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!" (My interpretation)

Lord Falconer of ThorOton

 

(NOTE: This section is c. 20 pages in length)

When the events took place in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court in 2002-2004, 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: Lord Falconer is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

Given the continuation of my nightmare with the courts (in addition to everything else!), by the end of June 2004 I was feeling so distraught by events, and yet again at my wits end, that, on 29 June 2004, I wrote a letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, primarily asking for his help.   (I also copied Christopher Leslie MP (then with responsibility for the courts) and David Lammy, MP (then with responsibility for Human Rights)).

In this letter, I took the opportunity to relate previous events with West London County Court since the - false - claim, ref: WL 203 537, drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats at Jefferson House, was filed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, on 29 November 2002 - under a Statement of Truth (See My Diary 9 March 2007 for the serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules) - on behalf of 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. (see Owners identity, Advisors to Jefferson House, Headlessors and Directorships).

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

The reply I received two months later (dated 23 August 2004 ) from the Head of Customer Service Unit, Court Service, is...

.... defiant, arrogant, challenging, patronizing and dismissive.

In other words, the type of letter I have now become so accustomed to receiving whenever I have turned to a government body for help.

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

Sections

(1) Wrongly telling me that a Charging Order hearing on 4 April 2003 concerned me

West London County Court had sent me a 21 March 2003 notice of a Charging Order hearing due to take place on 4 April - that did not concern me - and, in addition, the fact that neither the court staff, nor staff at the DCA were able to explain what a charging order was.

The immediate response to this (which ignores my reference to the DCA) is challenging as it states (paragraph 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"

It then goes on to state that I am

"right that a charging order can only be issued when there is a valid Judgement" .

Is that supposed to make me feel good?

This is followed by inaccurate information

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

I obtained this document, a consent order relating to the 7th Defendant, dated 2 April 2003 , several days - afterwards - when I went to the court on 4 April 2003 and insisted on being given an explanation as to why the hearing had been cancelled.

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

This event caused me an unbelievable amount of torment, distress and anguish. (See My Diary 24 March 2003 ; 25 March 2003 ; 30 March 2003 ; 1 April 2003 )

It led me to initially write a letter dated 25 March 2003 addressed to the District Judge highlighting the recommendation of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) (part of the English legal system) to the leaseholders to NOT PAY until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented.

In support of this, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, we (leaseholders) were handed a leaflet which, on page 5 , captures the outcome of the Daejan Properties v. Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Court of Appeal case:

"LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid ." (Bold typeface as per the leaflet).

Please note that the LVT signed its determination on 17 June 2003 - Ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02 (reference #992 on the LVT database).

In spite of my 25 March 2003 letter, West London County Court still persisted in telling me, in its 27 March 2003 letter, that the 4 April 2003 Charging Order concerned me

"Please note that your request will be considered at the hearing on 4th April 2003" .

At my wits end, on 30 March 2003 , I sent a letter to the members of the LVT Panel - on which I copied the District Judge - again emphasising the recommendation from the tribunal to NOT PAY the service charge demanded.

As I could not determined from anywhere 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 West London County 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 1 April 2003 letter to the court.

In the course of the conversation, 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 - as a consent order had been faxed by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), dated 2 April 2003.

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

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

This is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING given that West London County Court KNEW that the same action was being pursued by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (see West London County Court # 5 , # 6 )

My going to the court on that day cost me £600 (US$1,100) in surveyor fees and half a day off-work. (See My Diary 4 April 2003 )

Reply from the Court Service

"lt 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" .

So, it's my fault! Evidently, according to the Court Service, I am the 'incompetent idiot'.

Back to list

(2) Wrongly telling me that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March 2004

Given the crass incompetence and shambolic state of the courts, when, on 31 March 2004, 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. (See My Diary 31 March 2004)

I was told that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March 2004.

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

A judgement has been entered against me?

Why?

I have had no communication to this effect.

The Head of Customer Service's first lines of response to my complaint are excuses as he states:

"There are 9 defendants in this case" .

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.

"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"

Even when they write, they cannot even get it right.

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

Why did West London County Court allow such a claim to be filed in the first place?

It implies that myself and the other 10 leaseholders listed on the claim are 'jointly and severally liable for the claim' - which is WRONG .   Under the terms of our leases, each one of us is merely liable for the percentage of the total charges as specified in our leases.

The Head of Customer Service then states that the manager "apologised" .

Yes, but he ignores what I related 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 three-four places several times in what is 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 that there had been no movement on my 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 judgement had been entered against me.

Back to list

(3) Ignoring instructions, leading me to miss the 28 May 2004 hearing - with catastrophic consequences

My complaint that West London County Court had not recorded the specific instructions from the Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau, who had been advising me. Namely, that correspondence should be addressed to me - not the Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau - as evidenced by the RCJ Advice Bureau letter of 2 April 2004 to West London County Court. (Yet again supporting my conclusion that, as a litigant in person, West London County Court viewed me as a non-entity)

The outcome was catastrophic for me. (See also My Diary 28 May 2004 )

West London County Court dated the notice of the hearing 18 May 2004. The RCJ received it on 21 May 2004 (which was a Friday).

It only acted on the letter the following week, on 25 May 2004 which entailed contacting the court and attempting to contact me, including by email (see attached, all of these correspondences ).  

I was out of the country on the day the RCJ sent me the email. (The first one week break I had 'dared' to take in months).

My not being present at the hearing, combined with the fact that the Judge admitted to not having read even the skeleton argument (of which I was never supplied a copy by CKFT)...

...allowed Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, to 'spin' her story unchallenged.

As can be seen from the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing, to the question as to whether he had read the skeleton argument, the Judge replied:

"No, I have not, because it was handed in late"

Ms Ayesha Salim is recorded as saying

"the draft orders she has submitted to us have included monies that may be outside the scope of these proceedings" . WHAT?

To which the Judge replied

"Is it sensible for me simply to stay the claim against her?"

Of course, Ms Salim immediately jumped at this 'freebie' by replying

"yes"

It was consequently captured in the 28 May 2004 order.

On what ground could this 'freebie' be 'so kindly' offered by the Judge?

The payment of £6,350 (US$11,200) was in full and final settlement of the claim (see Steel Services 'offer' of 21 October 2003 and my 19 December 2003 notice of acceptance)

Please, note also Ms Salim saying during the hearing

"The monies (that I sent) have been received and accepted"

Please, note also paragraph 5 of the 23 August 2004 Court Service reply

"In your particular case it is acknowledged that an agreement had been reached."

Then, as Ms Salim portrays me as a 'difficult' individual, helpfully the Judge tells her:

"You should sign (the consent order) and get it back to her before she changes her mind"

Wanting to ascertain that he had extended all the help he could to Ms Salim, the Judge says

"Is there anything else I can usefully do before I print the order?"

My hand-written comment on the transcript reads:

"From the point of view of justice, yeah!

Read the evidence and challenge what you are being told!  

That would be a good start!"

Although not entirely clear, at the time, the comments from Ms Salim suggested to me an intention to demand more money from me at a later stage. I WAS RIGHT!

Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004 .

(Ms Ayesha Salim had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004).

•  Three months later Martin Russell Jones sent me an invoice, dated 21 October 2004 , stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452 (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever i.e. there was no supporting documentation of any kind. This was the same amount as the original demand of 17 July 2002. Hence, as though no consent order had been agreed, and no payment made.

•  Three weeks later, another invoice followed from Martin Russell Jones, dated 16 November 2004 , this time, stating "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever.

This invoice was sent with a covering letter, dated 5 October 2004 . (Yes, this letter dated six weeks previously, was the covering letter with the invoice).

Knowing that these invoices bogus - I ignored them and hence did NOT pay them.

Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously, I informed Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones that I had accepted the offer in settlement of my share of the major works and had paid £6,350 (US$11,200).

•  They were followed by an invoice dated 9 January 2006 ( i.e. 14 months later), this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided.

Some other points of note about this invoice are (which further demonstrate the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al and their aides):

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

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

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

This is FRAUDULENT given that Steel Services no longer had control of the last floor of Jefferson House (See Headlessors,  Owners identity and Pridie Brewster )

It was followed in June 2006 with an invoice stating a " Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200).   As with the prior invoices: no explanation as to the composition of the sum.

The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase £2,995 (US$5,300) over the 9 January 2006 invoice, which states a half-yearly service charge in advance of £815 (US$1,435).

As can be seen from the 30 June pack , my half-yearly service charge BEFORE the addition of four new flats , including a penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of the top floor, and BEFORE the complete overhaul of Jefferson House was £680 (US$1,200).

Outcome: what is the amount currently 'deemed' by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides to be hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300)(?), £14,500 (US$25,600)(?), £5,625 (US$9,900)(?), £8,621 (US$15,200)(?) or all four combined making a total of   £44,246 (US$78,000)?

(Subsequent note: Update - A £10,000 (US$17,700) claim was filed against me in 2007. Like the 2002 claim, it was fraudulent. This time, I fought the battle on my own - and won - against unbelievable adversity - See Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004) (Key document: my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement)

Back to the West London County Court hearing of 28 May 2004...

In relation to not canceling the 28 May 2004 hearing as a result of being informed of events (entirely due to the court's incompetence) by the RCJ Advice Bureau, the Court Service's reply is (paragraph 7)

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

lt 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".  

In that case, how come that the 4 April 2003 was cancelled?... because the request came from a member of the 'clan'!

Back to list

(4) Capturing on the 28 May 2004 order that the action against me be stayed when, in fact, it was clear that an agreement had been reached

Seeing that the Judge had 'helpfully' captured 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 letter 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 owe (due to breach of the terms of my lease, as well as S.20 of the L&T Act 1985) - I was putting an end to this horrendous nightmare.

THE HORRENDOUS NIGHTMARE WAS CONTINUING

In my 20 June 2004 letter to West London County Court I vehemently protested against the fact that the order recorded that the action be stayed and asked that it be changed.

I repeated this as well in my 22 July 2004 letter to the Judge, Wandsworth County Court.

The 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service (paragraph 8) was:

"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 events with Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor?

While paragraph 5 of Court Service letter reads:

"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"

Hence, in spite of knowing that agreement has been reached, the judge nonetheless decides to have the action against me 'stayed' i.e. open to further proceedings. UNBELIEVABLE! Do they understand what they write?

What kind of judge is that?

The Head of of the Court Service Customer Service Unit, continues:

"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 the Judge to Ms Salim, CKFT. Secondly:

WHY WAS THIS DONE?

Note also how the Court Service washes its hands of responsibility (paragraph 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 judge makes a decision that is unfair / unjust your only course for justice / redress is to go to a higher court.

 

What happens if you do not have the financial means to go to a higher court?

Well, the evidence suggests: tough!  

IF YOU WANT JUSTICE IN ENGLAND (at least in relation to landlord-tenant disputes)...

...YOU'D BETTER HAVE A LOT OF MONEY!

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 November 2005.

In 2005, a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued a determination in favour of the leaseholders. (They happened to be lucky). 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) (See My Diary, 11 November 2006 for further evidence of this in relation to a group of leaseholders wanting to buy the freehold on their flat )

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"  

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. I know, cheap shot, but you do wonder...

...especially when you read comments in the press further confirming bias among some judges e.g. the 23 June 2006 article in the Daily Mail 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" )

Consequently: how far up does one need to go to get 'justice'?

