Email this site to a contact

 

The English injustice system... in the residential leasehold sector

West London County Court

 

(NB: West London County Court is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

My first-hand experience with West London County Court is horrendous. (See also Comment # 19 for the experience of a visitor to my site with this court)

I first went through twenty months of absolute sheer utter hell with this court between December 2002 and August 2004. They were twenty months of ongoing terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma.

This was in relation to a - false - claim, ref: WL 203 537, drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats at Jefferson House. was filed by Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, on 29 November 2002 - under a Statement of Truth (1.1.MB) - on behalf of 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. (see Advisors to Jefferson House, Owners identity, Headlessors and Directorships)

 

 

See also:

(1) My Diary 9 March 2007, as well as WLCC - Post 2004 point # 23 for the very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules re. the Statement of Truth for the 29 November 2002 claim (1.1MB) signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, a 'managing agent' - and note how Her Majesty Court Service 'washes its hands' of responsbility

(2) Other section 'West London County Court - Post 2004' for events starting in 2007 which, by early 2008 led me to write to the Court Service "ABSOLUTE CONFIRMATION OF COLLUSION" (point # 23 )

(3) the concurrent section on Portner and Jaskel

Sections

(The documents referred to in this section are also listed under the 'Document library': Years 2002 to 2004)

(A) Brief overview

Not much time? Here are the key points:

•  Allowing Steel Services to file just one claim against 11 leaseholders.

This is wrong, as it makes us, jointly and severely liable for the £304,293.27 (US$536,000) claim (1.1MB) - which we are not. Indeed, under the terms of our leases, each one of us is merely liable for the percentage of the total charges as specified in our leases. (The upside to Steel Services was it only paid £500 (US$880) to file the claim).

•  Proceeding with the action in spite of being made aware that the same action was being pursued through the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - and that the LVT had told leaseholders at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to not pay until the Tribunal had issued its determination - and it had therefore been implemented.

(I personally have evidence of informing West London County of this seven times between 10 December 2002 and 22 June 2003 . I know that other leaseholders / their advisors did the same).

•  As a result, being instrumental in seven leaseholders 'capitulating' BEFORE the LVT had issued its determination (LVT/SC/007/120/02 - reference #992 on the LVT database) - thereby allowing Steel Services to charge leaseholders differentially (other than on the basis of their allocated fixed percentage share of the service charges) - which is clearly wrong.

Considering this also 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..."

•  Not challenging Steel Services on its claim that it had implemented the LVT determination (which it had not).

•  To the very end, continuing to disregard the LVT determination, as suggested by the fact that the last leaseholder to give in (Defendant # 5) appears to have ended-up paying more than the original sum demanded of £15,637 (US$27,600) (order dated 2 August 2004 from Wandsworth County Court, added to the order from West London County Court, dated 26 August 2003 ).

(NB: On 22 July 2004 I had sent a letter to the Judge, Wandsworth County Court, telling him, among others:

" The issues relating to the claim have been dealt with by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in an identical claim which Steel Services pursued concurrently with its claim in the Court.   The LVT issued its determination on 17 June 2003 .  

I provided a copy of the report to the Court, as well as a copy of my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the LVT determination. My letters to West London County Court of 22 June 2003 , 15 July 2003 and 9 August 2003 provide comprehensive details" )

Having allowed Steel Services to file just one claim against 11 leaseholders, West London County Court in particular, but also Wandsworth County Court have proved to be totally incapable of managing the claim.

In my case, this led to what I can only describe as harassment and cruelty bordering on persecution: on three occasions, I was told that an action concerned me when in fact it did not.

These were being told that:  

(1) a charging order hearing, due to take place on 4 April 2003 , concerned me;  

(2) a judgement had been entered against me (18 March 2004);  

(3) I was the Defendant in a trial (due to take place on 17 August 2004 and subsequently cancelled) (This related to the 5th Defendant ).

As you can imagine, in every instance I went through the most awful anguish, torment and distress.

One of these (the 4 April 2003 charging order hearing) led me from being literally minutes away from paying another £2,000 (US$3,500) to my then solicitor.   (In the end, it nonetheless cost me £600 (US$1,100) in surveyor fees and half a day off-work)

To these events must also be added:

•  My missing the 28 May 2004 hearing because West London County Court sent the notice to the Royal Courts of Justice Citizen Advice Bureau (who were advising me) instead of sending it to me as instructed. (West London County Court has implemented CKFT's requests for hearings with the most amasing haste, leading to my usually having a 10-day or less notice of hearings).

•  Wandsworth County Court asking me (on 19 July 2004 ) to fax them a copy of the Consent Order it had endorsed, as it had not made a copy for my file.

