Email this site to a contact


"We are the law. If we are wrong, we are right. You cannot challenge us nor do anything against us. So, GET LOST! - or else, we will persecute you to annihilation" (My interpretation)

HER MAJESTY'S Lord Falconer of ThorOton - HMCS 'Customer service' - 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: '' and click 'Add').


Sections list (below)


In reading this page on Lord Falconer of Thoroton's 'Customer Service' department, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for its actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

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

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005 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 Lord Falconer of Thoroton's 'Customer Service' department joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

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


In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is a sham).



(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

For snapshots see: Kangaroo courts; Extortion; 'Advisors to Jefferson House': Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) ; the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)


  C O M M E N T S



When the events took place in Her Majesty's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court in 2002-04, Her Majesty's Lord Falconer of Thoroton, headed the then Department for Constitutional Affairs. Among others, this department included the courts, the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Land Registry.

(NB: Her Majesty's Lord Falconer / HMCS 'Customer Service' is covered in:

(1)- My 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (Legal-Home # 9);

(2)- My 12.07.09 complaint (form) to the then Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham - covering the majority of the events with:

(3)- My 03.06.08 Witness Statement; (re. the 27 Feb 07 fraudulent claim against me - Overview # 11)

(4)- My 02.02.10 letter to Sir Paul Stephenson, then Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Alan Johnson, then Home Secretary; 'my' then MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind; Ann Abraham, then Parliamentary Ombudsman)

Given the continuation of my horrendous nightmare with Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC) and Wandsworth County Court (WCC) (in addition to everything else! e.g. Document library ; Case summary),...

... by the end of Jun 04, I was feeling so distraught by events, and yet again at my wits end, that I sent a 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton. (I also copied Christopher Leslie MP (then with responsibility for the courts) and David Lammy, MP (then with responsibility for Human Rights). However, see my above Note).

In this letter, I took the opportunity to relate previous events with WLCC, following the fraudulent 29.11.02 claim, ref: WL 203 537, filed against me and 10 fellow leaseholders, representing 14 apartments at Jefferson House - by CKFT, under the instructions of Rachman Andrew David Ladsky (Overview # 3) (See also Extortion)

I concluded my 29.06.04 letter, by asking whether what I had been made to endure was a reflection of the British justice system.

In a nutshell, the outcome of my 'cry for help' amounted to a (typical) 'Get lost!' - and hence, a definite 'YES!' to my question.

(NB: 3 years later - in the context of, yet again, another fraudulent claim filed against me in WLCC by Ladsky's other puppets, Portner and Jaskel (Overview # 11) - the outcome of my complaint to Her Majesty's Court Service, that also led me to send a 'cry for help' to Jack Straw, successor to Lord Falconer, was also a 'Get lost!' - see WLCC from # 18)

It took Her Majesty's Court Service nearly 2 months to reply to my 29.06.04 'cry for help', as the 'response' is dated 23.08.04. During these 2 months, I continued to go through absolute sheer, utter hell with Her Majesty's WLCC (WLCC # 13(3)) and Wandsworth County Court.


Typically - the 23.08.04 'reply' from Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' Unit is contemptuous, defiant, arrogant, challenging, patronizing, dismissive, condescending.

Equally typically - it fails to hold the courts to any accountability and responsibility, covers-up what took place...

... – generally by implying that I am illiterate / an imbecile / a liar - as well as through deceit and fabrications.

True, there are several apologies in this letter, but the majority are counter-balanced by excuses or patronizing / challenging / condescending statements, as well as what I would describe as euphemisms for 'Get lost!' :

In other words: the type of letter I have become so accustomed to receiving whenever I have turned to a government body for help - in a nutshell: 'Get lost! You non-entity. Who do you think you are 'daring' to complain against US?' (Overview # 7 ; summary outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain).

Or, as very succinctly summed-up, in 2015, by Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime: "Fuck off and die!"

And hence: another part of Her Majesty's Court Service failing to perform its stated remit.


In addition to the numerous questions I ask on this page - for the reasons contained in it - I also ask:

WHAT LED Her Majesty's Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service' - to conclude that he was also exempt from compliance with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 “to be treated fairly and with dignity by HMCS Customer Service and without prejudice” (Equality and Human Rights Commission website In particular:

... – by failing to address my complaint – all with the aim of absolving Her Majesty's WLCC's court manager, other court staff - and by extension their bosses: the judiciary - of responsibility and accountability, and by treating me in an arrogant, condescending, patronizing manner, and as an imbecile and a liar.

Answer: because, in spite of the rhetoric, this island-Kingdom does not give a damn about human rights - see my above Note.


(1)- Falsely telling me in a 21.03.03 Notice that a Charging Order hearing on 4 Apr 03 concerned me - and persisting in doing this in spite of the evidence - in the process, proving that Her Majesty's West London County Court had bullied one of my fellow leaseholders into paying monies not due and payable

Her Majesty's WLCC sent me a 21.03.03 Notice of a Charging Order hearing due to take place on 4 Apr 03 - that did not concern me.

As I report under WLCC # 5, it led me to go into a 10-day battle of phone calls and correspondence to WLCC, which in its 27.03.03 letter - still persisted in telling me that the hearing concerned me.

It also entailed my writing a 30.03.03 letter to the then London LVT panel - as we, leaseholders, had very specifically been told by Her Majesty's tribunal to not pay the 'service charge' (LVT # 1.5).

(See also My Diary 24 Mar 03 ; 25 Mar 03 ; 30 Mar 03 ; 1 Apr 03 - for the unbelievable amount of torment, distress and anguish that this caused me).

In my 29.06.04 'cry for help', I also reported that, when I phoned the WLCC court staff, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs - neither were able to explain what a charging order was. As I was minutes away from spending £2,000 (US$3,500) on solicitor fees to determine the answer, I obtained it through my network of contacts.


Armed with the 'correct terminology', I again phoned the court on 1st April - leading it to finally admit that

"The charging order is not against you, it is against other residents"

This is captured in my 01.04.03 letter to the court.

