Email this site to a contact

 

I view Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean as evil, corrupt, morally depraved individuals - conduct endorsed by the Law Society

Piper Smith & Basham / Watton & Law Society - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

This page is under review

 

(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:

 

If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

 

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Piper Smith Basham/Watton and the Law Society remember that the ROOT CAUSE for their actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

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

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the then London LVT),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m).

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Piper Smith Basham/Watton, and in particular, the corrupt, amoral, evil, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic and perverse - Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, as well as the Law Society

joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course, O' Great One!

Because...

 

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted

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

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

Because:

  • (2)- Her Majesty's District Judge Wright had -unbelievably - in 'her' 24.06.03 Order set 26th Aug 03 "to enable the claimant to issue an application for summary judgment against [me and a fellow leasehoder]" (CKFT # 6.6)...

...I concluded that the only way I would be able to get my voice heard in that nighmare, hellhole, masonic court, was by appointing advisors (Overview # 3).

The reason I - eventually - appointed Piper Smith Basham (now known as Piper Smith Watton), in mid-August 03 (# 2, below) was firstly because Lisa McLean, Litigation Assistant, was representing some of my fellow leaseholders at the 28 Apr 03 then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearing.

Secondly, she had approached my then solicitor: 09.04.03 and 23.06.03 letters (the 2nd one ignoring my 16.04.03 reply) in which she demonstrated understanding of the illegal actions taking place against the Jefferson House leaseholders, including by the tribunal, as well as intended rip-off by Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers (# 1, below).

Lisa McLean had a reporting line to Richard Twyman, Partner.

In July 05, the firm's website stated:

"Piper Smith Watton is a brand new law firm, formed by the merger of Piper Smith & Basham and Hughes Watton, two long-established and well respected London firms. We pride ourselves on our levels of service.  We offer our clients:

partner led service - we are always available

a proactive, hands on approach to solving legal and business problems

in-depth knowledge and expertise

fast, efficient, creative, cost effective and totally professional service.

In 2002 and 2003 Piper Smith & Basham was awarded the Law Society's highly coveted Lexcel accreditation, a mark of legal excellence. The Lexcel quality mark assures our clients of the highest standards of legal advice and service"

Piper Smith Watton evidently has an 'offline' 'Except for' category, as I did not benefit from any of the above claims in the context of dealing with Lisa McLean and her superior, Richard Twyman, partner - I view as evil, corrupt, morally depraved, extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic and perverse individuals.

My appointing Piper Smith Basham/Watton turned out to be a VERY BIG mistake, that added c. £10,000 (US$17,600) to my already very high costs - as, shortly after my doing this, they very shortly started to bat for Andrew David Ladsky.

At the time of the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' from Ladsky, they were joined in doing this by 'my' barrister, Stan Gallagher: Summary of events.

For events with PSB, see below, Summary of events; Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; my 16.03.04 complaint against them to the Law Society (Doc Library # 2.1, # 2.2).

As you read through the page, you may ask yourself why I did not stop using PSB after the episode with the 20C application in Sep 03 (detail below, under # 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 action in the then LVT following the 07.08.02 application filed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones, on behalf of 'Steel Services' i.e. Andrew David Ladsky.

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 26 Oct 03).

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 - due to my horrendous experience to date, as well as lack of knowledge of legal matters.

Twyman, McLean and their paymasters: Andrew David Ladsky - CKFT were, of course, counting on these factors to keep me under their clutches...but, in the end: they failed (My 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement # 1).

Back to list

Summary of events - Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) 2003-04:

(See, below, Breaches of the law; Snapshot of my complaints; Overall outcome on me)

For context, see the Introduction above

(Other parties to events see snapshots: (1)- Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) ; (2)- the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) ; (3)- Brian Gale;

see also Extortion ;

For surrounding events see Kangaroo courts # 1 and # 2.

[ ]

For an overview of some of the key events - that included Stan Gallagher - see:

Also:

The ensuing, extremely traumatic battle led me, in mid-Dec 03, to take back control of my case, and send CKFT my – own – 19.12.03 version of acceptance of ‘the offer’ - stating that I was doing this “for the sake of bringing an end to the dispute”.

(Legally, I did not owe this amount either) (My 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement # 1).

[ ]

 

 

Back to list

Breaches of the law - Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) 2003-04:

(See, above, Summary of events)

In - my non-lawyer opinion (*) - Richard Twyman, partner, and Lisa McLean committed breaches of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me:

(*) I contend that it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to arrive at the conclusions.

[ ]

•  Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A (see extracts) (= criminal offences)

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2 (see extracts) - including breaching s.7(3A) by aiding and abetting the harassment on behalf of Andrew David Ladsky (= criminal offences)

[ ]

Back to list

Snapshot of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB), followed by Law Society, and then Legal Services Ombudsman

The lies by ‘my advisors’ and the Ladsky mafia, as well as the follow-on fraudulent demands - led me to file a 16.03.04 complaint with the Law Society, against PSB

The overall summary of my complaint was:

"Abuse of fiduciary relationship, negligence, non-compliance with client instructions and use of intimidation and coercion tactics in relation to a 'Landlord-Tenant' service charge dispute with Steel Services represented by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors (CKFT)"

(Temporarily) For events in relation to my complaints against Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton - see: Doc library # 2.1 and # 2.2 ; Legal Services Ombudsman # 3.

 

[ ]

Back to list

Overall outcome on me of the above Events and Breaches of the law - as the innocent victim of crime (Case summary):

[ ]

 

Back to list

(1) Events before I became a client

Given events, some of the contents of two letters from Lisa 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

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.  

"We shall be contending that the county court proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the LVT..."

"It could also be said in our view that having issued an application in the LVT seeking the reasonableness of service charges to thereafter commence proceedings in the county court seeking the recovery of those same charges could be an abuse of the process of court"

".the landlord has intimated to the LVT that no other lessee is disputing the service charges demanded. That is clearly not the case."

"When we contacted the LVT.we received the following voicemail message:..."what the tribunal is looking to determine is the reasonableness of the global figure that's attributable to the whole block"

"PS. .we have spoken to a surveyor.His preliminary view is that the service charges seem high and also that it would appear that the top floor flats are being enlarged. Clearly if this is the case that is improvement rather than repair"

As a response from my solicitors would entail additional costs, I replied to this effect to 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, McLean nonetheless contacted my solicitors again by sending a letter, dated 23 June 2003 . In this, she asked:

"...whether [I] will be proceeding with [my] application under section 20C of the L&T Act 1985" .

She also adds,

"We note your client's views previously but we simply wish to know whether or not your client is making the application"

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 then London LVT related costs on the service charges), McLean and Richard 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, 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:

"There would seem to be a fairly substantial reduction in the sums claimed by the applicant."

Initially, I sent McLean information to forward to the other leaseholder/s.

Back to list

 

(2) I appointed Piper Smith Basham in mid-August 2003 - clearly stating my objectives

In 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 Jun 03 to 24 Jun 03 ; Lord Falconer # 5.4 ), in addition to West London County Court treating me as a non-entity (WLCC # 9 , # 11) the my lack of knowledge of the legal terminology and procedure meant that I found the experience distressing).

To this effect, I sent Lisa 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 Lisa McLean a copy of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (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 then London LVT findings - as evidenced by her 1 September 2003 letter.

I sent 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:

"This would be a very unwise move as it would allow them to get away with the need to redraw the specification, thereby leaving me exposed to further demands at a later stage which, I can guarantee, would be made.by forcing them to do this, it will put a line under the costs i.e. they will not have any comeback and, if they do come back, I will be in a much better position to challenge them" .  

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 McLean.

Back to list

(3) The key events, from the time I became a client, are comprised in a number of documents:

•  My 2 December 2003 complaint to 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 Ian Skuse starts-off by stating

"...appears to me that the file has been properly managed" and ends by

"...I am satisfied that the quality of the service that we provided was perfectly acceptable"

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 do not consider that there was a failure to adequately address your complaints."

•  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 Skuse, dated 30 January 2004 stated

"At this stage, little point would be served in responding to each of the matters that you raised as these clearly challenge the account that I have given to you from my file."  

My summary of this is: 'get lost!'

Back to list

(4) The trigger to my filing a complaint with the Law Society against Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean

In spite of what had happened with Lisa McLean and Richard 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 Twyman to CKFT. This was NOT TRUE as evidenced by:

McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 asking me to

"confirm that the consent order may be signed "

to which I replied on 26 November 2003 with

"I am not endorsing a reply that does not in any way challenge the offer letter .It was your firm's responsibility to ensure it was captured in the letter and it is now your firm's responsibility to ensure that it is." .

Stan Gallagher capturing it in his initial reply to my complaint, as he wrote that he

"simply (could) not understand why NKDR changed her mind and was not prepared to endorse the draft consent order " (point 80, 9 June 2004 )

Piper Smith Basham continued to insist - in THREE subsequent letters - that I had agreed to the reply, as evidenced by McLean's letter of 12 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 and that of Ian 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 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.

Back to list

(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:  

"abuse of fiduciary relationship, negligence, non-compliance with client instructions and use of intimidation and coercion tactics in relation to a 'Landlord-Tenant' service charge dispute with Steel Services represented by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors (CKFT)"

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 Ian 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'

Back to list

(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 ', Richard Twyman had allowed just 21 minutes - while I am at work - for me to look at two documents I had not seen before

These 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

"I confirm safe receipt of Counsel draft and will be sending it to the other side as drafted save with removal of brackets at the end of the letter as he has advised in the next 10mins or so"

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 feel that this may amount to poor service, and will be investigating the complaint further" ( NB: Please note the "may" )

I also draw your attention to the comment from the caseworker in her 3 August 2004 letter

"Mr Skuse also states the fact that you replied to the email within an hour shows that you did receive it quickly. He states that if you had not wished for the letter to be sent, you could have telephoned or emailed the solicitor, but you chose not to, even though you had been advised that the letter was to be sent within 10 minutes. I would agree with the solicitor's comments"

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 )

Back to list

(6.2) My complaint that, after highlighting an error in the completion of a form (Standard Disclosure of documents) to the attention of Lisa McLean on three occasions (in writing), I eventually opted to make the amendment myself

Comment from the Law Society ( 3 August 2004 , 22 September 2004 ):

"I consider that the solicitor's failure to address your concerns about the error may constitute inadequate professional service" ( NB: Another "may" )

My reply to this comment is contained under points 128 and 131 of my 30 November 2004 reply

Back to list

(6.3) My complaint about the repeated use of an incorrect fax number

Comment from the Law Society ( 3 August 2004 , 22 September 2004 ):

"...this may amount to inadequate professional advice" ( NB: Another "may" )

(My reply to this comment is contained under point 134 of my 30 November 2004 reply)

Back to list

(6.4) The insulting overall assessment by the Law Society

To round it up, the Law Society caseworker, wrote ( 22 September 2004 ):

"As it is, I consider that for the inadequacies I have identified, a reasonable sum of compensation would be approximately £150 - £200" (US$260-350) .  

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

Conclusion: clearly, Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean have the blessings of the Law Society, as well 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.

Back to list

(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 Stan Gallagher - and related events

NOTE in 2007 : To which can also be added, under the Civil Procedure Rules, the issue of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, a 'managing agent' - see My Diary 9 Mar 07

Cawdery 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' (in operation until 2013) 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. 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),

"Incidentally (NB !!!) , I took a call from CKFT today .but in the event that they wished to make an offer (NB !!!) I was, as they well know, obliged to put it to you (NB !!!)

They intimated that they will make a Part 36 offer (NB !!!) . To which must added, among others, events with Ms McLean surrounding my Witness Statement.

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. (home page Note 4 ; Business model )

(Subsequent note - Since writing this section, I have been further vindicated in my assessment by the undeniable proof that the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)

Back to list

(7.1) The reply written by Stan Gallagher and endorsed by Piper Smith Basham was NOT what had been agreed

This is the brief sent to Stan Gallagher by Lisa McLean, dated 27 October 2003. In this, she refers to the 22 August 2003 brief she sent to David Pliener, 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 report, my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the then London LVT findings)

This is the consent order drafted by Stan Gallagher and sent by Richard Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003:

"the Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of £6,513.24 (US$11,480) , inclusive of interest, to be paid in 28 days in full and final settlement of the Defendant=s liabilities under this claim and in respect of the major works at Jefferson House to which this claim relates"

What had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting attended by McLean, Gallagher, myself and my surveyor is, as captured in her attendance note , that the reply would state:

"..that this payment was in full and final settlement of the current major works. "

What was captured in the Consent Order is very different from what was agreed , in particular the fact that it states:

"under this claim" and "to which this claim relates" .

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 Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply (point 29(7)(ii)) as he wrote that what had been agreed was

"To tweak the offer by stipulating that it was in full and final settlement of NKDR's share of the totality of the costs of the major works "

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.

Back to list

(7.2) Ian Skuse, Piper Smith Basham, FALSELY claimed that I had previously seen the draft reply

Among others, I highlighted a lie by Ian Skuse, Piper Smith Basham, in his 25 August 2004 reply as he wrote

".it is clear from that email that the client is aware, having already seen the draft of the tweaking that would be engrossed in the reply" .

In reply to this, I wrote

"This is absolutely not true. The only time I received a draft of the reply was as an attachment to Mr Gallagher's email of 13 November 2003 at 15h32 ".

(My Diary 2003: 6 Nov , 7 Nov , 11 Nov , 12 Nov , 13 Nov ; 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

Back to list

(7.3) Contrary to what had been agreed, the reply included agreement to paying the interest demanded

A 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 McLean's attendance note of 28 October 2003 .   However, before the reply was sent, I captured it in my 7 November 2003 letter to Twyman (under point 5 - stating, "As discussed on 28 October" ). I also wrote it on the documents I faxed Twyman and 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 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 Gallagher resulting in a change of position. I was not party to this agreement. (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 Ian 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 Skuse's claim. He stated,

"In order to reach a settlement with the claimant it was better to agree to pay the interest "

I pointed out that, once I had taken back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03) , I had exchanged a consent order that did NOT include payment of interest.

(Consequently, I likewise disproved 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) (Gallagher # 8.1 )

Back to list

(7.4) The Notice Of Acceptance drafted by Stan Gallagher and sent by 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. 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 report (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 ) (Gallagher # 3.d )

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and its Rachman client, Ladsky (as well as his other racketeer 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones and 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 then London LVT findings?

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!)

(Subsequent note - They did! And it helped seal the undeniable proof that the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS (Definition of forfeiture)

Back to list

(7.4.2) The outcome of the the tribunal hearings was a reduction of nearly 70% of the £736,200 demanded (incl. the contingency fund)

Based on my surveyor's assessment (as the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, 'very conveniently' for 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky, failed to provide a 'global' assessment, thereby failing to perform its legal remit, under s.19 of the L&T Act 1985 - as stated (1) under point 1 of its 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report; (2) the voicemail from the LVT Clerk captured by McLean in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors; (3) the 17 July 2003 reply from the LVT to Lanny Silverstone, CKFT )...

... the outcome of the LVT hearings (LVT # 4.1), 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:

Amount disallowed by the LVT because improvements : £169,498 (US$299,000) (£129,958 (US$229,200) excl. VAT and fees) = 23% of the global sum demanded (point 53 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society )

Amount for which the LVT could not make a determination due to lack of specification = £188,784 (US$333,000) (£144,745 (US$255,300) excl. VAT and fees) = 25.6% of the global sum demanded (point 53, 30 November 2004 )

A view supported by the LVT, considering the terms of the lease, as well as RICS best practice, that the reserve fund should be used as contribution: £141,977 (US$250,000) - or 19.3% of the global sum demanded (point 48, 29 August 2004 ) (*)

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 Brian Gale which contains extracts from the LVT report.

(*) 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 report).

(But CKFT i.e. 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 Joan Hathaway) (CKFT # 6.3 ; Martin Russell Jones # 20 )

Although the tribunal 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)

Back to list

(7.4.3.) Contrary to the claims made to West London County Court by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, 'Steel Services' - Martin Russell Jones had NOT implemented the LVT findings (and never did!)

In addition to the recognition by McLean in her 3 October 2003 letter

"CKFT to prepare proper specification so that the items that were insufficient could be properly detailed."  

the fact that Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones had NOT implemented the LVT findings can be seen from the following:

Following 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, 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 findings (as I explained e.g. in my 15 July 2003 letter to West London County Court). 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 report. (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 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 Ayesha Salim, CKFT, states that

"We CKFT intend to apply for an Order that

(1) There be Judgement for the Claimant against the Second Defendant and Fifth Defendant under CPR Part 24.2

(2) The Defendants do pay the Claimant's costs of those proceedings - Because

The Claimant believes that the Second (and Fifth) Defendants have no real prospects of successfully defending the Claim and the Claimant knows of no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at Trial"

Following the decision on 24th June 2003, MRJ issued a revised Major Work Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants",

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 report 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 report on the findings), it follows that 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 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 Silverstone at the 24 June 2003 hearing)

Therefore, in my 13 November 2003 and 7 November 2003 letters to Twyman and Gallagher I wrote, among others

"without proper specification and tendering process. it cannot be established what - if any of this amount (NB: the £190,000 (US$335,000) for which the tribunal said to be unable to make a determination) - I am actually liable for under the terms of my lease" .

Neither Twyman, nor Gallagher provided me with any feedback on this.

(NB: I included this as part of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Gallagher (points 1.4, 1.5, 4.6, 44 - 48). In his 9 June 2004 reply (point 46) Gallagher claimed that

"The offer in this case was not, of course, a pre-action offer. It was made after the LVT had made a determination after a 3 day hearing and after comprehensive directions had been made by the court for the parties to prepare for a two-day county court trial on the balance of the claim. There was no question of the offer being impugned on the basis that it failed to supply NKDR with sufficient information to enable NKDR to assess whether or not to accept it"

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"

(Gallagher # 3.d.2 )

WHY IS IT THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE REPLY, NEITHER TWYMAN NOR GALLAGHER PROVIDED ME WITH ANY FEEDBACK ON IDENTIFYING THIS RULING BY LORD WOOLF?

Back to list

(7.4.4) Why did 'Steel Services' i.e. Andrew Ladsky et. al. make me an offer?

As I wrote under (point 67, 30 November 2004 of my reply to the Law Society)

"Why did Steel Services make me an 'offer'?   "Why did not it instead: (1) revise the specification in light of the LVT determination;   (2) issue a Section 20 Notice: (3) provide me with the priced specification; and then (4) demand payment in a manner compliant with the terms of my lease?

I did not want an 'offer'. This is not the basis on which the service charges operate, doing a deal with one resident, another deal with another resident, and so on, and so on".

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

"Why did Steel Services make me an 'offer'?   Why did not it instead issue me (and other residents) with specifications that were properly drawn-up and priced, and compliant with both, Landlord & Tenant legislation and the terms of my lease?

As stated in my Witness Statement (point 6) "I have consistently agreed that repair and redecoration works are required at Jefferson House".

But, as I said to Mr Gallagher at the 28 October 2003 meeting: "I have an impeccable credit record. What I owe, I pay. What I do not owe, I will not pay". (Although I have ended-up doing this as it became very clear to me that the system is against me instead of being there to help me)"

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 ', Ayesha Salim also blames me for the LVT proceedings

"...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building..." (CKFT

(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.)

Back to list

(7.5) The document drafted by Stan Gallagher makes NO reference to the fact that the lack/insufficient specification has NOT been addressed

In her attendance note of 28 October 2003, Ms McLean wrote,

"In the covering letter if we were to accept the offer we would say that we were not happy that the specifications remain unchanged and the LVT had commented on the same fact, there had been no re -tendering of any sort, the matter had stayed with the same contractor etc etc..."

What Mr Gallagher wrote is

".your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings."

(Gallagher # 7.1 )

Back to list

(7.6) During the meeting, Lisa 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 events

The 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:  

"If you go to a hearing and the Court decides that the amount you have to pay is just £1.00 more than the offer, then you will have to pay for Steel Services costs" (e.g. her 23 October 2003 letter)

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 McLean who repeatedly ignored the findings contained in the 17 June 2003 report.

Indeed, from the time I appointed Piper Smith Basham, I emphasised / explained / pointed out to McLean the issue / implications of the then London LVT findings 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?

Back to list

(7.7) Lisa McLean did this IN SPITE of being fully cognisant of the fact that the service charge demand was FRAUDULENT

Eventually, in her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean wrote:

"We had also discussed CKFT to prepare proper specification so that the items that were insufficient could be properly detailed. "

This was a follow-up to my wanting to contact the LVT to ask for a summary of its findings (see LVT # 7 for further detail).

McLean also wrote

" I accept that you had asked repeatedly for the specification . Where does this point take us now?"

It must also be noted that McLean had attended the last day of the then London 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

"There would seem to be a fairly substantial reduction in the sums claimed by the applicant."

While in her 9 April 2003 letter, also to my then solicitors - (which was therefore before the LVT had issued its report), she wrote,

"...we have spoken to a surveyor whom we had instructed. His preliminary view is that the service charges seem high."

Contrast the above with what McLean wrote in her 28 October 2003 attendance note:

"...they had sent her a demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) which it now seemed was an incorrect figure."

I remarked on the "seemed" in my 30 October 2003 letter to McLean - and also captured this in my complaint under point 1.4

(See also this pack 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,

"you have omitted the findings contained in the 17 June 2003 report by the LVT which were persistently ignored by Ms McLean and Mr Twyman over a period of 4 months - during which time I emphasised / explained / pointed out the issue to them at least 8 times" .

The caseworker replied in her 8 June 2004 email:

"I note the amendments you have suggested.   For the time being, I have not discussed these with the solicitors, but will do so at a later stage, if necessary" (UNBELIEVABLE!)

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

" Mr Skuse states that the reply did comply with your instructions . The reply was drafted in accordance with Counsel's advice."

My 30 November 2004 response to this, under point 82 was,

"No it was not. You could at least acknowledge what I have written in my complaint under point 74" )

Back to list

(7.8) The reply written by Stan Gallagher and endorsed by Piper Smith Basham ignores the terms of my lease

In the Notice of Acceptance written by 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 - Joan Hathaway with the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim (ref WL 203537), 'apparently', for flat 23 , is materially different from mine on a critical aspect in relation to Clause (2) (c) (i) as it reads:

"The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor) of the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the Lessor during such financial year in respect of the heads of expenditure particulars whereof are set out in the Fourth Schedule" .

Whereas Clause (2) (c) (i) in my lease reads:

"The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the Lessor during such financial year in respect of the heads of expenditure particulars whereof are set out in the Fourth Schedule hereto by the aggregate of the rateable value (in force at the end of such year) of all the flats in the Building (excluding the Porter's flat) the repair maintenance renewal insurance or servicing whereof is charged in such calculation as aforesaid and then multiplying the resultant amount by the rateable value (in force at the same date) of the Flat"

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 state

"The Claimant attaches to these Particulars of Claim (i) a copy of the lease of flat 23 which contains covenants in the same terms as all the leases ."

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 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 McLean, I highlighted the fact that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine, stating:

"They did not have a copy of my lease when they made the claim. They asked me for a copy after they saw my defence. Should not they have had a copy of my lease before putting the claim through?"

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

"There is certainly no evidence on our file to suggest that this was a regularly raised topic" (!!!) (UNBELIEVABLE!) .

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

Back to list

(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,

"As soon as the accountant shall have determined the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee for the relevant financial year.

the accountant shall prepare a written statement containing a summary of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the lessor during the relevant financial year together with any future sums indicated by the accountant pursuant to Clause 2 (2) (e)..

...and specifying the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee..."

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

"shall expect to incur at any time after the end of the relevant financial year. by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings."

In her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean wrote,

"I agree that the 2001 accounts do no include future costs.

In any event we have not yet received the accounts for the year 2002 and no doubt we can address that situation as and when it arises"

In his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003 , Mr Gallagher actually dismissed my request to be provided with the 2002 accounts . He wrote,

"Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts. can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" (UNBELIEVABLE)

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:

 "'Even if' lawyers want to argue that the sum demanded is an "interim payment" (although I simply cannot see how this could be demonstrated in view of the facts), I would like to draw the attention to:

Clause (2)(2)(j) of my lease (attached) ". nothing shall disable the Lessor from maintaining an action against the Lessee in respect of non-payment of any such interim payment as aforesaid notwithstanding that the Accountant's Certificate had not been furnished to the Tenant at the time such action was commenced subject nevertheless to the Lessor establishing in such action that the interim payment demanded and unpaid was of a fair and reasonable amount having regard to the amount of the Service Charge ultimately payable by the Lessee"

Consider this in the context of the fact that the original demand I received was £14,400.19 (US$25,400) while the impact of the LVT determination meant that it should be reduced by nearly 70% to £4,615" (US$8,100)

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 )

(Silverstone filed a claim against me in West London County Court for £14,400 (US$25,400). The impact of the 17 June 2003 LVT findings reduced the sum to £4,615 (US$8,135). Hence, in endorsing the Statement of Truth Joan Hathaway, MRICS, 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 Hathaway 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 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", 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 ) (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 findings and considering the terms of my lease) (See Pridie Brewster for further detail)

Back to list

(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 1985

Section 19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 states:

"Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable"

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?

Back to list

 

(7.9.2) My view on events is that there was a shared understanding between Piper Smith Basham, Stan Gallagher, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones that another demand would be sent

In light of the above, I hold the view that Piper Smith Basham, Mr Stan Gallagher, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones insistence that the demand was an "interim demand" can only be interpreted as...

...a shared understanding between them that another demand for the "major works" would be sent to leaseholders - which is exactly what happened in my case...Indeed...

...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, 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 any explanation whatsoever. I did not respond.

This was followed by another invoice, three weeks later, dated 14 November 2004 , for £15,500 (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever.

Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously, I informed 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).

I view this as an act of vengeance for my challenging the service charge demand.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, you would think that somebody with two brain cells, facing somebody like me - who had nonetheless paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) that was not due and payable - would have backed-off.

Such is the profile of the Rachman Ladsky and that of his racketeering mafia - and the extent of their arrogance and greed...and of their 'justified' belief in the supporting infrastructure of lawyers, courts, tribunals, surveyors, accountants, local councils, etc i.e. the Masonic network.

I did not acknowledge these invoices and therefore did not pay them - as I do not owe these sums.

They were followed by two other invoices. One, fourteen months later, dated 9 January 2006, states a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. (I attribute the time lag to the fact that I filed a complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 20 December 2004, and against Martin Russell Jones on 2 February 2005 (1.1MB))

The following invoice, dated 30 June 2006, states 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).

Hence, what is the amount currently 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 i.e. £44,246   (US$78,000)?

Who knows, considering the fraudulent method of operating of the Rachman Ladsky and his racketeering mafia - as can be seen from some of the evidence compiled in this pack

(Subsequent note: Update - see Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004)

Other points of note about this 9 January 2006 invoice (which further demonstrate the fraudulent method of operating of the Rachman Ladsky and his racketeering mafia), are that it includes "half yearly service charge in advance - to 23 June 2006" based on a document headed " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " from which I conclude that the sum was 'somehow' arrived (I do understand the calculation).

This document claims that the £76,167 of expenditure is attributable to "All flats" . This is fraudulent given that Steel Services no longer has control of the last floor of Jefferson House . (See Headlessors , Owners identity and Pridie Brewster ))

Back in 2004, indication that the Rachman Ladsky would, come what may, through his racketeering mafia, make me pay for works for which I am not liable can be seen in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 West London County Court hearing - Ayesha Salim 's comment about me that

"The consent order that she submitted has included works that may possibly take place in the future to the property and not just the amount that is claimed within this claim "

'Helpfully', the judge then offered to have the action against me 'stayed' (open to further proceedings) - as can be seen in the court order of that date. (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for detail)

Back to list

(7.10) Two points which, it was agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting, were not worth mentioning - the arbitration clause and rateable value - make-up 50% of the contents of the Notice of Acceptance

Instead of considering, what I viewed as the relevant points, during the 28 October 2003 meeting, Mr Gallagher launched into a discussion on the rateable value and the arbitration clause. As evidenced by Ms McLean's attendance notes

"Counsel then said that there were various matters that we could raise by way of argument for example the rateable value apportionment, the fact that the lease referred to having the matter referred to arbitration etc etc.   Whilst those were arguments that we could run he thought that the likelihood of success would be limited"

As also evidenced by her notes, Mr Gallagher then dismissed both points as not worth pursuing.

Yet, 50% of the 13 November 2003 reply to the 'offer' he drafted relates to the clause on the rateable value. It barely touches on the real issue as the only comment he included in relation to my lease is "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease" ).

I communicated the issue to Ms McLean e.g. in my 26 November 2003 letter. Under point 24 of my 24 January 2004 letter to Mr Skuse, Piper Smith Basham, I described this as "unobjectionable padding" .

When I read the following in Mr Gallagher's email of 17h09 email, 12 November 2004 "The agreed strategy was for me to settle 1. a covering letter raising a number of technical and ultimately unmeritorious points, the purpose being to distract attention from the tweaking exercise" it did not register with me that there had been a change of plan subsequent to the 28 October 2003 meeting - to which I was not party.

The issue is captured under point 24 of my 16 March 2004 complaint.

Back to list

(7.11) Richard Twyman engineered the situation to limit my ability to input into the reply

Given the unbelievable pressure under which I was placed i.e. no advice from Twyman (see below); being given barely a few minutes to read two highly important documents I had never seen before - while I am at work - the best I could manage was to handwrite the following on the documents. I faxed them to Twyman and Gallagher at 16h29 - in other words, within less than one hour of receiving them.

On the draft consent order, next to 'interest':

"On 28 October - Mr Gallagher said "no because works had not started"  

On the 'without prejudice notice of acceptance' document:

"+ Non-compliance with Section 20 for some items, as a consequence of which the LVT was unable to take a decision"  

i.e. the two points that had been agreed at the 28 October meeting with Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher, would be included in the reply.

(NB: It is only much later on that I noticed that, as drafted, the consent order leaves the door wide open to Steel Services to come back and ask me for another contribution for the major works, and so on, and so on).

Back to list

 

(7.12) As a result of Richard Twyman's actions I also relinquished on my objective of getting my costs back from Steel Services - which I considered to be justified in asking (and had separate legal opinion to this effect)

Given the circumstances of my case, I considered that Steel Services ought to also pay for my costs. (After the 28 October meeting, I saw another solicitor who endorsed my position). I communicated this to Mr Twyman, under point 6 of my 7 November 2003 letter.

I had previously stated this as my objective in my 28 August 2003 and 3 September 2003 letters to Ms McLean.

Twyman's refusal to discuss any of my communication led me to give up on this. So: objective achieved!

Back to list

(7.12.1) The overall conclusion on the reply written by Stan Gallagher - and sent by Richard Twyman - WITHOUT MY CONSENT - is that, evidently, my 'advisers' did NOT consider that...

•  filing of a false claim against me in West London County Court on 29 November 2002 (ref WL203537) - including supplying a lease with the claim, falsely claiming that it was representative of my contractual obligations (CKFT # 2 , # 6.1 , # 6.5 , # 6.7 ) (West London County Court # 2 , # 3 , # 4 )

•  unlawful threat of forfeiture , (Definition of forfeiture) (CKFT # 6.2 ) (NB Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL)

•  a damning report by the LVT clearly demonstrating that the original demand of 17 July 2002 and supporting letter of 15 July 2002 was extortionate - as detailed in my surveyor's assessment (AND Ms McLean's letter of 23 June 2003 ),

•  breach of the terms of my lease e.g. Clause (2)(2) (c ii), (e), (f), (g i) and (j), (CKFT # 6.4 , # 6.5 )

•  breach of my statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 ( LVT report , S.21 request to Martin Russell Jones by Kensington & Chelsea Housing department),

•  breach of my statutory rights under Section 19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

•  breach of Civil Procedure Rules (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , including # 2 , # 6.1 , # 6.6 - AND McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 , Piper Smith Basham # 1 ) (West London County Court # 2 )

•  use of blackmail and extortion tactics e.g. Silverstone's letters of 21 October 2002 , 25 June 2003 , 7 August 2003 ;   'Joan Hathaway's letters of 20 September 2002 , 16 December 2002 (CKFT # 3)

•  my suffering defamation of my name and of my character by being falsely portrayed to the tribunal and the court as a liar and dishonest person by Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS of Martin Russell Jones , Ayesha Salim and Lanny Silverstone of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , and Brian Gale, MRICS - in documents that are in the public domain

•  A number of the above amount to criminal offences being committed against me under: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Section 21 - Blackmail, of the Theft Act 1968 ; Malicious Communications Act 1988

...etc, etc, etc, qualified as sufficient reasons to challenge the offer.

WHY NOT?

 

NOTE in 2007 : To which can also be added, under Civil Procedure Rules, the issue of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, a 'managing agent' - see My Diary 9 Mar 07

I still hold the view that I am justified in expecting to be compensated for ALL my costs, as I incurred them through NO FAULT OF MY OWN.

Indeed, ALL stem from the fact that I 'dared' to ask the following when presented with the £14,400 (US$25,400) bill in July 2002:   "What are you going to spend it on?".

I did this in the context of agreeing that works needed to be carried out (as captured in my Witness Statement) - a fact recognised by Lanny Silverstone , CKFT ). A position I have consistently maintained throughout.

And I then 'dared' to continue pursuing an answer to what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

And I have been amply vindicated - as can be seen in this compilation of evidence.

Points 54-83 of my 16 March 2004 complaint relate to the handling of the 13 November 2003 reply.

My reply to the response from Ian Skuse's 25 August 2004 letter and the Law Society's 22 September 2004 response regarding the reply to the 'offer' is contained under points 79-84 of my 30 November 2004 correspondence. (See also Stan Gallagher page)

Under point 78 of his 9 June 2004 initial reply to my complaint, Gallagher boasted that "...the strategy that I advised on worked:   the tweaked offer was accepted."

Obviously, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor was very keen to have this Consent Order endorsed by the court - as evidenced by Ayesha Salim's 19 November 2003 letter to Piper Smith Basham "...endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court." ...

...and its Rachman client, Ladsky, was certainly very pleased with it (My Diary Latter part of Nov 03)

As I pointed out (point 52, 25 March 2005 )

"There was no 'tweaking' - as he just said 'amen' to everything . Of course his reply was received with open arms "

Under the same point I highlighted:

"When, upon taking back control of my case , I wrote in my Notice of Acceptance that my payment was "in full and final payment of my share of the costs for carrying out all the major works" - i.e. writing what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting - it very clearly ' threw a spanner in the works ' .

Indeed, it took 2-3 chasing letters to CKFT (including through a solicitor ) to finally get an acknowledgment on 27 January 2004 in which it stated: "We have now located two of your letters dated 19 December 2003".   (The post office tracking system showed it had taken delivery of my correspondence on 22 December 2003)"  

In monetary terms, the only difference relative to the ' offer ' was the £143 (US$250) of interest for which I stated I could not agree to this demand.   Obviously, what Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's client was objecting to was the content of my Notice of Acceptance in which I highlighted the breaches of my lease and of my statutory rights.

See also the next sub-section below for surrounding events with McLean and Salim, as well as West London County Court which demonstrate that it then took six months before I obtained a consent order which was endorsed on 1 July 2004 .

Back to list

(7.13) Another major point in my complaint that was ignored by the Law Society is Piper Smith Basham's insistence that I had given my consent to the reply sent by Richard Twyman to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 13 November 2003 - which I had NOT

On 14 November 2003 I received from Mr Twyman, a letter attached to an email stating:

"I sent you an email yesterday regarding transmission of Counsel's draft indicating that the same would be sent by approximately 4pm. In accordance with that direction understanding this to be you instructions (NB: !!!) the same was sent at that time.

At 17h37 (NB: !!!) a fax was received here with your comments on it which on the face of them are inconsistent with a request for inclusion in any event."   (NB: !!!)

I view this letter as absolutely appalling and a continuation of the treatment I had received from Mr Twyman throughout.

This letter contains two lies (No need for me to include 'allegedly')

What Mr Twyman sent were NOT my instructions.   When, in my 12h26 email of the previous day I wrote

"I am accepting your advice:   to accept the offer..Can you please thus draft a reply for my review - with the 'tweaking' you detailed"

I was obviously referring to what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting.

And this had been confirmed by Mr Gallagher in his 10h12 email on 13 November:  

"...accept the offer, subject only to the possibility of tweaking it as discussed in conference..."

In addition, I had annoted (as best as I could given the time pressure under which I was being placed by Mr Twyman) the draft documents with what had been agreed.

The second lie is the claim that I faxed my reply at 17h37.   I was able to prove this by the fact that Mr Gallagher had sent a 13 November 10h12 email in reply to my fax of the same day for which the transmission recorded the time as 10h11.

In his 1 July 2004 response to my complaint, Mr Skuse, maintained that I sent the fax at 17h37.

In her 3 August 2004 reply, the Law Society caseworker wrote

"The solicitors state that they are unable to comment on the timing of the fax machine. It is not relevant whether the fax was sent at 4.37 pm or 5.37 pm as Mr Twyman left the office between 4 pm and 4.30pm"

To this I replied, under point 146 of my 30 November 2004 correspondence

"So, when Mr Twyman sent me the email at 15h53 saying "I confirm safe receipt of Counsel draft and will be sending it to the other side.as he has advised in the next 10mins or so" in fact, what he did, was to send it immediately (if it had not already been sent!) .

And how equally fascinating to see your response: "Even if the fax had been sent at 4.37 pm.".   "Even if"?   Look at the evidence"

Back to list

(7.13.1) Further incontrovertible proof that I had NOT agreed to the reply sent is:

Ms McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 asking me to

" confirm that the consent order may be signed "

To which I replied on 26 November 2003

"I am not endorsing a reply that does not in any way challenge the offer letter .It was your firm's responsibility to ensure it was captured in the letter and it is now your firm's responsibility to ensure that it is." .

Mr Gallagher capturing it in his initial reply to my complaint, as he wrote that he "simply (could) not understand why NKDR changed her mind and was not prepared to endorse the draft consent order " (point 80, 9 June 2004 )

Nonetheless, Piper Smith Basham continued to insist on THREE subsequent occasions 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 .

(As detailed below), in my complaint against Piper Smith Basham, I stated that it used what I view as bullying and intimidation tactics to force me to endorse the reply it had sent to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor. I consider the above and the following to be a primary example in support of my claim.

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

Back to list

(7.13.2) Lisa McLean's strategy intended to force me to endorse the reply sent to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor backfired

In her 12 December 2003 letter, Ms McLean, wrote:

"One final point to make is that whilst there is a current complaint against me personally and the firm it would not be appropriate for me to continue acting for you, our relationship having broken down" (Ms McLean was referring to my 2 December 2003 letter to Messrs Berns and Skuse)

While in her 21 January 2004 letter (i.e. six weeks later ), she wrote:

"There is also of course the outstanding issue of the concluded agreement. Once again if you wish to discuss the matter with me at (sic) the telephone I am happy to do so"

What happened between the two letters is that, in mid-December 2003, I decided to take back control of my case and sent my 'own' version of the Notice of Acceptance to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 19 December 2003 .

Ms McLean's strategy had backfired (as I captured under points 3.4, 103 and 104 of my 16 March 2004 complaint).

Indeed, I view the 12 December letter as an attempt to bring me 'back into line' by withdrawing support - and thereby cause anxiety, FEAR and distress. Hence, continuation of the criminal psychological harassment game in order to force me to endorse the reply. (Again, NO' allegedly' here as I believe that any reasonable person faced with this evidence would endorse my view. Use of FEAR = the standard tactic).

Likewise here: I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that the 21 January 2004 letter was a 'last ditch attempt at concluding the deal' (whatever this was).

Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Piper Smith Basham/Watton has committed an offence against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Back to list

(7.13.3) The other party to the 'game plan', CKFT, was clearly anticipating that McLean's strategy would yield the desired outcome

As to CKFT, it waited to see what would happen following the 21 January 2004 letter from Lisa McLean. In fact, it allowed one week. At that point, Ayesha Salim wrote in her 27 January 2004 letter

"We have now located two of your letters dated 19 December 2003".   i.e. five weeks later !

(Please note that I had sent the letter by 'special delivery next day' (as can be seen in the attached 19 December 2003 letter) and had received confirmation from the post office that it had been delivered.

Please note also that the lack of response from Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor had led me to get a firm of solicitors to send, on 16 January 2004 , a copy of the documents I had sent to CKFT on 19 December 2003. My reason for doing this was that, given CKFT's modus operandi, I could not exclude the possibility that it might claim it had received post from me on 22 December 2003, but that it was just an empty envelop).

My conclusion on these events is that my taking back control of my case had 'thrown a spanner in the works', upsetting the game plan.

Back to list

(7.14) The evidence suggests that from the very beginning the 'game plan' had been to lead me to 'strike a deal'

As added evidence in support of my conclusion, I also highlight that from the very beginning of my relationship with Piper Smith Basham the pressure to 'strike a deal' was set in motion - as evidenced by the following correspondences.

At the time of appointing Piper Smith Basham, in my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean following a conversation with her, I wrote:

"About CKFT's offer "to discuss" with them i.e. try to strike a deal.   I am not prepared to do this. This would be a very unwise move as it would allow them to get away with the need to redraw the specification, thereby leaving me exposed to further demands at a later stage which, I can guarantee, would be made (letters from MRJ of 26 March 2002 and 15 July 2002 ).  

Hence the rationale of my strategy of saying that the LVT decision applies to the whole block, not just me.  

By forcing them to do this, it will put a line under the costs i.e. they will not have any comeback and, if they do come back, I will be in a much better position to challenge them.  

Last but not least, I am also hoping that by doing this they will give up on the block as I am taking away their opportunity to illegally charge works to the residents "

In this letter, I also referred to my 9 August 2003 letter to the court (copied to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and of which I supplied a copy to Ms McLean), in which I wrote, among others:

"The LVT has made a determination on the reasonableness of the service charge for the block -as a whole - not just for myself. There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees.

Nowhere does the lease state that the share of the service charges payable by individual lessees is dependent on their amount of 'backbone' and courage to challenge a demand for money they do not owe.

Their resistance to prolonged harassment and intimidation.

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-MRJ in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT)"

But, as can be seen in her 4 September 2003 letter, McLean and CKFT were not giving up on the idea of my 'striking a deal' with the Rachman Ladsky:

"Incidentally (NB !!!) , I took a call from CKFT today and, in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals (NB !!!)

I said that I had noted that you had previously refused to deal with them but in the event that they wished to make an offer (NB !!!) I was, as they well know, obliged to put it to you (NB !!!)

They intimated that they will make a Part 36 offer (NB !!!)

The relevance of this is that if they make an offer which is rejected and, following trial the judge makes a determination that is no better than the offer that they had made then you will have to pay their costs from the time the part 36 offer had been made up until the trial"   (NB Please note the threat)

I replied as follows on 9 September 2003 "I maintain what I said: the situation is the result of Steel Services/Mr Ladsky and MRJ's doing - not mine (nor indeed that of the other residents).my position has remained unchanged:   'No' as this does not achieve my objectives "

I give the events surrounding my Witness Statement as further evidence in support of my claim that the intention had been that I would be made to 'strike a deal' (See below for detail)

(Subsequent note - And the outcome of another FRAUDULENT claim vindicates me on my assessment: the threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

Back to list

(7.14.1) Very clearly, Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman do not understand the concept of individuals having moral principles and integrity that prevent them from being treated differently from their fellow leaseholders i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in their lease

In this respect, they are aligned with Gallagher as he held against me (point 66, 9 June 2004 ) the fact that I "had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions." i.e. I had refused opportunities to 'strike a deal' (Stan Gallagher # 4.1)

It should be noted that they are not alone in holding this view: the courts can also endorse breaches of leases (and of statutory rights), as well as directions given to defendants by another jurisdiction, as evidenced by the following in West London County Court :

In its 23 May 2003 application for a Case Management Conference to West London County Court , Silverstone wrote: "As you are aware we are solicitors for the Claimant. The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following". The list states the 1st , 2nd , 5th and 7th Defendant

As there were 11 leaseholders listed on the 29 November 2002 claim, it provides incontrovertible evidence ( "has obtained judgement" ) that West London County Court was instrumental in making seven leaseholders pay before the LVT issued its report. (The LVT dated its report 17 June 2003 ). Hence, West London County Court totally ignored the fact that leaseholders had very specifically been told by the Tribunal to not pay - until it had issued its report - and it had been implemented.

Further evidence that judgement/s was/were secured through West London County Court BEFORE the LVT issued its report can be seen from the fact that, in its notice of 21 March 2003 , West London County Court - wrongly - informed me that I was the defendant in a Charging Order hearing due to take place on 4 April 2003 - AND the 2 April 2003 fax sent by Lanny Silverstone to the court in which he wrote: "Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003..." (Note the date!) (see Lord Falconer # 1 , WLCC # 5 )

In my 25 March 2003 letter to the court I had - yet again - brought attention to the ongoing LVT action, as well as reporting - very clearly - that we, the leaseholders, had specifically been told by the LVT to not pay the service charge.

In its 27 March 2003 reply, the court nonetheless persisted in telling me that the action concerned me.   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 in West London County Court - and in which I again repeated what we had been told by the LVT.

'Armed' with the correct terminology, on 1 April 2003 I phoned West London County Court saying "there cannot be a Charging Order against me because there has not been a judgement against me" At this point I was told "No, the Charging Order is not against you, it is against other residents" (as captured in my 1 April 2003 letter to the court). (The fact that a Charging Order can only be issued once a judgement has been entered was 'ever so kindly' confirmed by the Court Service in its 23 August 2004 reply)

(NB: Between December 2002 and March 2003 I wrote four letters to West London County Court highlighting the LVT proceedings and consequently requested that the action be stayed. I had also referred to the LVT proceedings in my defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002 . As just explained, in two of my letters, 25 March 2003 and 30 March 2003 , I had made specific reference to the fact that the LVT had specifically told leaseholders to not pay the service charge demanded).

Consider events as well in the context of point 64, on page 15 of the 17 June 2003 tribunal report:

"...the Respondent and other tenants (NB !!!) could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal..."

During the 24 June 2003 hearing, the judge told Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, that he was "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" (leading the judge to award costs to me (and the other leaseholders present))

Consider the latter part of the judge's comment in light of the above.

Consider also the LVT's 21 July 2003 reply to Silverstone's letter of 17 July 2003

"It is not the duty of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness , or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant "

And pre my becoming a client, McLean KNEW that this was the case - as evidenced in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors:

"I have had an opportunity of speaking to the chairperson of the tribunal and she informs me that what the tribunal is looking to determine is the reasonableness of the global figure that's attributable to the whole block"

In other words, while I ended-up being the only leaseholder challenging the application (and none of the other leaseholders have contributed to my £32,000 (US$56,400) LVT costs), it does not alter the fact that the London LVT findings apply to the whole block.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that the above amply supports the statement I have made in various sections of this site that, in the case of a service charge dispute of this nature, the business model heavily relies on leaseholders being made to 'strike a deal' with the landlord - in breach of the terms of their lease and of their statutory rights.

From liaising with Piper Smith Basham, CKFT and its client realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered the 21 October 2003 'offer'. (See also Gallagher and CKFT )

These events are captured in the summary of my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham under point 3.4 and under points 102, 104 in the main body of my complaint. There are also captured under point 155 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society

Back to list

(7.15) Richard Twyman refused to discuss the instructions I had sent him 5 working days before the deadline for the reply.

Another point in my complaint - also in connection with the reply to the 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' - was Twyman's refusal to discuss the instructions I had sent him 5 working days before the reply to the offer was due (paras 48 - 53 of my 16.02.04 complaint to the Law Society).

The courier's log shows delivery of my 07.11.03 letter at 9:02 a.m. This left 5 full working days to the deadline of 13 November for the reply to the 'offer'. (The previous day, around lunchtime, I had also left a message on Twyman's voicemail to forewarn him of this).

I only managed to speak to Twyman on 11 Nov. He was extremely curt with me and refused to discuss my reply - other than say "you have rejected their offer" . When I tried to explain, he said that he did not have the time to discuss.

I did not understand the implication of what he said, "You have rejected their offer". It worried me that I was doing something that would have serious consequences. Hence, Twyman was playing on my lack of knowledge and experience of this type of situation - as well as the fact that I was 'trapped' (no chance of being able to find another solicitor). I viewed this as a blatant abuse of the fiduciary relationship.

He told me that he had "just sent your letter to Mr Gallagher" and that he "hope [d] that he will have the time to look at it" .  

As forwarding of a letter is an activity that can easily be handled by an assistant, this appalling response clearly amounted to a psychological game intended to gain control / dominance by causing me fear, anxiety, confusion and insecurity. In other words: bullying and intimidation aimed at making me do what he wanted (as I captured in my 17.06.04 letter to the Law Society). Events over the next 48 hours further confirmed my assessment.

Feeling extremely anxious, I tried, in vain, to talk to him on 12 Nov. Finally, the following day (deadline for the reply) Twyman decided that he would talk to me. I drew his attention to the fact that he had received my instructions 5 days earlier, and that I had also left him a voice message. Hence, this last minute rush could have been avoided as it gave a total of five working days.

Twyman replied angrily: "When was it that you met with Counsel?" and asked whether I thought he had nothing else to do other than deal with my case.  

This is captured under: (1) para.3.17 of my 02.12.03 letter to Berns and Skuse, Piper Smith Basham; (2) para.64 of my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society; (3) para.10 of my 17.04.04 reply to the Law Society.

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

Back to list

 

(7.16) Richard Twyman did not provide me with feedback on my identifying a ruling by Lord Woolf on Part 36 offers I believed to be relevant

Likewise, Mr Twyman did not provide me with any feedback on my 13 November 2003 fax. In this, I had identified that, based on the ruling by Lord Woolf in relation to the requirements for the working of Part 36 offers , the offer amounted to a breach of the Civil Procedure Rules (as I had not been supplied with the information necessary for me to assess the offer).

This is captured under points 55 - 58 of my 16 March 2004 complaint.   As to my reply to the Law Society's response of 22 September 2004 , it is contained under point 101 of my 30 November 2004 correspondence.

In his 9 June 2004 reply, under point 46, Gallagher wrote: "The offer in this case was not of course a pre-action offer. It was made after the LVT had made a determination. There was no question of the offer being impugned on the basis that it failed to supply NKDR with sufficient information to enable NKDR to assess whether or not to accept it"

To this I replied on 29 August 2004 , under point 103 "I disagree. The offer qualifies as 'a pre-action offer'. the LVT could not make a determination due to the lack of specification"

And, of course, as recognised by Ms McLean in her 3 October 2003 letter

"CKFT to prepare proper specification so that the items that were insufficient could be properly detailed."

Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones had not implemented the tribunal's findings. (And never did)

As I wrote among others, in my 7 November 2003 letter to Mr Twyman

"without proper specification and tendering process. it cannot be established what - if any of this amount - I am actually liable for under the terms of my lease"

I repeated the same thing in my 13 November 2003 fax to Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman.

Further evidence that Mr Twyman did not provide me with any advice can also be seen in the email he sent me at 8h40 on 13 November 2003 to forward Mr Gallagher's email of 17h09 on 12 November. In this, Mr Twyman wrote - what I consider to be an 'ultimatum'

"Please see urgent advice attached. May we please have your clear and unequivocal answer - will you accept their offer as advised or do you wish to refuse it?   This must be dealt with today"

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

Back to list

(7.17) Lisa McLean wrongly dismissed my Witness Statement on the grounds that "the situation has been settled". Events demonstrate the underlying intent that the dispute would be resolved through 'striking a deal'

In my complaint, I also referred to events in relation to my Witness Statement (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement). Among others, they resulted in my not getting a Witness Statement from Steel Services because Ms McLean assessed "the situation as having been settled" .

This is covered under point 10 in the summary of my 16 March 2004 complaint, and under points 116 - 134 in the main body.

The directions set by West London County Court at the 26 August 2003 hearing required the exchange of witness statements by 21 October 2003 and delivery to the court by 16h00.

On 3 October 2003 , Ms McLean sent me a letter stating that the timetable "may need to be extended" and that she saw "no real problem in that" . While in her 14 October 2003 letter she said that she would be discussing an extension to the timetable with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor.

On 27 October 2003 (i.e. six days after CKFT had faxed the offer), Ms McLean wrote she had sent a letter to CKFT containing the following:

"May we suggest Witness Statements are exchanged by 12 December Experts Reports by 9 January 2004 which should give us just over a month before the trial commences which should be ample time, may we please hear from you as soon as possible on the above"

In her 3 November 2003 letter Ms McLean told me she had received from CKFT

"...a letter confirming the extension to the timetable for exchange of witness statements and expert's reports is agreed."

Assuming that these changes in the timetable needed to be communicated to West London County Court, I do not know whether they were, as I was not provided with a document from the court to this effect.   (When I visited West London County Court five months later, on 31 March 2004, I was (eventually) told that there had been no movement on my file since the 26 August 2003 hearing).

At the time, I did not know that the exchange of witness statements had to be instantaneous. To my knowledge, Ms McLean took no action to ensure that Steel Services would comply with the court's directions: its 'offer' was faxed by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, at 17h43 on 21 October 2003 i.e. nearly two hours after the witness statements were due to be in court - and there was no witness statement .

In my 12 October 2003 , I asked Ms McLean for guidance on writing a witness statement, also stating "I know / understand that it must be written in my own words" . (In an earlier letter she had written that counsel's input would be required).

In her 14 October 2003 letter she did not reply to my request. Her comment was "I look forward to receiving your draft statement" .

I had my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement hand-delivered to Piper Smith Basham on the morning of 19 October.

In my covering letter of 19 October 2003 to Ms McLean, I explained the approach I had taken in writing the statement. (I identified the approach from undertaking extensive desk research).

Having ignored my request for guidance on the production of my Witness Statement, Ms McLean waited seven weeks to give me feedback - and only because I pressed the issue by sending her a letter on 12 December 2003 in which I reminded her that this was the day she had agreed with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor for the exchange of witness statements.  

This was her reply:

"Your statement has not (and would not have in any event in its current form) been sent to CKFT" .

In addition to this sweeping criticism of my statement - without any explanation - in the same letter, Ms McLean also wrote:

"The matter is settled and there is simply no point or purpose to be gained in exchanging witness statements and even less point in having a hearing date"

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

Back to list

(7.17.1) Lisa McLean had absolutely no grounds on which to take this position:   the matter was definitely NOT settled

Indeed, this is evidenced by her letter of 24 November 2003 asking me to

" confirm that the consent order may be signed "

To which I replied on 26 November 2003 with

"I am not endorsing a reply that does not in any way challenge the offer letter. "

And it is further evidenced under point 80 of Mr Gallagher's reply of 9 June 2004   as he wrote that he

"simply (could) not understand why NKDR changed her mind and was not prepared to endorse the draft consent order "

In spite of the evidence, in THREE subsequent letters Piper Smith Basham continued to claim that I had given my consent to the reply sent by Mr Twyman to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor.

This is evidenced in Ms McLean's letters of 12 December 2003 and 21 January 2004, as well as that of Mr Skuse, dated 18 December 2003 , in reply to my 2 December 2003 letter

"Your letter appears to suggest that there will be a hearing and witness statements are due to be exchanged.   This will not occur as the action is resolved"

To which I replied on 24 January 2004 ,

"Wrong.   This action was certainly not resolved at the time of your letter as you did not have my consent to the reply you sent to CKFT - and you refused to redress the situation. Hence, the possibility of a hearing could not be excluded"

Back to list

(7.18) Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman knowingly provided me with FALSE information with the objective of getting me to drop my 20C application. In the process, they used what I consider to be extensive bullying and coercion tactics to achieve this objective

Another point in my complaint relates to the fact that Mr Twyman and Ms McLean insisted that I could not make a 20C application that would apply to the whole block. Concurrently, they used what I consider to be bullying and coercion tactics which, eventually, stopped me from proceeding with my application.

As can be seen, this was preceded by some 'very helpful assistance' from the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - LVT # 5

The events leading to Piper Smith Basham being involved in my 20C application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal were:

In a letter dated 7 April 2003 my then solicitors, informed the LVT that

"our Counsel will be making an Application for an Order under Section 20 (c) of the Act in relation to costs not being added to the service charge".  

(The same letter, dated 7 April 2003 , was sent to Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones)

The fact that I would be making an application was confirmed by my counsel during the 28 April 2003 LVT hearing. Mr Warwick, Steel Services' counsel responded by saying

"My client will not charge Ms N K-Dit-Rawé, but intends to charge other residents" .

This got me very worried.

Ms McLean attended the 28 April 2003 LVT hearing on behalf of another/other leaseholder/s she was representing at the time. At the end of the hearing, Ms McLean, I, my counsel and my surveyor met in one of the meeting rooms in the LVT to discuss my proceeding with the application. I was in no state to think clearly. The hearings had been a big ordeal for me.

Over the coming weeks, I reflected on events. Given the very damning report by the LVT of 17 June 2003, on 30 July 2003 , I wrote to the LVT

"In view of your judgement of 17 June 2003, I assume that there will be no obstacle in your making a 20C Order preventing the landlord, Steel Services from imposing their legal costs on the service charges for Jefferson House"

In 'typical landlord-friendly style' the LVT replied on 1 August 2003 by sending me a form to complete. I sent the form, dated 10 August 2003 , with a letter dated 12 August 2003 stating,

"Given the Tribunal's decision of 17 June 2003, I assume that this is just for your administrative purposes" .   

I concluded my letter by stating:

"The evidence is there. The facts speak for themselves.

The Applicant cannot be allowed to put on the service charge for Jefferson House the costs it incurred as a result of the action it pursued through the LVT. The Tribunal has the power to get this decision implemented now and I trust that it will do so."

To this, the LVT replied on 14 August 2003 "A copy has been sent to the respondent and they have been invited to submit their comments on this application by 28 August 2003."

It led to a 22 August 2003 letter from Ayesha Salim , CKFT, stating, among others:

"We would ask you to confirm that the application will be dealt with a hearing, rather than on paper" .

Salim copied me on this letter, in her letter of 22 August 2003

The then London LVT Clerk obliged , as can be seen in his 29 August 2003 reply

"The hearing of the application has been scheduled for 9:45 am on 8 October 2003"

I could not believe the LVT had agreed to a hearing. It meant I had to involve a solicitor. As Piper Smith Basham had been 'acting for me' since the end of August 2003, I asked for its assistance.

In my 3 September 2003 letter to Ms McLean, I confirmed that I had made a 20C application. I subsequently explained to Ms McLean that the reason I had filed a 20C application was because of Mr Warwick's comment on 28 April 2003 "My client will not charge Ms N K-Dit-Rawé, but intends to charge other residents"  

Back to list

(7.18.1) In her letter to Martin Russell Jones, Lisa McLean included an undertaking that I would drop my application if I was exempted from Steel Services' related costs. I had NEVER agreed this with her

Although she had attended the last day of the hearing - and the follow-up discussion in one of the LVT's meeting rooms, McLean claimed to "not remember this". (See below how her memory miraculously recovered 24 hours later).

It led her to draft a letter to Martin Russell Jones, dated 18 September 2003 , asking for clarification. This was solely for her own benefit as I had no doubt in my mind as to what had been said at the 28 April 2003 hearing (e.g. as captured in my 17 August 2003 letter to The Guardian , one of several identical letters I sent to the media at the end of August 2003) - and that was my 'big' worry.

At the end of this letter, she wrote

"Please confirm your client is prepared to waive its costs against Ms Rawé .we shall withdraw the application in the LVT."

She sent me the draft - at work - as an attachment to an email. Even though I am at work, I feel under pressure to reply immediately given the directions set by the then London LVT.

I faxed my 18 September 2003 reply at 15h53 in which I provide clarification to the first part of the letter.

As regards to the last paragraph, I view the first sentence as still being part of the clarification of what had been said by Steel Services' Counsel at the hearing.

I end up my letter by quoting the contents of the letter sent by then solicitors to the Tribunal on 7 April 2003 - of which I had supplied her with a copy.

Considering that I have explained to Ms McLean that I want to proceed with my application, that I have supplied her with the relevant documents and that I am at work, I did not pay too much attention to what had been written - and critically - did not spot the last part of the last sentence"we shall withdraw the application in the LVT."

I had NEVER discussed and therefore NEVER agreed for this to be written .

If I only intended to confirm what Mr Warwick, Steel Services' counsel had said during the LVT hearing, I would NOT have filed a 20C application dated 10 August 2003 with covering letter, dated 12 August 2003 (LVT # 5).

Unfortunately I did not spot it... and I was made to pay very dearly for that.

I only spotted this in the evening, which led me to write a letter to Ms McLean headed "Not proceeding with 20C order hearing is definitely not a good idea" and faxed it to her first thing on 19 September 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

Back to list

(7.18.2) This was the start of the misinformation and what I view as extensive bullying and coercion tactics

EVERY DAY after she had sent the 18 September 2003 letter to Martin Russell Jones, Ms McLean referred to the threat of litigation by two means: correspondence from Martin Russell Jones or from Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor.

If there was not anything she could send me, by adding to it herself.

Ms McLean sent me a fax at 13h00 on 19 September 2003 , the contents of which are a complete and utter muddle. She argues that my application can only be for myself, not the other lessees in the block.

Amazingly, while 24 hours previously she could not remember what had been said by Mr Warwick at the 28 April 2003 hearing, in this letter Ms McLean wrote,

"I recall that on the last day of the LVT hearing it was said on behalf of Steel Services that they would not seek to recover from 'you' any portion of costs in respect of the LVT proceedings"  

This begs the question as to why she wrote the letter to Martin Russell Jones the previous day .

Ms McLean also states,

"Were I the representative for the landlord armed with this knowledge, I would seek costs against you on an indemnity basis"

She concludes her letter by saying:

"... Steel Services will pay your proportion of the costs incurred in the LVT. On that basis, we have, I think no option but to withdraw our application"

Keen to keep the pressure on, later on the same day i.e. 19 September 2003 she sends me another fax in which she states that she "may withdraw your application".   I cannot believe what I am reading.

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

To this fax, she attached one from Martin Russell Jones of 19 September 2003 , stating that it has

"no recollection of having heard our client's counsel saying what you report.On the basis that your client Miss Dit-Rawé withdraws permanently her section 20C application.our clients are prepared to not claim from your client any part of the costs they incurred as a result of the hearings before the LVT"  

Being at work, I communicate that I am not going to respond until the weekend (19 September was a Friday). This led Ms McLean to send a fax to Martin Russell Jones on 19 September 2003 explaining that there will be communication on the following Monday.

Given the muddle of her 19 September 2003 letter, I spend a long time providing an answer, dated 21 September 2003 , to each of her comments and emphasise that her assessment is incorrect.

I also write,

"I really do need somebody highly experienced to deal with/drive my case as of now . Who in your firm can do this?"

On 22 September 2003, McLean sends me a fax from Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones dated 20 September 2003 claiming

"Our clients have asked me.to say that they consider that there is an agreement with Ms Dit-Rawé and that there is therefore nothing further that needs to be done other than receipt of a confirmation letter"

Ignoring the 19 September 2003 fax from Lisa McLean explaining that she would not be able to discuss the matter with me until 22 September, on that day i.e. 22 September 2003, Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, sent a fax to the then London LVT - FALSELY - claiming that an agreement had been reached.

McLean most certainly put in all the energy she could muster into making this happen through a daily salvo of threats from herself, adding liberally with communication from Barrie Martin, as well as the other part of the act: Ayesha Salim, CKFT.

Back to list

(7.18.3) The obvious conclusion from this is that Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, was counting on Lisa McLean stopping me from proceeding with the application

On 22 September 2003 , Lisa McLean sends me a letter by fax in which she still argues that my

 "application is made by you alone and gives details of no other named person to the proceedings" .  

Of note, she states that the letter she sent to Martin Russell Jones were

"under [my] instructions"

and that my 20C application to the LVT

"gives details of no other named person to the proceedings" .  

In relation to the latter, both Ms McLean and counsel subsequently argued that my 'n/a ' on the 8 August 2003 application next to the question

"Schedule of the names and addresses of every other party to the proceedings, including every person liable for the service charge" meant 'not applicable'.

When in fact, what it is intended to say is 'Not available'.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, if you have read the sections Owners identity, Headlessors, Nucleus and Martin Russell Jones, I am sure you have no difficulty accepting that there was NO WAY I could get the name of all the lessees in the block.

Taking the opportunity to place more pressure on me, Ms McLean also wrote in her letter

".the Tribunal will have to consider is whether or not the correspondence passing through Martin Russell Jones and myself on 19 September constitutes a concluded agreement"

I called Ms McLean and set-up a meeting on that afternoon i.e. on 22 September 2003.

I was in a dreadful state and broke down in tears during the meeting.

I felt trapped, not knowing how to get out of the situation I was in.   I felt I was at fault for not having spotted the very last sentence in the draft letter Ms McLean had sent to Martin Russell Jones on 18 September - even though her including it was NOT what we had agreed - and all the documents she had been supplied with made it absolutely crystal clear that my application was for the whole block.

Back to list

(7.18.4) When Richard Twyman joined Lisa McLean and I, they both emphasised most strongly that I could not make an application for the whole block - only for myself - which was NOT TRUE

I argued that their advice was incorrect given that my previous solicitor had, on 7 April 2003 , informed the LVT of my intention to file an application - an action confirmed by my Counsel at the 28 April 2003 LVT hearing.

And it most certainly was understood by all present - including the LVT panel - that my application would apply to the WHOLE BLOCK - as exemplified by Mr Warwick's response.

"My client will not charge Ms N K-Dit-Rawé, but intends to charge other residents"

First thing, the following day i.e.23 September 2003 , Ms McLean faxed me a consent order she had taken upon herself to draft for the purpose of sending it to the LVT. Likewise, without consulting me, she had also drafted a covering letter for Martin Russell Jones.

I contacted LEASE who confirmed my view (and consequently that of my previous solicitors) that I, ALONE, could make a 20C application for the whole block.

LEASE referred me to the Lands Tribunal case' Langford Court v Doren Limited in support of this.

I brought this case to the attention of Lisa McLean in my 23 September 2003 email.

Back to list

(7.18.5) Lisa McLean continued with her salvo of threats, bullying and intimidation tactics - being joined in on the act by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, and by Barrie Martin, FRICS

On 23 September 2003 I also developed a document I described as 'Rationale' detailing evidence and arguments to assist counsel "in formulating an opinion on the strength of my case"

At 10h30 on 24 September 2003, McLean sent me an email in which, in the space of a three-line paragraph, she made two references to the threat of proceedings. The first one is

"I received a telephone call from Barrie Martin. His client wants to take action." (NB!!!)  

To make sure I get this message, in the following sentence, she wrote,

"He is obviously thinking of taking action on the agreement" (NB!!!)

In my 24 September 2003 email reply, I argued that Martin Russell Jones had come back with a counter-offer by stating that I withdraw my application "permanently" .

At 10h10 on 25 September 2003 , Ms McLean sent me an email in which she wrote,

" I have yet to receive (NB!!!) MRJ's letter giving us, in effect, an ultimatum, although I expect to receive that today also" (NB!!!)

At 11h06 I sent an email to McLean highlighting, among others, that if Steel Services wants to sue me, in my defence I would highlight the horrendous pressure I have been placed under as a result of its actions.

Some time during that day, McLean sent me her 24 September 2003 attendance note relating to communication from CKFT, in which she made two references to the threat of proceedings . The first one, in relation to a voicemail message from Ayesha Salim that

"she had been instructed that there was now an issue with the section 20C application. If that was the case she was instructed to commence proceedings (NB!!!) in the county court for specific performance" .

The second one, that Salim

" would then be proposing to issue proceedings if an agreement was not reached within 48 or 72 hours"(NB!!!)

How about that for the use of the FEAR tactics by the double act!?

With her 16h33 email, McLean attached the reply from counsel , as well as her reply to my earlier email at 11h06. In addition to endorsing the reply from counsel, McLean dismisses my being able to use in my defence

"the trauma and stress you have been through in the last 18 months.

Whilst your stress and experiences in the last 18 months are of course real I do not think that the court will be sympathetic to that line of defence on the basis that you do have legal advisors (NB!!!)

the attitude of CKFT in threatening forfeiture of your lease." (NB!!!) (Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL)

(See below for further detail regarding Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor threatening to forfeit my lease).

Within seconds of sending me this letter, McLean sent another email at 16h33 attaching a letter claiming to have captured the main points of a letter she has received from CKFT stating she will fax this to me later on. (Why did not she send me the letter from Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor?)

She reported CKFT as having written

" If your client has failed to confirm the withdrawal of the application to the LVT by close of business on Monday 29 September 2003, we are instructed to issue proceedings (NB!!!) in the County Court for specific performance of the agreement against your client"

I viewed this as the bullying having gone 'into overdrive' and being a concerted effort between McLean, Ayesha Salim and Barrie Martin.

This is captured under point 173 of my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham.

All the events in relation to my 20C application are captured in my complaint under points 142 - 181

I argued against counsel's advice in my 28 September 2003 letter to McLean, stating that I found it "curious" that he had not considered a number of key points, which I listed in my letter.

However, as captured under point 180 of my complaint,

"By then it is abundantly clear to me that I simply do not have the right team to take this forward.

Given the time pressure and the fact that I cannot take any more time off work, I resign myself to dropping my application"

In her 'attendance note' of 8 October 2003, McLean wrote that she been in contact with the LVT to ask "when we would receive the sealed consent order" .

I have not been provided with evidence that the then London LVT endorsed the consent order that was faxed to Piper Smith Basham on 3 October 2003.

Given the LVTs limited jurisdiction, do they actually have the authority to endorse a consent order and thereby making it legally binding?

So, objective achieved, not only as a result of what I believe is fair comment (in operation until 2013) for me to say, a concerted effort between Lisa McLean, Richard Twyman, Ayesha Salim, Barrie Martin, FRICS and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, but also with the help of the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

Back to list

(7.18.6) The 23 June 2003 letter adds further weight to the evidence against Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman that, when I became a client, they knowingly provided me with FALSE information

I subsequently remembered that BEFORE I became a client, McLean had written to my then solicitors on 23 June 2003

"Are you able to confirm whether or not your client. will be proceeding with her application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

We note your client's views previously but we simply wish to know whether or not your client is making the application" .  

Not doubt here: 'HER application'.

McLean's comment "We note your client's views previously." refers to the fact that, in response to her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors, I had, in my 16 April 2003 reply, made it clear that I did not wish to be contacted again.

In my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham I referred to this letter under point 166

As I wrote to the Law Society 's caseworker in my 17 June 2004 reply (under points 20 - 30),

" Isn't this extraordinary?

When Piper Smith & Basham is advising 2 other residents they hold the view that I can - by myself - make a 20C Order application for the whole block.

However, when I become a client, they change their view in the totally opposite direction by saying that I cannot - on my own - make an application that will apply to the whole block - and, in the process, do their absolute damndest to ensure I do not proceed with my application. This begs the question:   WHY?"

Contradicting her stance...

"This office is unable to question the professional judgement of a solicitors or the appropriateness of any action."

..in this instance, the Law Society caseworker opted to give me an opinion in her 2 June 2004 letter that ('dutifully') endorsed Piper Smith Basham's action. I pointed out to her in my 17 June 2004 reply that her assessment was incorrect.

As highlighted under point 3 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society caseworker's 3 August 2004 response, she subsequently reverted back to saying "I am not able to give legal advice" - and (as, with the rest) the Law Society caseworker TOTALLY IGNORED the evidence I had supplied .

Under point 157 of my 30 November 2004 reply I wrote:

"In my opinion, in your letter 2 June 2004 letter you tested the ground as to what you would be able to reply. And, as the reply did not suit, you ignored it totally.  

I refer, among others, to points 28 and 29 of my 17 July 2004 letter in which I provided irrefutable evidence that the advice I had been given by Mr Twyman and Ms McLean was totally the opposite of the view they held before I became a client"

While under point 91, I wrote,

"And, in light of all this evidence you conclude by saying:

"I consider that Ms McLean advised you appropriately .. She addressed your concerns appropriately.".

Absolutely unbelievable!" Your assessment:   "I will not be able to investigate this aspect of your complaint further" "

Conclusion : Use of FEAR tactics for aiding and abetting FRAUD

Back to list

(7.19) The Law Society dismissed my claim of bullying and intimidation by Piper Smith Basham - in spite of my supplying a dozen instances in support of my claim

In my complaint I highlighted the use by Ms McLean and Mr Twyman of what I view as coercion, bullying and intimidation tactics:  

•  unbalanced advice;

•  focusing solely on the negatives;

•  relentlessly using the threat of potential legal proceedings from Steel Services and the associated costs as a means of pushing me into a decision against my will.

In her initial reply of 2 June 2004 , the Law Society caseworker wrote

"...the solicitors were merely advising you of your legal position."

In my reply to her of 17 June 2004 I highlighted a dozen instances in support of my claim.

To avoid misunderstanding, I also included the definition of 'bullying' and 'intimidation' I sourced from four different English dictionaries and, in the case of 'bullying', also from the website of charity organisations who deal with this particular issue.

As to the caseworker's comments in her 3 August 2004 letter, I replied to these in my 30 November 2004 letter under point 142, highlighting the contents of McLean's letter to me of 25 September 2003 (of which I had already supplied a copy to the Law Society ).

In this letter, Lisa McLean wrote - in relation to the 7 October 2002 letter I had received from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT:

"In respect of the forfeiture threat it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges"

(NB: Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL)

(McLean's reply was a follow-up to an email I sent her on 25 September 2003 )

Consider McLean's comment about the threat of forfeiture in the context of the information she had at the time she wrote the letter: she knew that the service charge demand was fraudulent ; was in breach of the terms of my lease, and of my statutory rights.  

Of course, to this must added - among others:  

•  That it is illegal to threaten forfeiture prior to issues being determined by a court or a tribunal

(The first day of the LVT substantive hearing was 13 March 2003. The LVT signed its report on 17 June 2003 - AND 'Steel Services' i.e. the Rachman Ladsky - Martin Russell Jones have NEVER implemented the LVT findings...

...because what they and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor have done is make the majority of leaseholders pay the full amount of the original demand of 15 July 2002 - in breach of the lease - and of their statutory rights)

•  Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 renders it "illegal to make threats that are calculated to cause alarm, distress or humiliation"

•  Rule 17.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - Letters before action - "When writing a letter of claim a solicitor must not demand anything other than that recoverable under the due process of law" .

•  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Ch. 41, s. 17 requires "the proper and efficient administration of justice"

•  Civil Procedure Rules - for which the implications are captured under Annex 21I of the Solicitors Practice Rules : " The courts expect litigation to be started as a last resort after attempts have been made to settle the dispute by negotiations or other means. " .

(NB: In spite of the fact that the LVT had told leaseholders, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, to NOT pay the service charge demanded (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal case) - a meeting attended by, among others, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's client, Andrew Ladsky and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - CKFT nonetheless proceeded with drawing-up a claim against 11 leaseholders which was filed a month later, on 29 November 2002 - under a Statement of Truth - by Hathaway. As evidenced in Silverstone's letter of 21 October 2002, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor KNEW that its client was pursuing an action in the then London LVT)

•  Rule 12.02 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct : "A solicitor must not act where the instructions would involve the solicitor in a breach of the law ."

Back to list

(7.20) There are several other key points in my complaint, including what I can only describe as the unbelievable suffering that Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman made me go through 

I went through absolute hell with them - as detailed in the summary of my complaint.   (See also My Diary from Sep 03 to Dec 03 for a more personal account).

NO, I am not going to write 'allegedly' after the above paragraph, as I believe that any reasonable, fair minded person considering the evidence - and putting themselves in my place - will have no problem accepting my statement.

In any case, I have numerous witnesses - including medical evidence - to the state I was reduced to, especially in November and December 2003.   A state that was very easy to see by all as I lost nearly one stone (5kgs) in one month because I could barely eat (I was already thin) and, for weeks, had great difficulty sleeping due to extreme anxiety.

This had been preceded by the unbelievable emotional distress I had suffered in September 2003 in relation to the 20C application.  

Writing this makes me relive the horrendous experience and leads me to say that...

...RICHARD TWYMAN AND LISA MACLEAN ARE THOROUGLY EVIL, EXTREMELY CRUEL, VICIOUS, SADISTIC BULLIES - WHO MAKE A PERFECT MATCH WITH THE RACHMAN LADSKY RACKETEERING MAFIA.

Likewise, NO, I am not going to say 'allegedly' as I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person when considering the above evidence will agree that I am justified in saying this.

Back to list

(8) My conclusions on what happened

Considering the events - and their sequence - which took place with Piper Smith Basham, and concurrently with Mr Gallagher and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, I have come to the conclusion that my experience with Piper Smith Basham is the result of my not accepting the standard 'off-the-shelf formula', dished out by some legal 'advisers' in this kind of situation - for people like me i.e. of limited financial means and with no influential connections.

More detail under Overview Note 4.

Back to list

(9) Other evidence against the Law Society

To this evidence against Piper Smith Basham's trade association i.e. the Law Society, must be added the following events:

•  A letter dated 27 April 2004 , which I viewed as an attempt to dissuade me from pursuing the complaint , followed the initial acknowledgement.

The caseworker notes that I am expecting the maximum £5,000 (US$8,800) compensation - which she recognises her Office can award. However, she then states,

"if you are looking to recover such a large amount of money from the solicitors, you should seek independent legal advice in respect of pursuing a legal claim against the firm" .

She further attempts to 'put me off' by stating that

"In the majority of cases awards by this Office fall below £500" (US$880)

And the reason for that? Because all serious complaints are dismissed outright by the Law Society!

Bearing in mind that I have contacted the Law Society in order to file a complaint against a solicitor, the caseworker then goes into great detail emphasising 'the ease' with which I could find another solicitor: (1) the Law Society database that will, "help you to find a solicitor in your local area", "specialising in this area of law";   (2) "Many firms offer initial advice sessions for free." .

I replied to this on 30 April 2004 , highlighting that I had complied with the procedure and reiterated my request that the Law Society considers my complaint.

•  The response 'in installments' from the Law Society which, as I captured under point 157 of my 30 November 2004 reply, I viewed as a ploy by the Law Society for 'testing the ground' as to what could be given in the final reply.  

Also in my view, a ploy to give scope to muddle / confuse / misrepresent / ignore issues (all of which happened nonetheless) - all with the aim of tiring me out so that I give up.

The 2 June 2004 letter was followed by a 3 August 2004 letter in which the caseworker wrote

"I cannot see that the solicitors' letters addressed all of the issues you raised. I am sending to the solicitors today.If you do not agree with the conclusions I have reached, please let me know and explain the reasons why. It would be helpful if you could provide any comments you wish to make within 14 days of the date of this letter"

I replied to this on 16 August 2004 :

"As you are still in the process of obtaining a response from Piper Smith Watton to parts of my complaint, I will await a complete reply from you before responding" .  

(This was acknowledged in a 3 September 2004 letter)

•  As it became clear to me from the Law Society's replies that its intention was to keep me going round 'like a hamster on a wheel' until I accepted, what I considered to be an absurd assessment, I concluded my 30 November 2004 letter with:

"You continued with your ploy as, in your letter dated 3 August 2004 you stated: "I cannot see that the solicitors' letters addressed all of the issues you raised. I will be investigating further. It would be helpful if you could provide any comments you wish to make within 14 days..."

And you have yet again done this with your 22 September 2004 reply. "It may be that I alter the view that I have reached so far"

And the list goes on, and on: you overlook PSB's conduct; accept its ludicrous explanations - given the evidence provided, etc, etc.

So, in reply to your offer of further contact: thank you, but no thank you. I have wasted enough time as it is with your Office.

I will now contact the Legal Services Ombudsman - as you correctly surmised in your 2 June 2004 letter to Mr Skuse: "Please note that your reply. may also be seen by the Legal Services Ombudsman"

This led the caseworker to call me to confirm that I was referring my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman. She followed this by a letter dated 8 December 2004 , stating:

"I explained to you that the Legal Services Ombudsman will only look at your complaint once our investigation is concluded, and if she is unhappy with the way we dealt with your complaint, she will refer it back to the Consumer Complaints service for further consideration"

At the time, my assessment of events with the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham was that I had naïvely assumed that if I related events - supported by black on white evidence - the Law Society would act as per its stated remit of "disciplining solicitors as appropriate"

It was a BIG mistake, as it became very clear to me that the Law Society (like the Bar Council - and the other English so-called 'regulatory bodies', the RICS and the ICAEW) will not of their own volition identify faults committed by their members.

My view of the ultimate reason: THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM

As I wrote in my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society

"...it occurred to me that, as your Office has the dual role of 'trade union' and 'regulator' of that profession, this might lead to a potential conflict of interest.  

Namely, to use a colloquial expression, that there might potentially be the possibility of your 'not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you' " (NB. The reference to a 'trade union' is wrong. It should say 'trade association')

(This realisation led me to change my approach when I filed a complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor by investing many hours undertaking desk research on the solicitors code of conduct, Civil Procedure Rules and various Acts.   While both, the Law Society and the Legal Services Ombudsman , nonetheless rejected my complaint against CKFT, the upside is that it saved me many hours of endless - and pointless - letter-writing arguing with the Law Society, as it did not leave the door open for further communication following my complaint)

The hope I had at the time in the Legal Services Ombudsman , given her stated remit - and the way she talked about it in the LSO 2003/2004 report (2.2MB) - led me to proceed with referring my complaint to her Office.

The outcome was a refusal, in a letter dated 12 May 2005 , by the Legal Services Ombudsman to consider my complaint on the grounds that

"it is clear to me that your referral to my Office is premature . The difficulty I have in this case is that there is no concluded investigatory procedure or resulting decision for me to review. I cannot consider matters that have not first been dealt with by the relevant professional body"

Nice set-up! Consumers do not stand a chance of getting redress.

Indeed, if you accept a ludicrous assessment by the Law Society (or the Bar Council) for the sake of being able to escalate your complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman, I will venture (as I do not have evidence to back this up) that you will get the reply: "But you accepted their assessment. So, what are you complaining about?"

(Hence my visual of the 'Clan' for the section on 'Lawyers, Courts & LSO')   (See Legal Services Ombudsman # 5 , # 6 , # 7 and # 8 for further detail)

My complaint to Piper Smith Basham, followed by the battle with the Law Society, and then the Legal Services Ombudsman cost me c. 200 hours of my life.

Hence: c. 200 hours of my life down the drain!

These events lead me to fully endorse 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"

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 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.

Back to list

 

PIPER SMITH & BASHAM, STAN GALLAGHER, CAWDERY KAYE FIREMAN & TAYLOR , THE LAW SOCIETY, THE LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN AND MARTIN RUSSELL JONES CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top