•  West London County Court sending the wrong tape to the firm I had selected to do a transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing.   (As it initially took the court several weeks to comply with my request, this mix-up added several other weeks to the process).

(I understand that other leaseholders have also suffered from what I view as the complete and utter shambles that reigns in West London County Court. I do not have evidence in support of this.

What I can add is that, on one occasion, when I phoned the court in December 2003 to make sure the payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing had been registered, as the person was looking at the records, she said:

"Oh, in November there is an entry: 'Has paid', but it does not say who has paid or how much they've paid" )

(My complaint to the Court Service against the courts is detailed under Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

It is clear from talking to other people, as well as from media coverage, that my experience is not a case of the system exceptionally breaking down. The court service (certainly at county court level) is - based on my first-hand experience - a complete and utter shamble which results in serious injustice.

I believe it is fair comment for me to say that this experience has led me to conclude that these courts provide at least the cue, and I would venture, endorsement of malpractice by legal advisers.   (NB: I draw your attention to the fact that, in 2001, a District Judge used the term "gross incompetence" in relation to administrative staff in a court)

Considering that , I alone, had sent seven letters informing the court of the LVT action / outcome of its determination...

...can events with West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court be attributed solely to 'gross incompetence' and 'gross mismanagement'?

Looking at what happened then, and in 2007-2008, I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person would reply: Nop! there is more to it than that - a view shared by some visitors to my site e.g. # 16

Back to list

(B) The longer version - Chronology of events

I am tempted to describe events with West London County Court (and Wandsworth County Court ) as 'Developing Country at its worst'. However, it would probably be an insult to the least developed of the Developing Countries.

What is leading me to say this is that I AM VERY SHOCKED BY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE COURTS considering that it took place in ENGLAND - IN THE 21st CENTURY.

The following details the sequence of events with West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court in relation to claim ref: WL 203 537 , filed against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats (1.1MB), on 29 November 2002 by Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, on behalf of Steel Services - and drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor.

Back to list

(1) Wrongly allowing the claim to be filed as it implied that we were jointly and severally liable for the claim - which we are NOT

On 6 December 2002, I received a Claim Form from West London County Court on which I was listed with 10 other lessees.

Allowing Steel Services to file just one claim against 11 leaseholders is wrong, as it implies that we were jointly and severally liable for the £304,293 (US$536,000) claim - which we are NOT.

Indeed, under the terms of our leases, each one of us is merely liable for the percentage of the total charges as specified in our leases.

(The upside to Steel Services of being allowed to do this by West London County Court was that it only paid £500 (US$880) to file the claim against 11 of us. By contrast, it has so far cost me, among others, a very large part of my life savings (£75,000) (US$132,000); over 12,000 hours of my life since the beginning of 2002).

In my case, the claim includes the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) for "Major works contribution", as well as several other items principally referring to electricity charges.  

(As can be seen from my defence to the claim of 17 December 2002 , practically every other entry on the claim is wrong.   They also include electricity charges for which I have never received an invoice - in spite of repeated requests to Ms Hathaway; see #21; #47).

WHY did West London County Court allow Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al.'s puppets, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Martin Russell Jones to file this claim?

By implication, WHY did West London County Court allow Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppets, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Martin Russell Jones, to commit a breach of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice"?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(2) Filing of the claim also amounts to an abuse of process of court

(In addition to causing me extreme anguish and distress) (which, of course, was the objective - see My Diary 6 December 2002 ), I was very baffled by the claim because, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing - which took place as a result of Steel Services' own application to the LVT of 7 August 2002 - we (the leaseholders) were handed a leaflet by the Tribunal. Called 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management', on page 5 it states:

"...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).  

Mr Andrew Ladsky, Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS of Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for the block, attended the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing.  

Hence, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Ms Hathaway filed the claim in the full knowledge that leaseholders had specifically been told by the LVT to NOT PAY the sum demanded until it had reached a determination - and it had therefore been implemented.

Yet, the claim that she filed - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) - states that:

"[I] have failed to pay the service charges. that are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant"

as well as:

"The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true"

NB: Signing of the statement of truth by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent', amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules - see My Diary 9 March 2007, as well as WLCC - Post 2004 point # 23 - and note how Her Majesty Court Service 'washes its hands' of responsbility

The first day of LVT hearing took place on 5 February 2003 at which the first day of the substantive hearing was set for 13 March 2003 .

Hence, relative to when the claim was filed, this took place three and a half months later, and the LVT determination, Ref: LVT/SC/007/120/02 (printscreen of website) was issued seven months later. (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)

•  My letter of 10 December 2002 to West London County Court :

"I wish to bring to your attention the fact the claimant has brought exactly the same action under the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT/SC/007/120/02)"

•  My letter of 17 December 2002 to West London County Court (included with my defence to the claim):

"ACTION TO BE STAYED

The purpose of my attached letter of 10 December 2002 was to report that the same action is being pursued by the same party in two jurisdictions:   (1) yours;   (2) the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (case LVT/SC/007/120/02).

Consequently, I would like to suggest that this action through your County Court be stayed ."

•  My defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002 in which I wrote:

"I deny the claim because no justification has been provided for the sum demanded . Claimant already pursuing claim through the London LVT (LVT/SC/007/120/02) and process already fairly advanced.

The demand does not comply with the terms of my lease. Part of my lease is different from that provided to the County Court" .

In support of my (non-lawyer) position that there was an abuse of process of court and that the action ought to have been stayed, I highlight the following from two law firms:

Letter from Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham, of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors in which she states:

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

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

Letter from solicitors acting for Leaseholder D, to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, dated 12 December 2002 :

"We are surprised that proceedings have been issued at West London County Court whilst consideration of your client's claim is currently before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

...confirm that you will arrange for the proceedings issued at West London County Court to be suspended pending resolution of the issues before the LVT.

Alternatively, confirm that the County Court proceedings will be transferred to the LVT for resolution at the same time.  

Should you not take either of the above steps we will advise our clients of their right to make the necessary application to West London County Court , including an application that your client's proceedings be struck out as an abuse of process. Our clients will recover the cost of any such application"

How many more of these letters are there?

WHY did West London County Court turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the abuse of process of court by Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al.'s puppets, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Martin Russell Jones - and, by implication, to their breach of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice", and of CPR 1 1.3 "The parties are required to help the court further the overriding objective" ?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(3) Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Ms Hathaway supplied a lease with the claim against me, falsely stating - under a Statement of Truth - that it was representative of my lease. While they falsely represented my contractual obligations to the court - it took no action

As highlighted above, in my defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002, I wrote:

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

•  23 January 2003 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT to me stating:

"...we are solicitors for the Claimant. We have received from the Court a copy of your Defence...you state that part of your lease differs from that annexed to the claim. please provide a copy" (As can be seen from the letter (on which I affixed the post office receipt, I did)

Please note that Mr Silverstone did this two months AFTER filing the false claim against me. (see also CKKT #6.7)

The lease supplied to the court with the claim ('apparently' for flat 23 ) states:  

"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)(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"

This amounted to a repeat of what Mr Ladsky et. al. and their puppet, Ms Hathaway, had done with their 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal as they had supplied a lease, 'apparently' for flat 22, falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases. (see LVT #8.1.4; Martin Russell Jones #23)

WHY did West London County Court ignore the fact I stated in my defence that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine?

By implication, WHY did West London County Court allow Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppets, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, and Martin Russell Jones, to commit a breach of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice", and of CPR 1 1.3 "The parties are required to help the court further the overriding objective" ?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(4) Unbelievably, West London County's Court reply to my request for the action to be 'stayed' was to suggest that I seek agreement from Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor

West London County Court tells me in a letter dated 24 January 2003 :

"Your letter and attachments dated 17 December 2003 were referred to the District Judge who requested that you inform the court whether the claimant agrees to the claim being stayed pending the LVT hearing"

I did not do as the court suggested, as it was abundantly clear to me that I did not stand a chance of achieving this given that:

(1)    In reply to my 17 October 2002 question:

"Are you aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for determination of the reasonableness of the charge for major works ?"

Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, replied on 21 October 2002 :

"We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal"

(2)   In his letter dated 7 October 2002 , Mr Silverstone threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I paid the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded by 10 a.m. on 14 October 2002.

(3)   In spite of the evidence I provided in my reply dated 17 October 2002, Mr Silverstone nonetheless continued with his threats of prosecution in his 21 October 2002 letter - thereby, not only denying me my statutory rights, but also breaching the terms of my lease.

I also found it extraordinary that West London County Court did not see that it had a role to perform as a result of being informed of an abuse of process of court - committed by an officer of the court - which is what a solicitor is.

(See also My Diary - End January 2003 - for the terrible anguish and distress it caused me )

WHY did West London County Court turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the abuse of process of court by Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al.'s puppets, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - and, by implication, its breach of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice", and of CPR 1 1.3 "The parties are required to help the court further the overriding objective" ?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(5) West London County Court - wrongly - informed me that a Charging Order hearing concerned me - and continued to do so when challenged - causing me an unbelievable amount of torment, anguish and distress

•  The court sends me a notice of a Charging Order hearing, dated 21 March 2003 , stating that it is due to take place on 4 April 2003

(This amounted to giving me a seven working day notice. Typical of West London County Court which has consistently demonstrated the most amazing haste in responding to Steel Services i.e. Mr Andrew David Ladsky et. al's / Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's requests for hearings) (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for my, and the Court Service views on this).

I consider this to be a breach of my rights, under Article 6 - "Right to fair hearing", of the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998

I experience the most awful amount of torment, anguish and distress from receiving this Chargin Order - see My Diary : 24 March 2003 ; 25 March 2003

•  My letter of 25 March 2003 addressed to the District Judge:  

"...your notice dated 21 March 2003 that a charging order hearing will take place on 4 April 2003. I am baffled by this given the following events.

29 Oct 2002 - During the hearing, Mr [ ] FRICS, Chair, tells us that if we pay the service charge demanded before the hearing, then the Tribunal will not be able to do anything.   In other words, Mr Sharma tells us to not pay the service charge until the Tribunal has reached a decision "

I also concluded my 25 March 2003 letter by stating:

"I respectfully reiterate my request: that - in relation to my personal case - the action on 4 April be stayed" .  

(NB : I wrote "in my case", as I did not know what other leaseholders were doing (e.g. they might have opted to instigate an action through arbitration - which is the manner stated in the lease under Clause 2(2)(g) for handling disputes.

This point was actually emphasised by the LVT Chair, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing as he told us (i.e. the leaseholders) that, because of this clause in our lease, the application by Steel Services might actually not proceed to a hearing by the LVT).

•  In spite of my 25 March 2003 letter, West London County still persists in telling me, in its 27 March 2003 letter, that the 4 April 2003 Charging Order concerns me

"Please note that your request will be considered at the hearing on 4th April 2003" .

•  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 wrote, among others:  

".I requested (once again) that the action be stayed explaining, among others, that: 1. at the LVT pre-trial hearing on 29 October 2002 Mr [ ] FRICS had in effect told the residents to not pay the service charge demanded for the major works until the LVT had reached a decision.

How can it be that two government departments - who have been made aware of a conflict as a result of actions they are concurrently undertaking - have no line of communication?"

•  After days of extreme anguish and distress (see My Diary 1 April 2003), when I again contacted West London County Court (this time 'armed' with the appropriate terminology) I was finally told:

"No, the Charging Order is not against you, it's against other residents"

•  I captured this in my letter addressed to the District Judge, dated 1 April 2003 , stating, among others:

"I am appalled by the unbelievable anxiety and stress your Court has caused me - and the fact you have failed to point this out to me - despite several opportunities to do so.

As a result of your actions, I was just about to incur over £2,000 (US$3,500) of additional costs on legal advice and representation for the hearing on Friday. This is appalling.  

It evidently stems from the fact that your Court has not issued a separate summons for each leaseholder according to their respective contribution in the lease - and from, what I am bound to conclude, mismanagement"

•  During my 1st April conversation with West London County Court, I was also told that it "may nonetheless be of benefit for you to attend" .  

Not knowing what to expect, I asked my surveyor to accompany me.   When we arrived at the court, we were informed that the hearing had been cancelled. (See also My Diary 4 April 2003)

A consent order relating to the 7th Defendant, dated 2 April 2003 , had been faxed to the court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor.

What West London County Court did in relation to this Defendant (among others!) is ABSOLUTELY APPALLING. Indeed this consent order states :

"Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003..."

(In addition to my surveyor's fees of £600 (US$1,100), my going to the court on that day also cost me half a day off-work)

WHY did West London County Court behave like a 'poodle', issuing a judgement against a leaseholder, and then a charging order, when it had absolute knowledge that, to demand payment from ANY of the leaseholders was, among others, in breach of the directions issued by the tribunal?

By implication, WHY did West London County Court asssist Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppet, to, among others, commit an offence under Section 16 (1) of the Theft Act 1968, as well as, it seems, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(6) Totally ignoring the fact that leasholders had very specifically been told by the tribunal to NOT pay the service charge demand until it had issued its determination, West London County Court was instrumental in making SEVEN leaseholders pay BEFORE the tribunal issued its report (LVT/SC/007/120/02)

•  In his 23 May 2003 application for a Case Management Conference to West London County Court, Mr Lanny 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 Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued its determination.

(The LVT dated its report 17 June 2003 ) (LVT/SC/007/120/02 - under reference #992 on the LVT database)

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 determination - and it had been implemented.

Consider this 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..."

WHY did West London County Court assist Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppet, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor in obtaining from these leaseholders monies that were not due and payable when, in fact, it had absolute knowledge that, to demand payment from any of the leaseholders was, among others, in breach of the directions issued by the tribunal?

 

By implication, WHY did West London County Court assist Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppet, commit an offence under: Section 16 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 , as well as, it seems, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ?

Furthermore, considering that the leaseholders had the equivalent of a 'gun held to their head', WHY did West London County Court assist Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor in comitting a breach under:

•  the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice"?

•  the Human Rights Act 1998 - Article 6 "Right to fair hearing" and Article 13 "Right to an effective remedy" ?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(7) Operating at the 'beck and call' of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, West London County Court sent me a notice of a hearing without any information whatsoever as to what the hearing was about

•  West London County Court sends me a notice of hearing, dated 12 June 2003 . It states that the hearing is due to take place on 24 June 2003. It does not provide me with any explanation whatsoever...

...hence, amounting, yet again (among others) to a breach of my rights, under Article 6 -"Right to fair hearing", of the European Convention on Human Rights - under the Human Rights Act 1998

Indeed, at the time, I had not received a copy of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination, ref: LVT/SC/007/02 (printscreen of site) (as it signed it on 17 June 2003 ). I consequently saw myself as, yet again, being hounded by the court, (in fact, I felt that 'persecuted' was by now a more appropriate description).  

Very clearly, the court did not care whether I had received a copy of the LVT report. A member of the 'clan' had asked for a hearing - therefore his wishes would be the court's command!

It reinforced my perception that Steel Services i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al / its solicitors, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, were 'running the show' in West London County Court.

How else could I explain what was happening?

(Evidently, 'Steel Services' was keeping in close contact with the LVT, as the LVT issued its report five days later).

•  In my 17 June 2003 letter to the District Judge I wrote, among others:

"I have informed you on several occasions that Steel Services had referred the matter to the LVT - completely duplicating this action before your court.

Why are you asking me to attend a hearing?

Why aren't you instead asking me whether the LVT has reached a decision? (I have not yet received a decision from the LVT. I phoned today and was told that the letter 'should' be going out today) .

Better still, why are you not communicating with the LVT?...

For the second time now your court is causing me untold torment, anguish and distress.  

Why is your court putting me in this situation of needing to get very costly legal advice when in fact I have yet to hear from the LVT?

Why is it that your court is not waiting for this decision?  

Until there is a decision from the LVT, what can you enforce?...

But maybe I am going through this hell for nothing. Maybe this is a repeat of what happened in March. i.e. has nothing to do with me. Is that the case?"

WHY did West London County Court behave like a 'poodle' at the 'beck and call' of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppets?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(8) West London County Court nonetheless proceded with the 22 June 2003 hearing, in spite of my informing the court that I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal

•  In my 22 June 2003 letter to the District Judge I communicated that I have just received the LVT report. In this letter, I included highlights from the report, and stated, among others:  

"The judgement remains open to appeal to the Lands Tribunal.

Your court is subjecting me to double jeopardy.

I am astonished that your court has persisted in allowing duplicated action to continue in spite of my telling your court on numerous occasions since 10 December 2002 that Steel Services was pursuing exactly the same action in the LVT - at the same time as it was pursuing the action in your court.

The claimant has mischievously pursued this action in two separate jurisdictions in order to intimidate and bully me into paying.

This is an abuse of the legal process"

I had the letter biked over to the court on the 23rd . As, among others, I highlighted in my letter that I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal, I assumed that the judge would cancel the hearing.

Therefore, as stated in my letter, I phoned the court on the morning of the 24th to ascertain the position. No, the judge had decided that the hearing would nonetheless take place. (See also My Diary 24 June 2003)

•  At the West London County Court hearing on 24 June 2003, JUST 10 minutes before seeing the judge, Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, handed me three documents I had NOT seen previously.

They included a "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " produced by Martin Russell Jones for which, in my case (and that of the other five leaseholders listed on the document), the original sum demanded was reduced by just 24.19% - in my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) .

Mr Silverstone did not provide me with any supporting document as to how this reduction had been achieved .

The remaining two documents are a " Draft Order and Case Summary " which, among others, state:

"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" (UNBELIEVABLE!)

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. (For the outcome of the tribunal's determination, see Leasehold Valuation Tribunal #4 ; Mr Brian Gale #6 ). This claim is A LIE.

This was a continuation of Mr Lanny Silverstone's lies to the court - all motivated by the aim of getting payment to his client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, of monies that were NOT due and payable.

And he, and Ms Ayesha Salim - with the assistance of West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court - succeeded in doing this with many of the residents - as can be seen in this pack (1.2MB) (see also CKFT #6.3 and #6.6):

9 out of 14 flats on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded in the claim + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount (Pridie Brewster # 18 )

In addition to this, a Section 20 Notice had NOT been issued following the LVT 17 June 2003 determination. Consequently, amounting to a breach of my statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985: section 20(3)(a) , Section 20(3)(b) , Section 20(4)(e) and section 21(5) - as well as, of course, a breach of the rights of the other leaseholders : section 20(4)

•  During the conference, the judge reprimanded Mr Silverstone for

"..wasting my time and the court's time. The LVT report has just been issued.

