Email this site to a contact

 

Double-crossing - with the seal of approval of the Bar Council and Legal Services Ombudsman - who, in turn, has the seal of approval of the Lord Chancellor

Stan Gallagher & Bar Council - 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 Stan Gallagher and the Bar Council 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).

(To be added to the other 3 apartments).

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom the corrupt, amoral, double-dealing, cruel, vicious, sadistic and perverse Stan Gallagher, as well as Bar Council

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)

 

 

Introduction

As in her 03.10.03 letter, Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB), 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 PSB to 'act for me' at the 26 Aug 03 'hearing') (West London County Court # 11), I undertook desk research that led me to identify Stan Gallagher.

I communicated my choice in my 19.10.03 letter to McLean. Two days later, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) sent the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' from Andrew David Ladsky.

From liaising with PSB, CKFT and its client Ladsky realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a 19.10.03 Witness Statement, and was appointing a barrister. It is my belief that this triggered ' the offer'.

I opted to have Stan Gallagher advise me in relation to the 'offer' = BIG mistake..

The expectation that I would 'strike a deal' with 'Steel Services' i.e. Andrew David Ladsky had evidently - and typically - been the game plan all along...

....as evidenced by McLean's letter of 04.09.03 (i.e. from the very beginning of my relationship with PSB),

" 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 !!!]

By then, I had already communicated my objectives to McLean on 3 occasions: 28.08.03 , 03.09.03 and 09.09.03 letters - making it abundantly clear that I was not prepared to strike a deal.

To this are added the events surrounding my Witness Statement: page, My Wit.Stat. # 1.

McLean, my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock and I met with Stan Gallagher on 28 Oct 03 to discuss the reply to the 'offer'. Ahead of this meeting, McLean sent a 27.10.03 brief to Gallagher, as well as copy of some key documents e.g.

  • my surveyor's 31.07.03 assessment of the LVT report.

Back to list

Summary of events - Stan Gallagher 2003-05:

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

For context, see the Introduction, above.

Stan Gallagher was my nominated barrister for responding, by 13 Nov 03, to the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' made by 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky, through his solicitors CKFT (Overview # 3).

Hence, as in the case of 'my' solicitors, Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) - he was meant to 'act for me'.

(Other parties involved in the events: (1)- Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) ; (2)- Brian Gale ; (3)- the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) ; (4)- West London County Court (WLCC)

(For the conduct of the Ladsky mafia over the years, see Extortion)

In tandem with Richard Twyman and Lisa McLean, PSB, through collusion and conspiring, Stan Gallagher batted for Andrew David Ladsky (my profile v. Ladsky's: 'a brother')...

...by being hell-bent on aiming to coerce me and bully me into accepting his 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer'...

...- on terms the cabal had decided = leaving the door wide open for the Ladsky mafia to come back and ask me for more monies, while being equally hell-bent on sparing it any accusation of illegal conduct - by not challenging anything in 'the offer'.

= The typical residential leasehold sector mafia tactic: Overview Note 4 - evidenced irrebutably by the list of documents Gallagher was supplied with: from page 30 of his initial 09.06.04 reply to my complaint.

I provide an overview of the main events in my Comments attached to Gallagher's 13.11.03 'draft Consent Order and Notice of Acceptance' to Ladsky's 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer'.

Some of the following arose following my 04.04.05 complaint to the Bar Council against Gallagher (below, Snapshot of my complaints).

In reading this summary, bear in mind that, under para.23 of his 09.06.04 reply to my complaint, Stan Gallagher had taken pains to highlight that he was writing a book on litigation in the LVT (book ref). In other words, aiming to communicate that he was 'an authority' on this matter.

(1)- Outrageous endorsement of breaches of my Lease and of my statutory rights

(1)- Against the evidence, Stan Gallagher endorsed CKFT's position that the sum demanded for "the major works" (Overview # 1) was an "interim demand" (pt # 1.3 , pt # 1.4).

Under para.67 of my 25.03.05 reply to the Bar Council, I pointed that they were "alone in their interpretation of my lease" as I had obtained an opinion from "several other lawyers" (pt # 2.2)

(2)- In my 09.10.03 letter to Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then MRJ, I asked for "a long overdue copy of the 2002 accounts".

As, one month later, I had not received them, in my 07.11.03 instructions to Richard Twyman, I reported doing this, confirming my demand - "as per the terms of my Lease".

Under para.68 of my 25.03.05 reply to the Bar Council, I highlighted my disbelief at Gallagher's endorsement of breach of covenants in my Lease, and of my statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Section 21, as well as Section 25:

his 12.11.03-17h09 email: "...adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" (pt # 2 and pt # 2.1).

(Like me, Kensington & Chelsea Housing viewed non-performance as a breach of my statutory rights, including amounting to committing a criminal offence: the 25.06.04 s.21 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Notice it sent to MRJ: K&C # 1 and # 2).

(The reason for ignoring repeatedly my demands for the accounts is that many of my fellow leaseholders had been made to pay monies that were not due and payable: Overview # 3).

(3)- Gallagher ignored the fact that the "service charge" demand of 15.07.02 (invoice 17.07.02) (Overview # 1) breached several covenants in my Lease e.g. Clauses 2(2)(f) ; 2(2)(g)(i) and (2)(2)(j).

Evidenced in his "draft Notice of Acceptance", in which the sum total of his comments were:

"The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease" (pt # 1.6 , pt # 2 ; pt # 3.e.2 , pt # 7.1).

To my subsequently challenging him on this point, he replied (para.55, 09.06.04) "the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better".

To which my reply (para.123, 29.08.04) was "For whom?" (pt # 1.6 , pt # 2.1 ; pt # 2.2)

•  Para.3(3) of his 11.10.04 reply: "landlord's apparent breaches of the service charge accounting are not matters that negate a contractual obligation to pay service charges" (pt # 2.1) (Yep! That's what 'the expert on leasehold' wrote!)

I repeat my above reference to the typical sector's tactic.

(2)- Gallagher dismissed a £500,000 reduction in the sum demanded as immaterial, as well as endorsed other breaches of legislation

(1)Gallagher also turned a 'blind eye' to the very damning findings (LVT # 4) by the tribunal - 17.06.03 report - that had the effect of reducing the sum demanded by £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund) = a 70% reduction...

...- as the sum total of his comment in the Notice of Acceptance was: "...your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings." (pt # 7)

Yes, that is how Stan Gallagher interpreted what had been agreed at the 28 Oct 03 meeting - captured in Lisa McLean's 28.10.03 notes of the meeting:

"The reply to state 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..." (pt # 7)

Note also that, in her 03.10.03 letter to me (i.e. before the 28 Oct meeting), Lisa McLean wrote: "We had also discussed CKFT to prepare proper specification so that the items that were insufficient could be properly detailed...I accept that you had asked repeatedly for the specification. Where does this point take us now?" (PSB # 7.7) (Yep! She was meant to act 'for me'!)

Under para.58 of his 09.06.04 initial reply to my 04.04.05 complaint - Gallagher wrote:

"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works [see e.g. Brian Gale # 5 and # 6 for the extent of the "inadequacy"]

...there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered"

Para.3(2), 11.10.04 - "[Having] briefly considered whether there may have been an arguable breach of the statutory consultation procedure for "service chargeable" works under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985",

Gallagher "concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure"

Hence: "The landlord had produced inadequate specifications of the works and tendering "...but: had 'nonetheless' "complied substantially with statutory requirements"!

I repeat my above reference to the typical sector's tactic.

Of course the consultation procedure had been breached as the purpose of section 20 is to allow leaseholders to seek alternative quotes. How could this be done with Brian Gale's specifications (Gale # 6)? Because geared to ripping-off the leaseholders (Major works), they had been withheld from them (LVT # 2.1 , # 2.2 , # 3).

(Stan Gallagher's rather unique interpretation of s.20 requirements can also be seen in this 2005 Lands Tribunal case - which is very similar to mine - and adds support to my view) (website printscreen).

(2)- Further evidence that Gallagher turned a 'blind eye' to the LVT findings:

(1)- Under para.21 of his 09.06.04 reply, again repeated under para.8 of his 11.10.04 reply, he described the LVT report as '"a mix bag" [A "mixed bag" of 500,000 £ coins!]

(Note that the corrupt then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE, came to the rescue - by claiming: "The outcome of the determination was largely favourable for your landlord": LSO # 4)

My reply - para.72, 29.08.04: "Given that the LVT determination is the crucial element in the resolution of the dispute, isn't it rather telling that, out of his 29-page reply, it is the only comment that Mr Gallagher has made about the LVT determination? " (pt # 3 (a) ; pt # 3.a.1)

(2)- Following my challenge, Gallagher changed his tune as, in his subsequent reply of 11.10.04, he wrote:

  • Para.4(1)- "At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings"

(My 25.03.05 reply, para.38, in which I also drew attention to "the Bar Council Code of Conduct "303 (a) and (b) and 5. Conduct of work - 5.2").

  • Para.8 - "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" (pt # 3.a.2 , pt # 3.a.3)

(3)- Yet, Gallagher repeatedly brandished the threat of "costs" as a means of bullying and coercing me into accepting the 'offer' - as well as gave conflict opinions on it

In my instructions of 07.11.03 to Richard Twyman, I stated that 'Steel Services' should pay for my costs (a view endorsed by another solicitor I saw after the 28 Oct 03 meeting). (I had also stated this to PSB within days of my appointing it: my letter of 28.08.03 and 03.09.03).

Playing the typical Establishment's criminal psychological harassment game of going into silent mode, on this occasion, up to the day of the deadline for the response, with the aim of causing me distress and insecurity, as well as increase the chance of my accepting whatever I was told...

... the 'response' was a pack of lies and threats: 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail from Gallagher - stating, among other:

"I can only repeat my advice and that of Ms McLean that if this offer is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs" [NB: If facing kangaroo courts: yes].

v. what Gallagher stated in the preceding paragraph: "Most importantly, the offer (which strictly is not a Part 36 offer as it does not rely on the automatic cost consequences provided by Part 36 of the CPR) proposes that there be not order for costs".

It was either a 'part 36 offer', or it was not. Before I had seen this email from Gallagher, in my 13.11.03 fax to Twyman and Gallagher I had stated (citing a precedent) that 'the offer' breached CPR. I pointed out the discrepancy in Gallagher's position in my 13.11.03-12h26 email.

Note that, 3 weeks previously, in the process of 'preparing the ground', in her bullying 23.10.03 letter, McLean had also positioned it as 'a proper part 36 offer'.

Also in Gallagher's 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail: "...the show stopper is Ms Rawé's instructions that the proposal that each party bear their own costs is unacceptable and that any compromise is to be on terms that the claimant pay her costs...

it is not a realistic assessment of the strengths of the parties' respective position...it would be counter-productive to propose a settlement that involves the claimant paying Ms Rawe's costs..."

"Making such a counter offer will simply throw away the chance to accept an offer that I remain firmly of the opinion that Ms Rawé should accept"

In his 13.11.03-10h12 e-mail Gallagher repeated the same thing - as well as stated: "...it must be remembered that the point of making an offer is not to debate the issues in dispute [*], but to set out a realistic basis...to protect the litigant's position on costs"

"Again, I strongly advise Ms Rawé to accept the offer"

(*) I repeat my above reference to the typical sector's tactic.

•  In his initial 09.06.04 reply to my complaint, Gallagher most vehemently maintained his position.

I counted 10 instances in his 29-page reply - leading me to ask (para.67, 29.08.04):

"Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11.10.04 reply) (pt # 5.1)

Para.66 - "it was unrealistic for NKDR to seek an order for costs in her favour: each party paying their own costs (to the date of the offer) was as good an order on costs as NKDR could possibly get"

Para.67- "The balance of risks on costs was not finely balanced, it was all against NKDR and my advice reflected that"

Para.63(1)- "[I] was virtually certain to lose if the claim went to trial and costs would be awarded against [me] and certainly would not be awarded in [my] favour"

Para.49- "[he] and Ms McLean saw the offer, with its terms that each party pays its own costs as offering something of a life-line that NKDR would be ill advised not to accept"

"Having reconsidered this conclusion for the purpose of preparing this response, I do not resile from it in any way"

Para.64- "I remain firmly of the opinion that my very pessimistic assessment of NKDR's prospects was correct. PSB were similarly pessimistic..."

"I therefore gave advice to that effect in clear terms both in conference and in my email of 12th and 13th November 2003.

Para.65- "I consider that advice to be correct and that it was my duty to give it"

•  Para.7- 09.06.04 reply: "The fact that the LVT disallowed sums as unreasonable does not of itself mean that the verification of the facts contained in the landlord's Particulars of Claim was improper and would not in my opinion, result in a Court ordering the landlord to pay Ms Rawe's costs..."

= In Gallagher's opinion: it's okay for landlords to defraud leaseholders to the tune of £500,000, as well as commit contempt of court - including supporting a Statement of Truth-endorsed claim with a false contract.

Indeed, in 'his' reply to 'the offer', Gallagher ignored the fact that the lease supplied with the 29.11.02 claim - 'apparently' for apartment 23 - was materially different from my Lease - thereby amounting to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations (WLCC # 3 ; CKFT # 6.7 ; pt # 1.1 , pt # 9 , pt # 7.1)

Gallagher certainly makes a perfect match with the kangaroo courts!

Should I stubbornly persist with my position, going against 'my advisors' recommendation, I would be made to repent / learn my lesson:

• In the same 09.06.04 reply- para.66- "in the likely event that the defence fails, render a final bill for the costs of the litigation and remind the client that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given"

'REASONS'?

•  Para.29(5)- 09.06.04- "I did not view that there was a technical defence of merit to the claim" - 'because':

"[I] had refused opportunities to strike a deal"

• Para.66- 09.06.04- "consider the fact that NKDR had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions on settlement in the light of the LVT determination" ; and,

• Para.15- "[I] expressly rejected CKFT's offers of a round table."

(NB: Appropriately described as a salvo of highly malicious communications: CKFT # 3 - that concurrently ignored a large part of the LVT findings: CKFT # 6.6).

I also repeat my above reference to the typical sector's tactic.

"[I] had only made a part payment" / "not paid anything"

• 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail: "[I] had only paid £2,255 [US$4,000]: "it must be accepted that she is on risk for C's costs at least down to this figure at trial"

(For what actually happened, at the time - see CKFT # 6.6 , and related WLCC # 9 , # 10 and # 11)

• Para.8, 11.10.04 reply: "However, significant service charges remained payable and no payment into court or other offers to settle had been made by Ms Rawé. Hence my analysis that Ms Rawé was vulnerable on costs" [I repeat the same WLCC refs]

"Summary judgment had already been entered on part of the claim"

• Stated under para.66, 09.06.04 reply- (I repeat my above CKFT and WLCC refs for what actually happened).

• Para.6, 11.10.04 reply: "In these circumstances...the landlord's offer of a compromise on terms that there be no order for costs was a life-line for Ms Rawé" (!!!)

Then, as he had done in relation to the tribunal findings (above), on the question of "costs", Gallagher also changed his tune:

•  Para.6, 11.10.04- "I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" (pt # 3.a.3).

However, he then followed it by holding against me "[my] rejection of the previous offer of a round table discussion" (above)

In other words, from the above: Stan Gallagher held against me the fact that:

•  I had complied - for as long as I could - with the instructions given to me by the tribunal at the 29.10.02 pre-trial 'hearing' - to NOT pay - until it had issued its determination, and it had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand (LVT # 1.4 , # 1.5) - in line with statutory requirements and the terms of my Lease (pt # 3.e.1 , pt # 3.f.1)

•  I have moral principles and integrity that prevented me from striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my Lease - and as per my statutory rights (pt # 3.e.2)

I captured this under e.g. para.13 of my 31.10.04 reply to Gallagher - also stating: " 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, and so on"

(In my 09.08.03 letter to HM's District Judge Wright, WLCC, cc'd CKFT - I also made this abundantly clear (WLCC # 10)).

(4)- In 'his' Draft Consent, Gallagher took other steps to give Andrew David Ladsky the opportunity to ask me for even more monies

13.11.03 Draft Consent Order

"the Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of £6,513.24, inclusive of interest [1], 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" (2)

(1)- Accepting to pay interest was an admission that I had owed the sum demanded - which was, very clearly, not true. (But, a typical Ladsky mafia tactic: Portner & Jaskel # 14).

