The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
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. (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). Six years ago, before 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 THOROUGHLY VILE SECTORAs a reasonable, fair minded visitor to the site, I believe that, once you have familiarised yourself with the - black on white evidence - you will, at a minimum, understand why I hold this view. '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 to the Law Society 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). Of course, I do recognise that 'somewhere out there', lost among the thoroughly vile lawyers - and 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 appear to be a dying breed - and are certainly 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 April 2007) An acquaintance who worked in the English courts for several years, dealing with solicitors and barristers on a daily basis, once told me:
While it is clearly an exaggeration, I nonetheless consider it as an informed view. In light of my very comprehensive first-hand experience with the sector, I fully 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 consumers can end-up getting a very raw deal indeed. On the upside, it is good to see that the 'uprising' is sprouting all over the place. Following the findings from the review by Sir David Clementi, the Legal Services Bill proposes setting-up a Legal Services Board with, it 'seems', some 'teeth'. As can be seen in The Times article of 25 July 2006 , the head of the Law Society is strongly opposed to this calling it "truly scary" (I bet!) and that "if a regulator is given a power, it will use it" (Heuh...yes, that's' the idea!) She is also concerned about the proposed "extensive powers for the lay-dominated board" . She had been given reassurances by the then 'clan's big chief', Lord Falconer, " that it was intended to be light-touch regulation but instead we have Model A (the most heavy) by the backdoor" Reading this means that I am not holding my breath as I fear that we are going to end-up with a re-sprayed version of the existing system. (B) Overview of the sections(1) Cawdery Kaye Fireman and Taylor (CKFT) & Law Society(NB: CKFT is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, in particular Mr Lanny Silverstone, Partner, and Ms Ayesha Salim, Assistant Solicitor, have identified that Mr Andrew David Ladsky is their client. For example, this is stated in an identical letter written by Ms Salim to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B , dated 11 October 2001. It can also be seen, for example, in the 7 October 2002 letter sent to me by Mr Lanny Silverstone in which he - illegally - threatened to forfeit my lease. This letter has the reference 'LAD'; the 1 July 2004 Consent Order has, likewise the reference 'LAD'. By sending his 28 November 2002 letter to my employer, and one to me of the same date, following my 24 October 2002 fax to K&C Housing and 24 October 2002 fax to the LVT (detail in My Diary 15 May 2008), Mr Lanny Silverstone confirmed the connection between Mr Ladsky and Steel Services. Furthermore, CKFT acted for Mr Arthur Ladsky, instructing counsel, in the TSB Bank v. Arthur Ladsky 1996 Court of Appeal case. Messrs Andrew Ladsky and Arthur Ladsky were both directors of Combined Mercantile Securities. (See Directorships for related information) (I do not know whether CKFT acted for Mr Andrew Ladsky in the case reported in the article in the Sunday Times (printscreen of site), referring to a relationship he had with a model that "culminated in a court battle over a floor-length sheepskin coat and two paintings" ) Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor has identified itself as acting for Steel Services (Owners Identity; Headlessors # 1 ) - as evidenced in numerous documents, including the Particulars of claim for the 29 November 2002 - false - claim filed in West London County Court (ref: WL 203537). It acted for Steel Services prior to 2002, as can be seen in Ms Hathaway's 15 October 2001 reply to Nucleus, (local Citizen Advice Bureau) who gave CKFT's address as contact (Owners identity # 1 ) At the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing when Mr Andrew Ladsky was asked by the Chair what his interest was in the proceedings, he replied: "I am just a tenant" . (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) However, throughout the four-day hearing Mr Ladsky was a member of Steel Services party, holding frequent discussions with: Mr Warwick, Steel Services' counsel (My Diary 13 March 2003 ; LVT # 8.2 ), Mr Brian Gale , Steel Services surveyor and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones , 'managing' agents for the block. (In spite of seeing this, the tribunal continued to use Mr Ladsky's initial answer - as can be seen in its 17 June 2003 report under point 4 "attended by.Mr A Ladsky, the owner of flats 34 and 35 ", as well as under point 50
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 Mr 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:
• Legal Services Ombudsman on 11 July 2005:
HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!See Document library for sequence of correspondence (2) Piper Smith & Basham/Watton (PSB) & Law Society(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'. 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. (I opted to not go back to the Law Society and waste any more of my time). See Document library for sequence of correspondence (3) Mr Stan Gallagher & Bar Council(NB: Mr Stan Gallagher is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) Mr Stan Gallagher, Arden Chambers, was my nominated barrister in relation to the reply to the 'offer' made by 'Steel Services' 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) sub-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, and Abbreviations / Definitions for a summary of events with Mr Gallagher (4) Portner and Jaskel LLP / Portner(NB: Portner and Jaskel is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) 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 Mr Andrew Ladsky (My Diary 3 October 2006). Other evidence proving the link between Mr Ladsky and Steel Services is the February 2002 claim filed by Portner and Jaskel, in the name of Steel Services, against a then 74-year old leaseholder at Jefferson Jefferson - see Elderly Resident Very clearly, Mr 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:
See Portner and Jaskel points # 4 and # 5 / My Diary 27 February 2007 , 13 March 2007 , 17 March 2007 , 12 April 2007 in relation to my 28 February 2007 complaint to the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel, leading to the 30 March 2007 reply:
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) I referred three complaints to the Legal Services Ombudsman: two against the Law Society, and one against the Bar Council. The section contains the replies, as well as 'noteworthy' events (especially if this Office were to be transferred 'lock, stock, and barrel' under the 'new' complaints handling system - and with the same overall head i.e. Lord Falconer of Thoroton). 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 strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against all three: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham and Mr Stan Gallagher. It does not require being a genius to see that.Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I believe you will arrive at the same conclusion once you have seen the comprehensive evidence - even if, like me, you are not a lawyer. (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 my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) 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: • A comprehensive overview of the sequence of events following the - FALSE - claim, ref WL 203 537 , drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , and filed on behalf of 'Steel Services' by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, against me and 10 other leaseholders (1.1MB), on 29 November 2002 - under a Statement of Truth (see My Diary 9 March 2007 for the fact that this amounts to a very serious breach of CPR) • 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 There is a shorter version at the beginning of the section for the visitor who does not have much time. See Document library for the sequence of correspondence 6.2 West London County Court - Post 2004You will see from the above section that my experience with this court between 2002 - 2004 was very traumatic. Well, 'courtesy' of Portner and Jaskel and its client “Rootstock Overseas Corp, Steel Services (Headlessors # 3 and # 5) , et. al (Directorships)” - for which it identified Mr Andrew Ladsky as contact (*), since March 2007, I am being treated to another round of horrendous torment, anguish and distress. (*) As stated earlier on, Portner and Jaskel has confirmed in its 3 October 2006 letter to my then website host that its client is Mr Andrew Ladsky. (See also My Diary 3 October 2006) This section contains: • A comprehensive overview of events since the filing of - yet again, another fraudulent claim against me - on 27 February 2007, ref 7WL 00675 • The complaint I filed against this court in November 2007, and the replies. 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. They are captured principally under the West London County Court sub-section. (8) Lord Falconer of Thoroton(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:
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I believe that once you have gone through these sub-sections, you will have no difficulty accepting my statement in the introduction to the site that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'. Furthermore, that you will then view my visual and summary for this page as: 'fair comment'. ALL OF THE ABOVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . |