The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
Double-crossing - with the seal of approval of the Bar Council and Legal Services Ombudsman
|
Mr Stan Gallagher & Bar Council(NOTE: This section is c. 65 pages in length) (NB: Mr Gallagher is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) As in her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, 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) (West London County Court # 11 , My Diary 26 August 2003 ), I undertook research that led me to identify Mr Stan Gallagher. I made this choice as I had heard that Mr Gallagher tended to act for lessees (information that proved to be incorrect). I communicated my choice to Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, on 19 October 2003 . Two days later, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) sent the 21 October 2003 'offer'. From liaising with Piper Smith Basham, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor 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'. It should be noted that the expectation that I would 'strike a deal' with 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. had evidently been the game plan all along, as evidenced by Ms McLean's letter of 4 September 2003 (i.e. from the very beginning of my relationship with Piper Smith Basham),
This is further evidenced by events with Ms McLean in relation to my Witness Statement (Piper Smith Basham # 7 , # 7.17 ). To which must be added, among others, the false claim that I had given my consent to the reply sent by Mr Twyman to CKFT on 13 November 2003 (as detailed in the section on Piper Smith Basham # 4, # 7.13 , as well as in My Diary : 14 November 2003 ). I opted to have Mr Gallagher advise me in relation to the 'offer'. Ms McLean, my surveyor, Mr Brock and I met with Mr Gallagher on 28 October 2003 to discuss the reply to the 'offer'. Ahead of this meeting, Ms McLean sent a brief to Mr Gallagher, dated 27 October 2003 . In this brief, she refers to the 22 August 2003 brief she sent to the barrister in relation to the 26 August 2003 hearing. Other documents referred to in the briefs include, among others, my 17 December 2002 defence to the WL 203537 claim - and Particulars of claim (1.1MB), my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement, the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database) , my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the LVT determination. The subsequent communication I saw from Mr Gallagher was an email he sent to Mr Twyman at 17h09 on 12 November 2003 and two emails on 13 November 2003: one at 10h12 and the other sent at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft reply and draft consent order . If you have read the section on Piper Smith Basham (and/or My Diary for year 2003), you already know the events in relation to the reply to the 'offer' and that I was extremely dissatisfied with the approach taken and outcome. It led me to take back control of my case in December 2003 in order to send my own reply to the 'offer', dated 19 December 2003 - an action which, very clearly, 'the troops' had not expected me to take (My Diary December 2003 , Piper Smith & Basham # 7.17 and sub-points , CKFT # 6.8 ) Unavoidably, this section on Mr Gallagher duplicates parts of the Piper Smith Basham section. Main sections
My complaint against Mr Gallagher is that the reply he wrote to the 'offer', consisting of a notice of acceptance and a consent order did not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting. Also, that he provided unbalanced, biased advice and misrepresented events in order to endorse his actions. As in the case of Piper Smith Basham, my complaint against Mr Stan Gallagher was motivated by the need to have a defence if Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor issued proceedings against me for alleged breach of contract. Initially, I wrote a complaint to Mr Gallagher on 20 January 2004 . In his email of 23 January 2004 , Mr Gallagher replied:
In light of this, I sent to Mr Arden the 20 January 2004 complaint I had sent to Mr Gallagher, stating in my covering letter of 26 January 2004 "Please, consider the enclosed letter as having been addressed to you, rather than to Mr Gallagher" . Ten weeks later, I had not received a reply. I knew from the post office that the letter had been delivered on 27 January (see 26 January 2004 letter). It led me to file a complaint against Mr Gallagher with the Bar Council on 5 April 2004 . I headed my complaint with
It generated a 14 April 2004 letter from Mr Michael Scott, Complaints Commissioner, Bar Council, to Arden Chambers asking whether it was going to deal with my complaint. Mr Scott wrote,
To this letter, Mr Carter, Arden Chambers, replied on 23 April 2004 that he "would be happy to deal with my complaint" . This was followed by a 28 April 2004 letter to me from Mr Scott
I replied to Mr Scott on 3 May 2004 : • "I do not accept your proposed course of action for the following reasons: (1) (Aside from not being my problem), Arden Chambers were perfectly clear as to the procedure for handling complaints - as indicated in Mr Gallagher's email of 23 January 2004. • By writing the letter of complaint to Arden Chambers and giving them a very generous amount of time to reply, I have more than amply complied with your professional body's complaints guidelines. I therefore now expect your Office to deal with my complaint now which includes taking into consideration the fact that Arden Chambers did not reply to my complaint - contrary to your professional body's guidance" In spite of the evidence supplied, Mr Scott still continued with his 'theme' in his letter to me of 6 May 2004 :
