The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and policeWebsite of Noëlle Rawé, Jefferson House, Basil Street, London Victim of leasehold fraud and corruption |
The 'Wild West'
|
Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services ombudsman - Home
Sections
(1) IntroductionThe four elements of my case: the courts, lawyers, their 'professional' associations and Legal Services Ombudsman are combined together because I have now concluded - based on the evidence from my very extensive first-hand experience - that they act in tandem across the board. A shocking statement - I know. (NB: Since my complaints there have been (cosmetic?) changes to the complaints procedures). (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). By 2002, when this very traumatic, horrendous nightmare happened, I had never had any dealings with courts, nor lawyers (except the ('fatal') time when I bought the lease on my flat). I must stress that the perceptions I then held of the legal sector overall were diametrically opposed to the perceptions I now have: A VILE, CORRUPTED, VERMIN-INFESTED SECTORAs a reasonable, fair minded visitor to the site, I believe that, once you have familiarised yourself with the - 'black on white' evidence - starting with this snapshot: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS - and the detail of events with the courts and the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal contained in e.g. my 2 January 2009 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - you will, at a minimum, understand why I hold this view. (See also Comments from visitors to my site) 'At a minimum' as, if you have had dealings with the legal sector in England, I hope it was a happy experience (and hence you were not: (1) one of the yearly 18,000+ people who bother to complain against a solicitor; (2) one of the several hundreds who bother to complain to the Bar Council on a yearly basis against a barrister; (3) one of the xxx ?? who complain to the Court Service in relation to the courts). And, if you had/have to complain: I hope that (unlike me: Sir Malcolm Rifkind) you had/have a good Member of Parliament, as well as media support, as it appears to be the only way of getting the so-called 'regulators' into action - see My Diary 2007 for examples. Of course, I do recognise that 'somewhere out there', lost among the thoroughly vile lawyers - and yes, some vile judges - the sector includes some highly competent, true professionals with the utmost level of integrity. (In the same way that they exist in another very poorly perceived sector: surveyors) Unfortunately, they are not speaking up in opposition to the currently appalling state of the sector. Why not? The logical conclusion is that malpractice is the norm. Indeed, if professional conduct was the norm, unprofessional conduct would be treated as deviant behaviour, and therefore condemned. As a Reader of The Times newspaper wrote: "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 Apr 07). I DO TOO! An acquaintance who worked in the English courts for several years, dealing with solicitors and barristers on a daily basis, once told me: " The chances of finding an honest lawyer these days are one in a million. " While it is clearly an exaggeration, I nonetheless consider it as an informed view. My very comprehensive first-hand experience with the sector (overview below), leads me to the conclusion that,...
And it also leads me to endorse Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)
If you look at the following websites:
you will see that it is not just England where the victims can end-up getting a very raw deal indeed. (NB: As I have found to my very great cost, in England, failure to take action against malpractice is a common denominator - not only in the private sector e.g. surveyors and accountants, but also in the state sector e.g., in addition to my experience with HMCS 'Customer Service' and the Legal Services Ombudsman (discussed below): Local Government Ombudsman; Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (so far!); Financial Services Authority; police - see My Diary 6 May 08 for an overview of my complaints) To plagiarise from Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP in in his Mail on Sunday article of 24 Jan 10 “If you put down the tracks, that’s the way the train goes” (B) SECTION OVERVIEWIt is said that 'a picture speaks a thousand words'.
... - I 'dared' to stand-up to the 'sacrosanct' landlord Andrew Ladsky et. al. (who is Jewish) and their mob (some of which, at least, are also Jewish) - which, the evidence suggests, they ALL perceive as having the 'divine right' to defraud me (and my fellow leaseholders)... ....and, in the process, I am holding a mirror to the face of parties in the public and private sector who do not like the reflection, as it reflects their / their friends’ failure to do their job, frequently amounting to failure to perform their legal remit / malpractice / collusion / corruption / fraud (start of Home page for further, brief details). (1) Cawdery Kaye Fireman and Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA - and Law Society - and Legal Services Ombudsman(NB: CKFT is covered in:
(Some visitors to my site have also commented on CKFT - See the Comments section). Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, in particular Mr Lanny Silverstone, Partner, and Ms Ayesha Salim, Assistant Solicitor, have identified that Andrew David Ladsky is their client e.g.