The fact it had been agreed that I would not (of course) pay the interest demanded (£143) (US$250) in the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' is captured in my 07.11.03 letter to Richard Twyman.

I repeated this in e.g. my 26.11.03 letter to McLean, and stated that an offline agreement had very clearly been reached - and I was not party to it.

In reply to my complaint, Gallagher (para.52, 09.06.04) and Piper Smith Basham/Watton (25.08.04) argued that: "In order to reach a settlement with the claimant it was better to agree to pay the interest." What a mafia!

As I pointed out in my replies, when I took back control of my case (in Dec 03), I refused to pay the interest: my 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance - and it was not challenged. How could it be, given what had taken place? (Case summary)

(2)- It most definitely did not meet what had been agreed - which: (i)- in his 12.11.03-17h09 email; (ii)- under Para.29(7)(ii) of his 09.06.04 reply, Gallagher defined as:

"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" (pt # 7 , pt # 8).

And, I had also captured this in my 07.11.03 instructions to Twyman, and repeated it in my 13.11.03-12h26 email - obviously expecting that this is what Gallagher would do.

As it was, what he wrote left the door wide open to Ladsky to come back and ask me for even more money.

(5)- To stop me from challenging the reply - because it did NOT reflect what had been agreed - Gallagher and Twyman gave me only 20 minutes, while I was at work, to review the documents I had not seen before - and then sent them to CKFT without my consent.

To his 13.11.03-15h32 email Gallagher attached 'his' 'draft acceptance and consent order'. To ensure sealing the obvious deal with Ladsky, he lied by stating that "it ought to be served by 4.00pm today".

20 minutes later, the other part of the double act, Richard Twyman sent me a 13.11.03-15h53 email - stating: "..will be sending the draft to the other side...as advised in the next 10 minutes or so".

Bear in mind that: I am at my work; I have never seen the drafts. I frantically went through the documents, and added brief comments:

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

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

I faxed the 'drafts' with my Comments to Richard Twyman at 16h37 - and did not hear anything.

The following day, I receive from Richard Twyman this 14.11.03 letter attached to an email - stating that he had "sent the drafts to CKKT by approximately 4pm...understanding this to be your instructions"

Of course, he had ignored my feedback, as his second lie was that he "received [my] comments at 17h37" - i.e. one hour later than the time I actually faxed them. (I was able to prove with irrebutable evidence: e.g. paras 75-83 of my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against PSB).

As to the proof that I had not given my agreement to what Twyman sent: in her 24.11.03 letter, Lisa McLean wrote: "Perhaps you can now confirm that the consent order may be signed, if that is your instructions...".

I stated in my 26.11.03 reply: "I am not endorsing a reply that does not in any way challenge the offer..."

And McLean continued with her attempts - as I reported in my 02.12.03 letter, copied to PSB's senior partner: "This is now the fifth time that I am pointing out to you / your firm that the reply does not reflect what we agreed" - and then asked for the agreed reply to be sent, in replacement of what Twyman had sent.

The ongoing 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 his “for the sake of bringing an end to the dispute”. (I was dreaming!: Overview # 6).

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

(6)- Gallagher then claimed that "[his] strategy worked"

Under para.78 of his 09.06.04 reply, Gallagher claimed: "the strategy that I advised on worked: the tweaked offer was accepted"

Obviously Andrew David Ladsky was very keen to have this Consent Order endorsed by the court - as evidenced by Ayesha Salim's 19.11.03 letter to Piper Smith Basham/Watton "...endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court." (See My 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement for surrounding events).

As I wrote under paras 52, 55, 56 and 79 of my 25.03.05 reply to the Bar Council: "There was no 'tweaking' - as he just said 'amen' to everything. Of course his reply was received with open arms"

(I did not pay Stan Gallagher's fees (of £1,440). Having raised this in his initial reply to my complaint, he did not follow it up).

Back to list

Breaches of the law - Stan Gallagher 2003-05:

(See, above, Summary of events)

In - my non-lawyer opinion (*) - Stan Gallagher 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 Stan Gallagher, followed by Bar Council, 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 complaint firstly with Stan Gallagher: 20.01.04, and his Chamber, Arden Chamber: 26.01.04 (Doc library # 2.3).

Arden Chambers' failure to reply led me to file a 05.04.04 complaint with the Bar Council (Doc library # 2.4).

The Bar Council's 27.01.05 rejection of my complaint led me to escalate my complaint to the then Legal Services Ombudsman: 25.03.05 (Doc library # 3.2 ; LSO # 4).

All with the same outcome: 'Get lost!'

Overall, these complaints have cost me c.330 hours of my life, and c.£380 in costs.

Back to list

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

[ ]

(In addition, the loss of the majority of my spare time from 13 November 2003 and, in fact, starting after the 28 October 2002 meeting - over 200 hours (= SIX WEEKS, based on a 35- hour week), as well as the time I continued having to take off my annual leave (visits to the Citizen Advice Bureau, the courts (LINK) ) during the on-going battle with CKFT (LINK!), as well as the courts over the following seven months)

My Diary 13 Nov 03: I was in a state of extreme stress and anguish.

The sheer utter hell I went through from (My Diary) Nov 03 because of him

Back to list

 

A - My complaint against Stan Gallagher kick-started the 'reject machinery' of his trade association i.e. the Bar Council

My complaint against Stan 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 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 that I should approach his Chambers complaints department.

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

"...abuse of fiduciary relationship by giving me biased, unbalanced advice, ignoring highly material facts and non-compliance with what had been agreed in relation to a 'Landlord-Tenant' £14,400.19 service charge dispute....with detrimental consequences, including on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position"

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. In the process, Scott was unjustifiably taking the blame for Arden Chambers' failure to reply:

"I am sorry about any confusing messages Mr Gallagher received from our offices. I fear it has been impossible to find out exactly what happened here but I do not hold Mr Gallagher or Chambers to blame.

In accordance with the Bar Council's policy, Chambers should consider a complaint, in the first instance, if made directly to them.. I would therefore be grateful if Chambers would now consider this complaint and let me know the outcome in due course"

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 - stating the same thing:

"I am afraid I have not been able to verify exactly what happened between our offices and Chambers but I am quite clear that the Bar Council policy is that Chambers should deal with a complaint, if made to them, in the first instance. So, Chambers will now consider your complaint. If you are not subsequently satisfied, please return to me"

 

I concluded from these letters that the trade association 'machinery' had been set in motion, in so far as the Bar Council was unjustifiably taking the blame for Arden Chambers not responding to my complaint after a period of two months.

Furthermore, in the process, the Bar Council was 'turning a blind eye' to one of its members' breach of the Bar Council Code of Conduct.

So, yet again, I was dealing with another so called 'regulatory body' that WAS NOT GOING TO BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS IT

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 :

"Given what you say, I am perfectly happy to investigate your complaint.

However, I must say I think it is a pity, despite your reservations, that Arden Chambers had not had the opportunity to do so (possibly due to the misunderstanding between our offices) especially as I received a letter agreeing to do so from Mr Carter dated 4 May.

It might well have been that they could have given you satisfaction and, if not, you could then have come to me, giving you two rungs of the ladder, so to speak"

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 5 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).

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

".it is in everybody's best interest for this matter to be resolved quickly" .

As I wrote in my 29 August 2004 reply,

" Evidently, this view is not shared by Mr Gallagher as it took 5 months for me to get his reply. During this 5 month period from the end of January 2004 to the beginning of July 2004 it would have been considerably more convenient for me to deal with Mr Gallagher's 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:

"The Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of the General Council...decided that there was no professional misconduct or inadequate professional service on the part of Mr Gallagher.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed"

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

"Under the rules, there is no mechanism for you to appeal this decision.If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been considered by the Bar Council, you may approach the LSO."

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:

"I take the view that the Bar Council's response to your complaint namely that you failed to disclose a sufficient case of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional service against Mr Gallagher, was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified for the reasons given in their letter dated 27 January 2005"

(See the end of this section, as well as Legal Services Ombudsman for further detail)

Although I am not a lawyer, I very strongly believe that I have a legitimate complaint against Stan 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.

Back to list

B - Summary of Stan Gallagher's position

Mr 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" "

(1.1) Stan Gallagher and Lisa McLean ignored my lease - as well as the fact that the lease supplied with the claim against me, ref WL 203 537, is materially different from my lease - amounting to claiming obligations on my part that are false

(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

(1.3) It was a demand for FULL PAYMENT

(1.4) ...and it was an extortionate demand as the impact of the LVT report was to reduce the original demand by nearly 70% (includes use of contingency fund)

(1.5) At the earliest, works would have only been completed well into the following year

(1.6 ) The 2001 year-end accounts do not reflect the demand

(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 1985

(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"

(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

(2.2) The works were started more than two years after the original demand was sent

(3)     I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :

  (a)      The LVT report was a "mix bag"

(3.a.1) Mr Gallagher was unable to highlight one valid example to substantiate his comment that the report was "a mix bag" - which, very tellingly, was the only thing he had said about the report in his 29 page reply

(3.a.2) All that was expected of Mr Gallagher was to recognise the findings from the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database)

(3.a.3) In Mr Gallagher's eyes a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) of the global sum demanded (inc. contingency fund) "is not likely to carry much, if any weight on the court proceedings"

(3.a.4) Consider also the horrendous pressure I was put under to accept the 'offer' e.g.

  (b)    " The landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure"

(3.b.1) Mr Gallagher has a rather unique interpretation of Section 20 requirements - and a Lands Tribunal case (which is very similar to mine) supports my view

  (c)      My surveyor had "demonstrated" , this then changed to had "said that the offer could not be bettered" and that "was a central point"

(3.c.1) It is NOT true . My surveyor neither stated nor demonstrated this

  (d)      The "Part 36 Offer" was "not a pre-action offer"

(3.d.1) I hold the view that the 'offer' fails to meet the requirements defined by Lord Woolf

(3.d.2) Neither Mr Gallagher, nor Mr Twyman provided me with any feedback on identifying this

  (e)      I had refused opportunities to strike a deal ( "not accepted invitations to attend discussions" )

(3.e.1) As can be seen in the following statement, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that I was not prepared to make a deal

(3.e.2) Secondly, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact I have strong moral principles that prevented me from being treated differently from the other lessees i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease:

  (f)       I had "only paid £2,255" (US$4,000)

(3.f.1) In his accusation Mr Gallagher overlooked the fact that I had paid this amount - even though I did NOT owe it - and, by implication, he held against me the fact that I had obeyed, for as long as I could, the directions given to me by the tribunal

(3.f.2) And Mr Gallagher positions himself as an expert on LVTs - including writing a book...

  (g)       A "summary judgement had been entered against me"

(3.g.1) Yet again, Mr Gallagher overlooked the facts of the case

(4)     Given Mr Gallagher's assessment that I was in a "very weak position" I consequently "could not ask Steel Services to pay for my costs ". In fact, I should be very grateful that Steel Services had made me an offer without costs

(4.1) The threat of the 'costs', combined with an assessment that I was in a "very weak position", became the 'major weapon' at the time of the reply to induce me to accept the 'offer' - as evidenced by the following:

(5)     As "the balance of risks was all against me" , if I did not accept this "life line" and the matter proceeded to trial, I would live to repent / learn my lesson when "in the likely event that the defence fails" I would be faced with a "final bill" and be "reminded that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given"

(5.1) My reply included asking: "Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?"

(6)     Mr Gallagher advised that the offer be "accepted subject to tweaking"

(7)     Mr Gallagher considered that he had "tweaked the notice of acceptance" , "reflecting what had been agreed"

(7.1) The Notice Of Acceptance drafted by Mr Gallagher does not challenge a single statement in the ' offer'

(7.2) Two points which, it was agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting were not worth mentioning, make-up 50% of the contents of the letter

(8)     Mr Gallagher considered that he had "tweaked the consent order" , "reflecting what had been agreed"

(8.1) As demonstrated by the 'black on white' evidence Mr Gallagher did not do this

(9)     My overall conclusion on the reply written by Mr Gallagher - and sent by Mr Twyman without my consent - is that, evidently, my 'advisers' did not consider...

(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"

(12)    Furthermore, Mr Gallagher knows what he is talking about as he has "considerable experience of these types of disputes" , including "litigation in LVTs" as he was "writing a book on this subject on which he would be pleased to expand"

(13)    In conclusion, Mr Gallagher rejected my claim of malpractice against him, as he did not consider himself "guilty of any professional misconduct"

(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:

(17) Follow-up events: An amasing display of U-turns and pirouettes by the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman

(18) And the 'PIECE DE RESISTANCE'...

(19) My conclusions

Back to list

C - My evidence in support of my complaint

The 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:

"Giving me incomplete and wrong advice and not taking the opportunity to remedy the situation in spite of my highlighting the shortcoming of the advice / emphasising the binding nature / relevance of legal documents (an action which, as the client, I should not have had to take) - leading me to suffer a detrimental outcome"

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 McLean's opinion at the time, one of my 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,

"In an attempt to summon support, I pointed out during the meeting that I had ended up in this situation through no fault of my own, other than having asked the following question:  "You want £14,400 (US$25,400) from me, what are you going to spend it on?"

I added that we were in the year 2003, not medieval times.

Yet, not only was I put in this situation because I had dared to ask the question, I had also, as a result, suffered extensive harassment and intimidation, as well as assault, resulting in my being constantly in fear for my life" .

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". (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"

Back to list

(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:

"the claim concerns on account demands based on pre-estimates of the cost of the works, rather than on the actual costs of the works" .

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:

".under the terms of Ms Rawé's lease, an accountant's certificate is not a condition precedent to an obligation to pay an interim charge: the claim against Ms Rawé was for non-payment of an interim service charge demand.   In this connection I note that, contrary to what Ms Rawé says, the sum claimed in the claim against Ms Rawé was a sum payable as an interim (i.e. on account, or in advance of the expenditure being incurred) demand

- the fact that a pre-estimate of the total cost of the works was demanded does not render the demand a final demand, rather than an interim or an account demand". ".under the terms of Ms Rawé's lease, an accountant's certificate is not a condition precedent to an obligation to pay an interim charge."

NB: Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

Back to list

(1.1) Stan Gallagher and Lisa McLean ignored my lease - as well as the fact that the lease supplied with the claim against me, ref WL 203537, is materially different from my lease - amounting to claiming obligations on my part that are false

In 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'. The fact that West London County Court proceeded with the claim amounts to a very serious breach of CPR.

...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 ."

This is NOT the case as:

•  Clause 2 (2)(c)(i) of the lease 'apparently' for flat 23 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)..."

(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 )

•  My lease states under Clause (2)(c)(i) " The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year. shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings...by the aggregate of the rateable value (in force at the end of such year) of all the flats in the Building. and then multiplying the resultant amount by the rateable value (in force at the same date) of the Flat " .

I highlighted this in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim

"Part of my lease is different from that supplied to the County Court"

- 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 McLean in my 21 August 2003 letter, one of the briefing documents I wrote at the time of appointing Piper Smith Basham

"Their claim against me is part of the same claim against other lessees - even though my lease is different from that attached by CKFT to their application to the Court. 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?"

McLean did NOT reply to this (Piper Smith Basham # 7.8 )

I hold the view that Mr Gallagher and 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 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 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

THE CLAN!

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:

Back to list

(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:  

"The notice shall describe the works to be carried out and invite observations on them and on the estimates."

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 report (ref #992 on the LVT database), under Point 14 -

"Ms Hathaway (of Martin Russell Jones), on behalf of the Applicant, resisted the application for an adjournment. She maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification in the porter's room, but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version " (point 8, 29 August 2004 )

Point 16 of the LVT report states -

"In the interest of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment." (Point 12, 29 August 2004 )

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)

Back to list

(1.3) It was a demand for FULL PAYMENT

The 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)

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 legal remit, defined by s.19 of the L&T Act 1985 is captured under point 1 of its 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report

“1. The Tribunal was dealing with an application to determine the reasonableness of a service charge to be incurred under Section 19 (2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985”

Followed by 2. " the application concerns major works set out in a specification prepared by Brian Gale Associates and priced by Killby & Gayford" (point 24, 29 August 2004 )

And further confirmation that the LVT's legal remit was to consider the GLOBAL SUM for the works , is also found in:

•  The then LVT's 29 October 2002 pre-trial 'hearing' directions "The application is for the Tribunal to determine the reasonableness of the refurbishment and repairs work proposed by the applicants at a cost of 736,206.09”

•  The LVT's reply 21 July 2003 to Silverstone, CKFT, 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"

•  This led Silverstone to reply on 21 July 2003

"We are mindful of the fact that the LVT was, in fact, in a position to make a determination of the sums that it considered to be reasonable based on the evidence that it received at various hearings"

•  McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:

"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" (NB: My highlights)

And Andrew Ladsky and his 'puppets' were fully knowledgeable of this, as evidenced by the following:

•  The letter that Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the LVT report :

"Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works."

•  The 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Ms Hathaway (but I believe to have been written by Ladsky ) is also quite clear on this point:

". the Chairman of the tribunal's instructions where he indicated that the tribunal was concerned with the reasonableness of service charges as set out in Section 19 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985"

•  In her 20 August 2002 letter Ms Hathaway asks that:

"[I] make payment. by 16 September so that the funds are in hand to cover the cost of the work."   .  

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.

Back to list

(1.4) ...and it was an extortionate demand as the impact of the LVT report 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 then LVT failed to provide a 'global' assessment, thereby failing to perform its legal remit ), the outcome of the LVT report, 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 48, 29 August 2004 )

•  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 48, 29 August 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 48, 29 August 2004 ) (LVT # 4.1)

See also section on Brian Gale which contains extracts from the LVT report

(*) 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 report).

(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.

Back to list

 

(1.5) At the earliest, works would have only been completed well into the following year

The 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 then London 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 report 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

"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"

I pointed out (point 6, 31 October 2004 )

"Correction: the works had not started. They were started 14 months later (only once Steel Services had achieved closure on the court proceedings against the 11 residents)"

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).

Back to list

(1.6 ) The 2001 year-end accounts do not reflect the demand

In 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, 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 ):

•  Clause 2(2)(d) "As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. the lessor shall cause the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee for such financial year to be determined by an accountant."

•  Clause 2(2)(e) ". the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the lessor during the relevant financial year of the lessor shall be deemed to include not only the costs expenses and outgoings which have been actually disbursed incurred or made by the lessor during the relevant year.

but also the sum or sums   (hereinafter called the 'contingency payment) on account of any other costs expenses and outgoings (not being of an annually recurring nature) which the lessor shall have incurred at any time prior to the commencement of the relevant financial year or shall expect to incur at any time after the end of the relevant financial year .

as the accountant may in his reasonable discretion consider it reasonable to include (whether by way of amortization of costs expenses and outgoings already incurred or by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings) in the amount of the service charge for the relevant financial year"

•  Clause 2(2)(f) "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.

and in the accountant's certificate, shall certify. that the sum specified as aforesaid represents the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee.. "

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):

'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$8,135)

(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 report (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:

•  Clause 2(2)(c)(ii) of my lease which states "The lessor will use its best endeavours to maintain the annual service charge at the lowest reasonable figure consistent with the due performance and observance of its obligations"

(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 !)

In light of the above, I hold the view that Martin Russell Jones , CKFT , Piper Smith Basham and Mr Stan Gallagher 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.

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

"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 # 3 , # 4)

Back to list

(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 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 Gallagher, the "property expert" did not take into consideration this breach of my rights when he wrote the reply to the 'offer'. WHY NOT?

Back to list

(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

"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"   (17h09 email, 12 November 2003).

He continues,

"Moreover, the terms of response that Ms Rawé sets out in her faxes do not constitute a realistic basis for settling the claim and will not be accepted by the Claimant. (NB: Oh dear! Let's not be vexatious to a sacrosanct landlord! i.e. Andrew Ladsky)

I must advise that I cannot see the point of responding in those terms. By this I do not mean to be unkind, but it must be remembered that the point of making an offer is not to debate the issues in dispute, but to set out a realistic basis to compromise the claim and (if the claim is not settled) to protect the litigant's position on costs (NB: 'the costs!' the favoured weapon!)" (10h12 email, 13 November 2003)

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:

Clause 2(2)(b) "..financial year means the financial year of the lessor for which the amount of the service charge is being determined"   (the year-end for Jefferson House is 31 December)

Clause 2(2)(f) "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 .and in the accountant's certificate, shall certify:

"that in his opinion the said summary represents a fair summary of the said costs and outgoings set out in a way which shows how they are or will be reflected in the service charge"

Clause 2(2)(g)(i) "As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year the lessor shall furnish to the lessee an account of the service charge payable by the lessee for such financial year together with a copy of the accountant's certificate ."

(see Pridie Brewster, the 'accountant' for Jefferson House )

In her 3 October 2003 letter, 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 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 )

Back to list

(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.

(I repeat my subsequent note under # 2, above)

(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

".similarly adding conditions for the disclosure of accounts and details of trust fund arrangements can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms."

In reply to my complaint that I should have been provided with the accounts, and that in the Notice of Acceptance written by Mr Gallagher, the only reference made to the terms of my lease reads

"The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease",

Mr Gallagher wrote

"the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better" ( point 55, 9 June 2004 )

My reply to Mr Gallagher was: "For whom?" (point 123, 29 August 2004 )

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:  

"landlord's apparent breaches of the service charge accounting are not matters that negate a contractual obligation to pay service charges."

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

"In Mr Gallagher's book, landlords have carte blanche to do exactly as they please - including incorrectly referring to a demand as an interim payment and issuing action for non-payment, as well as subsequently making another demand (the offer) - also in breach of the terms of my lease.

The outcome of Mr Gallagher's position is that the contract i.e. the lease - signed by the landlord and the lessee - works in only one direction: that of the landlord.

I also quoted from the Bar Council Code of Conduct (Extracts) about the obligations it imposes on barristers.

Under point 26 I wrote

"While Mr Gallagher opted to ignore the fact that the lease supplied with the claim against me is materially different from mine (as it amounts to saying: "Give your cheque book to the lessor who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice"), it still does not change the terms of my lease"  

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"

Back to list

(2.2) The works were started more than two years after the original demand was sent

The works were started only once Ladsky et. al. had secured closure in the courts with the last valiant leaseholder (WLLC # 14).

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 highlighting the on-going lies and deceit). (See also 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:

"The Committee was satisfied that Mr Gallagher's advice was realistic and Ms McLean's attendance note of the conference on 28 October 2003 shows that Mr Gallagher carefully considered the options open to you before recommending acceptance of the offer"

This assessment is hilarious when read in the context of the subsequent feeble and laughable 'get out clause' from Mr Gallagher, 'dutifully' reported by the Bar Council in its 3 June 2005 letter

"Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about 3 weeks. "

...and also 'dutifully' captured by the Legal Services Ombudsman in her 30 August 2005 reply to my complaint against the Bar Council

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 certainly would not describe my request as a 'counter-offer' - as it relates to compliance with the terms of my lease"

I also pointed out that

'I' raised the issue of breach of the terms of my lease which, as the client, I certainly should not have had to do.

The fact that no reference is made to my lease in Ms McLean's attendance note is damning evidence against Mr Gallagher (and PSB/W):   they position themselves as 'experts' in landlord-tenant disputes in which the terms of leases play the most critical part - and they ignore my lease - in spite of my raising it at the meeting" (point 66, 25 March 2005)

While under point 67 I highlighted:

"For your information, CKFT and Mr Gallagher are alone in their interpretation of the terms of my lease. My position stems from the opinion I obtained from several lawyers at: LEASE, the Federation of Private Resident Associations, and other lawyers I consulted - and is further supported by the aforementioned"

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,

"You have opted to ignore the fact that Mr Gallagher dismissed my request for the 2002 accounts" (point 19, 25 March 2005 )

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:  

"Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (point 136, 29 August 2004 )

I AM STILL ASKING THIS QUESTION

Back to list

(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)

Back to list

(a) The LVT report was a "mix bag"

My claim accusation in my complaint (point 2.2 in the summary) against Mr Gallagher is that he (and Piper Smith Basham )

"In effect, opt(ed) to ignore the findings contained in the 17 June 2003 report from the LVT - (principally that some £200,000 (US$352,700) of works are not specified/ lack specification) as the only reference to this in the reply reads:   ".your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings." - thereby, (as in the case of the reference to my lease), making it impossible to understand the issue

This is in spite of my surveyor having, for the 28 October 2003 meeting:   (i) documented his assessment of Steel Services' revised costs supplied with the offer;   (ii) taken Mr Gallagher through a detailed explanation of his assessment, including referring extensively to the LVT report in the process of explaining his conclusions. (Mr Gallagher had been provided with a copy of the LVT report ahead of the meeting)"

Mr Gallagher replied

"There was no question of Ms McLean or I ignoring the LVT's findings. The outcome of the LVT's proceedings was foremost in my mind." (point 9, 11 October 2004 ) (NB: Note the "foremost in our mind")

Back to list

(3.a.1) Mr Gallagher was unable to highlight one valid example to substantiate his comment that the report was "a mix bag" - which, very tellingly, was the only thing he had said about the report in his 29 page reply

Proof that the LVT report was most definitely NOT "foremost" in Mr Gallagher's "mind" at the 28 October 2003 meeting - and subsequently - is that in his initial reply he stated that the LVT report was "a mix bag" (point 21, 9 June 2004 )

To me, this creates a perception that, overall, there was not much substance in the report i.e. the LVT found relatively little to fault Steel Services. (Definition from The New Collins Concise English dictionary of "mixed bag": "Inference: something composed of diverse elements" )

To this I replied, (point 72, 29 August 2004 ), "Really? In what way? "  

It led me to provide comprehensive highlights from the LVT's, as well as my surveyor's report (points 32-47, 29 August 2004 ) and a summary of the impact of the LVT report (point 48) on the global sum demanded and, consequently, my share of it. (See above 1. "The service charge demand was an "interim demand" for a summary)

Mr Gallagher's comment also prompted me to say (under point 72)

"Given that the LVT determination is the crucial element in the resolution of the dispute, isn't it rather telling that, out of his 29 page reply, it is the only comment that Mr Gallagher has made about the LVT determination? "

In response to my challenging his comment, Mr Gallagher replied, (point 8, 11 October 2004 )

"in my reply (of 9 June 2004) I did not elaborate on the LVT's determination. This was because it speaks for itself - like most LVT service charge disputes, it was a mix bag. For example, the LVT accepted, rightly, that they had no jurisdiction to direct payments out of the contingency fund."

As can be seen : Mr Gallagher is NOT replying to my question

(The point about the LVTs lack of jurisdiction over the use of contingency funds (captured under point 34 of the LVT/SC/007/120/02 report, ref #992 on the LVT database) does not in anyway impact on its very damning findings - which, as it happens, under point 34, criticises 'Steel Services' i.e. Ladsky et. al. for not using the contingency fund).

While the LVT report does not (unfortunately) include a summary (see LVT # 4.2), I do not believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would describe it as a "mixed bag ".

(I also draw attention to the fact that the LVT report fully supports my surveyor's 24 February 2003 assessment of the specification). (LVT # 4.1).

Mr Gallagher also responded to my comments in another part of his reply (point 4(1), 11 October 2004, starting off with a 'red herring' : he states that he "was not instructed to advise on an appeal" .

He continues: [his]

"advice was limited to the likely impact of the LVT's determination on the related, and then on-going, county court proceedings. I therefore did not enter into a detailed analysis of the merits of the LVT decision"

Back to list

(3.a.2) All that was expected of Mr Gallagher was to recognise the findings from the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database)

Mr Gallagher then adds (point 4(1), 11 October 2004):

"At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings"

To which I replied (point 17, 31 October 2004)

"Indications are that (in spite of the conduct of West London County Court) Mr Gallagher's view was not shared by Steel Services as it made sure that it had closure with all the Residents listed on the claim before announcing the start of the works.

As I wrote under point 132 of my 29 August 2004 reply: "..I put it to Mr Gallagher that Steel Services desperately wanted to prevent the case from reaching this stage [trial]."

Please note the "At the time" in Mr Gallagher's response...

...and consider that my 29 August 2004 reply to him did NOT include any new information to what he had been supplied with - which included, among others:

•  copy of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (re #992 on the LVT database)

•  a comprehensive face-to-face discussion with my surveyor on the findings, who stressed, not only the very damning findings captured by the LVT, but also the fact that the 'so-called' "revised costs" provided in July 2003 by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor did not properly address the LVT report , and they were still not properly addressed at the time of the 'offer'

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.

•  a copy of my 7 November 2003 letter in which, among others, I once again highlighted that the lack of specification identified by the Tribunal has not been addressed, stating that I calculated this as amounting to an overcharge of £1,735 (US$3,000) relative to the ' offer '.

Back to list

(3.a.3) In Mr Gallagher's eyes a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) of the global sum demanded (inc. contingency fund) "is not likely to carry much, if any weight on the court proceedings"

Please note that Mr Gallagher "DID NOT CONSIDER" that a reduction of nearly 70% (including use of the contingency fund) of the claim filed against me, following the LVT report, was

"likely to carry much, if any weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings"

One of the major items on which the LVT said to be unable to make a determination was the boiler due to lack of specification.   Please note that the sum demanded for the boiler was £89,824 (US$158,000).

Therefore, with the addition of VAT and management fees the total amount is £117,153 (US$206,600).

The addition of other items for which the LVT said to be unable to make a determination brought the total to £190,000 (US$335,000), or 25% of the global sum demanded. (See Mr Brian Gale)

A Section 20 Notice was NOT issued following the LVT report (as evidenced in my surveyor's assessment ). (Martin Russell Jones # 29 , # 28 )

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:  

"The notice shall describe the works to be carried out and invite observations on them and on the estimates."

Hence, a detailed specification must be drawn-up before a Section 20 is issued. Considering my 1.956% of the service charge, the cost of the boiler alone greatly exceeds £250 (US$440).

The reason a notice was not issued is because Ladsky et. al. had no intention of implementing the tribunal's report, opting instead to bully , intimidate and coerce the leaseholders into getting them to pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 3 , # 6.1 , # 6.3 , # 6.6 ) (Martin Russell Jones # 25 , # 26 ) (Pridie Brewster # 18 ) Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

Having made the above statement (point 4(1)), later on in his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote

"I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" (point 8)

"I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs"   (point 6)

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

Consider (as detailed earlier on), what Mr Gallagher had stated in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 to my complaint

"did not view that there was a technical defence of merit to the claim" (point 29(5))

Having "reconsidered this conclusion in the light of the complaint"

Mr Gallagher stated he "stood by it" (point (29(5))

Back to list

(3.a.4) Consider also the horrendous pressure I was put under to accept the 'offer' e.g

If I "did not accept the offer and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the claimant's costs" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

(I repeat my subsequent note under # 2, above)

As I captured in my reply (point 25, 31 October 2004), my responses led to

"a very significant 'climb down' by Mr Gallagher".

Please, consider also the pressure I was placed under by McLean to accept the 'offer'. For example, during the 28 October 2003 meting with Mr Gallagher, on two occasions, she 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)

Please, note that:

•  McLean had attended the last day of the then London LVT hearing on 28 April 2003; had a copy of the 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).

•  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 this 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) (Contrast this as well with the compilation of some of the evidence contained in this pack)

Please, note also that Ms McLean knew full well that Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones had not redrawn the specifications following the LVT report. This is further evidenced by the following:

Her 4 September 2003 letter

".letter to CKFT. We discussed at length sending a draft letter asking them to detail heir specifications so that you could know exactly what it is you were being asked to pay for"

Her 3 October 2003 letter

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

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

(Piper Smith Basham # 7.4.3 , # 7.7 )

In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 37), I wrote

"Your Committee has opted to ignore the fact that the impact of the LVT determination was to reduce the sum demanded of me by nearly 70% from £14,400 (US$25,400) down to £4,615 (US$8,140) i.e. a difference of £9,785 (US$17,300) . Likewise, your Committee has opted to ignore Mr Gallagher's claims / excuses" .

At which point, I captured the evidence I had previously highlighted / supplied.

I also stated

Taking the LVT decision on board was all that was required of him. He opted to not do this"

While under point 38 I highlighted Mr Gallagher's comment (point 4(1), 11 October 2004 ) that

"At the time" he "did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any weight on the question of costs in the court proceedings" and wrote:

"At the time". I read this as an admission that Mr Gallagher had not acknowledged the evidence supplied to him. (Which is obvious)" .

I draw your attention to the Bar Council Code of Conduct "303 (a) and (b) and 5. Conduct of work - 5.2.

Back to list

(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :

(b) "The landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure"

(3.b.1) Mr Gallagher has a rather unique interpretation of Section 20 requirements - and a Lands Tribunal case (which is very similar to mine) supports my view

Having

".briefly (NB!!!) considered whether there may have been an arguable breach of the statutory consultation procedure for "service chargeable" works under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985" ,

Mr Gallagher

"concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure" (point 3(2), 11 October 2004)

Compare this against point 58 of Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply:

"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered "

In addition to viewing Mr Gallagher's 11 October 2004 reply as an attempt to 'recover' from his 9 June 2004 'mistake' (triggered by my subsequent reply of 29 August), I also view him as having a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case (website printscreen) - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view

I have argued the following:

•    "The "procedure" adopted by Steel Services and Martin Russell Jones is in breach of Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (point 9, 29 August 2004 ) as Section 20(4)(b) states "A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of those tenants or shall be displayed in one or more places where it is likely to come to the notice of all those tenants" (point 10, 29 August 2004)

•  It was not until 36 hours before the LVT hearing on 5 February 2003 - and therefore seven months after I received the original demand for payment of £14,400 (US$25,400) that I was provided with a priced specification (point 8, 29 August 2004)

•  Proof that I was not supplied with a priced specification is captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report

"Ms Hathaway (of Martin Russell Jones), on behalf of the Applicant, resisted the application for an adjournment. She maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification in the porter's room, but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version" .

While point 16 states "In the interest of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment." (point 12, 29 August 2004 )

To this must also be added that the same damning evidence is 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 )

Hence, the residents were asked to part with sums of money as high as £64,500 (US$113,700) (in the case of one resident) with no evidence whatsoever as to the composition of the costs (point 13, 29 August 2004 )

(See also LVT # 1.4 , # 3 for evidence from other leaseholders stating they had not received a priced specification ; Martin Russell Jones # 14 ; CKFT ) (My Diary c. 17 January 2003 , 5 February 2003 )

•  Section 20(3)(a) of the L&T Act 1985 requires that "At least two estimates shall be obtained." (point 14, 29 August 2004 ). I then quoted extracts from the 17 June 2003 LVT report - essentially as extracted under Brian Gale # 6 - including the tribunal's comments about the lift.

As to the findings from my surveyor (which were endorsed by the LVT), he wrote, under point 6.13 of his 24 February 2003 report- "The services section of the works under the specification (Section 16.0) does not represent a "quantitative" breakdown of items of works that contractors are able to cost on a like for like basis" . (point 34, 29 August 2004 )

Considering that he had been provided with a copy of the LVT report and had had a lengthy discussion with my surveyor, Mr Gallagher is of the view

" that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure " (point 3(2), 11 October 2004)

And this, in spite of having previously stated (point 58, 9 June 2004 )

"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works. "

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

As previously stated, I view Mr Gallagher has having a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view  

My 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council included:

•  Point 46 - "Compliance with a statute can only be in full, or in excess of it. And certainly not, as was the case, very significantly less than the stated requirements"

•  Point 43 - "Your Committee has opted to ignore the fact that SS had not implemented the LVT determination. Yet, it made claims of having done so at the 24 June and 26 August 2003 hearings.

This was certainly not the case as the sum had been reduced by only 24.19% (from £14,400 to £10,917) - thereby misleading the court.   And it still claimed this in its 21 October 2003 offer stating in the opening paragraph: "Our client maintains that, as a result of the LVT decision it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917" (US$19,250)

Non-implementation of the LVT determination amounts to not only a fundamental breach of my lease, it also amounts to breach of S.20 (3) of the L&T 1985 Act

•  Point 44

"Your Committee has opted to ignore the fact that the only thing Mr Gallagher wrote about the LVT determination in the Notice of Acceptance was: ".your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings."

Back to list

(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim":

(c) My surveyor had "demonstrated" , this then changed to had "said that the offer could not be bettered" and that "was a central point" (points 29, 59 and 68, 9 June 2004 and point 10, 11 October 2004)

One of the arguments over which I had a 'running battle' with Mr Gallagher related to his claim that my "surveyor's calculations had demonstrated that this sum (i.e. the 'offer') could not be bettered" .   He had captured this in his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003.

When I received this email the following day (it had been forwarded to me by Mr Twyman, Piper Smith Basham), I was at work and therefore unable to reply as comprehensively as I would have liked (see My Diary 13 November 2003, as well as events on 11 November and 12 November). Hence, in my 12h26   email I could only manage to state

"I find some of the comments difficult to reconcile with events / facts" .

However, I pointed this out to McLean in my fax of 20 November 2003

Back to list

(3.c.1) It is NOT true . My surveyor neither stated nor demonstrated this

As I explained in my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher (under points 2.3 and 50 and 51) (and repeated under e.g. points 82 and 127, 29 August 2004 ), the evidence against Mr Gallagher's claim is:

•  "Firstly, in the revised costs sent by CKFT with the offer, the lack of specification identified by the Tribunal, for items amounting to £144,746 (US$255,230) (or £190,000 (US$335,000) with VAT and management fees), had not been addressed.

•  Secondly, the boilers account for a large part of the £190,000 (£117k) (US$206,300) for which the LVT said to be unable to make a decision.

As my surveyor stated during the LVT hearing (point 26, 17 June 2003 ), he is not a qualified engineer and therefore could not comment about the boilers - other than say that the specifications are so vague that it is impossible to determine the type of boiler required - and hence the costs (as he captured under point 13 of his 24 February 2003 report) (assessment endorsed by the LVT under points 16.07, 38, 44 and 46 of its 17 June 2003 report)

•  The third reason is that my surveyor: (1) did not draw-up the specifications for the remaining items (for which the Tribunal said to have no/insufficient specification); (2) did not put them out to tender to three contractors (i.e. Section 20 Notice) - and nor did I ask him to do it "

Having stated in his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003 that my surveyor "had demonstrated that this sum could not be bettered" , in his 9 June 2004 reply (point 29(4)), this changed to "had said":

"I am certain that Mr Brock did say that the offer sum 'could not be bettered' - I have a clear note of it and, as considered above".

Furthermore, what he claimed my surveyor "had said"" was a central point arising during the conference on 28 October 2003, the importance of which I had identified during my preparation" (point 68, 9 June 2004 )

 

He also added

"It is also consistent with Ms McLean's note of Mr Brock saying that the offer was a good one, subject to his concerns as to the specification of works remaining unchanged" (point 68, 9 June 2004)

As I replied (point 127, 29 August 2004 )

"While 'good' certainly does not mean that it "cannot be bettered", Mr Gallagher has in fact omitted to capture a verb in Ms McLean's note which weakens his claim even further. She wrote:   "Tim Brock said that whilst the offer seemed to be a good one"

In his 11 October 2004 reply (point 10) Mr Gallagher wrote

"I note that Ms Rawé does not supply a statement from Mr Brock as to his recollection of the conference" (NB!!!)

My reply (point 29, 31 October 2004) was:

"The evidence is so overwhelming that it did not occur to me to contact Mr Brock.  

However, I have done it to satisfy Mr Gallagher's point.  

I attach the 24 October 2004 letter I sent to Mr Brock.  

I spoke to Mr Brock this week. He concurred with me: he could not have said that the total sum could not be bettered because the lack of specification identified by the LVT had not been addressed - and consequently this part of the works had not been re-tendered.

I will again point out that, as Mr Brock said at the LVT, he is not a service engineer (this was captured in the LVT report). Hence, he does not have the necessary knowledge to voice such an opinion.

Also under point 10 of his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote:

"I do not know why the "could not be bettered" statement is not recorded in Ms McLean's notes. If I had been asked to settle a note of the conference I would have ensured that it was recorded" (NB!!!)

UNBELIEVABLE!

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, note the 'pirouettes' and 'U-turns' by Mr Gallagher in the above sequence

I believe it to be 'fair comment' (in operation until 2013) for me to say that, in claiming that my surveyor "had demonstrated", which he then changed to "had said" this, Mr Gallagher would consequently not have to trouble himself with any of the detail of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database).

And, probably more importantly, nor need to capture 'embarrassing evidence' against Ladsky et. al. in the reply.  

I suggest that, among others, the following comment from Mr Gallagher substantiates this point:

His "advice was limited to the likely impact of the LVT's determination on the related, and then on-going county court proceedings. I therefore did not enter into a detailed analysis of the merits of the LVT decision" (point 4(1), 11 October 2004 )

As well as this one (relating to my complaint about the reply written by Mr Gallagher):

"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works.

The reason for this, which was agreed in conference was that provided that the offer was tweaked so as to be in full and final settlement of the costs of the major works, there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered." (point 58, 9 June 2004 )

I also highlighted under point 38 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, Mr Gallagher's comment that

"At the time" he "did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any weight on the question of costs in the court proceedings" (point 4(1), 11 October 2004 )

and wrote:

"At the time". I read this as an admission that Mr Gallagher had not acknowledged the evidence supplied to him. (Which is obvious)" .

In the same letter of 25 March 2005 to the Bar Council (point 41) I wrote

"Your Committee has opted to ignore the incontrovertible evidence I supplied against Mr Gallagher's claim that my surveyor, Mr Brock, had said at the 28 October 2003 meeting that the "offer could not be bettered"

Back to list

(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :

(d) The "Part 36 Offer" was "not a pre-action offer"

(3.d.1) I hold the view that the 'offer' fails to meet the requirements defined by Lord Woolf

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor defined the 21 October 2003 'offer' as a "Without prejudice Part 36 offer" .

Given events at the 28 October 2003 meeting with Mr Gallagher and McLean, I undertook desk research (My Diary 11 November 2003) and identified a ruling by Lord Woolf on the requirement for the working of Part 36 offers in the Ford v GKR Construction Ltd [2000] 1 All ER 802 case .

Among others, the ruling states:

"...the parties must be provided with the information which they require in order to assess whether...to accept that offer."

In my 13 November 2003 fax to Mr Gallagher (and Mr Twyman) I communicated my findings, and assessment, that the 'offer' was in breach of Civil Procedure Rules as I had not been provided with the information necessary for me to assess whether to accept the 'offer'.

Indeed, the LVT report 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)

In addition, the recognition by McLean, in her 4 September 2003 letter...

".letter to CKFT. We discussed at length sending a draft letter asking them to detail their specifications so that you could know exactly what it is you were being asked to pay for"

...and in Ms McLean's letter of 3 October 2003

"...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 report can be seen from the following:

•  Lanny Silverstone, CKFT sent an application for a case management hearing to West London County Court, dated 23 May 2003.

Please note that in this application he states 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 report (17 June 2003 ) and, consequently, before I had received a copy of the report).

•  At the West London County Court hearing on 24 June 2003, Silverstone, handed me in the court's waiting area, JUST 10 minutes before seeing the judge, a Draft order and Case summary, neither of which I had seen before. (West London County Court # 7 ) (My Diary 24 June 2003)

One of these documents 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" . This is absolutely not true.

•  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, ref WL 203537 - Particulars of claim (1.1MB) , the sum demanded of me (and five other leaseholders) has been reduced by 24.19%. This falls very far short of the LVT report (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 # 6.4 )

In my letter of 15 July 2003 to West London County Court - of which Mr Gallagher was supplied with a copy - I wrote

"Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal"

and detailed the main points of my surveyor's assessment of the LVT's report.  

I also wrote

"At the case management hearing on 24 June 2003, Mr Silverstone of CKFT handed me and your Court a revised amount for the major works, from £14,400 (US25,400) to £10,917 (US$19,250)

They are clearly expecting me to pay this amount now. I disagree with this amount (and state the reasons).

As this revised amount was given to me without any supporting evidence of the basis by which it was arrived at - and none has been provided since - on 6 July I wrote to Martin Russell Jones explaining that I disagreed with the amount for the reasons listed above, and asked for the basis of their calculations.  

I gave them until yesterday to reply.   They have not.

Using intimidation tactics they appear to have succeeded in getting some residents to pay the full amount originally demanded for the major works.  

Resisting these tactics has, for me, been a harrowing, very traumatic and very costly experience over the last two years but, I will maintain my position:   I will only pay my share of the major works that is fair and reasonable and in compliance with the terms of the lease.   In this context, I accept the decision of the LVT

I would therefore be most grateful for your assistance in compelling Steel Services and Martin Russell Jones to comply with the LVT's decision

I have an impeccable track-record and these people are dragging my name through the courts by making false claims against me.   This is defamation of my name and of my character"

As can be seen, I copied Silverstone, CKFT on this letter.

This led Silverstone to send me a letter, dated 17 July 2003, with which was enclosed "Part III" of the specifications for the works with "Revised price" written as heading (Included in the hyperlinked pack).

My surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the document handed to me at the 24 June 2003 hearing i.e. " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised ". Hence, it still fell very far short of the LVT report.

In addition - as can be seen - there was no supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at (consequently amounting to, yet again, a breach of my statutory rights).

(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. (My Diary 16 June 2003 , 17 June 2003 , 22 June 2003 , 24 June 2003 )

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 )

•  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 at the property. A copy of the revised estimate and apportionment is attached to this application"

Despite the decision of the LVT and despite being served with the revised apportionments, the Second and Fifth Defendants have failed to pay the sums determined to be reasonable by the LVT

Accordingly, the Claimant asks the court to enter summary judgement against the Second and Fifth Defendants with an order for payment of the Claimant's costs of these proceedings

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% 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 determination), it follows that Ms Salim's claim - under a Statement of Truth - was NOT TRUE.

It also 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 (US$19,300) as set out in the revised major works apportionment dated 24 June 2003 issued by Messrs Martin Russell Jones" IS FALSE.

(See Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.6 )

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and its client (as well as his other 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale) - do you believe that its client would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) if it had been the outcome of the LVT report?

Furthermore, consider also that I have NOT acknowledged any of the invoices sent by Martin Russell since October 2004.

Considering that they and their client have turned "intimidatory litigation into an industry" - how come that they have not taken action against me? (Well... at least, not yet!)

Back to list

(3.d.2) Neither Mr Gallagher, nor Mr Twyman provided me with any feedback on identifying this

Therefore, in my 13 November 2003 and 7 November 2003   letters 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" .

I included this as part of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher (points 1.4, 1.5, 4.6, 44 - 48).

Mr Gallagher's 9 June 2004 reply (point 46) was

"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" .

As I wrote under (point 64, 29 August 2004 )

"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)"

(I, likewise, asked the same thing under point 67 of my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society in the context of my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham. And I did this as well under point 174 of my 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor )

Mr Gallagher also wrote (point 3(4) 11 October 2004 )

"...in any event, contrary to what is said by Ms Rawé, the offer was not a pre-action Part 36 Offer - it was made 11 months after the County Court proceedings had commenced"

I pointed out (point 13, 31 October 2004 ), that the proceedings should not have been allowed to take place as they amounted to an abuse of process of court given that the same action was being pursued simultaneously under two separate jurisdictions: the LVT and West London County court.

This point had actually been made by McLean BEFORE I became a client in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors (Piper Smith Basham # 1 ) (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 , # 6.1 ) (West London County Court # 2 )

I also highlighted that:•  At the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing residents had been told to not pay until the Tribunal had issued its determination

•  Once the Tribunal had issued its determination, Steel Services should have implemented the determination (re-drawing the specifications; tendering and consultation)

•  The fact that Steel Services did not appeal to the Lands Tribunal (which was the proper channel to follow) means that it accepted the LVT determination - following its own application to the LVT.

•  Yet, it kept challenging the LVT determination as it changed the amount demanded on several occasions - and did so without explanation, as well as non-compliance with the consultation proceedings detailed in the 1985 Act.  

Among others, it did not address the determination by the LVT that proper specifications were required for the services section in order to arrive at correct costings. (I would stress that, unlike Steel Services, I fully accepted the LVT determination)

(NB: The fact that 'Steel Services' kept challenging the LVT determination is evidenced in the 21 October 2003 ' offer ' "Our client has once again (NB!!!), reviewed the revised apportionment dated 24 June 2003." )

In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 49), I wrote

"As I stated on numerous occasions, the offer included the sum of £1,735.74 (US$3,000) which was not supported by evidence.

By ignoring the fact (which I - 'as the client' - pointed out to Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman) that the offer was in breach of the "CPR on Part 36 Offers, your Committee has endorsed Mr Gallagher's ignoring this rule set by a highly respected and authoritative figure in the legal profession: Lord Woolf"

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

Back to list

(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :

(e) I had refused opportunities to strike a deal

(3.e.1) As can be seen in the following statement, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that I was not prepared to make a deal

"consider the fact that NKDR had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions on settlement in the light of the LVT determination" (point 66, 9 June 2004 )

[I] "expressly rejected CKFT's offers of a round table." (point 15, 9 June 2004 )

These so-called "invitations", written by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, can more accurately be described as bullying, scare and intimidation tactics (combined with misrepresentation of events) in an attempt to force me to strike a deal = use of FEAR tactics:

•  25 June 2003 ".the costly LVT process has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project. We should, therefore, strongly urge you to meet with our client."

•  24 July 2003 "Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court has to deal with the determination of this issue. this is a matter which could be dealt with between the parties. we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to any subsequent issue as to costs"

•  7 August 2003 ) letter to my solicitors (of a few hours) ".we have made numerous offers to meet with your client in order to try and resolve this matter by negotiation. She has declined to accept those offers. We shall contend that this is a relevant matter in relation to the question of costs" Firstly, as explained above, the LVT report had not been implemented (and has never been implemented).

Hence, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact I had obeyed the tribunal's instructions given to me at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to not pay the service charge demanded until it had issued its report and it had therefore been implemented - in line with statutory requirements and the terms of my lease.

I captured this under point 30 of my 31 October 2004 reply:  

"As I had been told by the LVT, I waited for Steel Services to fully implement the LVT determination - and then send me a revised priced specification and an invoice.

This is all I wanted: to pay my 1.956% share of what residents are truly liable for - and in 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, and so on"

Back to list

(3.e.2) Secondly, Mr Gallagher held against me the fact I have strong moral principles that prevented me from being treated differently from the other lessees i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease:

Clause 2(2)(c)(i) of my lease makes it abundantly clear that there is a set and equitable manner for the allocation of the service charges among the leaseholders:

"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 by the aggregate of the rateable value. of all the flats in the building ...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"

In her 30 August 2002 letter (in reply to mine of 11 August 2002) Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones stated:  

"The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease. This is calculated by the accounts package on the computer and added to the other sums due.

There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts.   The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..."

These percentages were supplied by Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones with the 7 August 2002 application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to the court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, for the 24 June 2003 hearing and the 26 August 2003 hearing. (See also my analysis of the contributions paid by other leaseholders, which is based on the list supplied to me by the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 correspondence. My analysis is contained at the back of the letter)

Further evidence that leaseholders cannot be charged an amount 'dreamt up' by Ladsky et. al.:

•  Silverstone wrote to the LVT on 17 July 2003

"Our client's Council has advised us that the LVT was asked to make a determination of the specific amount of the service charge payable by the tenant of flat 3, Ms Dit-Rawé."

•  To this the LVT replied on 21 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 " ( NB: My highlights)

This clearly demonstrates that the LVT views the calculation of the service charges payable by individual lessees as being based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied - as the norm/ understands the terms of the lease as such - which, of course, it is.

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"

I had very clearly stated my position to West London County Court in my 9 August 2003 letter, (on which I had copied Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor) ( Mr Gallagher (and Piper Smith Basham) were supplied with a copy of this letter). (WLCC # 10)

My response to Mr Gallagher is contained, among others, under point 160 of my 29 August 2004 reply.

In relation to McLean, not only had I also supplied her with a copy of my 9 August letter to the court, I had also had an exchange of correspondence with her on this subject.

In my 21 August 2003 letter to 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 ).

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 " (NB: How naive of me!)

But, as can be seen in McLean's letter of 4 September 2003 , she and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were not giving up on the idea:

"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)

Note the "incidentally". This made it the second time in the space of three days that McLean was trying to push me into making a deal with Ladsky et. al.

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 "

It should be noted that Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean are not alone in, as suggested by the above, endorsing breaches of leases (and of statutory rights), the courts can do this as well, including ignoring the directions given to defendants by another jurisdiction, as evidenced by the following (see also my 8 documents to the courts):

•  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 then London 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, the 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 CKFT to the court stating: "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 I believe - 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 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 the 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). (West London County Court # 5 )

(The fact that a Charging Order can only be issued once a judgement has been entered was also confirmed, 'ever so kindly', by the Court Service in its 23 August 2004 reply) ( Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 1 )

(NB: Between December 2002 and March 2003 I wrote four letters to West London County highlighting the LVT proceedings and consequently requested that the action be stayed. (West London County Court # 2 , # 4 ; section D )

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 LVT 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)) (West London County Court # 7 , # 8)

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 "  

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 report applies to the whole block.

In addition, I also draw your attention to Section 20(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

“(3) the tenants concerned are all the landlord’s tenants of flats in the building by whom a service charge is payable to which the costs of the proposed works are relevant”

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 andlord - in breach of the terms of their lease and of their statutory rights.

In my 25 March 2003 reply to the Bar Council (point 25) I again emphasised that

" SS-MRJ cannot charge residents differentially other than on the basis of their fixed percentage share - of a global sum which must be the same for all. Charging me (as well as other residents) on any other basis is a breach of the contractual terms of my lease."

I concluded this point with

"In other words, Mr Gallagher has endorsed a breach of the terms of my lease"

Back to list

(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :

(f) I had "only paid £2,255" (US$4,000)

(3.f.1) In his accusation Mr Gallagher overlooked the fact that I had paid this amount - even though I did NOT owe it - and, by implication, he held against me the fact that I had obeyed, for as long as I could, the directions given to me by the tribunal

Mr Gallagher considered that I was at "risk" because

"In any event, as Ms Rawé has only paid £2,255, it must be accepted that she is on risk for C's costs at least down to this figure at trial" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2004)

He continued to maintain this position:

"I do not follow the detail of Ms Rawé 's calculations . However, even on these figures, the effect of the LVT determination was that £4,615 (US$8,200) was owing by Ms Rawé (plus statutory interest) cf. the total sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded of Ms Rawé .

Ms Rawé had not made a payment in court, or any offer to settle. My assessment at the time was that the most likely order for costs at trial was that Ms Rawé would be ordered to pay the landlord's costs. I remain of that view " (point 6, 11 October 2004 )

"However, significant service charges remained payable and no payment into court or other offers to settle had been made by Ms Rawé. Hence my analysis that Ms Rawé was vulnerable on costs" (point 8, 11 October 2004 )

The first point to note is that I PAID £2,255 (US$4,000) I DID NOT OWE .

At the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT 'hearing', we (the leaseholders) were asked by the Chair whether we had already paid the service charge demanded. We all replied that we had not for the reason that we had not been supplied with details of costings at the time of the demand, nor since. (See LVT # 1.4 and Martin Russell Jones # 14 for letters from other residents)

At this point, the Chair specifically told us that if we paid, the Tribunal would not be able to help us. We were handed a leaflet 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5 states the following:

  ". a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid except under certain circumstances"   (NB: bold type face as per the leaflet)   (I sent a copy of the first 5 pages of the booklet to the Bar Council)

In other words, the message communicated to me (and the other leaseholders) by the Tribunal was that we had to wait until the Tribunal had issued its report - and it had been implemented - BEFORE we made a payment .

Yet, precisely one month after we were told this by the Tribunal, on 29 November 2002 , the claim was filed in court against me (and 10 other leaseholders).

The first day of the substantive LVT hearing took place three and half months later, on 13 March 2003 .

The last day was five months later, on 28 April 2003 . The Tribunal signed its (very damning report) seven months later on 17 June 2003 .

As explained previously, under (4) The "Part 36 Offer" was "not a pre-action offer" the LVT report had not (and has never since) been implemented. (Martin Russell Jones # 16 , # 17 )

Consequently, the reason I had not initially made a payment is very simple: I obeyed the instructions of the Tribunal (point 9, 31 October 2004). What a MONUMENTAL MISTAKE that turned out to be!

Back to list

(3.f.2) And Mr Gallagher positions himself as an expert on LVTs - including writing a book...

Consider that under point 23 of his 9 June 2004 reply Mr Gallagher had taken pains to emphasise

"I am currently writing a book for Sweet & Maxwell on litigation in the LVT - Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: Practice & Procedure - and would be pleased to expand on the practical difficulties that the LVTs limited and overlapping jurisdiction formerly lead to and, to a lesser extent, continues to do."

(I highlighted this under point 9 of my 31 October 2004 reply)

Against this statement by which, very clearly, Mr Gallagher positions himself as an expert on litigation in the LVT, consider what I had been told by the Tribunal - and given in support of this direction.

Mr Gallagher was indeed writing a book, ' Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: A Practical Guide' which states that it "Sets out all the powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the LVT ". While I have not read it, this suggests that Mr Gallagher ought to know "the jurisdiction of the LVTs"

Consider also, as demonstrated earlier on, that a Section 20 Notice was NOT issued following the LVT report (and has never been since).

But then, as referred to earlier on in relation to the Lands Tribunal case (printscreen) - which is very similar to mine - Mr Gallagher tends to have a rather unique interpretation of section 20 of the L&T Act 1985

The conclusions from this are that Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that:

•  I had obeyed the directions of the Tribunal

•  I wanted to exert my statutory rights

I captured this under point 30 of my 31 October 2004 reply:  

"As I had been told by the LVT, I waited for Steel Services to fully implement the LVT determination - and then send me a revised priced specification and an invoice.

This is all I wanted: to pay my 1.956% share of what residents are truly liable for - and in a manner compliant with the terms of my lease.

Please, note also that under point 10 of my 31 October 2004 reply, I drew attention to the fact that, in my 29 August 2004 reply (point 55), I had extracted the content of my 25 March 2003 letter to the court, in which I related that the Tribunal had specifically told us to not pay the service charge.

While under points 11 and 12 of my 31 October 2004 reply, I re-emphasised the points comprised under points 54, 57, 59, 61 and 79 of my 29 August 2004 reply which contain extracts of my seven letters to the courts bringing attention to the LVT action. (As can be seen in the appendices supplied, I provided a copy of some of these letters to the Bar Council)

In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 34), I wrote:

"Your Committee has opted to ignore the fact that the LVT had specifically told residents to not pay the service charge demanded until it had issued its decision and it had therefore been implemented.

I supplied you with a copy of the relevant pages highlighting the Court of Appeal case 'Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal', which very clearly state that the ruling had "determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid.":   Hence I (and other residents) had to await the LVT decision - and its implementation by SS-MRJ before making a payment.

I also pointed out to you that Mr Gallagher had written under point 23 of his 9 June 2004 reply to my complaint:   "I am currently writing a book for Sweet & Maxwell on litigation in the LVT - Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: Practice & Procedure."

While under point 35, I wrote:

"Against the aforementioned context under which LVTs operate, your Committee has opted to ignore Mr Gallagher's statement under point 8 of his 11 October 2004 reply that the reason for his taking the position in relation to 'costs' was because "Ms Rawé had not made a payment into Court, or any offer to settle. Hence my analysis that Ms Rawé was very vulnerable on costs" .  

Why did I nonetheless pay £2,255 (US$4,000) - I did not legally owe (considering the terms of my lease and my statutory rights)? This is explained in the next point.

Back to list

(3) I was in a "very weak position" as I had "no technical defence to the claim" :

(g) A "summary judgement had been entered against me"

(3.g.1) Yet again, Mr Gallagher overlooked the facts of the case

In Mr Gallagher's opinion, another point he considered to be against me "consider the fact that. summary judgement had already been entered on part of the claim" (point 66, 9 June 2004 )

The facts I wish to point out:

•  Ayesha Salim's letter to me of 5 August 2003 that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor had "made an application to West London County Court for summary judgment against you"

•  That the application filed by Ms Salim, dated 6 August 2003 was for the full amount of what she claimed (under a Statement of Truth) that I owed i.e. by then her client's 'dreamt-up' amount of £10,917 (US$19,250) ( Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised ) as she wrote:

"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 at the property. A copy of the revised estimate and apportionment is attached to this application"

Despite the decision of the LVT and despite being served with the revised apportionments, the Second and Fifth Defendants have failed to pay the sums determined to be reasonable by the LVT

Accordingly, the Claimant asks the court to enter summary judgement against the Second and Fifth Defendants with an order for payment of the Claimant's costs of these proceedings

As previously discussed (under (4) ' The "Part 36 Offer" was "not a pre-action offer" ), this was NOT TRUE

•  As I explained earlier on, I had made my position to McLean very clear: I was not prepared to 'strike a deal' I wanted to enforce the terms of my lease and my statutory rights.

I had communicated this to her, not only by providing her with a copy of my 9 August 2003 letter to the court, but also in the exchange of correspondence I had with her - which included my 21 August 2003 letter (hence, before the hearing).

•  Prior to seeing the judge, a conversation took place between McLean, counsel and Salim (I did not join this conversation).  

Given my position, it resulted in 'an understanding' to get me to pay the costs I had recognised in my 9 August 2003 letter to the court. (NB: Although bear in mind that the demand was not compliant with the terms of my lease as it was not supported by certified accounts - as explained previously )

•  During the meeting with the judge, Salim's explanation for the fact that her application referred to the full amount ("...the Claimant asks the court to enter summary judgement...") when, in fact, now, the sum proposed was less than what she claimed in her application, she replied: "it was a clerical error" .   And this was accepted by the judge without the blink of an eyelid.  

(Evidence in support: (1) On 28 August 2003 , I sent a copy of Salim's 5 August letter to McLean;

(2) To this, she replied on 1 September 2003 "I note the documents enclosed and in particular the correspondence from CKFT in relation to the application for summary judgement. The matter has now been concluded on the 26th August and I am not sure as to its relevance now."  

(3) My reply of 3 September 2003 was "I included it in case it became relevant at a later stage.   (My not having it on 26 August was probably not important given the Judge's acceptance of, in my view, CKFT's lie that "it was an error" )

•  To induce me to make this payment, McLean and counsel had told me that, if I did not do this, it would be held against me. Considering the conduct of West London County Court to date, I believed them.

In any case, I had always recognised that works were needed to the block and that consequently I would need to pay my share - as evidenced by my Witness Statement.

I therefore agreed to do this, paying the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) (slightly less than my own calculations) (I have never determined how McLean and Salim arrived at this amount)

(See also West London County Court # 11; My Diary 26 August 2003 )

As I pointed out under point 137 of my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher

"As to a summary judgement having been entered:   I have always agreed that works are required at Jefferson House;  

I therefore expect to have to contribute to the costs.

But, what I do want to know before I pay is:   what do I actually owe? I do not view adopting this stance as being unreasonable"

NB: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

Back to list

(4) Given Mr Gallagher's assessment that I was in a "very weak position" I consequently "could not ask Steel Services to pay for my costs" . In fact, I should be very grateful that Steel Services had made me an offer without costs.

NB:Consider that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

Given the circumstances of my case, I considered that Steel Services ought to pay for my costs.

(After the 28 October 2003 meeting, I saw another solicitor (My Diary 4 November 2003) 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 McLean).

As detailed earlier on, McLean had started to put pressure on me to accept the 'offer' i.e. 'strike a deal' the minute the 'offer' was received by placing strong emphasis on the risk of my being liable to pay Steel Services' costs if the matter proceeded to trial.

In fact, as also detailed earlier on (under (5) "I had refused opportunities to strike a deal" ), McLean's intention that I would end up striking a deal is evident from the time I appointed Piper Smith & Basham.

In particular, her letter of 4 September 2003 in spite of my letter of 21 August 2003 , and also in spite of the fact she had a copy of my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County court. Please, note also that I had again reconfirmed my position to her my letter of 9 September 2003.

Back to list

(4.1) The threat of the 'costs', combined with an assessment that I was in a "very weak position", became the 'major weapon' at the time of the reply to induce me to accept the 'offer' - as evidenced by the following:

" .the show stopper is Ms Rawé's instructions that each party bear their own costs is unacceptable and that any compromise is to be on terms that C pay her costs. I am bound to say that it is not a realistic assessment of the strengths of the parties' respective positions." ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

"The terms of response that Ms Rawé sets out in her faxes do not constitute a realistic basis for settling the claim and will not be accepted by the Claimant" (NB: Oh dear! Mustn't be vexatious to 'Dear Mr Ladsky') ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

"The reality of the matter must be that it is virtually certain that C will not accept any settlement that involves C contributing to Ms Rawé costs and will not be accepted by the Claimant" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

"I can only repeat my advice and that of Ms McLean that that if this offer is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs. ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

"In any event, as Ms Rawé has only paid £2,255 (US$4,000) , it must be accepted that she is on risk for C's costs at least down to this figure at trial" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

"Making such a counter offer tomorrow will simply throw away the chance to accept an offer I remain firmly of the opinion that Ms Rawé should accept.

Like Lisa McLean and Richard Twyman and the rest of the mafia, Stan Gallagher evidently does not understand, among others, the concept of moral principles and integrity. These people have no morality whatsoever.

...I can only repeat that it would be counter-productive to propose a settlement that involves C paying Ms Rawé's costs and strongly advise Ms Rawé to reconsider her position" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

"I must advise that I cannot see the point of responding in those terms. By this I do not mean to be unkind, but it must be remembered that the point of making an offer is not to debate the issues in dispute, but to set out a realistic basis to compromise the claim and (if the claim is not settled) to protect the litigant's position on costs." ( 10h12 email, 13 November 2003)

(I repeat my subsequent note under # 2, above)

In the summary of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher, I wrote (point 4):

"Abuse of the fiduciary relationship by taking advantage of my lack of knowledge and experience of legal matters and processes, placing great emphasis on - in Mr Gallagher's view - the likelihood that a court would find against me - and thereby assisting Piper Smith & Basham in implementing their coercion tactics to push me into a decision against my will"

In his 9 June 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher defended his position most vehemently - while placing very strong emphasis on 'the costs' - and my 'very weak position':

"The costs outcome was the most important element of the court proceedings" (Point 29(1) 9 June 2004)

"could see no realistic basis upon which [I] would be awarded costs against the Claimant" (point 26, 9 June 2004 )

"it was unrealistic for NKDR to seek an order for costs in her favour : each party paying their own costs (to the date of the offer) was as good an order on costs as NKDR could possibly get (point 66, 9 June 2004 )

" . probably the most important consideration, was the likely cost consequences of not accepting the offer and fighting the case. (point 67, 9 June 2004 )

"The balance of risks on costs was not finely balanced, it was all against NKDR and my advice reflected that" (point 67, 9 June 2004 )

[I] "was virtually certain to lose if the claim went to trial and costs would be awarded against her and certainly would not be awarded in her favour" (point 63(1), 9 June 2004 )

HOW ABOUT THAT FOR THE USE OF FEAR TACTICS?!... and considering that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

Consequently, that he

"and Ms McLean saw the offer, with its terms that each party pays its own costs as offering something of a life-line that NKDR would be ill advised not to accept" (point 49, 9 June 2004)

"Having reconsidered this conclusion for the purpose of preparing this response, I do not resile from in any way" (point 49, 9 June 2004 )

Seeing these comments, and in particular the one about the "life-line" made my blood boil, leading me to write a seven-page reply. It started under point 106 of my 29 August 2004 response with:

"Steel Services was "throwing me a life-line" ?

Oh dear!   How ungrateful of me, I did not send a 'thank you' note.

Whilst I was at it, should I have perhaps fallen on my knees and asked for forgiveness, saying something along those lines:

"O' Great One, member of the sacrosanct landlord sect so revered in this country.

Thank you for trying to defraud me of £10,000 (US$17,600) (NB: and I was further vindicated on this: court claims = FRAUD TOOLS), while clearly having the intention of coming back and asking me for even more money not due and payable.

Forgive me for challenging you and thereby making you incur costs ."

It took-up seven pages because I captured the harassment, intimidation and bullying that I, other residents, as well as Nucleus Citizens Advice Bureau had suffered (See Police, Head Residents Association, Notices by landlord, Elderly Resident, Other residents and Nucleus). I concluded the reply under point 118 stating:

"I must say O' Great One, you certainly appear to have a penchant for harassing and intimidating women, or men if they are elderly and frail"

What Mr Gallagher also brought to the fore (point 66, 9 June 2004 ) are the following (which are discussed in earlier parts in this section):

"consider the fact that NKDR had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions on settlement in the light of the LVT determination;  

"that the offer could not be bettered and that

"summary judgement had already been entered on part of the claim"

Leading Mr Gallagher to state:

"I remain firmly of the opinion that my very pessimistic assessment of NKDR's prospects was correct. PSB were similarly pessimistic before instructing me to advise and my advice reinforced their opinion " (point 64, 9 June 2004 )

"I therefore gave advice to that effect in clear terms both in conference and in my email of 12th and 13th November 2003.

I consider that advice to be correct and that it was my duty to give it" (point 65, 9 June 2004 )

Back to list

(5) As "the balance of risks was all against me", if I did not accept this "life line" and the matter proceeded to trial, I would live to repent / learn my lesson when "in the likely event that the defence fails" I would be faced with a "final bill" and be "reminded that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given"

(I repeat my subsequent note under # 2, above)

NB: consider the evidence that court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

Should I stubbornly persist with my position, going against my 'advisers' recommendation:

"in the likely event that the defence fails, render a final bill for the costs of the litigation and remind the client that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given" (Point 66, 9 June 2004 )

HOW ABOUT THAT FOR THE USE OF FEAR TACTICS?!

(5.1) My reply included asking: "Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?"

These are some of the points in my 29 August 2004 reply:

Under point 135, in reply to his comment about the "disastrous outcome" that would have awaited me (point 66 above):

"Here we go again, now for the 8th time in Mr Gallagher's reply:   the invocation of 'the costs' - and this time, Mr Gallagher 'really goes to town' with this.

This is just a continuation of the only thing I have heard throughout:   the threat of 'the costs'.

It further supports my claim that the advice has been totally biased and unbalanced.   The LVT determination has been totally ignored"

While under point 67, I captured the following:

"And barely a few words later, at the beginning of the paragraph:   'the costs' are again invoked, as well as in the last part of the paragraph - making these the 9th and 10th times that Mr Gallagher has brought up 'the costs' as the main premise of his argument. Indeed, he states.

At no point in time has there been any acknowledgment whatsoever by Mr Gallagher (nor PSB) that:

1. I had been sent a demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) which was in breach of Landlord & Tenant legislation (NB: 17 July 2002 invoice and Martin Russell Jones's supporting letter of 15 July 2002)

2. I had received a threat of forfeiture of my lease if I did not pay this amount - which was not due and payable (NB: refers to the 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT) (NB: Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL)

3. I had been subjected to having a false claim filed against me in court to make me pay this amount which was filed with a 'Statement of Truth' (NB: the 29 November 2002 claim, ref WL 203537, and associated Particulars of claim (1.1MB) drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and filed by Ms Joan Hathaway)

4. Through the LVT, I had determined that the sum demanded of me was, for a very large part, not due and payable (NB: the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref #992 on the LVT database) and my surveyor's assessment of it, dated 31 July 2003 )

5. I fully accepted the LVT determination (NB: My 9 August 2003 letter to the court, and my Witness Statement ) (unlike Steel Services who kept on contesting it) (NB: as evidenced by the statement made in the ' offer ': "our client has once again reviewed the revised apportionment")

(Bar the reference to the Statement of Truth, I stated all of the above 5 points at the 28 October 2003 meeting - in addition to bringing up the issue of non-compliance with my lease)

Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me?

Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?"

What was Mr Gallagher's response in his 11 October 2004 reply? Well, aside from taking offence in relation to my above question

"If para 75 of the response implies anything improper on my part, I strongly deny the implication" (point 9),

his reply was (point 6):

"I accept that it is possible that given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs.

However, my assessment was that there was no realistic chance that the landlord would be ordered to pay any of Ms Rawé 's costs: particularly as Ms Rawé had rejected the previous offer of a round table discussion.

In these circumstances I remain of the opinion that the landlord's offer of a compromise on terms that there be no order for costs was a life-line for Ms Rawé " (ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!)

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, please, compare the first sentence of Mr Gallagher's reply with his above comments at the time of the 13 November 2003 reply to the 'offer' and in his 9 June 2004 initial response to my complaint. (see above # 3.a.2 , # 3.a.3 , # 3.a.4 , # 4.1 )

Secondly, please note how Mr Gallagher continues to hold against me the fact that I refused to 'strike a deal' i.e. was refusing to breach the terms of my lease - wanting to abide by my moral principles and integrity to pay my just and fair share of the costs. (see above # 3.e.2 )

Like a parrot, the Bar Council merely repeated the contents of Mr Gallagher's correspondence, in the process ignoring the evidence against Mr Gallagher - as I highlighted in my reply (point 33, 25 March 2005 ):

"Your Committee has ignored my drawing attention to, as I stated (point 25, 31 October 2004 ) a very significant 'climb down' by Mr Gallagher" in his 11 October 2004 reply (point 6), as he wrote:   "I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" .

In support of this, under points 25 and 33 of my 31 October 2004 reply I had captured Mr Gallagher's comments in his 17h09 email of 12 November 2003 and in his 9 June reply (as detailed above).

Under point 33, 25 March 2005 , I also wrote: "Leading me to state in my 29 August 2004 reply: "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me?"

While, under point 45, I wrote

"and your Committee holds the view that my complaint that Mr Gallagher, Ms Lisa McLean and Mr Richard Twyman acted in concert to coerce me into accepting the offer "is not made out in the available evidence"? "

Under point 15 of his 9 June 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher also aimed to communicate that ' I' was the unreasonable party in this case as, in my 9 August 2003 letter to the court I

"also expressly rejected CKFT's offers of a round table meeting to avoid what CKFT, rightly in my opinion, described as the disproportionately expensive litigation represented by the County Court proceedings"

To which I replied (point 60, 29 August 2004 )

"Mr Ladsky et al. i.e. Steel Services should have thought of 'the costs' before they attempted to defraud me of £10,000 (US$17,600) - with a clearly evident intent to come back and ask for even more.   (*)

I note with interest Mr Gallagher turning the table on me and his tendency to side with Steel Services, MRJ, CKFT and Piper Smith & Basham.

The sine qua non of the 'Business Model of the Unscrupulous Landlord in 21st century GB':   'invoke the costs', the arm 'par excellence' wielded about at every opportunity to make lessees pay an amount of money not due and payable.  

And everybody jumps on the bandwagon, repeatedly brandishing 'the costs' in the lessees' face, in the process, putting the blame on the lessees for creating the situation and therefore the onus on them for ending it. by paying!

Indeed, once everybody has become quite fat one way or another at the expense of the lessee, and/or the situation is beginning to look uncomfortable for the landlord, and/or perhaps the professional adviser cannot be bothered / is scared to challenge the other side / [????], this is the time at which the strategic arm, the invocation of 'the costs,' kicks in - along the following lines:  

"Come on Dear, it doesn't make any sense. Look at all the money you've spent so far fighting this.   Compare that to the size of the claim.   Best you settle Dear. Make a commercial decision. Settle the claim / accept the Landlord's offer".

(*) NOTE: Visitor to the site, please note that I was right about this : an invoice for £14,500 (US$25,600) , dated 21 October 2004 , was followed by an invoice for £15,500 (US$23,350) three weeks later, dated 16 November 2004 (no justification was provided with either)

This is in spite of the fact that, following the ' offer ', I paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) for the major works through a consent order endorsed by the court on 1 July 2004. As can be seen in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing, my cheques had been cashed. (CKFT # 6.4 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4 )

I view these invoices as an act of vengeance for my challenging the service charge demand. I do NOT owe these sums - and therefore did not pay them (See Pridie Brewster)

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 Ladsky et. al. and their aides - and the extent of their arrogance and greed...as well as their 'justified' belief in the supporting infrastructure of lawyers, courts, tribunals, surveyors, accountants, local councils, etc. - as evidenced by the summary outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain).

To point 60 of my 29 August 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher's response was:

"On the landlord's motives in making an offer to settle it may have been that the landlord too recognised that a trial would be disproportionately expensive. (ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE.

How about: the 'landlord' had no hope in hell of defending the claim and used it as a TOOL FOR FRAUD)

In any event, it does not follow that, because the landlord wanted to settle, it was contra Ms Rawé 's interests to settle" (point 4(8), 11 October 2004 )

".the costs of the county court proceedings were likely to be out of all proportion with the sum in issue. (NB !!!)

Therefore responsible advice (NB !!!) demanded that the risk on costs be given primacy in any assessment of the position.

In taking this cautious and, in my opinion, responsible approach (NB !!!) I do not accept that I was siding with the landlord (NB !!!) as is alleged against me.

My instructing solicitors agreed with me that the risk on costs was the primary issue. I maintain that they did so because it was a true reflection of the position " (point 5, 11 October 2004 )

As explained previously, I hold the view that Ladsky et. al. made me the 'offer' when they were made aware that I was prepared to fight their false claim all the way to trial - which they did not want. NB: I was vindicated on this view: court claims = fraud tools .

The objective of the court action was to bully and coerce me (and other leaseholders) into paying an amount not due and payable. 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.

(NB: Please note that, while I did not acknowledge the 21 October 2004 and 16 November 2004 invoices - and hence did not pay them - they have since been followed by an invoice dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900), and one dated 30 June 2006 stating 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, ALL of these invoices are fraudulent (Pridie Brewster # 12 )

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 Ladsky et. al. and their aides - as can be seen from some of the evidence compiled in this pack...

...and this pack which proves that what Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones 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) (See also Pridie Brewster)

(My analysis contained in the above pack is based on the list of contributions supplied to me by the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 letter)

(See Portner and Jaskel LLP and West London County Court for update: the 2nd fradulent claim in February 2007)

Other points of note about this 9 January 2006 invoice (which further demonstrate the fraudulent method of operating of Ladsky et. al ), 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 (US$134,300) 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) )

My 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council included (point 26):

Contrary to the tone of the offer, SS was not doing me 'a favour' - and was most certainly not "throwing me a life-line" as Mr Gallagher wrote in his 9 June 2004 reply.

Bar Council Code of Conduct - "5. Conduct of work: 5.2 A barrister must assist the Court in the administration of justice and, as part of this obligation.must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the Court"

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 recognised by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT .   A position I have consistently maintained throughout).

And I then 'dared' to pursue an answer to my question.

The Bar Council 's 27 January 2005 assessment of what Mr Gallagher had done was

"The Committee was satisfied that Mr Gallagher's advice was realistic and Ms McLean's attendance note of the conference on 28 October 2003 shows that Mr Gallagher carefully considered the options open to you before recommending acceptance of the offer"

HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!

Back to list

(6) Mr Gallagher advised that the offer be "accepted subject to tweaking"

In the summary of my 5 April 2004 complaint against Mr Gallagher, under point 2, I wrote

"Acting against my best interests by superficially treating / crafting the wording of highly material points as to make them it incomprehensible / mask the real issues - and misrepresenting the facts in support of his position"

At the time of the reply, Mr Gallagher wrote the following:

".it may be possible to tweak it so as to provide that the offer was accepted in full and final settlement of her contribution to the costs of the major works programme" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

"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" ( 17h09 email, 12 November 2003)

".accept the offer, subject only to the possibility of tweaking it as discussed in conference."   ( 10h12 email, 13 November 2003)

I received the 12 November email on the morning of 13 November. As I captured under point 55 of my 5 April 2004 complaint, the contents of his email worry me greatly, as does his assessment in his email of 10h12 .   However, (as I wrote under point 60 of my complaint)

"Although I have all these reservations, I am reassured by the fact that in his 10h12 email, Mr Gallagher wrote:   ".accept the offer, subject only to the possibility of tweaking it as discussed in conference.." (although this still leaves out my view that Steel Services should be paying for my costs - as detailed in my 7 November 2003 letter)"

Bearing in my mind that I am at work, and consequently do not have the time to reply as comprehensively as I would like, at 12h26 (on 13 November), I send an email to Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman, writing among others:

".I find some of the comments difficult to reconcile with events/facts.

Although my views and wishes as to what 'should be said' and 'should happen' remain as expressed in my communication of 7 November and 13 November - I am accepting your advice:   to accept the offer. Can you please thus, be kind enough to draft a reply for my review - with the 'tweaking' you detailed"

I hear nothing until sometime after 15h30 when I see that Mr Gallagher has sent an email at 15h32 to which he has attached the draft notice of acceptance and draft consent order .

I get absolutely livid and experience unbelievable stress from panic (My Diary 13 November 2003 ). It is the first time I see these documents. Mr Gallagher wrote:

"Presumably this ought to be served by 4.00pm today" .

I am at work and due to be making a presentation shortly. (See below for my complaint about the use of coercion tactics)

The concerns I had about Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean's attitude during the 28 October 2003 meeting, the worries I had on seeing Mr Gallagher's emails of 17h09 and 10h12 - added to events with Mr Twyman, Piper Smith Basham, during the week preceding the reply - proved to be justified as: what is written does not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting.

Back to list

(7) Mr Gallagher considered that he had "tweaked the notice of acceptance", "reflecting what had been agreed"

(7.1) The Notice Of Acceptance drafted by Mr Gallagher does not challenge a single statement in the ' offer '

This '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)

Among others, it 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..." .  

(NB: 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" )

The document drafted by Mr Gallagher makes no reference to the fact that the lack/insufficient specification identified by the LVT has not been addressed .

This point had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting, as evidenced in McLean's attendance note  

"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..."

The only thing that Mr Gallagher wrote about the LVT report is

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

Mr Gallagher's subsequent explanation was (point 58, 9 June 2004 )

"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works.

The reason for this, which was agreed in conference was that provided that the offer was tweaked so as to be in full and final settlement of the costs of the major works, there was no need to get into a criticism (NB:!!!) of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered the full and final settlement provision would have operated as a cap on NKDR's liability and hence of her exposure to consequences of the feared project mismanagement.

Ms McLean's file note of the 28th October conference does not set this point clearly. The note is correct in that it states that it was proposed to include in the acceptance letter reference to the inadequate specification etc.

However, this proposal fell away (NB:!!!) when the strategy of tweaking the offer. was developed and agreed on as the conference progressed.

The file note does not make reference to this refinement by way of stating that the draft order consent order would deal with these points, which it does"

As I wrote (point 126, 29 August 2004 )

"How convenient: 'it was said', but then "...this proposal fell away" during the meeting.   (On the other hand, the alleged discussion on my lease was not recorded)"

In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council (point 52) I again drew attention to the contents of McLean's attendance note and highlighted Mr Gallagher's claim that "it had been agreed, but then this proposal fell away"

There is no reference to the specific terms of my lease, as the only comment made by Mr Gallagher reads:

"The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease"

In response to my criticism that what he wrote was, among others, incomprehensible, Mr Gallagher replied (point 55, 9 June 2004 )

"I am sorry if the language I used in the "argumentative" (NB:!!! How laughable!) acceptance letter that settled was incomprehensible/ or masked the real issues.

However, the purpose of the acceptance letter, as part of the agreed strategy, was for it to be something of a smoke screen.

Moreover, vague wording seemed to be called for given that there was almost certainly no good certification point to be taken: the general reference in the covering letter to "the absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease" was intended to serve as a vague reference to the obscure and probably specious argument that unpaid interim demands merge into and are extinguished by a final demand which gives credit for interim payments"

Mr Gallagher also stated

"In my experience though the point is arguable, the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better" (point 55, 9 June 2004 )

Under point 1 of my 31 October 2004 reply I again pointed out that what Mr Gallagher had captured in relation to my lease in the 13 November 2003 notice of acceptance

"barely touches on the real issue" .

Back to list

(7.2) Two points which, it was agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting were not worth mentioning, make-up 50% of the contents of the letter

During the 28 October 2003 meeting, instead of considering, what I viewed as the relevant points, Mr Gallagher launched into a discussion on the rateable value and the arbitration clause in my lease . He then dismissed both points as not worth pursuing.

This is captured in McLean's attendance notes of 28 October 2003 "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"

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.

Points 2.1, 26 - 33 and 64 in my 5 April 2004 complaint relate to the fact that Mr Gallagher had included his assessment of the arbitration and valuation clause in the notice of acceptance.

Under point 92 of my 29 August 2004 reply, I described this as "unobjectionable padding" .

Back to list

(8) Mr Gallagher considered that he had "tweaked the consent order" , "reflecting what had been agreed"

(8.1) As demonstrated by the 'black on white' evidence Mr Gallagher did not do this

This is the consent order drafted by Mr Stan Gallagher:

"the Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of £6,513.24, (US$11,500) 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 is, as captured in McLean's attendance note , that the reply would state:

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

In his 9 June 2004 reply (point 29(7)(ii)) Mr Gallagher wrote

"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"

I pointed out (point 89, 29 August 2004 )

"This is very different from what he states and, in particular the fact that he wrote: "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"

As drafted, the Consent Order left the door wide open to Steel Services to come back and ask for another 'Major works contribution', and so on - which, I conclude from the evidence - is precisely the intention" .

In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council I again drew attention to the above under points 39 and 52.

Payment of interest

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 by Mr Twyman (without my consent) I captured it in my 7 November 2003 letter to Mr Twyman (under point 5, stating, "As discussed on 28 October" ).

I also wrote it on the documents I faxed Mr Twyman and Mr Gallagher at 16h39 on 13 November 2003 ). As I pointed out (point 86, 29 August 2004 ), "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 (point 88, 29 August 2004)

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 McLean and Mr Gallagher resulting in a change of position. I was not party to this agreement.

I give the above as evidence against the following claims from Mr Gallagher that:

"It was not agreed at the 28 October 2003 conference that interest would not be paid" (point 60, 9 June 2004 )

"I therefore advised that the way forward for NKDR was to accept the offer.plus interest" (point 29(7)(i), 9 June 2004 )

In her 18 November 2003 letter, McLean tried to diminish the importance of my accepting to pay the interest charge demand on the grounds that it was "a small amount" - which Mr Gallagher also emphasised in his reply to my complaint (point 52, 9 June 2004 ):  

".However, for the purposes of settling this case and given the amount of interest, the advice would be to settle on the terms as set out in that order"

Under the same point, he also wrote "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"

As I pointed out in my reply to Mr Gallagher (point 88 29 August 2004 )

"As can be seen in the attached, the Consent Order I have agreed with Steel Services, following taking back control of my case, does not include interest"

(NB: Consequently, I likewise disproved (point 73, 30 November 2004 ) Mr Skuse, Piper Smith Basham, who claimed in his reply to my complaint "In order to reach a settlement with the claimant it was better to agree to pay the interest ") (Piper Smith Basham # 7.3 )

Under point 11 of his 11 October 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher stated

".whatever alternative is correct, the interest is payable by the tenant."

Under points 120 and 121 ( 29 August 2004 ) I challenged Mr Gallagher's assessment starting with

"The approach used by Steel Services (and evidently endorsed by Mr Gallagher) is beyond belief"

After which I detailed Steel Services' various attempts to make me pay an amount not due and payable, starting with a demand for £14,400 (US$25,400) and concluded that, as each attempt failed,

"Eventually it makes an offer of £6,350 (US$11,200) - which still does not reflect the LVT determination - and says:   "and you owe me interest!"

In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council I wrote (point 54)

"Your Committee has opted to ignore the evidence which clearly demonstrates that acceptance of the payment of interest was agreed between Mr Gallagher and Ms McLean post the 28 October 2003 meeting - and was contrary to what had been agreed at the meeting during which Mr Gallagher had said: "not the interest as the costs have not been incurred".  

(As captured in my 7 November 2003 letter to Mr Twyman and on the draft consent order I faxed to Mr Twyman at 16h28 on 13 November 2003).   (And in case you also overlooked it: SS did accept my payment without interest) .

Back to list

(9) My overall conclusion on the reply written by Mr Gallagher - and sent by Mr Twyman without my consent - is that, evidently, my 'advisers' did not consider...

•  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 , (see 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 highly extortionate - as detailed in my surveyor's assessment (AND McLean's letter of 23 June 2003 ) (LVT # 4.1),

•  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. Lanny Silverstone's letters of 21 October 2002, 25 June 2003 , 7 August 2003 ;   'Ms 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 being, in effect, a liar and dishonest person by Ms Joan Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin of Martin Russell Jones , Ayesha Salim and Lanny Silverstone of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , and Mr 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 ; the Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 ; 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 the Civil Procedure Rules, the issue of the 'Statement of Truth' signed in 2002 by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - see My Diary 9 March 2007

Back to list

(10) My complaint of coercion by Mr Gallagher and Mr Twyman were dismissed by the Bar Council (and the Law Society)

(I repeat my subsequent note under # 2, above)

In my complaint to the Bar Council (point 5, 5 April 2004) I claimed that Mr Gallagher had

"Played an active role in what I view as Mr Twyman's engineering of the situation calculated to take advantage of the fact that I am at work so that I would not have the time to review the response to CKFT"

As an introduction, I draw your attention to the following:

•  The deadline for the reply to 'Steel Services' 'offer' was Thursday 13 November 2003

•  A week earlier, at lunch time on Thursday 6 November, I left a voicemail for Mr Twyman that I would have a letter, containing my response, hand-delivered to him the following day. (This was done at 9h00). In this letter of 7 November 2003 , I state that I wish to review the draft.

•  I again repeated this in the fax I sent first thing on the morning of 13 November 2003 .

•  I repeated this for the third time in my email of the same day, at 12h26

Sometime after 15h30 on 13 November, I see that Mr Gallagher has sent an email at 15h32 to which he has attached the draft notice of acceptance and draft consent order .

In this email, he refers to a 16h00 deadline. This is the first I hear of this. As I discovered subsequently, it is not true. 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. (It is the witness statement that its client, Ladsky did NOT send that was due to be "served/exchanged by 4.00 pm on 21 October 2003" - as evidenced by the 26 August 2003 WLCC Order)

Please bear in mind that I am at work. It is the first time I see these documents and they are extremely important to me. In addition, as it happens, I am due to be making a presentation to a group. ( My Diary 13 November 2003 )

As I am reading the documents sent by Mr Gallagher, I receive an email from Mr Twyman, sent at 15h53 Hence, 21 minutes after Mr Gallagher's email. He states

"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"

In the next 10 minutes?   I view this as the pressure tactic having gone into overdrive. (See Piper Smith Basham for events during the five days preceding the day of the reply which amounted to lack of contact and advice) (My Diary 6 November 2003 , 7 November , 11 November , 12 November , 13 November )

Given the unbelievable pressure under which I was placed, while I am at work - the best I could manage was to handwrite the following on the documents. I faxed them to Mr Twyman and Mr 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. two points that had been agreed at the 28 October meeting with 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).  

As you can see under Piper Smith Basham , subsequent events comprised of:

•  Mr Twyman lying about the time at which I faxed back my comments, claiming I sent them one hour later than I had done;

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming in its 25 August 2004 reply that I "had already seen the draft of the tweaking that would be engrossed in the reply" ;

•  Piper Smith Basham falsely claiming that I had given my consent to the reply that had been sent by Mr Twyman.   A fact I was able to disprove, not only with Ms McLean's letter of 24 November 2003 , but also with Mr Gallagher's reply of 9 June 2004 , under point 80.

(NB: In spite of the evidence, Piper Smith Basham continued to insist - in THREE subsequent letters - that I had agreed to the reply, as can be seen in McLean's letter of 12 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 and that of Mr Skuse, dated 18 December 2003 )

Please, consider also (below) what happened with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor when I sent my 'own' version of the notice of acceptance and consent order (in monetary terms, the difference was only £143 (US$250) vs. its keenness to have what Mr Gallagher had written endorsed immediately ( 19 November 2003 )

Under point 75 of his 9 June 2004 Mr Gallagher stated

"At the time I was not sure whether, strictly, the acceptance needed to be served by 4:00 pm, though, plainly, it was good practice to do so in order to avoid arguments that the acceptance was out of time" `

Consequently, in his 15h32 email of 13 November 2003 to Mr Twyman, Piper Smith Basham,

"therefore thought it prudent to draw Mr Twyman's attention to the point, which I did by stating in my email "presumably this ought to be serviced by 4:00 pm today"

I replied (point 171, 29 August 2004 ) that "I reject this explanation" .   A barrister who claims to be so experienced is not sure of the time at which a reply could be sent!?

In reply to the Bar Council 's comment ( 27 January 2005 )

"The Committee was satisfied that your complaint that Mr Gallagher and PSB effectively acted in concert to coerce you into accepting the landlord's offer is not made out on the available evidence"

I wrote

"I put it to you that any reasonable, fair minded person with integrity, would, when considering the evidence, arrive at the same conclusion" (point 60, 25 March 2005 )

"if your Committee was supplied with the evidence I provided, it leads me to the view that it does not have the integrity to perform the role implied in its remit" (point 72)

The Bar Council also stated that the outcome was due to my

"refusal to accept his advice and to compromise the dispute with your landlord on the basis discussed and agreed at the conference on 28 October 2003"

To which I replied (point 76, 25 March 2005 )

"I disagree. As you perfectly well know, the draft documents produced by Mr Gallagher did not reflect what had been discussed"

Back to list

(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"

Mr Gallagher rejected my assessment that the conference of 28 October 2003 had been a "complete and utter waste of time" as "It led to the agreement of a strategy that, not only involved accepting a settlement offer that should have been accepted, but also the tweaking of the offer in a way that the claimant in turn accepted ." (point 85, 9 June 2004 )

Mr Gallagher stated

".the draft consent order and the covering letter that I settled were entirely in accordance with the tweaking exercise explained and agreed by Ms Rawé during the conference." (point 16, 11 October 2004 )

Furthermore, overall, Mr Gallagher was of the view that he could give himself a 'pat on the back' for a job well done.

Indeed, he claimed ". the strategy that I advised on worked:   the tweaked offer was accepted." ( point 78, 9 June 2004 )

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 PSB ".endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court." ...

...and its client was certainly very pleased with it (My Diary Latter part of November 2003

As I pointed out (point 52, 25 March 2005 ) Mr Gallagher boasted in his 9 June 2004 reply: ". the strategy that I advised on worked:   the tweaked offer was accepted."  

"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)"  

(NB: See also Piper Smith Basham : McLean's letter of 12 December 2003 vs. her 21 January 2004 letter and my assessment that she had a 'last ditch' attempt at concluding the deal - whatever this was.

As suggested by her five-week delay in replying to my 19 December 2003 correspondence, Ms Ayesha Salim , CKFT, was waiting 'in the wing' for the outcome of McLean's letters )

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.

Mr Gallagher claimed (point 12, 11 October 2004 ) that ".the draft consent order that I settled (the tweaking exercise), if entered into, would have protected Ms Rawé from any further demands for payments in respect of the major works to which the county court claim related, namely, the then current round of major works that Mr Brock (Ms Rawé's surveyor) was very concerned could be the subject of a major cost overrun"

(NB: Considering the compilation of pre and post evidence compiled in this pack (2.4MB), the concern about the 'overrun' proved to be, to say the least, an understatement )

Mr Gallagher criticized the consent order I had written once I took back control of my case claiming (point 12, 11 October 2004 ) that it ".affords no protection against further charges in respect of the current round of major works. I therefore do not understand why Ms Rawé has entered into a consent order in these terms, yet complains about the terms of the draft consent order that I drafted on instructions" `

In reply to this I point out that it took six months of fighting with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, namely Ayesha Salim, before I obtained a Consent Order endorsed by the court. (See West London County Court )

Evidently, Ladsky et. al. did not like my consent order any more that they liked my Notice of Acceptance. (Indeed, the transcript of the 'cosy' 28 May 2004 West London County Court hearing (there was only Salim and the judge) makes very interesting reading).

(While I nonetheless received a service demand for £14,500 (US$26,000) on 21 October 2004 (hence, three months after the consent order had been endorsed) - without any explanation, which was followed a month later by another invoice for £15,500 (US$27,300), dated 16 November 2004 - likewise with no explanation, I attribute this to an act of vengeance for, among others, my having challenged Ladsky et. al.'s 7 August 2002 application to the LVT.

I did not acknowledge these invoices and therefore did not pay them. More than one year later, I received an invoice dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided.

The £5,625 (US$9,900) invoice includes an advanced demand of £814 (US$1,435) for the first half of 2006. I assume it purports to be based on the "Steel Services estimated expenditure for year ending 31 December 2006" (I cannot determine how the sum was arrived at).

Among others, this "estimated expenditure" is FRAUDULENT as, since 31 January 2006, a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises Limited has been added, and controls the last floor. (See Owners identity and Pridie Brewster for detail)

This invoice has been followed in June 2006 with an invoice stating 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$5,281) 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 Ladsky et. al. and their aides - as can be seen from some of the evidence compiled in this pack ) - and in this pack which demonstrates that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones made the majority of leaseholders pay the full amount of the original 15 July 2002 demand.

See Portner and Jaskel LLP and West London County Court for update: the 2nd fraudulent claim in February 2007

Back to list

(12) Furthermore, Mr Gallagher knows what he is talking about as he has "considerable experience of these types of disputes", including "litigation in LVTs" as he was "writing a book on this subject on which he would be pleased to expand"

Under point 54 of his 9 June 2004 reply, Mr Gallagher wrote

"Perhaps more importantly in the context of advising on terms of settlement, I consider that my advice carried with it the prudence, judgement and realism that comes with having considerable experience (on both sides) of these types of disputes"

Mr Gallagher certainly took pains to emphasise that he is an 'authority' on landlord-tenant disputes and has "considerable experience" - thereby implying that he knows what he is talking about

Indeed, as he highlighted, he was in the process of ".writing a book for Sweet & Maxwell on litigation in the LVT and would be pleased to expand on (this)"   (point 23, 9 June 2004 )

(As stated earlier on, Mr Gallagher was indeed writing a book, ' Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: A Practical Guide' which states that it " Sets out all the powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the LVT ". While I have not read it, this suggests that Mr Gallagher ought to know "the jurisdiction of the LVTs")

Well, (as previously stated), I view Mr Gallagher as having - among others - a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view  

Back to list

(13) In conclusion, Mr Gallagher rejected my claim of malpractice against him, as he did not consider himself "guilty of any professional misconduct"

He considered that what he did was as per the legislation and I could not therefore hold it against him. Indeed, Mr Gallagher concluded his 11 October 2004 reply by stating:

"I am sorry that Ms Rawé feels that the outcome of the litigation is unjust.

However, I hope that it will be understood that I advised on the operation of the law of residential landlord & tenant as it is, not how leaseholders may well think that it should be"

My reply to this was (point 79, 25 March 2005 ):

"He did not. In my view, he 'fell over backwards' to assist SS i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al."

Back to list

(14) My complaint that I suffered an enormous amount of stress, anguish, torment and distress as a consequence of Mr Gallagher's actions

In relation to my complaint that, as a result of his actions Mr Gallagher had caused me

"an enormous amount of stress, anguish, torment and distress from 13 November 2003 onwards, leading to serious consequences on my physical and emotional health requiring the need to seek medical treatment"

The Bar Council's 27 January 2005 reply was

"The Committee considered in the circumstances that the stress, distress, anguish, torment and inconvenience that you have suffered following 13 November 2003 as a result of the continuing uncertainty of your ongoing dispute with the landlord was not the result of any deficiencies in the advice given by Mr Gallagher .."

To which I replied (point 74, 25 March 2005 )

"I disagree. And by the way, this started after the 28 October 2003 meeting" .

Visitor to the site, I give as evidence the fact that 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. (My Diary 13 November 2003 ; November 2003 , Christmas 2003 )

Back to list

(15) Other factors I considered should have been taken into consideration by Mr Gallagher 'my adviser'

In my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council ( point 46), I drew attention to the fact that

"Mr Gallagher had a body of evidence about my case which, as the barrister 'acting for me', he should have taken into consideration in the reply" 

I then captured all of the following :

•  Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, letter of 7 October 2002 threatening to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) immediately. Proof I raised this during the 28 October 2003 meeting is captured in Ms McLean's attendance notes . (NB: Threat of forfeiture = FRAUD TOOL) 

(NB: At the 28 October 2003 meeting, McLean's reply was "I write this kind of letter every day!" .

Please note that I had given McLean a copy of this letter (with numerous other documents) several weeks previously. Please note also that in her letter of 25 September 2003 McLean had stated, in relation to my raising the issue of Silverstone's letter of 7 October (in my 25 September 2003 email) :

"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)

I highlighted that to "threaten forfeiture prior to issues being determined by a court or a tribunal is illegal, stating that it is a fraudulent act as the intention was to frighten me in order to extort monies not due and payable. (It is also an abuse of position)" - and gave as evidence:

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 renders it "illegal to make threats which are calculated to cause alarm, distress or humiliation" (Subsequent note: I have changed my mind since. See my note under the extracts )

Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 - Section 4A makes it a ".criminal offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress with intent by using threatening words" (Subsequent note: I have also changed my mind since as a result of re-reading parts of the Act - as it only applies to threats made "in a public place").

•  The fact that Mr Gallagher knew that CKFT filed the claim against me while its client was concurrently pursuing an action in the LVT (and knew about it ) - amounting to CKFT placing me in a situation of double jeopardy. Consequently, acting against the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Ch. 41, s. 17 to act appropriately "in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice"

•  The fact that the action by CKFT also breached another part of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which states that 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. " .

The section of the Act also states that the overriding objective of the rules is: ".to enable the courts to deal with cases justly. Rule 1.1(2) states that dealing justly with a case includes (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing." .  

I commented that " Placing me in a situation of double jeopardy cannot be regarded as my being placed "on an equal footing" .

•  Mr Gallagher knew that the reason I ended up challenging SS application in the LVT was because, despite my numerous - legitimate - requests for a priced specification this evidence had not been supplied.

Not only did I say this at the 28 October 2003 meeting, Mr Gallagher had been supplied with a copy of my 19 October 2003 Witness Statement which makes this very clear.

He also had a copy of the LVT report which, under point 14, states "Ms Hathaway maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification. but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version" . (The same damning evidence is found in Mr Gale's 24 February 2003 report, under point 2.04:   ".the un-priced or priced specification.has been. freely available for all lessees to view" )

•  Therefore, it amounted to another breach of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which states that "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.. The courts also expect parties "to have exchanged information (a 'cards on the table' approach): for claimants to provide to defendants detailed letters of claim (letters before action) to which defendants are expected to respond also in detail" .

Not only were my legitimate requests for details of the costs ignored, the follow-up by SS was the filing, one month after my request to CKFT, of the claim against me (and 10 other residents) in West London County Court .

(NB: As evidenced in Mr Silverstone's letter of 21 October 2002 , CKFT knew that its client was pursuing an action through the LVT. As evidenced by the 29 October 2002 directions from the LVT, its client Mr Andrew Ladsky had attended the meeting, a meeting at which I (and the other leaseholders) had specifically been told to not pay the service charge until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented)

Rule 1.1.(2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 states that "dealing justly with a case includes: (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing" .

Denying me access to the information I am entitled to have under the terms of my lease, and as per my statutory rights, and to then proceed to issue proceedings against me most certainly cannot be regarded as my being placed "on an equal footing" .

•  Mr Gallagher had been supplied with CKFT's application and supporting documents ( draft order and amount claimed ) for the 24 June 2003 , and its application for the 26 August 2003 hearings. He knew, on the basis of the LVT determination and of my surveyor's assessment , that the claims made to the court by CKFT were false.   Thereby amounting to a breach of the CPR rule of "enabling the court to deal with a case justly" (as well as amounting to contempt of court).

•  The filing of just one claim against 11 residents , implying that we were jointly and severally liable for the claim. Under the terms of our leases we are not jointly and severally liable for the service charges, as each one of us is merely liable for the percentage of the total charges - as specified in our leases.

•  Mr Gallagher knew full well (as he should) that CKFT's handling of my case broke all the rules - as evidenced by what he wrote in his 11 October 2004 reply :   "I accept that it is possible that, given .the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" .

(Still under point 46), I also captured the following:

"I am not suggesting that it was Mr Gallagher's role to 'police' the conduct of CKFT, only that, as 'my' adviser, he should have taken these points into consideration.

But then, based on my first-hand experience, Mr Gallagher tends to side with the 'fraternity', including landlords"

I followed this by the example of my claim that Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had supplied false information under a Statement of Truth in the application for the 26 August 2003 hearing as, in reply to this, Mr Gallagher's wrote under point 7 of his 11 October 2004 reply:

"The fact that the LVT disallowed sums as unreasonable does not of itself mean that the verification of the facts contained in the landlord's Particulars of Claim was improper .".

After which I highlighted: Rule 21.21(4) of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - "...no duty upon a solicitor to enquire whether the client is telling the truth. However, where the solicitor's instructions or other information are such as should put him or her upon enquiry, a solicitor must, where practicable, check the truth of what the client says to the extent that such statements will be relied on before the court or in pleadings (now statements of case) or affidavits"

And Rule 21.01 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct - "Duty to not mislead the court - Solicitors who act in litigation, whilst under a duty to do their best for their client, must never deceive or mislead the court"

As well as: Practice Direction 22: "A false statement of truth with dishonest intent amounts to contempt of court)" .

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

As another example, I highlighted Mr Gallagher's comment under point 29(14) of his 9 June 2004 reply in relation to my reporting at the 28 October 2003 meeting that I had suffered harassment, intimidation and assault from Ladsky. He wrote:

".though I was virtually certain that NKDR did not have a viable claim against the landlord" .  

And his reply (point 4(7), 11 October 2004 )

"The allegations of harassment by Mr Ladsky and Mr Ladsky's complaints to the police etc - these are not matters that appear to relate to the allegations against me and were not matters discussed in conference, save for a very summary overview"

(NB: Funny how Mr Gallagher initially had an opinion that I " did not have a viable claim against the landlord" and then changed tack claiming that it was only briefly discussed. I concluded from this that Mr Gallagher had not expected me to have a substantial amount of black on white evidence against Ladsky)

And that under point 22 of my 31 October 2004 reply I had written "Mr Gallagher is underplaying my reply to his point 29 (14)" and added

"Bothering to ascertain the evidence prior to formulating an opinion is evidently not Mr Gallagher's forte"

Following on from this (under point 47), I captured various sections of the Bar Council code of conduct.

Back to list

(16) The Bar Council's 27 January 2005 assessment of my complaint was:

"Having considered the matter carefully the Committee was not satisfied that there is any realistic prospect of a finding of professional misconduct against Mr Gallagher or that he provided you with inadequate professional service when advising you on the landlord's offer.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed"

n my 25 March 2005 reply (point 64) I stated

"Yet again, I ask: what evidence was the Committee supplied with? If it was supplied with the evidence I provided, it leads me to the view that your Committee does not have the integrity to perform the role implied in its remit" .

While under point 81, I wrote

"Given the evidence: your Office has opted to ignore my complaint. I have highlighted numerous breaches of the Bar Council Code of Conduct - which also states:

"901. Any failure by a barrister to comply with this Code shall constitute professional misconduct"

I concluded my reply by highlighting my support of 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"

And added,

"Your Office is not serving the public interest. I view it as having a conflict of interest which leads to lack of objectivity and integrity "

Back to list

(17) Follow-up events: An amasing display of U-turns and pirouettes by the Bar Council and the Legal Services Ombudsman

The events that followed my reply of 25 March 2005 were most fascinating, as

•  it led to a 30 March 2005 reply from the Bar Council stating: "In light of the issues you have raised, I am seeking further advice namely whether your complaint should be re-considered in the light of your analysis "

•  and a 1 April 2005 reply from the Legal Services Ombudsman: "However, it appears from what you have told us in the application form that the Ombudsman is unable to help because the Bar Council are still investigating your complaint and there are no strong reasons which would justify the Ombudsman's involvement at this stage"

As I stated in my 2 April 2005 reply, " there is absolutely nothing in the documents sent which could remotely lead to this conclusion" .

I also highlighted

"There is nothing new in my 25 March 2005 reply, apart from highlighting sections from the Bar Council code of conduct. Are the Bar Council and barristers who were members of the Committee that reviewed my complaint now saying that they do not know their own code of conduct?"

Given the evidence, I can only conclude that the Bar Council contacted the Legal Services Ombudsman with the aim of making a U-turn and evidently received a sympathetic ear.

The outcome of my challenging the Legal Services Ombudsman led to a 8 April 2005 letter stating that it would investigate my complaint. (In other words, the Legal Services Ombudsman made a U-turn )

In my 22 May 2005 letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman (relating to my complaint against the Law Society) I stated that I was copying Which? (UK-based consumer group), as the Legal Services Ombudsman's initial handling of my complaint against the Bar Council had prompted me to contact them to add my support to their campaign for legal reforms. I did not copy the Bar Council on this letter

Indications are that the Bar Council was informed of this by the Legal Services Ombudsman, as it sent me a letter dated 3 June 2005 claiming that it was in response, firstly to my 25 March letter (NB: it had already replied to this letter on 30 March (!!!) ) and, secondly, to my 2 April 2005 letter (my letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman on which I had copied the Bar Council).

In this letter, the Bar Council made a second U-turn as it stated,

"Your letter of 25 March 2005 is, in essence a critique of the decision making process of the Committee and also going over the same ground covered in your substantial submissions in support of your complaint" (Contrast this with the 30 March 2005 )

As I wrote back to the Bar Council on 22 June 2005 , given the two-month gap, I opted to conclude that the true objective of its letter was " an attempt to 'bury' - among others - the 30 March 2005 letter from your Office because of an assumption that I copied it to Which? "   And also stated that I saw this letter as

"another fascinating display of twists and turns from your Office"

In reply to the Bar Council caseworker's counter-claim that he had

"seen no evidence that complaints are decided on the basis of a 'trade union' for members of the Bar ",

I highlighted he outcome of the Clementi Review (as I had already done in my 25 March 2005 reply).

I also included extracts from an article in the Law Gazette of 1 April 2005:

"The Bar Council has made a U-turn over its plans to challenge a High Court judge's ruling that its complaints procedure is in breach of human rights law .

The Visitors' judgment could lead to hundreds of disciplinary cases being reopened"

Back to list

(18) And the 'PIECE DE RESISTANCE'...

 

 

In his 3 June 2005 letter, the Bar Council caseworker 'dutifully' wrote

"Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about 3 weeks. "

To which I replied ( 22 June 2005 )

"Should I conclude from this an intention to now use this feeble and, quite frankly, laughable excuse, in defence to my complaint?"

The only possible explanation for this statement (which was also 'dutifully' highlighted by the Legal Services Ombudsman in her 30 August 2005 reply) is a claim that this amount of time was insufficient for Mr Gallagher to give proper advice. (It was the first time that this statement was made).

Given these events (and the Legal Services Ombudsman's replies to my complaint against the Law Society) the Legal Services Ombudsman 30 August 2005 reply to my complaint against the Bar Council came as no surprise. The penultimate paragraph states:

"I take the view that the Bar Council's response to your complaint namely that you failed to disclose a sufficient case of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional service against Mr Gallagher, was satisfactory and that their decision to close their file was justified for the reasons given in their letter dated 27 January 2005"

I opted to not waste anymore of my time replying to her letter. I felt that my precious little spare time would be more usefully spent developing the site, instead of wasting it writing a letter drawing attention to points and evidence I had already supplied.  

As they were not acknowledged the first time round, nor would they be the second time round. Instead, I have annoted a few comments on her reply.

By then, my complaint to Arden Chambers, followed by my complaint to the Bar Council, the subsequent battle, as well as escalation to the Legal Services Ombudsman had cost me over 250 hours of my life.

Hence: 250+ hours of my life down the drain!

Also, I think you will agree with me that my visual for the home page of Lawyers, Courts & LSO is 'fair comment' (in operation until 2013).

Back to list

(19) My conclusions

Considering the events - and their sequence - which took place with Mr Gallagher, and concurrently with Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , I have come to the conclusion that my experience with Mr Gallagher 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.

Detail under Overview - Note 4.

 

 

Mr GALLAGHER, THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top