Considering some recent cases (not leasehold related) (the majority of leaseholders cannot afford to do this):   up, up and away from the British Isles to the European court, or by pleading for intervention in other jurisdictions - resulting in pressure being placed on the British government to act. Of course, taking these steps is very expensive. (Leaving victims of injustice with the option I have taken: developing a website in order to reach the international community)

Even if, by escalating your leasehold related case to higher courts you end up with a judgement 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 rogue landlord.

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

Back to list

(5) 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 court and, in the latter part, when 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 the courts continued to cause me unbelievable suffering because of their gross mismanagement and incompetence. (I view this as an extremely generous explanation for what happened).

Back to list

(5.1) Wrongly telling me that a trial on 17 August 2004 concerned me

Indeed, I received from West London County Court a 9 June 2004 notice of transfer of proceeding stating

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

(Yes, 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. There was no explanation whatsoever.  

•  Why was I going to end-up in a trial?

•  How could I possibly end-up in a trial given that I had agreed to a consent order?  

Yet again, I found myself the victim of a complete and utter shambles by the courts.

(See also My Diary 12 June 2004 ; 26 July 2004 ; 26 August 2004 )

Initially, it is confirmed to me that, yes, my case is going to trial.  

When I challenged this by phone calls and letters, I then get the admission that my file is "in transfer" between the two courts so, "we can't tell you why" .

Another few days of more phone calls and letters which included my 8 July 2004 letter asking why my file had been transferred from West London County Court to Wandsworth County Court given that I had exchanged a consent order that had been endorsed by the court on 1st July 2004 .   I also point out:

"There is no explanation whatsoever as to what the statement "listing and trial before Circuit Judge" refers to.

What hearing?

Why?

For what?

When?

After 10 days of continued extreme anguish and distress, a court staff, Wandsworth County Court, phoned me.

Initially, he confirmed that I WAS the defendant in the trial scheduled to take place on 17 August.   I captured this conversation in a fax to the court staff, dated 19 July 2004 .

In this fax, I also captured the fact that he asked me to fax him a copy of the 1 July 2004 Consent Order endorsed by the court, as the court had not kept a copy for my file. (NB: !!!)

I also asked him to confirm, in writing, whether or not the 17 August 2004 trial concerned me.

Still in the dark, and in continuing extreme distress and anguish as to whether or not I was the defendant in a trial due to take place in three weeks time, on 22 July 2004 I wrote to the District Judge, Wandsworth County Court.

"If the trial does concern me, then I have not been provided with any instructions whatsoever"

I also stated that

"I totally disagree with the order captured under point #4 that the claim against me be "stayed" "

In this letter, I also wrote:

"Having fallen victim to an unscrupulous landlord, I have then been subjected to the most appalling treatment by the Courts which I can only describe as amounting to cruelty and persecution"

This finally led to a brief reply from Wandsworth County Court, dated 23 July 2004 :

"You are not required to attend the hearing on the 17th August 2004 as your case has now settled ( sic).

Part 5 of the order of 28 May 2004 states that it is the claim against the 5th defendant that was to be listed".  

This was followed by a confirmation dated 27 July 2004.

Not only do I not even get an apology from the court, it, in effect, tells me that I am an illiterate idiot.

And the reply from the Court Service? (23 August 2004 , paragraph 6) It is a 10-line paragraph comprising of 160 words. (I could not resist working out the statistics!)

Half of these are used to explain the difference between a district judge and a circuit judge and that West London County Court does not have the latter. 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 sixth line it states

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

In addition, that

"the notice was copied for my information"

I stated earlier on that this letter 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 9 June 2004 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.

 

The 'Head' (!!!) of Customer Service 's reply 23 August 2004 , paragraph 2:

"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 the Inland Revenue, I can ignore it even though it only has my name on it and my address and nobody else's. This is the logical extension of his statement.

The Head of Customer Service preceded this by

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

(see above my questioning West London County Court allowing one claim to be filed against 11 leaseholders) .

"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"

In relation to his claim that " the court had to copy" all communications to all the Defendants: if so, I never received any communication relating to the procedure in relation to Defendant #1, Defendant #3, Defendant #4, Defendant #6, etc., etc., etc.

Conclusion: how does the Court Service deal with this part of my complaint?...

...It continues with the courts' position of treating me like an illiterate idiot.

Back to list

(5.2) Wrongly telling me that no hearing had taken place on 28 May 2004

As, due to West London County Court's crass incompetence I had missed the 28 May 2004 hearing, I decided to take, yet again, more time off-work to go to the court in order to obtain a copy of the transcript.

The first response I get from the staff is that

"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 2004 hearing, as well as the 28 May 2004 letter from Ms 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 say that no hearing had taken place.

How did the Court Service reply to this part of my complaint?

"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" .

I read in this as an implication that I am a liar or an imbecile.

Back to list

(5.3) Sending the wrong tape, as well as delay in the response

I completed the request form for a transcript on 4 June 2004, the day of my visit to the court.  

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.

A 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 letter to the court on 8 July 2004 , pointing this out.

What is the reply from the Court Service? An apology immediately followed by an excuse (23 August 2004 , paragraph 4)

"...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, and more importantly: why was my file transferred to Wandsworth County Court - given that the consent order had been agreed - as recorded in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing - and as confirmed by the Head of Customer Service (23 August 2004 , paragraph 5)

"In your particular case it is acknowledged that an agreement had been reached "

Furthermore, under paragraph 6, the Court Service states:

".Wandsworth County Court, where the case has been transferred.

...this is only in relation to the 5th Defendant and it is not against you"

Given the above: WHY was my file transferred to Wandsworth County Court ?

My file should NOT have been transferred. The reason it was, was due to yet again, another blatant example of gross mismanagement and incompetence by West London County Court.

The outcome of this episode with West London County Court meant that I only obtained a copy of the transcript in the third week of August i.e. two months after the 28 May hearing.

Back to list

(5.4) Insufficient notice of hearings and poor response time

When, in relation to my missing the 28 May 2004 hearing I point out that I had sent a letter dated 19 May 2004 asking for an update on events, the reply from the Court Service was that the court did not have sufficient time to reply. Instead,

"it was considered that the order was a sufficient response to your letter"

It continues

"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" .

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

By comparison, I am expected to turn-up when the courts give me barely a week notice of a hearing. (See paragraph 7 of the Court Service reply):

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

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

Message to Lord Falconer and his staff:

'It would be helpful if I explained that' I work for a living and it results in commitments, not only work I must deliver to my employer, but also attendance at meetings from which I cannot 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 .

The evidence suggests that the key drivers for this are the solicitors.

One example relates to the 12 June 2003 notice of hearing scheduled for 24 June 2003.   It does not state what the hearing is about and I had no means of guessing as I had not received a copy of the LVT determination (it signed it on 17 June 2003 ).

I consequently saw myself as yet again being hounded by the court, (in fact, I felt that 'persecuted' was by now a more appropriate description).

It led me to write a letter on 17 June 2003 to the District Judge challenging the notice

"Why are you asking me to attend a hearing?

Why aren't you instead asking me whether the LVT has reached a decision?

Why is it that your Court is not waiting for this decision?

Until there is a decision, what can you enforce?

...maybe I am going through this hell for nothing. Maybe this is a repeat of your March notice for a charging order hearing i.e. has nothing to do with me. Is that the case? "

Reply from the Head of Customer Service, paragraph 12

"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 (NB:!!! Because the request comes from a 'clan' member) to list the case for the first available date, which on this case was 24th June"

Back to list

(6) The court system has let me down

The Head of Customer Service captured that I felt

"that the system has let me down and that I did not receive justice" .  

Yes, most definitely considering that I am an INNOCENT VICTIM: the claim filed against me (and the other 10 leaseholders) IS FRAUDULENT - as I did not owe this sum - and the courts knew this.

NOTE at March 2007 : And the ball is rolling for this to happen to me for the second time - see My Diary 9 March 2007.

SUBSEQUENT NOTE: it sure did! See West London County Court - Post 2004 and Portner and Jaskel

I also hold the view that the courts have, among others, committed the following breaches of my Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 :

Article 6 - Right to fair hearing;

Article 13 - Right to effective remedy

I have completely lost my confidence in the whole system...

...as I now realise it was a totally misplaced confidence.

The only place where 'justice' features in those courts is in the name above the door. They are a mockery of justice - at least in relation to residential leasehold cases. They should be renamed 'courts of injustice'

(NB: I am not alone in my criticisms of the courts: I draw your attention to the fact that, in 2001, a District Judge used the term "gross incompetence" in relation to administrative staff in a court)

In some of my correspondence (e.g. my various complaints) I wrote that

"CKFT was running the show in West London County Court "

And in some of these documents, I have asked the question:

"Is the role of a judge that of a mere 'paper pusher'?"

I believe that any reasonable, fair minded person will view this as fair comment - considering as well, among others, what took place at the 28 May 2004 hearing (as detailed above) - as well as the events related under West London County Court

Subsequent note - Actually, more evidence to add as further endorsement of my claim that courts are 'paper pushers' - and worse: see WLCC # 1 , # 2 , # 7 , # 9 , # 14, etc.

I also draw your attention to the 21 June 2006 speech by the Governor of the Bank of England which I consider as adding credence to my view (see below)

In addition to my experience with the courts should be added events with other leaseholders on the claim. In particular, the appalling example in relation to the 5th Defendant: I received from Wandsworth County Court a 'General form of Judgement or Order' dated 2 August 2004 :

(1) It is ordered that the 5th Defendant do pay the Claimant the sum of £4,538.29 (US$8,000) being the balance of the sums claimed, by 16 August 2004

(2) The 5th Defendant do pay the Claimant's costs of these proceedings to be detailed assessed if not agreed

(3) The 5th Defendant do pay the sum of £548.04 (US$970) to the Claimant being the interest due on the sums claimed"

The 5th Defendant 'caved in' but, as suggested by the evidence, on entirely different terms from those determined by the LVT as: (i) following the hearing on 26 August 2003 , the 5th Defendant agreed to pay the sum of £8,839.36 (US$15,600) (this is captured in the 26 August 2003 Order);   (ii) the original sum demanded of the 5th Defendant for "Major Works Contribution" was £15,637.02 (US$27,600).

So much for the LVT determination and 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. not being entitled to charge leaseholders differentially AND my bringing the LVT determination to the attention of the Judge in Wandsworth County Court, in my letter dated 22 July 2004

So, yes, I most definitely feel very let down by the system and that I did not receive justice...

...including by the Court Service complaints department which, the Head of Customer Service states ( 23 August 2004),

"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 .

The Head of Customer service 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!"

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

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

The Legal Services Ombudsman

For detail, see the section on the Legal Services Ombudsman 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 section, I view her Office as "...simply 'rubber-stamping' the decisions of the Law Society and Bar Council"

The Land Registry which, in effect, told me to 'get lost'

As I detailed in my 28 March 2006 letter to the Land Registry, its granting of a title to Lavagna Enterprises on 15 December 2006 has led to Steel Services being unable to perform highly material covenants in my lease.

The 4 April 2006 reply from the Land Registry amounts to a 'get lost' , including the usual "get legal advice" . To be more precise, I view the reply as:

"I am not going to do anything against a sacrosanct landlord - especially for a 'nobody' like you"

I replied on 18 April 2006 that it was up the Land Registry to sort out the mess it has caused - not up to me.

This led to the second 'get lost' on 25 April 2006. (See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 for detail, as well as the entry in My Diary under 28 March 2006, 18 February 2006 and 29 April 2006).

I opted to not waste any more of my precious spare time replying, feeling that it would be more usefully spent on developing the site to expose my horrendous, very traumatic experience - and desperate current position.

Back to list

(8) At the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE .

(This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc.

In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions) )

Jefferson House July 2002

 

Jefferson House September 2005

 

To be more precise:

( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)

UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT?

Leading me to ask the following question I consider as perfectly legitimate given events with the courts, the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Land Registry:

Who has been pulling the strings behind the scene?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

 

 

(9) I know, I should have read the signs:

•  the country has the word 'kingdom' in its name;

•  it does not have a constitution

•  its people are 'subjects' rather than citizens;

•  it has 'Royal courts of justice',

•  headed by a Lord,

•  that deliver judgements in the name of the Monarch.  

With that kind of set-up, a 'commoner' like me / one of the 'great unwashed' (as I understand people like me are referred to in some circles) does not stand much of a chance.

In fact, events with the 'clan' i.e. courts, Court Service, lawyers, the Legal Services Ombudsman (to which can be added the Land Registry because (then) part of the (then) DCA) (as well as all the other parties I went into battle with ) make me think of the following:

"Infidel of no financial means and influential connections: rebel against the system and thou shall be annihilated"

George Orwell : And I thought that '1984' was fiction!

Back to list

(10) Lord Falconer's five-year strategy plan

In his five-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.

Back to list

(11) My conclusions on Lord Falconer

After the unbelievable, horrendous, sheer, utter hell that his departments made me go through since 2002 - and continued to make me go through - EVERY DAY (action against me that has been "stayed"; impact on my lease from Steel Services' loss of control of the last floor of Jefferson House) - I view 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 in this section, as well as the other sections comprised under 'Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' will have no difficulty understanding why I hold this view.

And I am far from being a lone voice critical of the current state of the legal sector. See below.

(Subsequent note, at October 2008: I have just come across an article in the Daily Telegraph of 5 April 2001, "Yesterday in Parliament". It reports "Austin Mitchell (Labour) said..."In law, the practice of the mafia regulating the mafia has failed, is failing and needs to be abolished. He said the Lord Chancellor's department had taken on the role of protecting vested interests and was in collusion with the Law Society". It's good to know that somebody else arrived at the same conclusion). 

The question I have is: why is it that the decent judges and lawyers appear to be standing back? Why don't they speak up?

Aren't they concerned about handing this legacy to their children / having the same thing happen to them as has happened to me? They are not always going to be around to protect them. If no action is taken, the situation can only get worse. What kind of judicial system will their children and grand children be facing?

Yes! it takes guts to speak up. So? I have dared to do it - and I have neither the expert knowledge, nor the connections they have to protect myself. Surely, if I can do it, so can they. Or are they all that spineless?

Back to list

(12) Adding credence to my claims, I draw your attention to the 'weighty' voices that are critical of the judiciary and the legal system:

•  The 24 June 2006 issue of the Daily Mail quotes Mr 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 harassment, bullying, blackmail and intimidation tactics, etc., 'mysteriously' do not come under Mr Tony Blair's "though on crime" radar.

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 June 2006 , 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$177 million) 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 complaint against the Law Society to the Legal Services Ombudsman for its handling of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, 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" (page 2)

"It reinforced my view that Steel Services i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al was 'running the show' in West London County Court " (page 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 reply (page 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 - 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 December 2004)

"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 light of my experience, I suggest that a thorough review of the courts is ALSO undertaken AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.

In April 2006, the Home Office started to come under fire from several corners leading to the head being replaced. The new head 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 June 2006)

"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:

 

WARNING:

THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (*)

CAN CAUSE SERIOUS LASTING DAMAGE

TO YOUR HEALTH

(*) Subsequent note: In light of my experience in 2007-2008 with West London County Court and HM Court Service: I hold the same view in relation to its successor: the Ministry of (In)Justice

LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF HIS OWN DOING .

If no action is taken by individual/s in authority in the face of the 'black on white' evidence contained in the 'Lawyers, Courts & LSO' section on this site, then this country is in an ever bigger mess than reported daily by the British media.

Back to top