Ian Anderson's 'response' to this (which ignores my reference to the DCA) is challenging and condescending, implying that I am a liar, as it states (para.11)

"I am surprised that no one in the Court could inform you what a charging order was as this is a common question, which staff deal with on a daily basis" (1)

"You are right that a charging order can only be issued when there is a valid Judgement" (2)

"In this case the charging order was against the 7th Defendant and you had been copied in on the communication that had been sent" (3)

(1)- What led him to conclude - clearly with the aim of protecting the the then DCA staff and WLCC court staff - that he could imply that I am liar by doubting the replies I reported having received?

(2)- Is that supposed to make me feel good? At least it proves that my non-lawyer contacts are more knowledgeable than some individuals in the Court Service.

(3)- That is not true. In making this statement Ian Anderson implies that I am an illiterate idiot who had spent days frantically trying to determine why this Notice had been sent to me.

What led him to conclude – with the aim of absolving the Her Majesty's WLCC staff of responsibility and accountability - that he could lie in his reply to my complaint - in the process implying that I am an imbecile?

(I repeat my above questions)


In the course of the conversation with WLCC on 1 Apr 03, I was also told that "it may nonetheless be of benefit for you to attend". Not knowing what to expect, I asked my surveyor to accompany me.  

When we arrived at the court, we were informed that the hearing had been cancelled. Insisting on wanting to know why I had lost half a day of income, as well as wasted £600 (US$1,100) in surveyor fees, I was told that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), had faxed this 02.04.03 consent order relating to the 7th Defendant (My Diary 4 Apr 03)

What led Ian Anderson, to conclude that he could absolve Her Majesty's WLCC staff of all responsibility and accountability for suggesting to me, 3 days prior to hearing, that "it may be of benefit for you to attend" - and then cancelling the hearing without informing me?

In relation to this consent order sent by CKFT to the court, note the statement :

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

This is absolutely appalling given that Her Majesty's WLCC knew that the same action was being pursued in the then London LVT (WLCC # 2 , # 2(1) , my 7 letters to WLCC)...

...- and knew that it was breaching the leaseholder's statutory rights, as well as rights under the lease (Overview # 3 ; WLCC # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9 , # 12 , # 13)

See also court claims (and threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings) = fraud tools; Extortion ; Kangaroo courts

Reply from Ian Anderson in his 23.08.03 'response'

"It is a matter for you whether you attend the hearing or not as it does not involve you.

I am sorry that you had a wasted journey and I can only advise that if in future you need to attend a court hearing, to ring the court a few days before to see if the case is still being heard"

Please note that I had phoned the court, the last time on 1 Apr 03 i.e. 3 days before the hearing - which was a Tuesday.

Nonetheless: 'it's my fault!' Evidently, according to HMCS 'Customer Service': 'I', not the court staff, am the 'incompetent idiot'. (Being a woman - with my profile: 'of course I must be stupid!')

And that's the sum total of what HMCS 'Customer Service' had to say about my being sent a notice of a charging order that did not concern me.

(I repeat my above questions)


(2)- Falsely telling me that a judgment had been entered against me on 18 Mar 04.

Given the attitude of Her Majesty's WLCC's court staff and the (intentional) shambolic state of the court (see Kangaroo courts), when, on 31 Mar 04, I wanted to ascertain what movement, if any, had taken place on my file, I thought it best to take time off-work and go to the court in person. (My Diary 31 Mar 04)

I was told that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 Mar 04.

Yet again, I am in a state of shock and panic.

A judgement has been entered against me?


I have had no communication to this effect.

in his 23.08.04 'response', Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', immediately comes to the defence of Her Majesty's WLLC's court staff - by stating:

"There are 9 defendants in this case" (1)

"When you speak to court staff, it is often difficult for them to know what the current position is in relation to you without looking through the whole court file" (2)

"the court manager apologised" (3)

(1)- I read the implication in the statement that I should feel sorry for the 'poor' court staff who had to deal with 'so many' defendants.

(2)- Even when they write, they cannot even get it right e.g. 50% of the Notices I received did not concern me: WLCC # 5 , # 14 , point # 1, above ; point # 5.1, below.

That's the style of the Court 'Service' e.g. in 2007-08, the same court falsely captured that I "intend to defend part of the claim" (WLCC # 2).

It is part of the criminal psychological harassment regime by 'the Brotherhood' to make the 'little people' like me give up, and give in.

Aside from Ian Anderson having difficulty reading (there were 11 leaseholders on the claim), my reply to him in relation to the first excuse is:

Why did Her Majesty's WLCC allow such a claim to be filed in the first place? In my non-lawyer opinion: this is wrong. (See WLCC # 1 for detail)

(3)- Yes, but he ignored what I related in 29.06.04 letter in relation to the way I was initially treated by the court staff - which was appalling. Their only concern was to get rid me at all cost.  

When I asked for evidence, i.e., copy of documents, I was handed, more accurately, thrown a blank piece of paper and asked to

"Write what you want"

When I replied

"How can I write what I want from the file given that I do not know what has gone on it?"

I was told:  

"Well' it's an old file, it's gone into archives" .  

I challenged the reply on the basis that a file, to which additions had been made in the last two weeks, could not be considered "an old file" and added that

"I will not be fobbed-off. I will wait here until you give me the documents" .

This led to somebody else dealing with me who, I have confirmed, was the manager.

It took more than 20 minutes to find my file, entailing looking in the same 3-4 places several times, in what was a relatively small area.

Had this scene been captured in a light-hearted movie, people would say that it was an exaggeration of real life for the purpose of making people laugh.

Unfortunately, it was a real situation, and I was at the receiving end of it - and I was not laughing.

When my file was finally found on a shelf (the manager and other staff had previously looked at several times), the manager told me: "there has been no movement on your file since August 2003".  

When I replied that I had just been told by her colleague that "a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March", her reply was:  

"Oh, no, it's not against you, it's against Defendant # 9"

The whole episode lasted c. 35 minutes. These were 35 minutes of terrible anguish. I could feel my heart beat going up by the minute.

Had I not been an assertive person, I would have left the court, as initially expected to - with the wrong information - making myself sick for days-on-end in the belief that a judgment had been entered against me.

What led Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's ‘Customer Service’, to conclude that:

(1)- he could collude with Her Majesty's WLCC staff against me, and help them in their cover-up story by absolving them of all responsibility and accountability for wrongly telling me that a judgment had been entered against me?

(2)- he could ignore the manner in which I had been treated by the staff on 31 Mar 04?

(I repeat my above questions)


(3)- Ignoring instructions from the Royal Courts of Justice' Citizens Advice Bureau - leading me to miss the 28 May 04 so-called 'hearing' - to the great advantage of SS = Andrew David Ladsky.

Deliberately ignoring the 02.04.04 instructions from the Royal Courts of Justice 's Citizens Advice Bureau, that WLCC contacts me directly, WLCC sent the 18.05.04 Notice of the 28 May 04 'hearing' to the RCJ's CAB - instead of sending it to me.

It led me to miss the so-called 'hearing' (it was the first one week break I had 'dared' to take in months), and resulted in Ayesha Salim's client, Ladsky, getting a 'freebie' from Her Majesty's District Judge Madge (WLCC # 13).

(Of course, it did not stop Ladsky and his other puppets, the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), from continuing with their criminal activities (WLCC # 13 ; Overview # 6 ; Extortion)

As you can imagine, I was in a terrible state when I discovered that I had missed the hearing (My Diary 28 May 04)

Ian Anderson's 'reply' to the fact that Her Majesty's WLCC had made miss the hearing, and that District Judge Madge had gone ahead with it - in spite of being informed by the RCJ's CAB that it was WLCC's fault - was, under para.7 of his 23.08.04 letter:

"Although the Court received the letter from the RCJ, a hearing cannot simply be vacated once listed.

It requires the Judge to instruct that the hearing be adjourned before a hearing date can be changed. The Judge gave no such instruction for the hearing to be vacated or adjourned" .

".a hearing cannot simply be vacated once listed".

Her Majesty's WLCC had no problem cancelling the 4 Apr 03 hearing (point # 1, above ; WLCC # 5) Why not this one?

Oh, but of course: 'the Brotherhood' had decided that Salim had to be given the opportunity to spin her story unchallenged, and walk away with the freebie from Her Majesty's District Judge Madge - of having the action against me "stayed" (WLCC # 13 ; point # 4, below).

Anything for 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Ladsky', their Lord and Master.


(4)- Capturing in the 28 May 04 Order that the action against me be "stayed" - in spite - of the fact that Her Majesty's District Judge Madge had been informed by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, at the 28 May 04 hearing, that she accepted my draft Consent Order = agreement had been reached - fact also confirmed by HMCS 'Customer Service'.

Following my being - deliberately - made to miss the 28 May 04 hearing by WLCC (point # 3, above), 10 days later, I took delivery of the the 28.05.04 Order, which was posted more than one week later, on 6 June.

Seeing that Her Majesty's District Judge Madge had 'helpfully' ordered that the action against me be "STAYED" i.e. open to further proceedings, caused me an unbelievable amount of anxiety and distress - for a very long time.

I remember reading this Order in the street (after collecting it from my PO Box) and being unable to fight back the tears.

I thought that by paying £6,350 (US$11,200) - I did not legally owe - "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end" (Overview # 3), I was putting an end to this horrendous nightmare.

The horrendous nightmare was continuing = the criminal psychological harassment regime.

In my 20.06.04 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC, I protested vehemently against the fact that the Order recorded that the action against me be "stayed" - and asked that it be changed.

I repeated this as well in my 22.07.04 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Ashworth, Wandsworth County Court.

The 23.08.04 'reply' from Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', was, under para.8:

"You ask for the order of 28th May to be changed to reflect the agreement, which you have reached.

No member of the Court staff can comment or intervene in matters that have been before the Court.

I can only suggest that you speak to the Claimant solicitors and see if they asked for a stay and whether they will agree for a letter to be sent to the Court to say that the case has been concluded against you"


How could I achieve this given that the WLCC staff and District Judge Madge had very clearly colluded with 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky, and his racketeering solicitor, Ayesha Salim (also # 3, above)


...(as further confirmed by events in: (1)- WLCC in 2007-08; (2)- the Supreme Court Costs Office on 30 Jan 09; (3)- the London High Court Queen's Bench Division in 2011... well as in the then London LVT in 2002-03 - see snapshots under Kangaroo courts ; also Extortion)

Her Majesty's District Judge Madge knew that agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13)...

and Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', confirmed this under para.5 of his 23.08.04 letter:

"In your particular case it is acknowledged that an agreement had been reached." (NB !!!)

"...and the Judge felt it appropriate to stay proceedings on that basis"

"It is not for me to comment on a decision made by a Judge.

I can only suggest that you speak to the claimant solicitor, as it might have been an order that they sought from the Judge" .  

Firstly, 'No', it was offered as a 'freebie' by Her Majesty's District Judge Madge to Salim = Ladsky - 'the brother' (WLCC # 13)

Secondly: Why was this done?


Note also how Ian Anderson helps exonerate District Judge Madge of accountability - specifically corruption (para.13):

"If you feel that the Judge has made a mistake, the correct procedure for you to follow is to appeal that decision to a Judge at a Higher Court" .


So, if just 'ONE' person i.e. a corrupt judge makes a decision that is unfair / unjust your only course for 'perhaps' getting justice / redress - is to go to a higher court.

What happens if you, one of the 'little people' 'like me', do not have the financial means to go to a higher court?

Tough! And that's exactly what they are relying on to get rid of you, and ensure that their 'brothers' get what they want.

Should you 'dare' persist, they will put you through their 'mincing machine' time and again in the hope of reducing you to pulp (e.g.