You need to give the Defendants time to review it"

(By the way: how about wasting my time as well? Ha! but of course: who am I relative to a member of 'the tribe'?)

What was that gesture about? Throwing 'a few crumbs' to the beggars?

Consider the judge's statement against:

(1) Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's application to the court, dated 23 May 2003, stating that it had secured payment from seven leaseholders

(2) 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..."

(3) the several letters I had so far sent to the court

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, can you see why my summary reads...

..."The English in justice system" ?

Likewise, do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

The judge ordered that Steel Services pays my costs for the day (and that of other leaseholders present) - and, obviously, refused Mr Silverstone's demand that I (and the other leaseholders) pay its client's costs for the day. (This was captured in an Order dated 24 June 2003 )

Given these events, I hold the view that the hearing should not have taken place.   What Steel Services wanted out of the day was the opportunity to put more pressure on me (and the other leaseholders) to pay what it demanded.   And the court obliged. (Wasting taxpayers' money in the process).

After the hearing, I received a reply from West London County Court, dated 23 June 2003, stating:

"The judge has confirmed that you would be well advised to attend, as the hearing is for directions... letter from the claimant's solicitors confirms that the case is proceeding against the defendants" .

Hence, if solicitors say "the case is proceeding" judges accept this without questioning anything - in spite of the evidence provided.

Is the role of a judge that of a mere 'paper pusher'?

In light of events, I think it is a fair question for me to ask.

Subsequent note - Actually, more evidence to add as further endorsement of my claim that courts are 'paper pushers': see My Diary 9 March 2007 and 4 April 2007 / West London County Court - Post 2004 # 1 , # 2 , # 7 for damning evidence in relation to another fraudulent claim filed against me, yet again, on behalf of Mr Andrew Ladsky, this time by Portner and Jaskel on 27 February 2007 (Portner # 6 )

I consider the 21 June 2006 speech by the Governor of the Bank of England (pages 6 and 7) as adding credence to my view. (See also Lord of Falconer of Thoroton)

To this I also add the evidence from the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing, namely the following replies /comments from the Judge - in reply to the question from Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, as to whether he had read the skeleton argument:

"No, I have not, because it was handed in late"

As can be seen from the transcript, the judge takes directions entirely from Ms Salim:

"Is it sensible for me simply to stay the claim against her? "

"Is there anything else I can usefully do before I print the order?"

(See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for my views on this particular event)

WHY did the judge:

(1) agree to hold the hearing in spite of being informed that I had leave of appeal to the Lands Tribunal?

(2) pull out the 'justice card' only at this hearing i.e. how about the leasholders against whom the court had - WRONGFULLY - issued judgements, and whatever other acts of injustice it had committed against them by then?

What a mockery of 'justice' this court!

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(9) West London County Court continued to treat me as a non-entity, turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence I supplied against the claim - as well as evidence it received from the tribunal

•  On 15 July 2003 I wrote to West London County Court

"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 determination.  

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 (NB: 6 July 2003 letter) 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 Mr Silverstone, CKFT on this letter.

This led Mr 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 determination. (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 )

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

Mr Silverstone also enclosed copy of a letter to the judge, also dated 17 July 2003 , stating, in relation to my letter of 15 July:  

"For current purposes we wish to record the fact that figures quoted in Ms Rawé's letter are wrong."

It was very clear to me from this document that Steel Services i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al had not implemented the LVT determination of 17 June 2003.

However, I needed to get 'official proof' of this - given that the LVT had, ('most conveniently' for Steel Services), not included a summary in its report of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded.

(It means that, by not doing this, the tribunal failed to perform its remit - See See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 6 and # 7 for the reasons why I had to get my surveyor to assess the determination of the tribunal).

(THANK YOU Mr John Prescott AND Ms Siobhan McGrath, Head LVTs for the POISONED CHALICE!)  

Consequently, I spent another £1,800 (US$3,200) of my life savings (on top of the £30,000+ (US$53,000) the LVT had cost me in terms of solicitors, barrister and surveyor) to get my surveyor to review Steel Services "revised priced" document in light of the LVT determination. Yet again, I was vindicated.

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 of 7 August 2002.

Yet, 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al. kept challenging the LVT determination as the amount demanded changed on several occasions. This is evidenced by e.g. Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's 21 October 2003 'offer' which states

"our client has once again (NB!!!) reviewed the revised apportionment"

And every time, this was done without any explanation, as well as non-compliance with the consultation proceedings detailed in the L&T Act 1985.

WHY? Because Mr Ladsky et. al. had absolutely no intention of implementing the LVT determination - as they and their aides, in addition to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale - had decided that I and other leaseholders would be made to pay for works for which we are not liable. And the proof of this:

As explained above, the "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised " supplied by Mr Silverstone at the 24 June 2003 hearing (as well as by Ms Salim with the 6 August 2003 application for "summary judgement") shows a reduction of 24.19% for each flat

The 2002 and 2003 "summary of contributions to the major works fund" sent to me by the ICAEW with its 29 August 2006 letter (not surprisingly, Martin Russell Jones-its client never provided me with these) show that nine out the 14 flats listed on the West London County Court claim were charged the FULL amount originally demanded by Ms Hathaway in her 15 July 2002 letter.

These amounts are listed in the Particulars of the claim (1.2MB) (contains my analysis of the contributions paid by the leaseholders, as well as supporting documents) accompanying the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim - DRAWN-UP by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - and filed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth.

Hence, the reason for the bullying, harassment and scare tactics by Mr Silverstone to force me"to meet"with its client to strike a deal (Letters from Mr Silverstone of 25 June 2003 , 24 July 2003 and 7 August 2003 ).

Other overwhelming evidence in support of my statement can be seen from the compilation of documents in this pack (2.4MB).  

Among others, Mr Ladsky et. al. 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 stress that, unlike Mr Ladsky et. al. I accepted the LVT determination - as captured in my 15 July 2003 letter to West London County Court.

(My subsequent requests - IN VAIN - to the Head of the LVTs was to ensure that the LVT captures a summary of its decision i.e. performs as per its remit - which it captured, among others, under point 1 of its report ; its 29 October 2002 directions. See also below)

•  In his 17 July 2003 letter to the court, Mr Lanny Silverstone wrote that he was contacting the LVT

"to invite the LVT to make a determination of the specific amount reasonable for Ms Rawé to pay in respect of the service charges" .

I was provided with a copy of his letter 17 July 2003 letter to the LVT which stated:

"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 "

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: as you can see from the 17 June 2003 LVT report, it is NOT what the LVT has done. Hence: the LVT has failed to perform its remit.

Please, note also that this letter WAS SUPPLIED to West London County Court.

The 21 July 2003 letter from the tribunal clearly demonstrates that it 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 indeed it is.

Further evidence of this is also found in Ms 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"

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor was fully knowledgeable of this, as evidenced by Mr Silverstone's 21 July 2003 reply to the LVT's letter of the same date

"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"

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor' s client , Mr Andrew Ladsky, was fully knowledgeable of this, as evidenced by the letter he wrote to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal report :

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

As were his other 'puppets', Martin Russell Jones, as evidenced by the 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Ms Hathaway (but I believe to have been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky ) which states:

"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"

I believe that a reasonable, fair minded person would conclude from the above that - with the cooperation of West London County Court - 'Steel Services', through Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, had been striking different deals with individual leaseholders (and continued to attempt to do so). Among others, this is a blatant breach of the terms of my lease.

WHY did West London County Court turn 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence against the claim that it was supplied with?

By implication, WHY did West London County Court:

•  assist Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppet, in committing an offence under the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice"?

•  commit a breach of my Human Rights under Article 6 "Right to fair hearing" of the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

 

(10) Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim redoubled in their efforts to get me to strike a deal with their client - while continuing to lie to the court

•  6 August 2003 , Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, filed an Application Notice in West London County Court. It states, among others - under a Statement of Truth -

"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"

Among others, the documents include a "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised " issued by Martin Russell Jones. Compared to the version issued for the 24 June 2003 hearing, this one lists all the flats.

In each instance, the sum demanded has been revised down by 24.19% i.e. the same amount as for the 24 June 2003 hearing (a document which had been handed to me by Mr Silverstone, CKFT, at the 24 June 2003 hearing - with no supporting evidence). The only difference is that in this instance the document covers the 35 flats (which was the total number of flats at the time).

Consequently, given the GLARINGLY obvious (supported by my surveyor's assessment of 31 July 2003) that the LVT determination had NOT been reflected in the document issued after the 24 June 2003 hearing - AND, in any case, a Section 20 Notice had NOT been issued following the determination - it follows that what Ms Salim's claim - under a Statement of Truth - was NOT TRUE.

Hence, it amounted to, among others, a breach of my statutory rights.