(I do not know whether CKFT acted for Andrew Ladsky in the case reported in the article in the Sunday Times (printscreen of site), referring to a relationship he had with a model that "culminated in a court battle over a floor-length sheepskin coat and two paintings" ) At the 29 October 2002 London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal pre-trial hearing when Andrew Ladsky was asked by the Chair what his interest was in the proceedings, he replied: "I am just a tenant" . (My Diary 10 Oct 02 ). However, throughout the four-day hearing Ladsky was a member of Steel Services party, holding frequent discussions with: Mr Warwick, Steel Services' counsel (My Diary 13 Mar 03 ; LVT # 8.2 ), Brian Gale, Steel Services surveyor and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for Jefferson House. (In spite of seeing this, the tribunal continued to use Andrew Ladsky's initial answer - as can be seen in its 17 June 2003 report under point 4 "attended by.Mr A Ladsky, the owner of flats 34 and 35 ", as well as under point 50
In the context of the several transactions probably best described as further 'carving out' and 'reshuffling' in the named owners of Jefferson House which took place late 2005 and early 2006 (see Freehold ownership , Headlessors , Owners identity ), CKFT became the nominated solicitors for 'Steel Services' on the Land Registry (Title NGL 373 333 ) - in the process taking over from Laytons, solicitors, London EC4Y 0LS. Other evidence: • The 2002 and 2003 summary of contributions I received from the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 letter, show that flat 34 and flat 35 have not paid any contribution. (NB: However, according to the ICAEW, some undetailed contributions in the 2004 year-end accounts were paid for flats owned by Mr Ladsky - See Pridie Brewster # 18 ) • In 2002, I approached the Tenancy Relations Officer at Kensington & Chelsea Housing to obtain, as per my statutory rights (under Sections 1 and 2 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 ), the identity of the landlord, as well as the name and address of every director and secretary of the landlord. In his 5 November 2002 email, the Tenancy Relations Officer informed me that he had
(The next day, 6 November 2002, the Tenancy Relations Officer sent me an email saying: "...we will not be releasing any documents to Mr Ladsky. The councils legal department believes you are entitled to a degree of confidentiality when you have sought assistance from us and this is why we have taken this decision") It follows that Andrew Ladsky and Steel Services are one and the same client of CKFT. (Denial of this would lead to the conclusion that CKFT has a very serious conflict of interest) This sub-section contains my 20 December 2004 complaint to the LAW SOCIETY against CKFT, as well as the Law Society's reply of 8 February 2005 and mine of 19 February 2005 . The 11 July 2005 reply from the LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN to my complaint against the Law Society of 20 February 2005 , and mine of 1 August 2005 are discussed under the Legal Services Ombudsman. Outcome of my complaints?• Law Society's 8 February 2005 reply:
Following my 19 February 2005 letter challenging its decision, the Law Society replied on 17 March 2005:
Clearly - (outrageously) - Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim have the blessings of the Law Society, as well as those of the LSO. Well, unlike the Law Society and the LSO, I view them as having VERY SERIOUSLY FAILED to discharge their professional duties. • Legal Services Ombudsman on 11 July 2005 - Ditto!:
HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!See Document library for sequence of correspondence (2) Piper Smith & Basham/Watton (PSB) - and Law Society and Legal Services Ombudsman(NB: Piper Smith Basham is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) Piper Smith Basham (now known as Piper Smith Watton) was my nominated firm of solicitors from the end of August 2003 until December 2003 i.e. the firm that was meant to 'act for me', but endorsed and supported CKFT's conduct. My main contact was Ms Lisa McLean, Litigation Assistant, who had a reporting line to Mr Richard Twyman, Partner. This (long) sub-section refers to numerous correspondences between myself, the firm and the Law Society over a 12-month period. It includes my initial complaint to the firm of 2 December 2003 . Its reply of 18 December 2003 , followed by mine of 24 January 2004 and its 30 January 2004 response. This was followed by my 16 March 2004 complaint to the LAW SOCIETY and thereafter, exchange of several correspondences - detailed in the section. Subsequent events with the LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN are comprised under the Legal Services Ombudsman section - resulting in a refusal, dated 12 May 2005 , to consider my 5 December 2004 complaint against the Law Society, on the ground that "your referral to my Office is premature ". I sent a reply dated 22 May 2005 . Events preceding the