The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
I view Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean as evil, corrupt, morally depraved individuals - conduct endorsed by the Law Society
|
Piper Smith & Basham / Watton & Law Society
(NOTE: This section is c. 40 pages in length) (NB: Piper Smith Basham is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) In July 2005, the firm's website stated:
Consider the above in the context of my case - as detailed below. Two factors prompted me to select Piper Smith Basham. The first was a recommendation from a contact in whom I have the utmost trust. The second was the 'fighting spirit' of Ms Lisa McLean , legal executive when I first met her at the 28 April 2003 Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearing (when she was representing other leaseholder/s at Jefferson House) Let me stress from the outset that, in light of the recommendation by my contact, I have no doubt in my mind that Piper Smith Basham/Watton has some excellent professionals who are a credit to their profession.Unfortunately, it has not been my experience with Ms Lisa McLean and her superior, Mr Richard Twyman, partner. I view them as evil, corrupt, morally depraved individuals... but, as demonstrated in this section : they have the blessings of their 'professional' assocation, the Law Society, to act as they do. (= same as Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Mr Jeremy Hershkorn and Mr Daniel Brougton, then at Portner and Jaskel - and no doubt this would also apply to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel) As you read through this section, you may ask yourself why I did not stop using Piper Smith Basham after the episode with the 20C application in September 2003. (This is covered in detail at the end of this section # 7.18 ). I wanted to, but by then I had already spent over £45,000 (US$79,400) of my life savings (£32,000 (US$56,400) of this related to the LVT action following the 7 August 2002 application filed by Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones on behalf of 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. ). By then, a lot had already taken place. Hence, appointing another firm of solicitors would entail considerable costs to familiarise itself with my case. Making copy of all the necessary documents, as well as briefing the firm would require that I take, yet again, more time off work. (My Diary ) Last but not least, was the difficulty of trying to find another firm that not only specialised in this area but, of paramount importance - that I could trust. The combination of these factors led to me to conclude that I would retain Piper Smith Basham because of my lack of knowledge of legal matters - while being on my guard. I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that Piper Smith Basham was aware of my dilemma - and used it. One of the key examples in support of my claim that Piper Smith Basham did this relates to the 12 December 2003 letter from Ms McLean (see below # 7.17 and sub-points ). Sections
(1) Events before I became a clientGiven events, some of the contents of two letters from Ms McLean BEFORE I became a client need to be noted as they are part of the key evidential documents in my complaint against Ms McLean and Mr Twyman Ms McLean established the initial contact in a 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors with the aim of getting clarification on the situation as Piper Smith Basham was at the time acting for one or more lessees in the block.
As a response from my solicitors would entail additional costs, I replied to this effect to Ms McLean on 16 April 2003 . I concluded by stating: "I trust that both, the LVT and County Court will be able to address your queries" . Hence, my message was 'do not contact me again'. In spite of my letter of 16 April 2003, Ms McLean nonetheless contacted my solicitors again by sending a letter, dated 23 June 2003 . In this, she asked:
She also adds,
This letter is an evidential document firstly because, when I became a client of Piper Smith Basham and wanted to pursue my 20C application (to prevent Steel Services from putting its LVT related costs on the service charges), Ms McLean and Mr Twyman took the opposite view: they told me that I could not make an application that would apply to the whole block. This is misinformation (as explained towards the latter part of this section under point # 7.18 ). Very clearly, Ms McLean's letter was not motivated out of concern for my welfare. Her interest was the other leaseholder/s she represented at the time. Secondly, because in this letter she wrote:
Initially, I sent Ms McLean information to forward to the other leaseholder/s. (2) I appointed Piper Smith Basham in mid-August 2003 - clearly stating my objectivesIn mid-August 2003, I asked her to help me in connection with the 26 August 2003 West London County Court hearing. (Although I had (successfully) represented myself at the 24 June 2003 hearing (My Diary 16 June 2003 to 24 June 2003 ; Lord Falconer # 5.4 ), my lack of knowledge of the legal terminology and procedure meant that I found the experience distressing). To this effect, I sent Ms McLean a comprehensive pack of documents as evidenced by my covering list dated 19 August 2003 . (NB: As with all the other documents, name of other lessees removed for the purpose of placing on this website). I did not send Ms McLean a copy of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) as she had attended the last day of the hearing on 28 April 2003 (recorded under point 50 of the LVT report) and had obtained a copy - as evidenced by her letter of 23 June 2003. However, I did provide her with a copy of my 31 July 2003 surveyor's assessment of the LVT determination - as evidenced by her 1 September 2003 letter. I sent Ms McLean more documents on 21 August 2003 . In my covering letter, I stated that I was not prepared to strike a deal with Steel Services. I explained:
I also captured some key points from my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County Court, including highlighting a number of key issues. In my 28 August 2003 letter, I reconfirmed my objectives to Ms McLean. (3) The key events, from the time I became a client, are comprised in a number of documents:• My 2 December 2003 complaint to Messrs Richard Berns, Senior Partner and Ian Skuse, Complaints Officer. The focus was on a request for assistance. Given events by then, I view my letter as exceptionally generous and conciliatory . • The reply I received on 18 December 2003 from Mr Skuse starts-off by stating
What is in between does not address the points I raised in my letter. In addition, it also twists / misrepresents the facts. • Hence, this is Piper Smith Basham's interpretation of practice Rule 15 of the solicitors code of conduct (attempting to resolve complaints). View from the Law Society ( 22 September 2004 ):
• I replied to this letter on 24 January 2004 , re-stating my position, including highlighting the misrepresentations. In reply to the threat ".of further litigation [ from Steel Services ] at your cost .", I wrote ". it seems to me that I would then have to issue proceedings against your firm" . I also informed Mr Skuse that, given the response, I would be filing a complaint with the Law Society. • The reply I received from Mr Skuse, dated 30 January 2004 stated
My summary of this is: 'get lost!' (4) The trigger to my filing a complaint with the Law Society against Mr Twyman and Ms McLeanIn spite of what had happened with Ms McLean and Mr Twyman, the trigger to my filing a complaint against them was because I was worried that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor would file a claim against me for alleged breach of agreement. (In addition to previous actions by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor), I viewed this as a possibility, principally because: (1) Piper Smith Basham insisted that I had given my agreement to the 13 November 2003 reply ( draft consent order and notice of acceptance ) sent by Mr Twyman to CKFT. This was NOT TRUE as evidenced by: Ms McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 asking me to
to which I replied on 26 November 2003 with
Mr Gallagher capturing it in his initial reply to my complaint, as he wrote that he
Piper Smith Basham continued to insist - in THREE subsequent letters - that I had agreed to the reply, as evidenced by Ms McLean's letter of 12 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 and that of Mr Skuse, dated 18 December 2003 Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Piper Smith Basham/Watton has committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (2) Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor had sent a 19 November 2003 letter to Piper Smith Basham stating ".endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court." My rationale was, if this happened and I said in my defence that I had not agreed to the reply sent by Piper Smith Basham, I would be asked for evidence of this. While I had several documents to produce in evidence, least of all the fact that in her 24 November 2003 letter Ms McLean had asked me to confirm that "the consent order may be signed" , I reasoned that filing a complaint would be another key element in my line of defence. (5) My complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham is comprised of:• a summary of my 16 March 2004 complaint, supported by • detailed background information , dated 16 March 2004, as well as • a pack of 136 supporting enclosures I sent subsequently with my first reply of 17 June 2004 With these, I enclosed: • a covering letter , dated 16 March 2004, and • a completed form , dated 16 March 2004 The overall summary of my complaint is:
Although not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against Piper Smith Basham - and I do not believe that it requires being a genius to see it. The replies to my complaint from Mr Skuse, Complaint Officer, Piper Smith Basham, are dated 1 July 2004 and 25 August 2004 . Those from the Law Society are dated 2 June 2004 , 3 August 2004 and 22 September 2004 . The protracted exchange of correspondence (see Document library) which spanned the period from end of January 2004 (entailing at first the need to make three requests to get a complaint form) to end November 2004 was due 'a game' played by the Law Society that had as the ultimate objective of returning a verdict of 'no malpractice' (6) The outcome was a consistent rejection / non-acknowledgment by the Law Society of the main points in my complaint - with the following 'non-committal' exceptions - and an insulting suggested amount of compensation "£150 - £200" (US$260-350)(6.1) My complaint that, on 13 November 2003, day of the reply to the ' offer ', Mr Twyman had allowed just 21 minutes - while I am at work - for me to look at two documents I had not seen beforeThese documents were highly important to me, as they were the reply to Steel Services 'offer'. On three separate occasions, over a 5-day period ( 7 November 2003 , 13 November 2003 9h26 fax and 13 November 2003 12h26 email ) I had stressed that I wanted to review the reply before it was sent. These documents were highly critical to me. On that day, after 15h30 I see that Mr Gallagher has sent an email at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft reply and draft consent order . As I am reading the documents sent by Mr Gallagher, I receive an email from Mr Twyman, sent at 15h53 in which he wrote
Mr Gallagher referred to a 16h00 deadline. This is the first I hear of this. (As I discovered subsequently, it is nonsense. A 16h00 deadline only applies in the case of the courts. In this instance, office hours apply as evidenced by e.g. the fact that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor faxed the 'offer' at 17h43 on 21 October 2003) (Mr Gallagher # 10 ) Comment from the Law Society ( 3 August 2004 , 22 September 2004 ):
I also draw your attention to the comment from the caseworker in her 3 August 2004 letter
UNBELIEVABLE! Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Piper Smith Basham/Watton (and Mr Stan Gallagher) has committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 No wonder consumers are subjected to this kind of treatment by solicitors. 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'? My reply to the caseworker's comments is contained under point 76 of my 30 November 2004 reply stating, among others, "By the time Mr Twyman sent me his email at 15h53 I barely had a chance to read the documents, let alone assimilate them" (My Diary 13 November 2003 ) (6.2) My complaint that, after highlighting an error in the completion of a form (Standard Disclosure of documents) to the attention of Ms McLean on three occasions (in writing), I eventually opted to make the amendment myselfComment from the Law Society ( 3 August 2004 , 22 September 2004 ):
My reply to this comment is contained under points 128 and 131 of my 30 November 2004 reply (6.3) My complaint about the repeated use of an incorrect fax numberComment from the Law Society ( 3 August 2004 , 22 September 2004 ):
(My reply to this comment is contained under point 134 of my 30 November 2004 reply) (6.4) The insulting overall assessment by the Law SocietyTo round it up, the Law Society caseworker, wrote ( 22 September 2004 ):
Leading me to ask (under point 156 of my 30 November 2004 reply), whether this was meant to be compensation for postage costs. Please, note that the Law Society could not even make up its mind on the insulting amount of compensation (7) Some of the key points in my complaint that were dismissed / ignored by the Law Society relate to the fact the 13 November 2003 reply - sent without my consent - to Steel Services did not include the points agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting with Mr Stan Gallagher - and related eventsNOTE in 2007 : To which can also be added, under the Civil Procedure Rules, the issue of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - see My Diary 9 March 2007Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor faxed the 21 October 2003 'offer' to Piper Smith Basham at 17h43. Following faxing me the 'offer' the following day, Ms McLean sent it to me as an attachment to an email, six days later, on 27 October 2003 . With this, she also attached, among others, a letter dated 27 October 2003 to CKFT, acknowledging receipt of the 'offer'. (But she had spoken to me when she received it) As in her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean had suggested that counsel advice would be required in relation to the court action and I did not want the barrister who had been selected by Piper Smith Basham to 'act for me' at the 26 August 2003 hearing, I undertook research that led me to identify Mr Stan Gallagher. In my 19 October 2003 letter to Ms McLean, I communicated that I wanted Mr Gallagher to act for me. Two days later, CKFT sent the ' offer '. I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that, evidently, communication took place between Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor about the fact that I had written a Witness Statement and had nominated a barrister i.e. I was intent on pursuing the action in court. (CKFT # 3 ) Equally obvious by the fact that 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. made me an 'offer', it did not want the action it had instigated in West London County Court to proceed to a hearing. It should be noted that the expectation that I would 'strike a deal' had evidently been the 'game plan' all along. This is evidenced by Ms McLean's letter of 4 September 2003 (i.e. from the very beginning of my relationship with Piper Smith Basham),
The objective of the court action was to bully and coerce me (and other leaseholders) into paying an amount not due and payable. (CKFT # 3 ) Typically, this tactic works. Indeed, as leaseholders incur ever-increasing costs fighting the landlord they end-up, either of their own volition, or under increasing pressure from 'their advisers' making a 'commercial decision' i.e. pay the landlord - thereby preventing progression to a hearing. (No hearing = no release in the public domain of 'embarrassing' official evidence). Easy money for all - at the expense of the leaseholder who ends up as the loser. (See Business model ) (7.1) The reply written by Mr Gallagher and endorsed by Piper Smith Basham was not what had been agreedThis is the brief sent to Mr Gallagher by Ms McLean, dated 27 October 2003 . In this, she refers to the 22 August 2003 brief she sent to the barrister ahead of the 26 August 2003 hearing. (WLCC # 11 ) Other documents referred to in the briefs include, among others, my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim, my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement, the 17 June 2003 LVT determination, my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the determination) This is the consent order drafted by Mr Stan Gallagher and sent by Mr Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003:
What had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting attended by Ms McLean, Mr Gallagher, myself and my surveyor is, as captured in her attendance note , that the reply would state:
What was captured in the Consent Order is very different from what was agreed , in particular the fact that it states:
In the Particulars of Claim , the sum for the works is described as " Major works contribution" I pointed this out (point 89, 29 August 2004 ) in response to Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply (point 29(7)(ii)) as he wrote that what had been agreed was
As can be seen, this is NOT what he wrote. (Mr Gallagher # 8.1 ) As drafted, I viewed the Consent Order as leaving the door wide open to 'Steel Services' to come back and ask me for another 'Major works contribution', and so on, and so on - which is exactly what has happened (NB: I only noticed the wording post 13 November 2003) (Pridie Brewster # 12 ) My reply to the Law Society's response of 22 September 2004 is contained under points 79 - 85 of my 30 November 2004 correspondence. (7.2) Ms Skuse, Piper Smith Basham, falsely claimed that I had previously seen the draft replyAmong others, I highlighted a lie by Mr Skuse, Piper Smith Basham, in his 25 August 2004 reply as he wrote
In reply to this, I wrote
(My Diary 6 November 2003 , 7 November , 11 November 2003 , 12 November , 13 November ; Mr Gallagher # 10 ) Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Piper Smith Basham/Watton (and Mr Stan Gallagher) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (7.3) Contrary to what had been agreed, the reply included agreement to paying the interest demandedA second point in my complaint is that, at the 28 October 2003 meeting, it had been agreed that I would NOT pay the interest demanded (£143) (US$250). This is not captured in Ms McLean's attendance note of 28 October 2003 . However, before the reply was sent, I captured it in my 7 November 2003 letter to Mr Twyman (under point 5 - stating, "As discussed on 28 October" ). I also wrote it on the documents I faxed Mr Twyman and Mr Gallagher at 16h39 on 13 November 2003 . Clearly, I would not have written this if it had not been said. Aside from the circumstances of my case, the main issue I had with the demand for interest was the implication that I had owed the sum demanded. Post 13 November, I re-iterated the position to Ms McLean in the following exchange of correspondence of 18 November 2003 , 20 November 2003 and 23 November 2003 . As I noted in my letters, it is clear from, among others, what she wrote in her 18 November 2003 letter that an 'off-line' communication subsequently took place between her and Mr Gallagher resulting in a change of position. I was not party to this agreement. (Mr Gallagher # 8.1 ) Points in my 16 March 2004 complaint referring to the interest are 22, 74, 75, 92, 93, 95, 96 and 98. My reply to the response from Mr Skuse and the Law Society is covered in my 30 November 2004 correspondence under points 23 - 27, as well as point 73. Under point 73 I disproved Mr Skuse's claim. He stated,
I pointed out that, once I had taken back control of my case (My Diary December 2003) , I had exchanged a consent order that did NOT include payment of interest. (Consequently, I likewise disproved Mr Gallagher's (false) claim "At a practical level, my advice was that the modest amount of interest payable under the terms of the offer (£143) (US$250) should be paid so as to not lose the offer" (point 52, 9 June 2004 ). 'False' as he also claimed that payment of interest had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting) (Mr Gallagher # 8.1 ) (7.4) The Notice Of Acceptance drafted by Mr Gallagher and sent by Mr Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 - WITHOUT MY CONSENT - does not challenge a single statement in the ' offer '(7.4.1) The 'offer' - FALSELY - claims that 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. are "entitled" to demand from me the sum of £10,917 (US$19,250)The 'offer' starts with "Our client maintains that as a result of the LVT decision dated 17 June 2003, it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917.27" (US$19,250) This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE The 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database) had NOT been implemented and a Section 20 Notice had not been issued. (I had repeated this several times to Piper Smith Basham e.g. my letters of 21 August 2003 , 3 September 2003 , 12 October 2003 and 7 November 2003 ) (Mr Gallagher # 3.d ) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and its client (as well as his other 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale) - do you believe that its client would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) if it had been the outcome of the LVT determination? Furthermore, consider also that I have NOT acknowledged any of the invoices sent by Martin Russell Jones since October 2004 (Pridie Brewster # 12 ) (Borrowing a leaseholder's comment about his own landlord), considering that Martin Russell Jones and its client have turned "intimidatory litigation into an industry" - how come that they have not taken action against me? (Well... at least, not yet!) (7.4.2) The outcome of the determination by the tribunal was a reduction of nearly 70% in the sum demanded (incl. the contingency fund)Based on my surveyor's assessment (as the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, 'conveniently' for Steel Services, failed to provide a 'global' assessment, thereby failing to perform its remit - as stated (1) under point 1 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report; (2) the voicemail from the LVT Clerk captured by Ms McLean in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors; (3) the 17 July 2003 reply from the LVT to Mr Lanny Silverstone )... ... the outcome of the LVT determination, in relation to the original global sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and 11% management fees) was:
Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded . In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was not considered as reasonable . (point 53, 30 November 2004 ) See also section on Mr Brian Gale which contains extracts from the LVT determination (*) In the £500,000 I have included £141,000 (US$250,400) of contingency fund. My Counsel raised it as an issue during the hearing as Steel Services / Martin Russell Jones had not used it as contribution towards the costs - and were refusing to do so, in spite of, among others, having stated this in the 7 June 2001 letter. (This is captured under point 34 of the LVT determination). (But CKFT i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. subsequently did in my case - see the 21 October 2003 'offer'. I believe this to be because, among others, I had the 7 June 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway) (CKFT # 6.3 ; Martin Russell Jones # 20 ) Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force Steel Services to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2 (2) (e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the LVT report), under points 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code. (NB: Please note that my surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners, is a Chartered Surveyor, member of the RICS. To which I will add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity) (7.4.3.) Contrary to the claims made to West London County Court by Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, 'Steel Services' - Martin Russell Jones had NOT implemented the LVT determination (and never did!)In addition to the recognition by Ms McLean in her 3 October 2003 letter
the fact that Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones had NOT implemented the LVT determination can be seen from the following: Following Mr Silverstone's 23 May 2003 letter to West London County Court requesting a case management hearing (as well as stating that his firm " has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following" - hence before the tribunal issued its report), in its 12 June 2003 notice, West London County Court informed me that a hearing was scheduled for 24 June 2003. (This was therefore sent to me one week before the LVT signed its LVT/SC/007/120/02 report ( 17 June 2003 ) and, consequently, before I had received a copy of the report). On 24 June 2003, Mr Silverstone, handed me in the court's waiting area, 10 minutes before seeing the judge (My Diary 24 June 2003 ), a Draft order and Case summary , neither of which I had seen before . One states "Majority of s/c expenditure approved. Where not approved, LVT said that because lack of sufficient detail in specification rather than because outside scope or not reasonable" . Which is absolutely NOT true. (West London County Court # 8 ) With these documents, he also handed me a schedule of " Major works apportionment, revised" on Martin Russell Jones headed paper. Relative to the amount on the claim, the sum demanded of me (and five other leaseholders) has been reduced by 24.19%. This falls very far short of the LVT determination (as I explained e.g. in my 15 July 2003 letter to West London County Court). Mr Silverstone did not supply me with any documentation, or indeed explanation, as to how this reduction had been achieved . In any case, a Section 20 Notice has not been issued following the 17 June 2003 determination . (And has never been since) (CKFT # 6.6 ) (NB: This hearing should not have been allowed to take place because, as I stated in my 22 June 2003 letter to West London County Court, I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal. The judge reprimanded Mr Silverstone for "wasting my time and the court's time. The LVT report has just been issued. You need to give the Defendants time to review it" and led her to award costs to me (and the other leaseholders present)) (West London County Court # 7 , # 8 ) The 6 August 2003 application for a hearing (signed under a Statement of Truth by Ms Ayesha Salim) states that
The document attached to the application, " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised ", demonstrates that the sum demanded has been revised down by 24.19% to £10,917 (US$19,250) i.e. the same amount as for the 24 June 2003 hearing. (The only difference is that in this instance the document covers the 35 flats, which was the total number of flats at the time). Consequently, given the glaringly obvious - supported by my surveyor's assessment of 31 July 2003 - that the LVT determination had not been reflected in the document produced for the 24 June 2003 hearing (and, in any case, a Section 20 Notice had not been issued following the determination), it follows that Ms Ayesha Salim's claim - under a Statement of Truth - was not true. (In the same way that some of her other claims to the court are not true - see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.6 ) Likewise, it follows that Ms Ayesha Salim's introductory paragraph in the 21 October 2003 ' offer ' "Our client maintains that, as a result of the LVT decision dated 17 June 2003, it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917 as set out in the revised major works apportionment dated 24 June 2003 issued by Messrs Martin Russell Jones" IS FALSE . (This is the same amount as in the document given to me by Mr Silverstone at the 24 June 2003 hearing) Therefore, in my 13 November 2003 and 7 November 2003 letters to Messrs Twyman and Gallagher I wrote, among others
Neither Mr Twyman, nor Mr Gallagher provided me with any feedback on this. (NB: I included this as part of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher (points 1.4, 1.5, 4.6, 44 - 48). In his 9 June 2004 reply (point 46) Mr Gallagher claimed that
To this I replied (point 103, 29 August 2004 ): "I disagree. The offer qualifies as 'a pre-action offer'. the LVT could not make a determination due to the lack of specification" (Mr Gallagher # 3.d.2 ) WHY IS IT THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE REPLY, NEITHER MR TWYMAN NOR MR GALLAGHER PROVIDED WITH ANY FEEDBACK ON IDENTIFYING THIS RULING BY LORD WOOLF? (7.4.4) Why did 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. make me an offer?As I wrote under (point 67, 30 November 2004 of my reply to the Law Society)
I wrote the same thing in relation to my complaint to the Bar Council against Mr Gallagher - under point 64 of my 29 August 2004 reply
After which I quoted extracts from my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County Court (see also Mr Gallagher (3)(d) ) And I did the same thing as well under point 174 of my 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor In addition, in her 21 October 2003 ' offer ', Ms Ayesha Salim also blames me for the LVT proceedings
(As captured under point 64 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database), "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered" . Clearly, my not 'running scared' by having a false claim filed against me in court was not part of the game plan.) (7.5) The document drafted by Mr Gallagher makes no reference to the fact that the lack/insufficient specification has not been addressedIn her attendance note of 28 October 2003, Ms McLean wrote,
What Mr Gallagher wrote is
(Mr Gallagher # 7.1 ) (7.6) During the meeting, Ms McLean spent a substantial part of the time focusing on the negatives - placing strong emphasis on potential threats - instead of ensuring that I receive a balanced view - amounting to a continuation of prior eventsThe 28 October 2003 meeting proved to be an ordeal (My Diary 28 October 2003 ) As I captured under point 18 of my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham, I felt that "there was a palpable lack of support for my case from Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher" Indeed, on two occasions, Ms McLean repeated what she had already told me 2-3 times previously:
As on these previous occasions, I replied that, because of the lack/insufficient specification identified by the Tribunal, it cannot be determined what, if any of this amount is actually due by leaseholders. Consequently, if the Tribunal could not determine the reasonableness of the sum demanded for these items, how could the Court rule that I owe even £1.00 more? It amounted to a continuation of the battle I had been having with Ms McLean who repeatedly ignored the findings contained in the 17 June 2003 determination. Indeed, from the time I appointed Piper Smith Basham, I emphasised / explained / pointed out to Ms McLean the issue / implications of the LVT determination at least eight times (e.g. my letters of 21 August 2003 , 28 August 2003 , 3 September 2003 , 12 October 2003 ). As evidenced by the LVT report, the 15 July 2002 demand was highly unreasonable, or to be more precise: highly extortionate. How much more damning evidence is required?(7.7) Ms McLean did this in spite of being fully cognisant of the fact that the service charge demand was fraudulentEventually, in her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean wrote:
This was a follow-up to my wanting to contact the LVT to ask for a summary of its determination (see LVT for further detail). Ms McLean also wrote
It must also be noted that Ms McLean had attended the last day of the LVT hearing on 28 April 2003 (point 50 ); had a copy of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) and of my surveyor's assessment , as well as my letters to the court ( 15 July 2003 , 9 August 2003 ). Furthermore, in her 23 June 2003 letter to my then solicitors she wrote
While in her 9 April 2003 letter, also to my then solicitors - (which was therefore before the LVT had issued its determination), she wrote,
Contrast the above with what Ms McLean wrote in her 28 October 2003 attendance note:
I remarked on the "seemed" in my 30 October 2003 letter to Ms McLean - and also captured this in my complaint under point 1.4 (See also this pack (2.4MB) for a compilation of some of the pre and post evidence in support of my claim that this was a scam (swindle). 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.) The Law Society caseworker opted to ignore the evidence in my complaint. In my 6 June 2004 reply to her 2 June 2004 letter I wrote,
The caseworker replied in her 8 June 2004 email:
As I highlighted under points 38 and 103 of my 30 November 2004 reply, she NEVER raised this with Piper Smith Basham. In her 22 September 2004 reply, the caseworker wrote
My 30 November 2004 response to this, under point 82 was,
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'? (7.8) The reply written by Mr Gallagher and endorsed by Piper Smith Basham ignores the terms of my leaseIn the Notice of Acceptance written by Mr Gallagher, the only reference made to the terms of my lease reads "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease" In a landlord-tenant dispute of this nature, it is PARAMOUNT to look at the terms of the lease. As an introduction, please note that the lease supplied by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - Ms Hathaway with the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim (ref WL 203537) (1.1MB), 'apparently', for flat 23 , is materially different from mine on a critical aspect in relation to Clause (2) (c) (i) as it reads:
Whereas Clause (2) (c) (i) in my lease reads:
The Clause in the lease (apparently) for flat 23 is, in my view, equivalent to saying: "Give your cheque book to the lessor who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice" I find it extremely difficult to believe that a leaseholder would agree to such outrageously unfair contract terms. Yet, the 29 November 2002 Particulars of Claim (1.1MB) state
In my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim I highlighted the fact that the "Part of my lease is different from that supplied to the County Court" . My writing this led Mr Silverstone, CKFT to request, in his 23 January 2003 letter, a copy of my lease - hence two months AFTER filing the claim against me. (As can be seen from the attached, I complied with this request). (CKFT # 6.7 ) Not only did Piper Smith Basham and counsel get a copy of my 17 December 2002 defence, in my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean, I highlighted the fact that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine, stating:
There was no reply to this.I hold the view that Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean have therefore turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's breach of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41- Section 17 - A solicitor has a "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice" (CKFT # 6.7 ) In the process of forcing Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean to consider my lease, during the 28 October 2003 meeting, I took from my file a copy of the 21 September 2003 letter I sent to Ms McLean, from which I read some of the extracts. I felt that both, Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher were uneasy at my bringing this up (captured under point 23 of my complaint ) (My Diary 28 October 2003 ; Mr Gallagher It amounted to a continuation of my experience with Ms McLean as she previously ignored four requests from me to consider the terms of my lease (my letters of 21 August 2003 , 3 September 2003 , 9 September 2003 and 21 September 2003 ) The issue about Piper Smith Basham not considering my lease is captured under points 23 - 27 of my 16 March 2004 complaint. It is worth noting that the Law Society did not pick-up on the reply from Mr Skuse, Piper Smith Basham , in his 1 July 2004 letter
In particular, asking Piper Smith Basham why it (1) expects clients to identify the issues; (2) expects them to do this repeatedly; (3) and still not take action. I replied to this under point 12 in my 30 November 2004 correspondence to the Law Society caseworker. Needless to say that, in the same way that the Law Society ignored the issue in relation to my complaint against CKFT, the Bar Council did the same thing in relation to my complaint against Mr Gallagher 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'? (7.9) Piper Smith Basham endorsed a breach of covenants in my lease and of my statutory rights in relation to the year-end accounts, as well as by supporting the position that the demand was an "interim demand"I maintained that I should have been provided with the 2002 year-end accounts in support of the demand / 'offer' - as per the terms of my lease Clause 2 (2)(f) . It reads,
Contrary to the terms of my lease, the 17 July 2002 £14,400 (US$25,400) demand sent with the 15 July 2002 letter was NOT in any way shape or form reflected in the 2001 year-end accounts as they do not include costs the lessor
In her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean wrote,
In his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003 , Mr Gallagher actually dismissed my request to be provided with the 2002 accounts . He wrote,
In his 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint, under point 5, Mr Gallagher opted to endorse Steel Services- Martin Russell Jones' positioning of the service demand as an "interim demand" and that I therefore did not need to be issued with the accounts. I put forward a number of counter-arguments in my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher (point 49), which I also captured under points 14-20 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society. These included, among others, the fact that ALL the documents supplied in connection with the demand referred to ALL the major works e.g. point 2 of the LVT report. Also, the fact that works would not have been completed until at least six months into the following year. As it turned out, my position on the duration of the works has been amply vindicated given that the works were started in September 2004 and were still taking place in May 2006 i.e. nearly two years after being started - as can be seen from the photos of the corridor taken on 1 May 2006 . See also Photo gallery for other evidence on the duration of the works, including broken step (1.6MB) filth around my flat , floor of the entrance corridor (not to mention the lack of concern about health & safety ). Under point 83 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society, I also wrote:
WHY DID PIPER SMITH BASHAM TAKE THIS POSITION? Of course, in addition to this, must be added Steel Services' 'offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200) (+ interest !) (Aside from the fact that the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease), one year three months had passed since the original demand. I HAD to be issued with the year-end accounts, not only under the terms of my lease, but also, as emphasised by Kensington & Chelsea Housing to Martin Russell Jones in its 25 June 2004 Section 21(1) request under the L&T Act 1985. The letter also highlights Section 25 of the Act that non-performance results in committing a criminal offence . (Mr Gallagher # 2.1 ) (Ms Hathaway filed a claim against me in West London County Court for £14,400 (US$25,400). The impact of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination reduced the sum to £4,615 (US$8,135). Hence, in filing the claim under a ' Statement of Truth ' Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones and CKFT who produced the claim - breached Clause (2)(2)(j) of my lease ) In my 21 August 2003 letter to McLean I had highlighted Clause 2(2)(c)(ii) of my lease stating "This is an important point as clause 2(2) (c)(ii) of my lease provides that the landlord must use its "best endeavours" to keep the annual service charge at the "lowest reasonable figure" IN VAIN! (This clause was highlighted to Ms Hathway by one of the leaseholders' solicitors) (NB: In reply to my complaint that I should have been provided with the accounts, and that in the Notice of Acceptance written by Mr Gallagher, the only reference made to the terms of my lease reads "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease", Mr Gallagher wrote "the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better" ( point 55, 9 June 2004 ). My reply to Mr Gallagher was: "For whom?" (point 123, 29 August 2004 ) (Mr Gallagher # 2.1 ) (NB: I finally obtained a copy of the 2002 accounts in February 2005 (i.e. three year later!) through the intermediary of the Local Government Ombudsman. The accountants, Pridie & Brewster, certified the 2002 accounts stating " that the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents". I hold the view that this is incorrect given the LVT determination and considering the terms of my lease) (See Pridie Brewster for further detail) (7.9.1) In addition to breaching covenants in my lease, the service charge demand also amounts to a breach of my statutory rights under Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985Section 19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 states:
Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, the "property experts" did not take into consideration this breach of my rights at the time of the reply to the 'offer'. WHY NOT? (7.9.2) My view on events is that there was a shared understanding between Piper Smith Basham, Mr Stan Gallagher, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones that another demand would be sent
...I subsequently agreed to the following consent order: "The Claimant having received the sum of £6,350.85 (US$11,200) from the Second Defendant, this action has been settled following the determination by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal of an identical claim, in a report dated 17 June 2003" . It was endorsed by the court on 1 July 2004. (In her 15 June 2004 letter, Ms Salim, CKFT, stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004). In spite of this, it has not protected me from further demands as three months later I received an invoice from Martin Russell Jones , dated 21 October 2004 , with a "Brought forward balance" of £14,500 (US$25,600) - without |