Note the ". giving you two rungs of the ladder, so to speak" - which I viewed as amounting to coercion . By then, four months had gone by since I had filed my complaint with Arden Chambers. It took another two months before I received a reply from Mr Gallagher. Although his reply is dated 9 June 2004 , I only received it on 3 July 2004. (The delay appears to have been caused by Piper Smith Basham as evidenced by the following documents: 25 June 2004 letter from the Bar Council to PSB; 30 June 2004 reply from Piper Smith Basham). The outcome was that it took FIVE MONTHS for me to receive a reply to my complaint from Mr Gallagher . My 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply took-up most of my evenings and weekends in July and August. During this period, in addition to the fight I was having with the Law Society in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham, I was also in battle with Kensington & Chelsea housing department in relation to getting the year-end accounts for Jefferson House. (See Council & LGO, as well as Document library). The outcome was that, contrary to my initial expectation, I wrote to the Bar Council on 27 July 2004 that I needed more time to respond. In its 17 August 2004 letter, the Bar Council, had the audacity to write
As I wrote in my 29 August 2004 reply,
This was followed by a reply from Mr Gallagher on 11 October 2004 and one from me on 31 October 2004 (with an addendum, dated 2 November 2004 ). It took a further three months for the Bar Council to issue its decision dated 27 January 2005 . Note the double standard: what the Bar Council and Mr Gallagher did v. the Bar Council chasing me for a reply after six weeks (17 August 2004 letter) The 27 January 2005 decision from the Bar Council was:
It also states, "The Committee however, may be prepared to look at the matter again if you have some additional evidence in support of your complaint which was not included in the letters you have already sent" . To this, I replied (point 78, 25 March 2005 ) "Your Office has already been provided with ample evidence and has opted to disregard it" . In its reply, the Bar Council also stated
In light of this, I opted to escalate my complaint to the Legal Services Ombudsman on 25 March 2005 . In her reply dated 30 August 2005 , the Legal Services Ombudsman wrote:
(See the end of this section, as well as Legal Services Ombudsman for further detail) In light of these two replies, I should therefore describe the following key points in my complaint against Mr Gallagher and, indeed, my one-line summary for this section, as ' MY ALLEGED ACCUSATIONS' against Mr Gallagher. Although I am not a lawyer, I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against Mr Gallagher - and I do not believe that it requires being a genius to see it. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, even if, like me, you are not a lawyer, I believe that, having read the rest of this section you will agree with my conclusion. As outlined previously, I had a detailed exchange of correspondence with Mr Gallagher. My 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council provides a good summary as I comprehensively cross-referenced my reply to previous correspondences. B - Summary of Mr Gallagher's positionMr Gallagher's position which came to light in correspondence - post the 28 October 2003 meeting - is summarised below. It is drawn from: • an email he sent to Mr Twyman at 17h09 on 12 November 2003 • and two emails on 13 November 2003, one at 10h12 and the other sent at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft reply and draft consent order , as well as • his 9 June 2004 initial reply to my complaint which represents follow-up comments / explanations for his advice / position / actions. Introduction - My evidence in support of my complaint (1) " The service charge demand was an "interim demand" "
(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :
(6) Mr Gallagher advised that the offer be "accepted subject to tweaking"
(10) My complaint of coercion by Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman were dismissed by the Bar Council (and the Law Society) (11) Mr Gallagher could give himself a 'pat on the back' for a 'job well done' as the reply "had been accepted and he could not therefore understand why I refused to endorse it" (14) My complaint that I suffered an enormous amount of stress, anguish, torment and distress as a consequence of Mr Gallagher's actions (15) Other factors I considered should have been taken into consideration by Mr Gallagher 'my adviser' (16) The Bar Council's 27 January 2005 assessment of my complaint was: (18) And the 'PIECE DE RESISTANCE'... C - My evidence in support of my complaintThe reminder of this section considers each of the above points in relation to Mr Gallagher's position by drawing on the content of the following: • the email he sent to Mr Twyman at 17h09 on 12 November 2003 • the two emails he sent on 13 November 2003, one at 10h12 and the other sent at 15h32 to which he had attached the draft notice of acceptance and draft consent order • his 9 June 2004 initial reply to my complaint • my 29 August 2004 response to Mr Gallagher's reply of 9 June 2004 (which had additional supporting appendices ) • his response of 11 October 2004 • mine of 31 October 2004 ( with, due to an error, an addendum, dated 2 November 2004 ) • my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council's decision of 27 January 2005 The subsequent exchange of letters (covered in detail under the Legal Services Ombudsman section) was: • From the Bar Council, letters of 30 March 2005 and 3 June 2005 and my reply of 22 June 2005 • From the LSO, the 1 April 2005 letter and my reply of 2 April 2005 ; letters of 8 April 2005 , 7 July 2005 and the 30 August 2005 decision. In the first section header in the summary of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher I wrote:
At this point I will add, to the above ' allegedly ' - and let the evidence speak for itself. As an introduction, at the 28 October 2003 meeting, I felt a palpable lack of support for my case from Mr Gallagher (as well as Ms McLean who spent a substantial part of the time focusing on the negatives - placing strong emphasis on the potential cost implications of my proceeding to trial and losing the case - instead of ensuring that I receive a balanced view. While I do not recall Mr Gallagher endorsing Ms McLean's opinion at the time, one of my ' alleged' accusations (supported by material evidence) is that Mr Gallagher subsequently aligned himself with Piper Smith Basham. As captured under points 30-32 of my 5 April 2004 complaint, feeling that they were both forgetting the circumstances of my case,
I also stated that, among others, what had happened was a breach of my Human Rights (Article 8 - "Right to respect for private life"; The First Protocole - Article 1 - "Protection of property". (Ms McLean captured some of my comments in her 28 October 2003 attendance notes) In fact, I could have added : "In the process, also committing criminal offences against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ; Malicious Communications Act 1988" (1) The service charge demand was an "interim demand"In her 15 July 2002 covering letter demanding payment of the sum of £14,000 (US$25,000), Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, wrote that the "sum.may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification or to problems encountered while the works are in progress" In the 29 November 2002 Particulars of claim (ref WL 203537), drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and filed by Ms Hathaway, the demand is described as an "interim payment" . More than a year later, Mr Gallagher endorsed this position at the time of the reply to the 21 October 2003 'offer' in his 17h09 email, 12 November 2003:
He continued to maintain this position "an interim demand" (point 5, 9 June 2004 ) and under point 3(1) of his 11 October 2004 reply in which he made two assertions:
(1.1) Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean ignored my lease - as well as the fact that the lease supplied with the claim against me, ref WL 203537 (1.1MB), is materially different from my lease - amounting to claiming obligations on my part that are falseIn a landlord-tenant dispute of this nature, it is PARAMOUNT to consider the terms of the lease. An element of my complaint is that during the 28 October 2003 meeting, Mr Gallagher (and Ms McLean # 7.8 ) were ignoring the terms of my lease. (My Diary 28 October 2003 ) The first point to note is that Mr Gallagher (and Piper Smith Basham) ignored the fact that the lease supplied to the court with the claim is materially different from mine on a critical aspect. The Particulars of Claim (ref. WL 203 537) (1.1MB) drawn by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and filed in court - under a Statement of Truth - by Ms Hathaway... NOTE in 2007 : See My Diary 9 March 2007 re. the issue under Civil Procedure Rules of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent'...state
This is NOT the case as:
(This is 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 )
I highlighted this in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim
- of which Mr Gallagher WAS SUPPLIED with a copy. (Capturing this in my defence, led to a 23 January 2003 letter from CKFT requesting a copy of my lease. I complied with the request) (CKFT # 6.7 ) I had also highlighted this to Ms McLean in my 21 August 2003 letter, one of the briefing documents I wrote at the time of appointing Piper Smith Basham
Ms McLean did NOT reply to this (Piper Smith Basham # 7.8 ) 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 ) I give this as example of evidence that, from the start, the game plan was to get me to strike a deal with 'Steel Services' While Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean claim to be specialists in landlord-tenant disputes, it was I - the client - who brought up the need to consider the terms of my lease. I did this by taking 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 they were both uneasy at my bringing this up. Of course, in the same way that this was not picked-up by the Bar Council, it was not picked-up by the Law Society in relation to my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham and my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor Mr Gallagher's position is based on: Clause (2)(2)(h) of my lease "The lessee shall if required by the lessor with every half yearly payment of the rent.pay to the lessor such sum in advance and on account of the service charge as the lessor or its agents shall from time to time specify at its or their discretion to be a fair and reasonable interim payment" My counter arguments - and evidence in support - are: (1.2) The 15 July 2002 demand positioned as an "interim demand" purports to be a Section 20 Notice. It is NOT as I was not provided with detailed costing at the time of the original demand.Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must consult a leaseholder for works exceeding £250 (US$440) in value - and this is done by means of a notice:
As I captured under point 8 of my 29 August 2004 reply, "It was not until 36 hours before the LVT hearing on 5 February 2003 - and therefore 7 months after I received the original demand for payment of £14,400.19 (US$25,400) (dated 17 July 2002 ) - that I was provided with a priced specification" The evidence is contained in the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database), under Point 14 -
Point 16 of the LVT report states -
The same damning evidence is also contained in Mr Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 report to the LVT, under point 2.04: ".the un-priced or priced Specification.has been. freely available for all lessees to view" . (Point 46, 25 March 2005 ) (See also LVT # 2 , # 3 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 , # 10.3 , # 10.5 ) (1.3) It was a demand for FULL PAYMENTThe 17 July 2002 demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) was a demand for full payment, being 1.956% of the £736,206 (US$1.3 million) demanded in the 15 July 2002 letter - based on the Killby & Gayford's overall sum. While this letter states that "the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification or to problems encountered while the works are in progress" , the 7 August 2002 application by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones to the LVT was for "determination of the reasonableness of the global sum demanded for the works" (LVT # 4 , # 6 ) The sum quoted by Killby and Gayford referred to ALL the works. This contractor responded to the specification produced by Mr Brian Gale. (Point 24, 29 August 2004 ) The works / nature of the works detailed in Mr Brian Gale's specification are so comprehensive that they amount to a total overhaul of the block: new roof; new lift; new boiler plant; new carpet throughout; new doors; new entrance; new lighting; new area for the porter; total repainting internal and external; installation of mechanical ventilation; replacement of some windows; re-pointing, etc. (Parts of the specification stem from lack of proper maintenance and upkeep of the block over a period of 12 years - and therefore in breach of the lease) (point 24, 29 August 2004 ) The LVT's remit is captured under point 2 of its 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report
And further confirmation that the LVT's remit was to consider the GLOBAL SUM for the works , is also found in: • The LVT's 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing directions • The LVT's reply 21 July 2003 to Mr Silverstone, CKFT, letter of 17 July 2003
• This led Mr Silverstone to reply on 21 July 2003
• Ms McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:
And Mr Andrew Ladsky and his 'puppets' were fully knowledgeable of this, as evidenced by the following: • The letter that Mr Andrew Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the LVT report :
• The 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Ms Hathaway (but I believe to have been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky ) is also quite clear on this point:
• In her 20 August 2002 letter Ms Hathaway asks that:
This "payment" is the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) - which is 1.956% of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) Among others, the list of the percentage contribution for each flat was attached to the 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal. (1.4) ...and it was an extortionate demand as the impact of the LVT determination was to reduce the original demand by nearly 70% (includes use of contingency fund)As evidenced by the LVT report, the 15 July 2002 demand was highly unreasonable: Based on my surveyor's assessment (as the LVT failed to provide a 'global' assessment, thereby failing to perform its remit ), the outcome of the LVT determination, in relation to the original global sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and 11% management fees) was:
Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded . In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was not considered as reasonable . (point 48, 29 August 2004 ) See also section on Mr Brian Gale which contains extracts from the LVT determination (*) In the £500,000 (US$882,000) I have included £141,977 (US$250,400) of contingency fund. My then Counsel raised it as an issue during the hearing as Steel Services / Martin Russell Jones had not used it as contribution towards the costs - and were refusing to do so, in spite of, among others, having stated this in the 7 June 2001 letter. (This is captured under point 34 of the LVT determination). (But it subsequently did in my case - see the 21 October 2003 'offer'. I believe this to be because, among others, I had the 7 June 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway) (CKFT # 6.3 ) Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force Steel Services to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2 (2)(e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the LVT report), under points 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code. Surely, this report makes it abundantly clear that further demands for the major works would be totally unjustified.It was a demand for FULL payment - and a highly extortionate one at that. (1.5) At the earliest, works would have only been completed well into the following yearThe works would have been taking place beyond June 2003, time by which, under the terms of my lease and of Section 21(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, Steel Services had to issue the year-end accounts given that the year-end for Jefferson House is December. Under points 24 and 25 of my 29 August 2004 I provided an explanation in support of my claim that the works would not have been completed before June 2003. This included the fact that the application to the LVT was filed by Ms Hathaway on 7 August 2002 . (Hence, barely three weeks after the 15 July 2002 demand which many leaseholders would probably have not received by then due to living overseas / the holiday period. It also means that, when Ms Hathaway sent her 20 August 2002 letter to the leaseholders stating a start date of "early October" - the application had by then been filed just seven working days previously). In filing the application, Steel Services was, in my opinion, relying on being able to 'steamroll' the application through the LVT with little opposition (in part because many leaseholders live overseas) and thereby get the 'official' seal of approval. (Evidence in support of this is the fact that the claim, WL 203 537, was filed in West London County Court exactly one month after the LVT had told us, i.e. the leaseholders, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, to NOT pay the service charge until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had therefore been implemented). (The LVT signed its report seven months later , on 17 June 2003 ) However, even if Steel Services had succeeded in 'steamrolling' its application, the earliest at which it could have obtained its 'official seal of approval' would have been in Q1 / early Q2 - of 2003 i.e. after the year-end for the accounts. As it turned out, my position on the duration of the works has been amply vindicated given that the works were started in August 2004 and were still taking place in May 2006 i.e. nearly two years after being started - and therefore FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL DEMAND - 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 3(1) of his 11 October 2004 reply Mr Gallagher wrote
I pointed out (point 6, 31 October 2004 )
Mr Gallagher knew that the works had NOT been started . Indeed, he captured this under point 29(6), 9 June 2004 - "(my) surveyor and (I) had expressed concern that the major works (which at that stage remained outstanding)." (Regarding the latter part of my reply: the last leaseholder 'capitulated' on 2 August 2004 . On the same day , Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, announced the appointment of a new contractor, Mansell, and the start of the works). (1.6 ) The 2001 year-end accounts do not reflect the demandIn her 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" Ms Hathaway had written: "It is planned to commence the internal refurbishment in the Autumn (i.e. of 2001) with the external refurbishment to follow on next Spring" . 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" My lease may be a bit of a hard read in some parts, but it does not require a PhD to understand it - including the sections which I view as relevant. In fact, these are quite clear and easy to understand. My lease states (point 26, 29 August 2004 ):
The demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) was dated 17 July 2002 (and the covering letter, 15 July 2002 ). As can be seen from the 2001 year-end accounts for Jefferson House, 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." (points 30 and 123, 29 August 2004 ) In addition (as I captured under point 49 of my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher):
(Ms Hathaway filed a claim (WL 203537) (1.1MB) against me in West London County Court for £14,400 (US$25,400). The impact of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) reduced the sum to £4,615 (US$8,135). Hence, in filing the claim under a ' Statement of Truth ' Ms Hathaway and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor who produced the claim - breached Clause (2)(2)(j) of my lease) In addition, I also draw your attention to:
(NB: I highlighted this clause in my 21 August 2003 letter to McLean "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" ) And, of course, to this must be added the fact that Steel Services made me an ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) (+ interest !)
Consider as well - as can be seen in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 West London County Court hearing - the comment Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, made about me
'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 # 3 , # 4) (1.7) In addition to breaching covenants in my lease, the service charge demand also amounts to a breach of my statutory rights under Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985Section 19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 states:
Mr Gallagher, the "property expert" did not take into consideration this breach of my rights when he wrote the reply to the 'offer'. WHY NOT? Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (2) Consequently, I did not need to be supplied with the year-end accounts and, in any case, my asking for the accounts would "only complicate matters and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms"Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 Opting to endorse Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones's positioning of the service demand as an "interim demand" Mr Gallagher consequently dismissed my request to be provided with the 2002 accounts because
He continues,
As detailed above, contrary to the terms of my lease, the original demand was NOT reflected in the 2001 accounts i.e. 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." . Yet, in her 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, had stated an intention "to start the works in the Autumn" (This intended future expenditure was not reflected in the 2000 year-end accounts ) In addition to the clauses in my lease detailed earlier on, I also draw attention to the following:
(see Pridie Brewster, the 'accountant' for Jefferson House ) In her 3 October 2003 letter, Ms McLean wrote,
In light of this attitude, I sent a 9 October 2003 letter to Martin Russell Jones requesting the accounts - IN VAIN ! (Martin Russell Jones # 37 ) (I finally obtained a copy two years later - of course after more battles: this time with Kensington & Chelsea Housing and the Local Government Ombudsman ) (2.1) Mr Gallagher's position amounts to endorsement of breach of covenant in my lease, and of my statutory rights - under which non-compliance amounts to committing a criminal offence.Subsequent note: In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Mr Stan Gallagher (and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham/Watton) have committed offences against me under: the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment 1997 (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, Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. The letter also highlights Section 25 of the Act that non-performance results in committing a criminal offence . As I captured under point 3 of my 31 October 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher, he knew that the 2001 accounts did not include "provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings" - and also knew that - 10 months after the year-end - I had not received the accounts for 2002. Yet in his email of 13 November 2003 , he described my request (in my 7 November 2003 fax) as
In reply to my complaint that I should have been provided with the accounts, and that in the Notice of Acceptance written by Mr Gallagher, the only reference made to the terms of my lease reads
Mr Gallagher wrote
My reply to Mr Gallagher was: "For whom?" (point 123, 29 August 2004 ) To which I will now add : WHY DID MR GALLAGHER TAKE THIS POSITION? And likewise: why did Piper Smith Basham endorse it? (PSB # 7.9 ) (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 consider this to be incorrect (See Pridie Brewster for further detail - including # 18 for what I discovered subsequently: 9 out of the 14 flats on the claim were made to pay the full amount ) As I continued arguing the point, under point 3(3) of his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote:
The first point to make about this is that I (and the other leaseholders) had specifically been told at the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing to NOT PAY the service charge - as evidenced by page 5 of the booklet that we were handed at the time (the Court of Appeal case, Daejan Properties v. LVT) That aside, I find this statement shocking and view it as an endorsement of abuse of my most basic rights (in addition to the endorsement of breach of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights). Under point 68 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, I wrote
Under point 26 I wrote
While under point 40, I captured "Your Committee has opted to ignore the fact that this exorbitant service charge demand was in breach of the terms of my lease e.g. Clause 2 (2) ( c) (ii) which states Lessor's duty to " maintain the annual service charge at the lowest reasonable figure consistent with the due performance and observance of its obligation herein" .." As detailed in the previous section, under point 3(1) of his 11 October 2004 reply Mr Gallagher wrote "As Ms Rawé notes in her response, the works had not been completed when the LVT made its determination. Consequently, I remain of the view that there was no viable contractual defence to the claim against Ms Rawé" (2.2) The works were started more than two years after the original demand was sentThe works were started only once Mr Ladsky et. al. had secured closure in the courts with the last valiant leaseholder. As can be seen, the Wandsworth County Court order is dated 2 August 2004 . On the same date, i.e. 2 August 2004, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, sent a letter announcing the start of the works. The 'so-called' " Description of the works " placed in the entrance, states the start date at September 2004. The works were still taking place in May 2006 - as can be seen in the Photo gallery ('So-called' because when compared with the evidence. See the compilation in this pack (2.4MB) highlighting the on-going lies and deceit). (See also Mr Brian Gale ) Mr Gallagher knew that the works had not been started . Indeed, he captured this under point 29(6), 9 June 2004 , "(my) surveyor and (I) had expressed concern that the major works (which at that stage remained outstanding)." The assessment by the Bar Council was:
As Mr Gallagher had described my wanting to be provided with the 2002 accounts as "a counter offer" under point 19 of my 25 March 2005 reply I wrote
I also pointed out that
While under point 67 I highlighted:
I followed this by capturing - yet again - clauses in my lease which clearly demonstrate that the approach and method used by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones-Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor breached my lease and added,
I highlighted that my not being provided with the accounts amounted to a breach of my statutory rights (point 20, 25 March 2005 ) I also drew attention to the fact that, having finally managed to obtain a copy of the 2002 accounts in February 2005 "Not surprisingly, they vindicate my conclusion that SS-MRJ had something to hide in not providing me the 2002 accounts by the time of the 21 October 2003 offer. They do not provide detail of "future costs, expenses and outgoings" - Clause 2 (2) (e) and Clause 2 (2) (f)." (point 21, 25 March 2005 ) (See also Pridie Brewster ) Under point 29 I wrote "In light of the above - in relation to my request for a copy of the 2002 accounts at the time of the 21 October 2003 offer - I again ask the question:
I AM STILL ASKING THIS QUESTION Considering the decision of the Bar Council - and of the Legal Services Ombudsman - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :Mr Gallagher "did not view that there was a technical defence of merit to the claim " (29(5), 9 June 2004) Having "reconsidered this conclusion in the light of the complaint" Mr Gallagher stated he "stood by it" (29(5), 9 June 2004 )
An 'alleged' accusation in my complaint (point 2.2 in the summary) against Mr Gallagher is that he (and Piper Smith Basham )
Mr Gallagher replied
|