refusal are quite fascinating (LSO # 3) HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!I opted to not go back to the Law Society and waste any more of my time - as the overall message was as clear as that communicated in relation to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor: (outrageously) - Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean have the blessings of the Law Society, as well as those of the LSO. Well, unlike the Law Society and the LSO, I view them as having VERY SERIOUSLY FAILED to discharge their professional duties. See Document library for sequence of correspondence (3) Mr Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers, London WC1N 2ES - and Bar Council and Legal Services Ombudsman(NB: Stan Gallagher is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) (See Abbreviations / Definitions for a summary of events with Mr Gallagher) Mr Stan Gallagher was my nominated barrister in relation to the reply to the 'offer' made by 'Steel Services' (=Ladsky et.al) on 21 October 2003, giving a 13 November 2003 deadline. Hence, as in the case of Piper Smith Basham/Watton was meant to 'act for me'. This (long) section contains correspondences between myself, Mr Gallagher, his firm and the Bar Council - over an 18-month period. Among others, it includes my initial complaint to Mr Gallagher of 20 January 2004 , my 5 April 2004 complaint to the BAR COUNCIL, its decision of 27 January 2005
And my reply of 25 March 2005. On 25 March 2005 I filed a complaint with the Legal Services Ombudsman against the Bar Council. This, and subsequent events, which include a fascinating display of U-turns and pirouettes by the Bar Council and the LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN are covered at the end of the section on Mr Gallagher, and more comprehensively under the Legal Services Ombudsman from whom I received a reply dated 30 August 2005:
HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!(See Document library for sequence of correspondence) (4) Portner and Jaskel LLP / Portner, London W1U 2RA - and Law Society(NB: Portner and Jaskel is covered, among others, in:
Portner and Jaskel, trading as 'Portner' since June/July 2008, has confirmed in its 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP that its client is Andrew Ladsky (My Diary 3 October 2006). Other evidence proving the link between Ladsky and Steel Services:
Very clearly, Ladsky is the person behind Portner and Jaskel's 'other client', Rootstock Overseas Corp (Portner # 3 , # 6 , # 15 , # 27 ; Headlessors # 3 ,# 5 , # 6 , # 7 ) For detail of events with this London-based firm of solicitors, see the section on Portner and Jaskel. Some of the events are also covered in other parts of the site e.g.:
See Portner points # 4 and # 5 / My Diary 27 Feb 07 , 13 Mar 07 , 17 Mar 07 , 12 Apr 07 in relation to my 28 February 2007 complaint to the LAW SOCIETY against Portner, leading to the 30 March 2007 reply:
Clearly, the Law Society views Portner and Jaskel as having "discharged its professional duties with [no]thing less than complete integrity and probity" - and consequently as having no need to worry about "severe sanctions" A case of 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose' with the Law Society. HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!See Document library for the sequence of correspondence in 2006, and subsequently (5) Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO)(NB: The Legal Services Ombudsman is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) As detailed above, I referred three complaints to the Legal Services Ombudsman: two against the Law Society (in relation to CKFT and PSB), and one against the Bar Council (in relation to Stan Gallagher). The section contains the replies. You will see that (bar some laughable hesitations by the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith & Basham - as well as the insulting overall assessment), my complaints against the two firms and the barrister were NOT upheld - including by the Legal Services Ombudsman. Although not a lawyer, I VERY strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against all four: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham, Portner and Jaskel, and Stan Gallagher.It does not require being a genius, or a lawyer (who is honest) to see that. You only have to look at this very brief summary: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS to see that I am right.(Although each sub-section contains numerous extracts from documents as a means of substantiating my claims, as everywhere else on this site, all are linked to the source document, including providing the location in the document). (See Document library for sequence of correspondence) (6) West London County Court(NB: West London County Court is covered in:
6.1 West London County Court (2002 - 2004)When I launched this website, my dealings with West London County Court spanned from the end of 2002 to the summer of 2004. Events since then have led me to add another section (see below) This section contains: • An overview of some of the 'Key points of note' - supported by comprehensive detail of events - following WLCC - illegally accepting and proceeding - with the 29 November 2002 - FRAUDULENT - claim, ref WL 203 537, filed against me and 10 of my fellow leaseholders (representing a total of 14 flats) by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), on behalf of 'Steel Services' =Andrew Ladsky et.al. - with a statement of truth that should NOT have been endorsed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) (see WLCC Points of note for the fact that this amounts to a very serious breach of CPR as WLCC nonetheless proceeded with the claim) • A summary of questions I ask in relation to events, including questions about the breach of my Human Rights • Extracts from the correspondence I have exchanged with / sent to the court • Towards, the end of the section, the Law Society's comments in relation to the court - in the context of my complaint against CKFT. Among others, I draw your attention to my Defence and seven letters to the courts • My complaint against this court in 2004 is covered under Lord Falconer of Thoroton (See Document library for the sequence of correspondence) 6.2 West London County Court - Post 2004 - and HMCS 'Customer Service'You will see from the above section that my experience with this court between 2002 - 2004 was absolutely horrendous and very traumatic. Well - for 21 MONTHS - from March 2007 to November 2008, I was treated to EVEN WORSE TREATMENT BY the WLCC judges, court manager and other court staff - as I can only describe it as even more vicious, cruel, perverse and sadistic than what took place in 2002-04 (For my assumptions / conclusions: see Introduction to WLCC ; My Diary 11 Nov 08) This section contains: • An overview of the some of the Key points of note - supported by comprehensive detail of events - following WLCC - illegally accepting and proceeding - with the (SECOND FRAUDULENT) claim of 27 February 2007, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, on behalf of “Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services" and "Sloan Development" (mentioned in the file name path) et.al. ((Headlessors # 3 and # 5 ; Directorships) - for which Portner identified Andrew Ladsky as contact (*), from March 2007 to November 2008, (*) As stated above, Portner has confirmed in its 3 October 2006 letter to my then website host that its client is Andrew Ladsky. (See also My Diary 3 Oct 06) • A summary of questions I ask in relation to events, including questions about the breach of my Human Rights • The complaint I filed against this court in November 2007, and the replies (From WLCC # 18, to # 25). Comparing the outcome to when I filed a complaint against this court in 2004 it amounts to another example of 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose'. (See Document library for the sequence of correspondence) (7) Wandsworth County CourtI have had dealings with Wandsworth County Court in June-July 2004. These dealings include several points of note, in particular - based on evidence - what I view as the perpetuation of injustice. The section also includes questions I ask about the breach of my Human Rights. (8) Lord Falconer of Thoroton / HMCS 'Customer Service'(NB: Lord Falconer is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) This sub-section covers a 'cry for help' letter I sent to Lord Falconer on 29 June 2004 (when he was then heading the (then) Department for Constitutional Affairs), on which I copied the then minister for the courts, as well as the then minister for Human Rights, and the reply I received from the Court Service, two months later (dated 23 August 2004 ) - which I view as:
The section also includes questions I ask about the breach of my Human Rights.
I sent this 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of 'Justice' - which covers events with:
(As I wrote in e.g. my 2 February 2010 letter to various parties, including my MP, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO)), this Subject Access Request was prompted in part by my experience with the PHSO since filing my 12 July 2009 complaint, and because... ... I want to know why - as a law-abiding, taxpaying (£500,000+), British VICTIM OF ORGANISED CRIME - three courts and a tribunal concluded that they could ignore their legal remit by denying me justice and redress, in the process:
(In typical style), with the aim of limiting the response, as well as cause annoyance, the 11 January 2010 follow-up letter asked me the outrageous and laughable question of “identifying which parts of the Department you wish me to conduct the searches e.g. such as a specific office of the Tribunals Service or court…” This question is ‘outrageous and laughable’ because, as I highlight in my 19 January 2010 reply, the front page of my (2 January 2010) document lists the individual locations, and the second page identifies the individuals concerned - for each location. Furthermore, the front page and following page of my document contains a list headed “The sections and page location are” – listing all the sections in the document with their corresponding page number – and have sections headed “Information request from…” e.g. “West London Count Court – for 2002-04”; “West London County Court – for 2007-08”. It led to the 21 January 2010 reply that I will "receive a response by 1st March 2010" Conclusions about the so-called 'replies' to my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Ministry of 'Justice':(1) 25 February 2010 'reply' from the Ministry of 'Justice' Data Access & Compliance UnitThis letter, from the Ministry of 'Justice' states that "the Tribunal Services have confirmed that they do not hold the information requested. This is because the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal does not fall within the remit of the Tribunal Service. Residential Property Tribunal Service may hold the information that you have requested" As I note at the beginning of my 2 January 2010 SAR: "...the panels’ chairs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor (Source: http://www.rpts.gov.uk.about_us/lvt.htm )..." Hence: by the Ministry of 'Justice'. (The letter also contains the blatant lie that the RPTS "provide an independent, fair and accessible tribunal service in England for settling disputes involving private rented and leasehold property...") (See London LVT, and Case summary, for my experience (and that of my fellow leaseholders) ; My Diary 22 Nov 08 for the experience of other leaseholders) (2) 1 March 2010 'reply' from 'Communications Officer, at HMCS Southwark Bridge2.1 - THE LETTER This letter was sent by a 'Communication Officer', in HMCS Southwark Bridge (office from which I received the initial 'replies' to my 13 November 2007 complaint (WLCC from point # 18) It starts off by FALSELY stating that my Request is "in relation to case no 7WL00675 Rootstock Overseas Corp" - which is the FRAUDULENT 27 February 2007 claim filed against me in West London County Court by Portner and Jaskel. It then lists only 'some' of the sections contained in my 2 January 2010 SAR which, on their own, clearly contradict the first paragraph of the letter. The sections that are left out are: The Supreme Court Costs Office (My Diary 30 Jan 09) and HMCS 'Customer Service' 2004. Having detailed some of my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, on page 2 it states "...we are unable to comment on judicial decisions or select which points taken in pleadings or other aspects of the case led to those decisions". THAT's AN ATTEMPT TO FOB ME OFF / A COVER-UP - as my questions refer to NON-OBSERVANCE / NON-COMPLIANCE and therefore NON-IMPLEMENTATION of:
(NB: The information request questions in my 2 January 2010 SAR are also contained in the section for (1) London LVT ; (2) WLCC 2002-04 ; (3) Wandsworth County Court - 2004 ; (4) WLCC 2007-08 ; (5) Supreme Court Costs Office (My Diary 30 Jan 09) ; (6) HMCS 'Customer Service' 2004 ; (7) HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC from point # 18)) 2.2 - DOCUMENTS supplied with the 1 March 2010 letter (I have compiled in THIS LIST) • A total of 154 documents, which include an integral copy of the 75 supporting enclosures I supplied with my 12 September 2007 Defence = NOT the answer to my questions in my 2 January 2010 SAR • NONE OF THE REMAINING DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED ADDRESS ANY OF MY QUESTIONS IN MY 2 JANUARY 2010 SAR • NOT ONE DOCUMENT supplied in relation to:
(NB: See below, point # 3, for 'the reply' from the SCCO) • Of the 154 documents, there are EIGHT I did not have. Of these:
(3) 24 March 2010 'reply' from the Supreme Court Costs Office (SCCO)Under the Data Protection Act 1998, the reply to a Subject Access Request must be supplied within 40 days. As detailed in the 21 January 2010 letter from the Ministry of 'Justice', the deadline for reply was 1 March 2010. Hence: a one finger sign from the SCCO (see My Diary 30 Jan 09 for detail of the so-called hearing). Why did the SCOO need an extra 4 weeks to reply? Did it compile a lot of documents? Actually, it ONLY sent me two documents, both of which I already had: the 18 December 2008 Notice of hearing set for 30 Jan 09, and the Final Costs Certificate (a total of 2 pages). See the LIST I compiled. Hence, like the others - in BREACH OF MY RIGHTS, the SCCO HAS TOTALLY IGNORED my SAR. (In reproducing my Request from my 2 January 2010 SAR, in its letter, it has TOTALLY omitted to include my questions on pages 85 and 86 of my document). Considering what took place:
As Harriet Sergeant, guest contributor, wrote in her 28 Feb 10 article in The Sunday Times, headed "The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (triggered in part by the death, through neglect, of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital - and subsequent events):
ALL OF THE ABOVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP AND SUBSEQUENTLY MAINTAIN THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . |
