributions to the major works fund".

(Needless to say that the organized crime mafia had not supplied them to me. See my battles, from Oct 03 to early 2005, attempting to get a copy of the accounts - and note that the Local Government Ombudsman had also ensured that I was not supplied with key parts to the accounts: LGO # 7).

As stated earlier, under # 4, using the information supplied by the ICAEW, I determined from my analysis (attached to the 29.08.06 letter) that:

(See: (1)- a summary of the Ladsky mafia claims, under 'Major Works' # 2 ; (2)- the numerous other lies to the tribunal, by the Ladsky mafia: LVT # 5.4 - including Brian Gale, MRICS, in his "Expert Witness" reports to the tribunal: Gale # 7 ; (3)- Photo gallery).

The penthouse was then advertised in Oct 07 for £6,500,000 (US$11.5m) (top of page).

Come on! Her Majesty's Judiciaries had been issuing the Orders e.g. 23.05.03 Application by Silverstone. Hence, they - and CKFT - knew how much the leaseholders had actually been made to pay -and consequently, that what was claimed by Salim in her 06.08.03 Application were blatant lies...

...but, 'of course', 'Dear Mr Ladsky' 'needed' the money to make his multi-million £ jackpot!

Ayesha Salim also made a 3rd FALSE claim to the court

At the 26 Aug 03 'hearing' (WLCC # 11(2)), prior to seeing the judge, a conversation took place between 'my advisor', Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, 'my counsel', David Pliener (McLean's 22.08.03 brief to Pliener; his 28.08.03 £881 (US$1,550) fees), and Salim. (I did not join this conversation).  

Because of my position, it resulted in 'an understanding' to get me to pay the costs I had recognised in my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright. (NB: Bear in mind that the demand was not compliant with the terms of my Lease (as I wrote in my 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance to CKFT (above)).

To induce me to make this payment, 'my advisors' 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 consistently agreed that repair and maintenance works were required to the block e.g. para.6 of my 19.10.03 Wit.Stat ; para.3.1 of my 22.10.02 letter to the tribunal - fact recognised by Lanny Silverstone in his 25.06.03 letter - and that, consequently, I would need to pay my - just and fair - share.

I therefore agreed to do this, paying the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) - as captured in the 26.08.03 WLCC Order. (It was slightly less than my own calculations - stated in my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright. Subsequently, in spite of my repeated demands, I was never able to obtain from Lisa McLean how she and Pliener arrived at this amount).

Contrast this outcome with Salim's 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me, in which she demanded the payment of £10,917 (US$19,250).

During the so-called 'hearing' (WLCC # 11(3)), Salim's explanation for the fact that her application referred to a demand of £10,917 (US$19,250), when, in fact, now, the sum proposed was only £2,255 (US$4,000) - was: "it was a clerical error". Needless to say that this was accepted by District Judge Wright - without the blink of an eyelid.

What a mafia!

Of course, Salim = Rachman Ladsky, also had the nerve to submit a 21.08.03 demand for "costs" of £708 (US$1,250). As can be seen from the 26.08.03 WLCC Order: not granted.

Law Society's 08.02.05 reply to my claim that "...[Ayesha Salim] knowingly made statements that were untrue and accompanied these by signing a Statement of Truth.." was:

"This is a serious allegation about the probity of a solicitor.

The language used in that application was in accordance with Part 24.2 (a) (i) and 24.2 (3).

Therefore the statements of truth as signed does not demonstrate that Ms Salim has acted in breach of the rules / principles of professional conduct governing solicitors"

To which I replied in my 19.02.05 letter:

"Yes, and what Mr Silverstone and Ms Salim have done to me is also very serious .  

The appropriateness of the wording used in making a false statement is irrelevant: it is still a false statement"

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.7)- With the 29.11.02 (ref.WL203537) West London County Court claim (Particulars), CKFT supplied a materially different lease from mine, falsely claiming that it was representative of my Lease.

The 29.11.02 Particulars of Claim drawn-up by CKFT, with a Statement of Truth endorsed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, (above), stated:

"The Claimant attaches to these Particulars of Claim (i) a copy of the lease of flat 23 which contains covenants in the same terms as all the leases"

This was not true, as I highlighted in my 17.12.02 Defence to the claim

"Part of my lease is different from that supplied to the County Court" . (NB: At the time, I was 'very green' :-) )

Indeed, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) 'apparently' for apartment 23 , is materially different from mine on a critical aspect in relation to this clause, as it reads:

" The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor) of the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the Lessor during such financial year in respect of the heads of expenditure particulars whereof are set out in the Fourth Schedule".

My Lease most definitely does not contain this outrageous contract term under the same numbered Clause - or anywhere else.

Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) of my Lease reads:

"The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the Lessor during such financial year in respect of the heads of expenditure particulars whereof are set out in the Fourth Schedule hereto by the aggregate of the rateable value (in force at the end of such year) of all the flats in the Building (excluding the Porter's flat) the repair maintenance renewal insurance or servicing whereof is charged in such calculation as aforesaid and then multiplying the resultant amount by the rateable value (in force at the same date) of the Flat"

Hence, it amounted to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations - which is, very clearly, a very serious offence (Gallagher # 1.1 , # 9 , # 7.1)

The Clause in the lease (apparently) for apartment 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 17.12.02 Defence that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine, led Silverstone to ask, in his 23.01.03 letter, i.e. 2 months after filing the (fraudulent) 29.11.02 claim against me, for a copy of my Lease (WLCC # 3). (As can be seen from his 23.01.03 letter, I complied = yet more costs incurred by me as a result of the actions by the Ladsky organized crime mafia).

In my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT to the Law Society, I raised this under paras 83 - 86.

OUTCOME? Ignored by the Law Society - the fertiliser for malpractice.

 (See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.8)- CKFT acted against me in tandem with 'my advisor', Piper Smith Basham/Watton, with the objective of forcing me to strike a deal with its client.

 

The Law Society also opted to ignore the events surrounding the time of the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' (WLCC # 12).

These are covered under header 10 of my 20.12.04 complaint, paras 182 - 189.

They amounted to blatant collusion and conspiring between CKFT and 'my advisors' Piper Smith Basham/Watton.

A summary of these events is comprised under 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat. # 1.

As also detailed, it led me to take back control of my case in mid-Dec 03 - and to send my own version of the reply: my 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance (above)

Hence: the strategy of the cabal had backfired!

(NB: In fact, 'my' so-called 'advisors', Piper Smith Basham/Watton, had been batting for Ladsky shortly after I appointed them e.g. Overview, Note 4).

Likewise, the Law Society opted to also ignore the follow events - detailed in my 20.12.04 complaint, under paras 190 - 206.

 

They amounted to punishment by the satanic Ladsky mafia (and its supporters in West London County Court, comprising of judges and staff), for 'my daring' to not cave in under the cabal's extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic, perverse tactics, and by taking back control of my case - by subjecting me to a further 6 months of absolute sheer utter hell (Overview # 3) - finally resulting in the 01.07.04 court-endorsed consent order (above)

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(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.

Under header 2.3, paras 12 - 22 of my 24.12.04 complaint to the Law Society, I discussed the fact that the "the evidence demonstrates that for a period of at least 3 months CKFT (and MRJ) claimed to be taking actions on behalf of a company, Steel Services, which, in fact, did not exist".

It was eventually claimed that Steel Services was domiciled in the British Virgin Islands but, in fact,...

...it had been "struck-off the register for non-payment of the licence fee" (08.08.02 letter to me, from the BVI authorities).

Concurrently, the Jersey address used on the demands was false.

The evidence is also discussed under Owners identity # 1 and # 2 ; Jersey address.

It included David Fireman, CKFT, falsely claiming in his 01.08.02 letter to Kensington and Chelsea housing:

"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"

In light of this, in the summary of my complaint, under para 1.4, I wrote:"CKFT also committed offences under the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - "Know your client" (NB see also guidance from the Law Society England and Wales)

While under sub-para.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"

As with all my other allegations of criminal offences, in its 08.02.05 'reply', 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!

It must have been laughing its head off when it wrote this, as the Law Society has a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with the police (police # 9.2)

As I captured under Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police - point # 7: in the light of my experience with the police in 2002, and in 2003: I saw no point doing this.

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

(6.10)- CKFT failed to observe proper standards of work - defined in the solicitors code of conduct.

Under para.1.1.3.8 of the summary of my 24.12.04 complaint to the Law Society, I classified under 'Principle (e) (standard of work)' - that " CKFT has also failed to observe proper standards of work..

"(a) not taking action to stay the court proceedings" (# 2, above)

"(b) asking for a case management hearing as I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal" (# 6.6, above)

"(c) handing me a draft order and case summary I had not seen, barely minutes before seeing the judge" (# 6.6, above)

"(d) not issuing me with a skeleton argument for a hearing." (28 May 04 'hearing': WLCC # 13)

Among the several other points, I included, under para.1.1.3.3:

"CKFT sent me an offer it described as a "Part 36 Offer" (21.10.03 'offer', # 4, above)

I contended that this 'offer' was not compliant with 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 advisors', Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Stan Gallagher, did not come back to me with any comment following my identifying this case in my 13.11.03 fax to them)

08.02.05 Law Society reply:

"The issues which you have raised... are all procedural / legal matters which were for the court to address. For this reason I am not able to consider this aspect further"

 

I repeat my comment under # 6.3, above.

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

(For other evidence against CKFT, see Piper Smith Basham # 7.18 and Martin Russell Jones # 43, for events in relation to my 20C application, in which - for the purpose of stopping me from pursuing it - Ayesha Salim played a major part in the very extensive use of bullying, coercion and intimidation tactics...

...- in collusion with Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Barrie Martin, FRICS, and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - to which the 'ever-obliging' then London LVT - provided an extremely 'helpful' hand: LVT # 5).

Back to list

 

(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 3 ('Get lost!') reasons: (1)- "legal issue"; (2)- "matter for the court"; (3)- "matter for the police" - 'forgetting' to mention that the Law Society has a memorandum of understanding with the police.

(1)- "Legal issue", see e.g.

  • # 6.3, above, re. issuing fraudulent proceedings and, in the process, ignoring the directions given by a tribunal to not pay.

(2)- "Matter for the court", see:

(3)- "Matter for the police", see:

  • # 6.9 re. making threats and demanding monies on behalf of a company that did not exist;

= The typical 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' (header 2) - in very sick "Corrupt Britain".

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

Back to list

 

(8)- Predictably, in 'her' 11.07.05 reply, the then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, rejected my 20.02.05 complaint against the Law Society for its handling of my complaint against CKFT.

In my 20.02.05 covering letter to the then LSO, Zahida Manzoor CBE, I provided my answer to the 08.02.05 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" .

Predictably, in her 11.07.05 reply, the LSO, Zahida Manzoor CBE = 'the rubber stamping office' of the Law Society - endorsed the Law Society's 08.02.05 rejection of my complaint (LSO # 2)...

...(followed by its 17.03.05 reply to my 19.02.05 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, I just sent a 01.08.05 acknowledgement, capturing the above sentence. I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing my website, 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.

It is glaringly obvious that I have a legitimate complaint against Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim. It does not require being a lawyer or a genius to see that.

(I repeat my above note)

(See, above, for summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, and their client Andrew David Ladsky)

 

Recall the ROOT CAUSE (top of page) for ALL that is reported on this page.

UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT?

LANNY SILVERSTONE, AYESHA SALIM, PIPER SMITH & BASHAM/WATTON, STAN GALLAGHER, THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top