(1)- the experience of Michael Durant; (2)- the leaseholders who ended-up in the House of Lords, in the Earl of Cadogan v Sportelli case; (3)- the experience of Maurice Kirk - and mine which is clearly a rally to the cry of: We'll get the Bitch!).


If you want justice in England (at least in relation to landlord-tenant disputes in the residential leasehold sector)...

...You'd better have a lot of money - and be prepared to be generous with it!

And, better still, combine that with joining 'the Brotherhood' - as this gives you control over the public authorities and other institutions - as they operate through implicit / explicit 'Memorandums of Understanding' e.g. Law Society and police (copy).

By the way, going to a higher court does NOT guarantee that you get the justice you deserve, as I discovered, among others, from the experience of some leaseholders at a C.A.R.L. (Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold) meeting in Nov 05. Their case is covered in C.A.R.L.'s newsletter, The Leaseholder Spring 2006 - Issue 17 "Landlord wins legal costs" and Autumn 2005-Issue 15 "Important tribunal case".

In 2005, a then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued a determination in favour of the leaseholders. (They happened to be lucky) (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08). As is usually the case in these instances, the landlord challenged the determination by taking it to the Lands Tribunal (the next court up). (Landlords do that because it's 'no skin off their nose' as they put their legal costs on the service charges. Yes! Equal a 'double whammy' for the leaseholders).

The leaseholders reported the judge as having said that he found a particular section of legislation "unfair on landlords" and that "surely the legislators could not have intended it to read as it does"  'Of course' Parliament would not do that to the sacrosanct landlords: it is controlled by them. (NB: See also another judiciary's 'interpretation' of legislation in 2013).

When asked for the name of the judge, as soon as the leaseholders said it, two people in the audience exclaimed in chorus "that's the landlords' friend!" They based this assessment on first-hand / friends' first-hand experience.

There were about 50 people in the audience at the time. In other words, there are c. 50 witnesses to this event. I should add that another leaseholder in the audience who, likewise, had had the same judge presiding over her case, had found his ruling to be fair.

(Maybe her landlord was of the wrong colour / had the wrong accent / wrong religion / was not part of 'the Brotherhood' / of a cash-rich lobbying group).

The "landlords' friends" are plentiful in (among other) the judiciary e.g.

"You could see from the exchange between the judge and the landlord's counsel that they knew each other well.

Of course they do! It's a club, and they know who is buttering their bread: landlords. [I agree] Same thing in the LVT!"

Added to the experience of others e.g. Victims Unite, Maurice Kirk, Comments received on my site - leads to the undeniable conclusion of bias by many judges.

Other confirmation of, to say the least, 'bias' among judges: e.g.


The 23 Jun 06 Daily Mail article relating the comment from a Member of Parliament that Lord Hutton "had a history of making pro-Government decisions as a judge " and that "he was personally selected for the job by Tony Blair's close friend Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor" )

(Some time later, on TV, Lord Hutton refuted the criticism. In the context of reporting on the 2010 Chilcot inquiry, several journalists and observers described the Hutton 'inquiry' as "a whitewash" )


In Jun - July 13, the media revealed that, in the context of his inquiry on phone hacking, Lord Justice Leveson excluded 'inconvenient' information about law firms, the police, and big corporations.

(Predictably, it was a cover-up involving Masons - see Media pg, Indy, 10 Jan 14)


The 6+ years taken by Lord Chilcot to produce his report on the Iraq War allow extensive 'Maxwellisation' (cutting out / redacting 'inconvenient' parts) by those mentioned in the report.

The (satiric) assessment by Private Eye, # 1395, 26 Jun - 9 July 15, pg 31 - pretending to report comments from the Home Office (and using what happened to the probe that stopped transmitting due to being in darkness):

"We all assumed Chilcot's report had been lost forever in the deep grass after his preliminary findings made a bumpy landing on the cold and unforgiving terrain of Tony Blair's lawyers"


See also the Media page: 'the Establishment', for more evidence of, to say the least, 'bias' by judges, as well as the coroner, re. the Hillsborough disaster.


Even if, by escalating your leasehold related case to higher courts you end up with a judgment in your favour, some of my contacts who did this described their achievement as mainly "a moral victory" as they considered themselves to be financially much worse off as a result of their action. (It led one of them to move to a lower cost country, leading the person to describe herself as a "leaseholder exile" ).

Yet, the action they pursued was in response to an unjust act committed by a crooked landlord.

We, the public, are frequently reminded by judges that we "must defer to the courts" and "let justice take its course".

Why is it that the leaseholder ends-up, in effect, the financial loser? This is called 'justice'?


(5)- Her Majesty's West London County Court caused me unbelievable torment, anguish and distress. Over a period of 20 months I went through absolute, sheer, utter hell because of this hellhole, nightmare court and, in the latter part, when Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court also joined in 'on the 'act'.

I stopped counting the times I was reduced to tears, overcome by feelings of terrible hopelessness and abandonment.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I can assure you that these emotions are still very vivid in my mind as writing this section so far has brought the tears back on several times.

And Her Majesty's WLCC and Wandsworth County Court continued to cause me unbelievable suffering.

What had and continued to be taking place with Her Majesty's West London County Court, the nightmare, hellhole court since the 29.11.02 claim, ref. WL203537, was filed against me, could not be attributed solely to crass incompetence.

The occurrences are too numerous, and the situations show a coordinated approach – leading me to conclude that it is part of an ‘extra service’ to ‘certain landlords’ i.e. 'brothers': in this case, 'revenge' on behalf of Ladsky and his puppets for my ‘daring’ to challenge the 'service charge' demand - as well as 'daring' to challenge the judges, court manager and other court staff.

And it continued at a magnified level in 2007-08: summaries: Events; Breaches of the law; Overall outcome (see also Kangaroo courts ; Extortion)


(NB: My 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice captures events with the 3 courts, the London LVT, as well as HMCS 'Customer Service') - and was, of course, ignored (Legal-Home # 9) - as does my 12.07.09 complaint (form) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman - which, predictably, resulted in a 'Get lost!')

(5.1)- Falsely telling me in a 09.06.04 Notice that I was "the Defendant" in a trial set for 17 Aug 04 in Wandsworth County Court.


I received from Her Majesty's West London County Court a 09.06.04 Notice (WLCC # 13(3)), stating:

(1) "Defendant": Noel Yvonne Sylvie Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawé + 8 others

(2) Addressed to me, with my address

"To all parties"

"As a result of an order made on 28 May 2004, this claim has been transferred to the [sic] Wandsworth County Court for listing for trial before Circuit Judge"  

(See for yourself, this is an exact reproduction of the text).



I cannot begin to describe the state I was in on receiving this notice. A state of shock, utter panic and extreme distress, as I simply did not understand what was going on. (My Diary 12 Jun 04)

Why am I going to end-up in a trial?

How could I possibly end-up in a trial - given that the Consent Order has been agreed? (# 4, above ; WLCC # 13

What hearing?


For what?


The Notice does not provide any detail whatsoever.

Having been made to miss - deliberately - the 28 May 04 so-called 'hearing' ( # 3, above) - I had no idea what had been said at that 'hearing' – and therefore what was behind this Notice.

See WLCC # 13(3) for further detail - and please note that I sent my 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer, on 29.06.04. Hence subsequent events that eventually led to my being told in the 23.07.04 letter "You are not required to attend the hearing on the 17th August 2004 as your case has now settled ( sic)" (see Wandsworth CC) - are not included in my 'cry for help'.

The 23.08.04 'reply' from Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service'? In para. 6, it is a 10-line paragraph comprising of 160 words. (I could not resist working out the statistics!)

Half of these words are used to explain the "difference between a district judge and a circuit judge" and that "West London County Court does not have a circuit judge". Of what relevance is this to my complaint? None! I view this as 'padding' to make the 'reply' appear to be more consistent.

On the 6th line, of para.6 of his 23.08.04 'reply', Ian Anderson wrote:

"Please note that this is only in relation to the 5th Defendant and it is not against you" (NB!!!)

"The notice of transfer is copied to you for information"

What led Ian Anderson to conclude that he could treat me in an arrogant, condescending, patronizing manner, and imply that I am an imbecile / illiterate idiot - all with the aim of absolving Her Majesty's courts' staff of responsibility and accountability - by telling me this when, in fact, the Notice is very clearly addressed to me - added to the fact that my file had been transferred to Wandsworth County Court?

At the start of this page, I stated that this 23.08.04 'reply' is typical of the 'responses' I have received from government departments I have turned to for help. However, in this instance, it contains a higher than usual dose of insult to my intelligence - worth highlighting for the entertainment value.

As you can see from the 09.06.04 "Notice of transfer of proceeding", it:

•  gives my name as "the Defendant";

•  is addressed to me;

•  at my address.

I think that the majority of people would conclude, as I did, that this notice was very clearly directed at me - and nobody else.

Reply from Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', under para.2 of his 23.08.04 letter:

"Unfortunately, this can be very confusing as the order has your name on it and leads you to believe that it relates to you when it actually refers to another defendant"

In light of this, I made the mental note that, in future, I must remember that when I receive correspondence from a government body, such as for example an income tax demand from HM Revenue & Customs, I can ignore it even though it only has my name on it, and is addressed to me. That's the logical extension of his statement.

Such was Ian Anderson’s blind determination to absolve Her Majesty's WLCC staff of accountability and responsibility, that he also - very conveniently - overlooked the fact that my file had been transferred to Wandsworth CC - and thereby demonstrated that he was perfectly happy to treat me like a complete moron, in order to protect the WLCC staff. Talk of closing rank!

What led him to conclude that he could that?

(I repeat my above questions)

Ian Anderson preceded this with:

"The position with this case is that there are 9 Defendants [1] with the case against each defendant being dealt with separately by the Judge"

"As a result, orders are issued by the Judge relating to one defendant but it has to be copied out to all defendants as to what is happening in the case" (2)

(1)- There were 11 Defendants on the 22.11.02 claim, ref. WL203537. See WLCC # 1 for my questioning WLCC allowing one claim to be filed against 11 leaseholders)

(2)- This is another deceitful cover-up as, apart from the fact that 50% of the Orders and Notices I received - falsely informed me that they concerned me (WLCC # 5 , # 14 ; points # 1 and # 5.1, above) - I was never copied on any court documents in relation to my 10 fellow leaseholders.

Conclusion: how does Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service' deal with this part of my 29.06.04 complaint?...

...(typically) he continues to treat me like an illiterate idiot - in order to exempt Her Majesty's WLCC staff of accountability and responsibility = The typical English public sector mafia!

What led Ian Anderson to conclude that he could side with the courts’ staff against me, and help them in their cover-up story - for telling me, falsely and repeatedly, that I was the defendant in a trial scheduled on 17 Aug 04 in WCC?

(I repeat my above questions)

(See point # 5, above, for my conclusions on why I was subjected to these additional 7 weeks of criminal psychological harassment by Her Majesty's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court)

(5.2)- Wrongly telling me that no hearing had taken place on 28 May 04.

As detailed under point # 3, above, Her Majesty's WLCC made me miss the 28 May 04 so-called 'hearing' (WLCC # 13). (It was deliberate - see Kangaroo courts).

Given the attitude of the WLCC court manager and court staff (e.g. point # 2, above... among many others) - I decided to take, yet again, more time off-work (leading to further loss of income) to go to WLCC in order to obtain a copy of the transcript of the hearing.

(As detailed under para.5 of my 29.06.04 letter to Falconer: on collecting the 28.05.04 Order on 4th June "I immediately went to the court to ask for a copy of the transcript of the 28 May hearing")

The first response I get from the WLCC staff is:"no hearing took place on 28 May"

Anticipating, based on previous events, that the staff would somehow try to get rid of me as quickly as possible, I had taken the precaution of bringing with me a copy of the Notice of the 28 May 04 hearing, as well as the 28.05.04 letter from Ayesha Salim, CKFT, stating: "You did not attend the hearing today" .

Even when faced with this evidence, I still had to battle with the court's staff - as he continued to maintain that no hearing had taken place.

How did Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service' reply to this part of my 29.06.04 complaint in his 23.08.04 letter?

"I am surprised that a member of the court staff would inform you that no hearing took place as the notice of hearing is clearly marked on the court computer"

Hence, Ian Anderson (yet again) implies that I am a liar.

What led him to conclude - clearly with the aim of protecting the WLCC court staff - that he could imply that I am liar?

= The typical English public sector mafia!

(I repeat my above questions)

(5.3)- Keeping me in the dark for 2 months by: (1)- waiting 1 month to send - the wrong tape - to the transcribing company; (2)- finally sending the right tape - 2 months after the 28 May 04 'hearing' - it had deliberately make me miss.

As Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary made miss - deliberately - the 28 May 04 so-called 'hearing' (point # 3, above ; WLCC # 13(2)), I submitted, to the court, a 04.06.04 form, asking it to send the tape of the hearing to my selected company, for transcription.  

As the court staff handed the form back to me (after stamping it), I asked him whether he had made a copy - considering that the form could only be sent by the court to the firm I had selected to do the transcript. He had not. He proceeded to do this as a result of my bringing this to his attention.

One month later, the firm I had selected to do the transcript informed me that it had received a tape, but it was the wrong one. There was no recording of the hearing. I wrote a 08.07.04 letter to the WLCC's court clerk, pointing this out.

Reply from Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service'? Under para.4 of his 23.08.04 letter: an apology immediately counteracted by an excuse to absolve the WLCC of accountability:

"...the court file had been transferred to Wandsworth County Court and the staff had difficulty in locating the tapes without the court file" .

Firstly: not my problem.

Secondly: my case should not have been transferred as, as recognised by Ian Anderson in his 23.08.04 letter, under para.5:

"In your particular case it is acknowledged that an agreement had been reached " (point # 4, above ; WLCC # 13)

The outcome of this episode with WLCC meant that I only obtained a copy of the transcript in the third week of August i.e. 2 months after the 28 May 04 hearing - during which time I went through mental torture - which was part of the game plan of 'the Brotherhood' (WLCC # 13 ; Wandsworth County Court).

Of course, Ian Anderson totally ignored the fact that, in addition: Her Majesty's WLCC court staff sent the wrong tape. Expressing any criticism of 'his mates' is, quite clearly: taboo.

What led him to conclude that he could absolve the WLCC staff of responsibility and accountability for what took place, as well as ignore a part of my complaint in relation to these events?

= The typical English public sector mafia!

(I repeat my above questions)

(5.4)- Insufficient notice of hearings; lack of information in notices; poor response time

(1)- 28 May 04 'hearing'

In relation to Her Majesty's WLCC making me miss (intentionally) the 28 May 04 hearing (point # 3, above ; WLCC # 13), I pointed out in my 29.06.04 'cry for help', that I had sent a 19.05.04 letter to the WLCC's court clerk - asking for an update on events.

The 23.08.04 'reply' from Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service':

"Your letter of 19th May was placed on the Court file for the Judge to look at on the date of the hearing, as there was insufficient time for the Court staff to reply before the hearing on 28th May.

The Judge saw your letter on file but did not issue any directions as a result of your letter and it was considered that the order was a sufficient response to your letter"

"the order was a sufficient response to your letter"

How about that for a blatant 1 finger up?!?!

It provides further (# 3, above) undeniable evidence of collusion and conspiring between Her Majesty's District Judge Madge, 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Ladsky', and his racketeering solicitor, Ayesha Salim.


(I repeat my above questions)

Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', continued in his 23.08.04 letter:

"It would be helpful if I explained that under the court's charter the aim for all courts is to reply to correspondence within 10 working days"

"The Court rules stipulate that the court is only required to give 5 working days notice of a hearing date"

So, the courts can take up to 10 working days 'to reply to correspondence', in other words 2 weeks.  

By comparison, 'I' am expected to turn-up when the courts give me barely a week's notice of a hearing. (See para.7 of Anderson's

If this is not a demonstration of unbelievable arrogance and grossly inflated sense of power, what is?

Message to the (then) Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer and his staff:

'It would be helpful if I explained that' at the time, I worked for a living resulting in commitments, not only work I had to deliver to my employer, but also attendance at meetings from which I could not excuse myself at the drop of a hat.

Even more so when considering that 50% of the court hearings I was supposed to be attending did NOT in fact concern me (WLCC # 5 , # 14 ; points # 1 and # 5.1, above)


(2)- Notice of the 12 Jun 03 hearing (WLCC # 7)

The Notice states:

"TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing will take place on

24 June 2003 at 2:00 PM

at West London County Court, 43 North End Road, W Kensington, London, W14 8SZ

When you should attend"

That's the sum total of it. No explanation whatsoever as to what the hearing is about.

= Another example of the utter contempt and disdain by Her Majesty's WLCC judges and court staff - and of the 'retribution' for my 'daring' to stand-up to them and a 'brother' - through criminal psychological harassment.

Reply from Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', under para.12 of his 23.08.04 letter:

"I have looked at the hearing notice dated 12th June and I accept that it would have been helpful to insert in the notice the purpose of the hearing.

The position was that the Claimant requested a hearing before a Judge to ask the Judge for directions to be issued for the case to proceed.

The Court is obliged to list the case for the first available date, which on this case was 24th June"

What is the relevance of the 2nd and 3rd lines to my complaint? None!

(I do not need confirmation that, because the request came from a 'clan' member - whose client is 'a brother', the court must immediately fall over backwards).

(I repeat my above questions)


(6)- Ian Anderson, Head of 'Customer Service', said to be "sorry to hear that [I] feel that the [court] system has let [me] down". In fact: as a law-abiding, taxpaying, British National - glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime: I feel outraged.

Ian Anderson wrote this in the concluding comments of his 23.08.04 letter.

In my 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer, I wrote (para.49)

"I thought that the Courts were there to ensure justice - not act as agent of unscrupulous Claimants - to carry out injustice - which, in my view, is what West London County Court has done by not acting on information it has been provided with"

I concluded my letter by stating:

"I am appalled by what has happened in West London County Court, including its relentless persecution - evidently driven by responding only to the dictates [NB: should be diktats] of the Claimant.

Is this a refection of the British Justice system?

Surely, this cannot be consistent with a country that has signed up to the Human Rights Charter?"

As the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime, I don't feel just 'let down'.

I feel outraged by the blatant collusion, conniving and conspiring between Her Majesty's WLCC judges, court manager and other court staff - and SS = Andrew David Ladsky and his puppets, Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, to rip-off the Jefferson House leaseholders (Overview # 3 ; Wandsworth County Court re. the 5th Defendant).

(And, of course, it continued subsequently - see Kangaroo courts)

The individuals concerned in these courts are a disgrace to Her Majesty's Court Service. But, typically: they continue to be protected (HMCS 'Customer Service'; Parliamentary Ombudsman ; Office for Judicial Complaints) - because the majority are Masons - and ALL are part of the mutual protection society...

...- that perceives 'the Proles', "the Oiks" / "the Great Unwashed", 'like me' - as pieces of dirt, non-entities who do not have the right to have rights - there to be used, abused and tormented by them and their cronies and hangers-on - at will.


Certainly, with a court system like that - as 'a certain type' of criminal: YOU'VE GOT IT MADE: you set the ball rolling and, all you have to do, is: sit back, and watch the courts do your dirty work. (Ditto with the police).


Covering-up wrongdoings has - and continues - to be the automatic response e.g.

(1)- 4 Dec 06 Guardian article: "Afraid of the daylight" (back-up extracts)

"...ministers have set-up a fantastical bureaucratic structure with the aim of obstructing inquirers at every turn"

"At the Home Office…lists of requests have to be submitted twice weekly to the home secretary, John Reid, in case they are politically embarrassing. Questions from journalists have to be referred to the Department of Constitutional Affairs, which has set up a clearing house to make sure one department does not release something another might prefer to conceal"

"The Home Office orders say: "All cases which fall within the DCA referral triggers or which are in any other way sensitive must be the subject of an individual submission to the home secretary ... and copied to the Information Policy Team, their IAP [information access practitioner], other relevant ministers, officials and press officers"

This was also picked-up by The Independent in its 15 Dec 06 article, "Blair questioned by police on day of 'burying bad news' ":

"The Department for Constitutional Affairs under Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced it was pressing ahead with plans to limit the Freedom of Information Act ­ curtailing rights to access and increasing fees to apply" (back-up extracts)


(2) Media page - Cover-up by 'the Establishment'.


And I also feel outraged by HMCS 'Customer Service' which...

...Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', states in his 23.08.04 'response':

"can deal with decisions made by court staff or errors that have been made by court staff"


Evidently, his interpretation of "deal with" is very different from mine .

Ian Anderson ends his letter with

"I am sorry I cannot be of any more help to you".

Considering the content of the letter, I view this as a euphemism for

"We are the law. You can't do anything against us. So, GET LOST!"


WHAT led Ian Anderson, Head of Her Majesty's 'Customer Service', to conclude that he could overlook the very traumatic, extremely vicious, cruel and perverse treatment I had – and continued to be subjected to by Her Majesty's judges and the staff in WLCC and WCC – as well as the massive amount of unnecessary costs I was made to incur as a result of their despicable conduct? (Overview # 3 , # 4)

= The typical English public sector mafia!

(I repeat my above questions)


(7)- In addition to Her Majesty's courts, I view two other departments (then) headed by Lord Falconer as having also very seriously let me down: Her Majesty's then Legal Services Ombudsman and the Land Registry

1. The (then) Legal Services Ombudsman

For detail, see the Legal Services Ombudsman page, on how she 'handled' my complaints against the Law Society and the Bar Council. My summary for the section reads "The Legal Services Ombudsman 'talks the talk' but 'does not walk the talk' ".

As I stated in the page, I viewed her (now defunct) Office as "...simply 'rubber-stamping' the decisions of the Law Society and Bar Council"

2. The Land Registry which, in effect, told me to (typically) 'Get lost!'

As I detailed in my 28.03.06 letter to the Land Registry, I hold the view that its granting of a title to Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessor # 2), on 15 Dec 06, led (NB: at the time) to Steel Services being unable to perform highly material covenants in my Lease.

Typically, a battle ensued - see Headlessors # 10.

And, equally, as typically: the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' worked, as I opted to stop wasting my time battling.


(8)- Who was pulling the strings behind the scene?


Considering what took place with Lord Falconer of Thoroton's departments - and the ROOT CAUSE (top of page) - it leads me to ask the following question:

Who has been pulling the strings behind the scene?

Answer: 'the Brotherhood'

Back to list


(9)- Her Majesty's Lord Falconer's 5-year strategy plan

At the launch of the website, in 2006, I wrote: in his 5-year strategy plan for the (then) DCA, Lord Falconer identified, among others, the following objectives:

"To provide criminal, civil, family and administrative justice systems that command public respect and confidence"

To ensure that the public, especially the socially excluded and vulnerable, have access to excellent services which enable them to exercise their rights in law."

There is a saying that recognising that there is a problem is 50% of the way to finding a solution. The remaining 50% still represents a long, long way to go Lord Falconer.

The rest of the world has moved on since the time of the dinosaurs.

The evidence suggests that his successors made no progress on these objectives.

WHY? Because they are just hot air - and, like a visitor to my site wrote colloquially (Comment # 40): "they don't give a crap".

