The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
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 overviewNot 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 Court of this eight 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:
• 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:
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:
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:
(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:
(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(B) The longer version - Chronology of eventsI 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 Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on behalf of 'Steel Services' - and endorsed by a statement of truth signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones. The fact that WLCC proceeded with the claim amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules - see e.g. My Diary 9 March 2007 ; how the Court Services washed its hands of responsibility: WLCC - Post 2004 # 23 (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
(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). (And more since I wrote this). 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'? (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:
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:
as well as:
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 :
• My letter of 17 December 2002 to West London County Court (included with my defence to the claim):
• My defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002 in which I wrote:
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:
Letter from solicitors acting for Leaseholder D, to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, dated 12 December 2002 :
How many more of these letters are there?
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'?
As highlighted above, in my defence to the claim dated 17 December 2002, I wrote:
• 23 January 2003 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT to me stating:
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:
(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)
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'?
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:
Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, replied on 21 October 2002 :
(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" ? Adding to the unbelievable amount of stress and torment is the fact that I was facing similar treatment by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal e.g. My Diary End January 2003 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'?
• 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:
I concluded my 25 March 2003 letter by stating:
(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. It was obviously agreed behind closed doors that the action could nonetheless proceed - in the expectation that the outcome would be a done deal). • In spite of my 25 March 2003 letter, WLCC still persists in telling me, in its 27 March 2003 letter, that the 4 April 2003 Charging Order concerns 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 wrote, among others:
• 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:
• I captured this in my letter addressed to the District Judge, dated 1 April 2003 , stating, among others:
• 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 :
(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'?
• In his 23 May 2003 application for a Case Management Conference to West London County Court, Mr Lanny Silverstone wrote:
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:
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'? (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!
(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:
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'?
• 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:
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:
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 leaseholders - as can be seen in this pack (1.2MB) (see also CKFT # 6.3 and # 6.6 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18): 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
(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:
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, can you see why my summary reads...
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).
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:
WHY did the judge:
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'?
• On 15 July 2003 I wrote to West London County Court
and detailed the main points of my surveyor's assessment of the LVT's determination. I also wrote
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:
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
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:
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
I was provided with a copy of his letter 17 July 2003 letter to the LVT which stated:
• To this the LVT replied on 21 July 2003
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:
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
CKFT' 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 :
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:
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:
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'?
• 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 -
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
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)
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
• 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
• A hearing took place on 26 August 2003. (My Diary 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/Watton 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 also added
(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:
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:
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'? (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:
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 21 October 2003 at 17h43 CKFT faxed Ms McLean what it described as a "Without prejudice Part 36 offer" . Hence, CKFT faxed it nearly two hours after the time set by the court for submitting the Witness Statements in court. And, to my knowledge, there was no witness statement. • Ms Salim, CKFT's opening statement in the 'offer' reads:
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site - considering the events with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and its client, Mr Andrew Ladsky (as well as his other 'puppets' Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale) - do you believe that its client would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) if it had been the outcome of the LVT determination? Furthermore, consider also that I have NOT acknowledged any of the invoices sent by Martin Russell since October 2004. (See below) (Borrowing a comment from a leaseholder about his own landlord), 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!) • Some way into the document, the 21 October 2003 'offer' states:
Re. "our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund..." This is VERY WRONG - as the leaseholders cannot be charged differentially other than on the basis of their fixed percentage share of an amount which must be the same for all - including allowance from the contingency fund. See Pridie Brewster towards the end of the section, as well as Martin Russell Jones # 19 , # 20.
• 13 November 2003 was the deadline for responding to the offer. Details about the events surrounding the reply to the offer can be found in my 16 March 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham and in my 5 April 2004 complaint to the Bar Council, against Mr Gallagher. See also My Diary for 2003 : 28 October ; the whole of November , as well as - December 2003 and Christmas 2003 The main thing to say is that the reply sent by Piper Smith Basham to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor did NOT contain what I had agreed with Ms McLean and Mr Gallagher. Consequently, I refused to endorse it. • From that time until mid December 2003, I battled with Ms McLean to get a substitute reply sent to CKFT. As I was getting nowhere, at this point, I took back control of my case. • In my correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor dated 19 December 2003 I wrote in the Notice of Acceptance that I was accepting the offer but could not agree to the payment of interest (£143) (US$250). I highlighted doing this in spite of the breaches with statutory requirements and the terms of my lease - which I listed - "for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end". I also highlighted the breach with CPR in relation to the requirements for Part 36 Offers (Lord Woolf's ruling). I enclosed a cheque for £4,096 (US$7,200) (£6,350, minus the £2,255 already paid following the 26 August 2003 hearing). I did not view this reply as affording me the justice and redress I felt I deserved given the circumstances of my case. However, (as detailed in My Diary) in December 2003 I was, literally, near collapse due to the war I was fighting on all fronts. Therefore, my priority was to secure an outcome that would protect me from further demands for 'these major works'. As it turned out: IN MY DREAMS! Quite clearly, the fact I had taken back control of my case threw 'a spanner in the works', upsetting the game plan as it took Ms Salim five weeks to acknowledge my letter. (During that time, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor did not cash my cheques) (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement). Other evidence in support of this is that, on 19 November 2003 , CKFT had sent a fax to Piper Smith Basham stating: "Would you please endorse the draft Consent Order and re-submit the same to us. We shall then submit it to the Court." The issue could not have been the £143 (US$250). It was what I had written in my 19 December 2003 Notice of Acceptance - which my so-called 'advisers' had so studiously omitted to include. • As a result of putting pressure on Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (which included using a firm of solicitors to send, on 16 January 2004, copy of my 19 December 2003 correspondence to CKFT), Ms Ayesha Salim finally replied on 27 January 2004
(Note that, as can be seen from the receipt, I had sent my correspondence by 'Special delivery, next day' - and that the Post Office had confirmed delivery) • In her 17 February 2004 letter, Ms Salim states that her ".client is prepared to accept the sum provided. Accordingly, we are presenting your two cheques for payment." Lack of progress in obtaining a consent order from CKFT, combined with my finally accepting that West London County Court would continue ignoring any correspondence it received from me, led me to seek advice from the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau. • On 2 April 2004 the Citizens Advice Bureau wrote to West London County Court:
• This led to acknowledgment, as well as action as, in an Order dated 21 April 2004, the judge requested Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor to "file and serve pre-trial checklist" , otherwise the claim will "be struck out" More exchange of correspondence took place.
However, I did (eventually!) get a transcript of the hearing - which makes very 'interesting' reading - including the comments from the Judge. At this hearing, Ms Ayesha Salim agreed to the wording of the Consent Order I had drafted. The transcript of the hearing which, among others, contains some 'odd' / 'unexpected' comments from Ms Salim, leads to the conclusion that she did this because her client saw it as an irrelevant piece of paper.
This invoice was sent with a covering letter, dated 5 October 2004 . (Yes, this letter dated six weeks previously, was the covering letter with the invoice). Knowing that these invoices were bogus, I ignored them, and therefore did NOT pay them. (Subsequent note: they WERE BOGUS invoices: see my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, points 132-138 under header # 13 ) Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously, I informed Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones that I had accepted the 'offer' in settlement of my share of the major works and had paid £6,350 (US$11,200). • These invoices were followed by an invoice dated 9 January 2006 ( i.e. 14 months later), this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. (I assume the time span to be due to the fact that, in the weeks that followed the second invoice, I filed a complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, as well as a complaint against Martin Russell Jones (1.1MB) - and that it 'took the wind out of their sails') Some other points of note about the £5,625 (US$9,900) are (which further demonstrate the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides):
This invoice has been followed in June 2006 by 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$5,300) 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). Outcome: what is the amount currently 'deemed' by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides to be 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 making a total of £44,246 (US$78,000)? Who knows, considering the fraudulent method of operating of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides - as demonstrated throughout this section, as well as e.g. in this pack (2.4MB) (Subsequent note - Update: see Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004... ...the outcome sealed the proof that the threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) Back to the sequence of events with the courts...(14) In spite of West London County Court having absolute knowledge that agreement has been reached with 'Steel Services', it informed me that I was the defendant in a trial - and transferred my file to Wansdworth County Court• I received a 9 June 2004 Notice of Transfer of Proceedings from West London County Court. Please note that:
Hence, fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think that, had you been in 'my shoes', you would - like me - have concluded that this order concerned you - and nobody else The Notice reads:
I am in a state of shock and panic, as I simply do not understand what is going on. There is no explanation whatsoever. (See My Diary 12 June 2004 ) Why am I going to end-up in a trial? How could I possibly end-up in a trial? Yet again, and now for the fourth time, I find myself the victim of a complete and utter shambles by the courts.(NB: In addition to the 4 April 2003 and 28 May 2004 hearings (see above), the other occasion was on 31 March 2004 when I went in person to West London County Court and was told that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March 2004. This was news to me, as I had not received any communication whatsoever. After spending close to one hour challenging the court staff and fighting off their attempts at fobbing me off, I finally got the admission that the judgement had in fact been entered against another leaseholder). (Details of this event are captured, among others, in my 29 June 2004 letter to Lord Falconer - and more detail is included under Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2 ). Initially it is confirmed to me that, yes, my case is going to trial. When I challenge this by phone calls and letters, I then get the admission that my file is "in transfer" between the two courts so, "we can't tell you why" . • Another few days of more phone calls and letters which included my 8 July 2004 letter asking why my file had been transferred from West London County Court to Wandsworth County Court given that I had exchanged with Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor a consent order that had been endorsed by Wandsworth County Court on 1st July 2004 . I also point out:
• After 10 days of continued terrible anguish, torment and distress, a Wandsworth County Court staff phoned me. Initially, he confirmed that I was the defendant in the trial scheduled to take place on 17 August 2003. I captured this conversation in a fax to the court staff, dated 19 July 2004. In this fax, I also captured the fact that he asked me to fax him a copy of the 1 July 2004 Consent Order endorsed by the court, as the court had not kept a copy for my file. (NB: !!!) I also asked him to confirm, in writing, whether or not the 17 August 2004 trial concerned me, stating:
• Still in the dark, and in continuing terrible distress and anguish as to whether or not I was the defendant in a trial due to take place in three weeks time, on 22 July 2004 I wrote to the District Judge, Wandsworth County Court. In this letter I stated:
I also stated that
• In this letter, I also wrote:
• This finally led to a brief reply from Wandsworth County Court, dated 23 July 2004 :
This was followed by a confirmation dated 27 July 2004. Not only do I not even get an apology from the court, it, in effect, tells me that I am an illiterate idiot. (And of course: same treatment from the Court Service!) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, can you now see why I started this section with:
Can you also see why I stated on the home page to the site that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? • I received from Wandsworth County Court a 'General form of Judgement or Order' dated 2 August 2004 :
So, the 5th Defendant 'caved in' but, as suggested by the evidence, on entirely different terms from those determined by the LVT (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.3 for detail of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination) as:
So much for the LVT determination and 'Steel Services' not being entitled to charge leaseholders differentially AND my bringing the LVT determination to the attention of the judge in Wandsworth County Court, in my letter dated 22 July 2004 - in which I stated:
See Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 5.1 for the reply from the Court Service (C) 'The English injustice system'I think that any reasonable, fair minded person, considering the above events will understand why my summary for this section reads 'The English Injustice system'. Considering that, I - alone - wrote SEVEN letters to the courts (other leaseholders will have protested as well), can events with the courts be attributed solely to gross incompetence and gross mismanagement? As detailed in the Document library - In total West London County Court, Wandsworth County Court and the Court Service (cry for help to Lord Falconer) have cost me over 200 hours of my life. In addition, over £10,000 (US$17,000) in legal fees As well as an indescribable amount of torment, anguish and distress over a period of one year and nine months - and continued anguish since then as the judge in West London County Court captured in the 28 May 2004 order that the action against me be 'stayed' i.e. open to further proceedings I hold the view that the courts have, among others, committed the following breaches of my Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised in the Human Rights Act 1998:
WEST LONDON COUNTY COURT, WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT AND LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . (D) How the 'Clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post'
The following represents the comments (in italics) I received from the Law Society in its 8 February 2005 reply to my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor. These comments are included because they make specific reference to the court. The numbers highlighted in bold typeface and their associated text, also in bold typeface - which precede the reply from the Law Society - are the points from my complaint to the Law Society. 1.1.1.2 Ignored evidence supplied - ".it would have been for you and/or your solicitors to bring your defence and supporting documents to the attention of the Court at the relevant time via the correct channels" • In filing my defence to the court, I certainly expected the court to read it - and take action. • In my 22 June 2003 letter to the District Judge, I included highlights from the LVT/SC/007/20/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database) :
To this I added a note in which I referred to Mr Lanny Silverstone's 7 October 2002 letter threatening to forfeit my lease. With the letter, I enclosed 8 pages from the LVT report. • In my letter of 15 July 2003 to the court headed
I specifically state that I disagree with the revised amount of £10,917 (US$19,250) demanded of me by 'Steel Services' and asked for the court's assistance
(I copied CKFT and Martin Russell Jones on the letter). • I wrote another letter to the judge, dated 9 August 2003 again reiterating my position and providing, in evidence (among my 16 enclosures) a copy of the LVT report, as well as of my surveyor's assessment (dated 31 July 2003 ) which clearly demonstrate that the sum still being demanded of me post the LVT determination did not reflect this determination.
At this point I included precise details of the impact of the LVT determination on the sum demanded - which had the effect of reducing the original sum demanded by nearly 70% - followed by:
1.1.2.2. Demanded money that was not due - ".it was a matter for the Court to determine whether the sums claimed were due or not. The Court, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction has the relevant power to impose the necessary sanction on a party where there has been abuse of process" Well, it certainly did not! (points # 2 and # 4, above ) • I also draw your attention to the following in the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service following my 29 July 2004 letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 4
Note also, from the same letter, (paragraph 13)
• 1.1.3.3. Non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules - ( NB: In relation to my stating that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor-Steel Services' 'so-called' Part 36 offer of 21 October 2003 was not compliant with CPR as defined by Lord Woolf in the Ford v GKR Construction case). Law Society: " Such concerns need to have been raised with the Court which, by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction can impose the relevant sanction, if deemed appropriate, upon the defaulting party" . I highlighted to my then solicitors (Piper Smith & Basham) and barrister (Mr Stan Gallagher) that Lord Woolf's ruling applied as I had not been provided with the information necessary for me to assess the offer. (This was ignored. It forms part of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham and my complaint against Mr Gallagher) I could not send to the court the Notice of Acceptance I had sent to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 19 December 2003 when I took back control of my case, as it took another five months for 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky, to agree on the wording of a Consent Order - but with no intention of implementing it. See Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.4 If the 28 May 2004 hearing (at which the consent order was discussed) was the time for me to show / file my Notice of Acceptance of 19 December 2003 - and therefore raise the issue of the non-compliance of the offer with CPR - as defined by Lord Woolf - I missed it (due to West London County Court's fault). (Lord Falconer # 3 ) Anyway, considering that
...it is clear that it would not have made any difference.1.1.3.5. Obtained Orders before Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued report - "...should have been raised before the Court for it to determine the jurisdiction of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal over the Court's jurisdiction in respect of CKFT's client's claim" I communicated the LVT action to the courts a total of EIGHT times (all by 'Recorded' / 'Special delivery' post) - in very plain language, I believe. 1. My 10 December 2002 letter to WLCC:
2. My 17 December 2002 Defence to the WLCC claim, WL 203 537:
3. My 17 December 2002 letter to WLCC (included with my defence to the claim):
4. My 25 March 2003 letter to WLCC:
5. My 30 March 2003 letter to the LVT, cc’d WLCC:
6. My 17 June 2003 letter to WLCC:
7. My 22 June 2003 letter to WLCC:
8. One year later - as the horrendous nightmare was continuing (point # 14 , above; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2 , # 3, # 4, # 5 , # 5.1 , # 5.2 ) - I also repeated this in my 22 July 2004 letter to Wandsworth County Court
And, in some of these letters, as well as in others e.g. 17 July 2003 and 9 August 2003, I communicated to the courts that the reduction in the sum demanded of me fell very short of reflecting the LVT determination. • The 6 August 2003 court application filed by Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, states
It was NOT TRUE (as explained earlier on in this section). . I again draw your attention to paragraph 13 in the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service
Also, to paragraph 12
1.1.3.6. Entered negotiations and at the same time claimed different amounts from others - ". parties to the litigation (residents) should have raised any of their concerns with the Court at the appropriate time" • Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, copied West London County Court on his 17 July 2003 letter to the LVT. And the 21 July 2003 reply from the LVT stating:
• To which can be added the fact that 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 17 June 2003 report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (#992 on the LVT database) This report was supplied to the court :
• My 9 August 2003 letter to the judge, stating:
• The court opted to ignore the fact I had stated in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim that the lease supplied to the court with the claim was different from mine. The lease supplied to the court with the claim ('apparently' for flat 23 ) states:
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 agreed to such outrageously unfair contract terms. The lease given to the LVT, 'apparently' for flat 22 , also contained the same clause). • 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" . • I again draw your attention to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service. Given events, I believe that any reasonable, fair minded person would conclude that the courts have knowingly assisted Mr Ladsky et. al. in breaching the terms of my lease - as well as statutory requirements. 1.1.3.7. Failure to amend claim in light of Leasehold Valuation Tribunal report - " The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal report would have been brought to the attention of the Court or alternatively the Court would have known that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal was considering issues. Therefore, the alleged failure to amend the claim is not a matter that we can consider as it falls within the jurisdiction of the Court at the relevant time" In addition to my letters to the court of 10 December 2002, 17 December 2002 and 25 March 2003: • My 30 March 2003 letter to the LVT Panel, copied to the District Judge:
• My 17 June 2003 letter to the District Judge:
• My 22 June 2003 letter to the District Judge:
• I again draw your attention to paragraph 14 of the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service.