•  In between this application and the 24 June 2003 hearing, Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT had sent me three letters ( 25 June 2003 , 24 July 2003 and 7 August 2003 ) in which he used bullying and intimidation tactics in an attempt to force me to strike a deal with his client. (See also My Diary 9 August 2003)

•  Partly in reply to these letters, on 9 August 2003 I wrote a letter to West London County Court (copied to CKFT) stating, among others

"There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees. In their letter of 24 July 2003, CKFT again offer "a round-table meeting" to resolve matters.

There is nothing to discuss. There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant.

Works that are truly required - and can be charged to the lessees under the terms of the lease must be:   totally clear and transparent to all , and the costs equally clear and transparent - also to all .

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

As I wrote (under point 67 of my reply to the Law Society of 30 November 2004 in relation to my complaint against Piper Smith Basham)

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

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

I wrote the same thing in relation to my complaint to the Bar Council against Mr Gallagher - under point 64 of my 29 August 2004 reply

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

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

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

•  18 August 2003 - Notice of Case Management Conference & Application Hearing, West London County Court, stating that the hearing is due to take place on 26 August 2003

Back to list

 

(11) By continuing to treat me as a non-entity, West London County Court forced me to employ 'advisers'. The 26 August 2003 hearing was nonetheless a mockery of justice

•  A hearing took place on 26 August 2003. The judge did NOT challenge Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on the claims contained in its application.

This is in spite of my 22 June 2003 , 15 July 2003 and 9 August 2003 letters in which I related the main points of the LVT determination - and to the latter, attached a copy of my 31 July 2003 surveyor's assessment of the LVT determination. In other words: I might as well have been writing in invisible ink. See also My Diary 26 August 2003

(NB: Please note that 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)

Although I had represented myself at the 24 June 2003 hearing (and won), my lack of knowledge and experience meant that I found the experience quite distressing.   I therefore opted to appoint a firm of solicitors, Piper Smith & Basham, to represent me at the 26 August 2003 hearing.

While Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham had a copy of my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County Court, in my 21 August 2003 letter to Ms McLean, I had made it very clear that I was not prepared to 'strike a deal' with Mr Ladsky et. al.

"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 ).

I also added

"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 "

(How naïve of me! This scam had been in the making for years)

Prior to seeing the judge at the 26 August 2003 hearing, a conversation took place between Ms McLean, counsel and Ms Ayesha 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 note that the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease).

I agreed to pay the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000). Yet, I did NOT owe a single penny because the demand was not compliant with the terms of my lease as it was not supported by certified accounts - as I had stated in my defence to the claim.

In addition, it was in breach of statutory requirements defined under section 20(3)(a) , Section 20(3)(b) , Section 20(4)(e) and section 21(5) of the L&T Act 1985.

What prompted me to do this were:

(1) the realisation that fair and just treatment of the case was evidently not on West London County Court's agenda - and that the dice were, in my view, heavily loaded in favour of Steel Services;

(2) I had been told by my solicitor and barrister 'acting for me' on the day that, if I did not make a payment, it would be likely to be held against me. Considering the actions by West London County Court to date, I had no difficulty believing 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 - and as also recognised by Mr Lanny Silverstone in his 25 June 2003 letter .

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 Ms McLean, counsel and Ms Salim arrived at this amount)

During the meeting with the judge, Ms Salim's explanation for the fact that her 6 August 2003 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, Ms Salim replied: "it was a clerical error" .   And this was accepted by the judge without the blink of an eyelid.  

(Evidence in support of my claim:

(1) On 28 August 2003 , I sent a copy of Ms Salim's 5 August 2003 letter to Ms 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" )

WHY, considering all the evidence supplied to the court, did the judge turn 'a blind eye' to the content of Ms Ayesha Salim's 6 August 2003 application for the hearing - and to her lie during the hearing?

By implication, WHY did the judge:

•  assist Ms Salim, Mr Ladsky et. al.'s puppet, in committing an offence under the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - Section 17 "duty to ensure the proper and efficient administration of justice"?

•  commit a breach of my Human Rights under Article 6 "Right to fair hearing" and Article 13 "Right to effective remedy" of the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(12) My writing my Witness Statement triggered the 21 October 2003 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) from 'Steel Services'

•  The order resulting from the 26 August 2003 hearing included among others:  

"Disclosure by 19 September 2003; Witness Statements to be served/exchanged on 21 October 2003 by 16h00" .

On 19 October 2003, I had my Witness Statement hand-delivered to Piper Smith Basham.

As detailed under the section My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement, serving of the Witness Statements to court / exchange did not happen due to what I can only describe as 'some arrangement' between Ms McLean and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - to which I was not party.

Indeed, Ms McLean copied me on a letter dated 27 October 2003 addressed to CKFT in which she suggested exchange of Witness Statements by 12 December 2003. In her 3 November 2003 letter to me, she wrote that she had received written agreement to this from Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor.

•  On