In fact, the epitome of the British Establishment, Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London and Head of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime summed up succinctly the Establishment's perception of 'the little people', in his 18 Jun 15 reply to a taxi driver: "Fuck off and die!" (source: The Guardian).


(10)- My conclusions on Lord Falconer

In 2006, I wrote that, after the unbelievable, horrendous, sheer, utter hell his departments made me go through - I viewed Lord Falconer as being 'unfit for purpose'.

Furthermore, as the (then) head of these departments - as acting as a fertiliser for crass incompetence and malpractice in the legal sector - resulting in terrible misery and injustice for innocent victims such as I.

I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person considering the evidence on this page, as well as the other sections comprised under 'Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' will have no difficulty understanding why I hold this view.

(NB: As a result of my experience with WLCC in 2007-08, including my 'cries for help' to Jack Straw (WLCC # 24.2, Straw), then successor to Lord Falconer, I also hold the view that, by failing to take action, Jack Straw was likewise a 'fertiliser for malpractice, and therefore 'unfit for purpose') (see also snapshot under Kangaroo courts)


(12)- Adding credence to my claims, I draw your attention to 'weighty' voices critical of the judiciary and the legal system - at the time that Lord Falconer headed the DCA:

(NB: I wrote this section in 2006, and have since made minor changes)

•  A Daily Mail, 24.06.06 article, quoted Tony Blair, (then) Prime Minister, as saying that

"He called for judges to stand up for "decent law-abiding folks" who he said, "think the political and legal establishment are out of touch on the issue and they are right" .

But then, as stated in the article

"Ever since he promised to be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' in 1993, Tony Blair has been promising to overhaul the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, since coming to power in 1997, he keeps sticking to the same script."

And, "unfortunately" , like previous governments, crooked landlords and their aides who commit criminal offences by stealing from leaseholders, using FEAR tactics, abuse, blackmail, extortion, bullying, harassment, victimization, physical threats - as well as death threats (Jun 09 ; Jun 14), intimidation, persecution...

...- 'mysteriously' did not come under Tony Blair's "though on crime" radar - and nor have they with his successors - continuing to demonstrate that this treatment and tactics are very clearly regarded by various parties in the public sector (among others) - as "acceptable" and "part of their standards and values"

Maybe if rogue landlords and their aides were teenagers, "decent law-abiding folks" like me 'might' stand a chance of being treated justly and fairly (See Police section). On the other hand, in a society that evidently regards landlords as sacrosanct, with carte blanche to do exactly as they please...maybe not.

•  The Governor of the Bank of England, in a speech, on 21 Jun 06, at the Lord Mayor's Banquet for Bankers and Merchants of the City of London at the Mansion House (pages 6 and 7) (NB: The highlights are all mine)

"After 13 years, we have at last drawn a line under the BCCI case, the most expensive fishing expedition in history."

"It matters that there are simple, clear and timely ways of resolving disputes"

"What the BCCI case revealed was a legal system incapable of guaranteeing that"

"How can a case described by the trial judge himself as built "not even on sand but on air" take thirteen years and over £100 million [US$177m] in costs to come to a conclusion?"

"As Mr Justice Lightman argued in his 2003 Edward Bramley Memorial Lecture, the adversarial system imposes huge costs on litigants and defendants alike"

"As he put it, "to the great majority of the public the perception (if not the reality) is that the legal system is a profitable monopoly of the lawyers". BCCI showed that perception was indeed reality.

"A system that is powerless to prevent a case so hopelessly misconceived continuing for thirteen years requires examination.

I very much hope that the Government will look carefully at this case, learn the lessons, and take steps to ensure that such an outcome can never occur again"

Many of these conclusions, insights and questions apply in my case - as indeed they do in what is likely to be the majority of landlord-tenant cases.

In fact, I reflected some of the above sentiments one and a half year prior to this speech in the process of referring my 20.02.05 complaint against the Law Society to the (now defunct) Legal Services Ombudsman for its handling of my 20.12.04 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), as I wrote:

"This is my first ever experience with a court.

At the time the claim was filed against me, I held the very naïve view that a court was there to ensure justice - and would therefore assist me.

I have now come to conclude that they are just 'paper pushers'- and not even good at that" (pg 2)

"It reinforced my view that Steel Services i.e. Mr Ladsky was 'running the show' in West London County Court " (pg 3)

Needless to say that the Legal Services Ombudsman, who (then) reported to Lord Falconer, made a point of noting these comments against one of her 'sister departments' in her 11.07.05 reply (pg 2)

Talking to numerous leaseholders 'battling it out' in court with their landlord leads me to the conclusion that many of these cases should not even be entertained by the courts.

Instead, as in my case, the courts just 'sit back' - ignoring all calls for assistance - and evidence supplied (Note at 2009: in 2007-09, West London County Court and the Supreme Court Costs Office colluded with Andrew Ladsky and his puppets Portner and Jaskel) - leaving 'the fraternity' i.e. lawyers coming out as the key beneficiaries - along with the landlords (even if they lose, they charge their costs to the leaseholders by putting them on the service charges).

•  Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 Dec 04)

"The current regulatory system is flawed."

"It has insufficient regard to the interests of consumers"

"I am not satisfied that the main frontline bodies have always put consumer interests ahead of their own interests"

In the light of my experience, I suggest that a thorough review of the courts is also undertaken as a matter of urgency.


In Apr 06, the Home Office started to come under fire from several corners leading to the Home Secretary being replaced. His successor was reported as saying that he viewed the Home Office as "not fit for purpose''

This statement led a journalist at the Daily Express, to state (16 Jun 06)

"Contrary to Home Secretary John Reid's declaration that his department is "not fit for purpose" I would suggest that this whole Government is "not fit for purpose" - and the Home Office situation is just symptomatic of a general uselessness throughout this administration"

I wholeheartedly agree with this journalist and, in the case of the DCA suggest it carries the following health warning:





(*) Subsequent note: In the light of my subsequent experience with Her Majesty's Court Service - I contend that the same warning continues to apply.





  C O M M E N T S

Back to top