1.1.3.8. Observe proper standards of work - ". all procedural/legal matters which were for the Court to address. For instance, if a party has failed to comply with court rules/procedures then it is for the Court by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction to determine those breaches and if appropriate, sanction the defaulting party " My letters of 10 December 2002 , 17 December 2002 , 25 March 2003 and 22 June 2003 to the court, as well as my defence of 17 December 2002 , and my 30 March 2003 letter to the LVT Panel, copied to the court. In these, I: bring the action in the LVT to the attention of the court, including stating that the LVT told leaseholders to NOT pay the sum demanded until it had issued its determination and it had therefore been implemented; request that the action be stayed, and equally plainly, state
I also draw your attention to paragraph 12 in the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service:
1.1.4.1 Breach of duty to Court - " CKFT were entitled to issue a claim as they did and you had an opportunity in your defence to raise any objection as cited at point (a), namely that you were told not to pay. lt would then be for the Court to determine whether the claim could be entertained or not" In addition to my replies under the previous points: • In my letter of 15 July 2003 to the judge headed "Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the LVT" , I specifically state that I disagree with the revised amount of £10,917 (US$19,250) demanded of me by Steel Services - and quote from my surveyor's assessment in support of this. • In my 22 June 2003 letter to the District Judge:
• For the last time, I again draw your attention to paragraph 12 in the 23 August 2004 reply from the Court Service:
(See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for further detail)
The Court Service
The conclusion which, I believe, any reasonable person would draw from the 'black on white' evidence is: Evidently, it is up to the consumer to police the conduct of solicitors... as well as that of the courts - considering the reply to my complaint from the Court Service These events lead me to fully endorse Sir David Clementi 's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)
Do you also 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'? (F) The key parties cannot plead ignorance of the facts and eventsFair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, as you can see from the following, the key parties cannot plead ignorance of the facts and events in relation to West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court - nor can they claim not being made aware of issues at an early stage. I have captured these events in varying details to numerous parties, in particular, in government. These include, among others: • My identical letter in August 2003 to a dozen media (e.g. to the Guardian ) on which, in each instance, I copied several ministers, including Lord Falconer of Thoroton. As done by the others, Lord Falconer's department, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, stated in its 1 September 2003 reply that it had forwarded my letter to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister because it considered
(My hand written comment on the reply reads: "In addition to the LVT, plus the police (Home Office letter of 27 August 2003 ), Mr Prescott also deals with the judiciary?" • My 29 July 2004 letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton (on which I also copied Christopher Leslie, then minister for the courts, and David Lammy, MP, then with responsibility for Human Rights) • My 20 February 2005 covering letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman in the context of my complaint against the Law Society in relation to its handling of my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor. Hence, another department under Lord Falconer of Thoroton. • Points 60-63 and 100-124 of my 11 November 2004 letter to the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea Housing, as well as highlights in my letter, also of 11 November 2004 , to the Chief Housing Officer, Kensington & Chelsea council (pages 3-5). Hence, a department then headed by Mr John Prescott, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. • As I had filed a complaint on 17 September 2004 with the Local Government Ombudsman against Kensington & Chelsea Housing, I also copied both of the above letters to the Local Government Ombudsman. Hence, another department, at the time, under Mr John Prescott. • My 22 November 2004 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Yet again, another government department. • My 6 April 2005 letter to Mr Michael Howard, then Leader of the Conservative Party. • My 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor • My 2 February 2005 (1MB) complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones For my other complaints, see My Diary 6 May 2008 and, for the sequence, of my correspondence, see Document library # 3 Journalist from the Daily Express who wrote (16 June 2006)
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU! Your comment is absolutely 'spot on'! The question is: are you and I in a minority or a majority? (G) At the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE ?Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE . (This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc. In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)
To be more precise:
( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006) UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT? LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON, CAWDERY KAYE FIREMAN & TAYLOR, MR STAN GALLAGHER, PIPER SMITH & BASHAM, THE LAW SOCIETY, MARTIN RUSSELL JONES, ETC., CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING If no action is taken by individual/s in authority in the face of the 'black on white' evidence contained in the 'Lawyers, Courts & LSO' section on this site, then this country is in an ever bigger mess than reported daily by the British media. |
