Email this site to a contact

 

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

HER MAJESTY'S West London County Court - 2002-04 - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Her Majesty's West London County Court, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for the actions and lack of action by her judiciary and staff is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

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

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

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

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

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

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

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

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Her Majesty's West London County Court judiciary and staff...

...joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

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

 

In reading this page, remember also the claims by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron - in Jan 12:

"...Britain...[has a] well regarded legal systems and...a long and exemplary record on human rights..."

"We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust"

(But then, the UK's Human Rights Act excludes 2 critical articles: Article 1 - Obligation to respect Human Rights; Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy = the Act is sham).

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

  • (A) Brief overview (section removed)
  • (B) Events in chronological order (header removed)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

My experience with Her Majesty's West London County Court between Dec 02 and Jul 04 - as the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized (Case summary) - was horrendous and extremely traumatic.

I went through 20 months of absolute sheer utter hell with this nightmare, hellhole, masonic, barbaric, kangaroo court. They were 20 months of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma. It destroyed my life.

I was subjected to this treatment as a result of having a - fraudulent - 29.11. 02 claim, ref: WL203 537, filed against me, and 10 of my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House, Basil St, London SW3 1AX, representing 14 apartments...

...- BY Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), on behalf of 'Steel Services' (SS) (# 1, below) = Andrew David Ladsky - 'the brother'

(see Advisors to Jefferson House ; Owners identity ; Headlessors ; Directorships).

What took place with West London County Court (WLCC) in 2002-04 is also discussed under:

It is also covered (among many other documents) in:

  • (3)- My 03.06.08 Witness Statement (re. another fraudulent claim filed against me by Ladsky in WLCC: Overview # 11).

(NB: Some of my fellow leaseholders also complained of the treatment by WLCC.

While I do not have evidence in support, I can add that, in Dec 03, to ensure a payment I had made (# 11, below) had been recorded, 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." )

(See also Comment # 19 for the experience of a visitor to my site with this court).

I conclude from my experience with this hellhole, masonic, nightmare, kangaroo court in 2002-04, and in 2007-08, that (as in the case of the then LVT, police - et.al.), its failure to perform its legal remit and ensure the integrity of the rule of law...

...stem from its lapdogs and henchmen judges, court manager and other court staff...

evidently perceiving the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers...

- as having the 'divine right' to defraud me - and my fellow leaseholders, and as 'retribution' for my 'daring' to stand-up and fight for my so-called 'rights'. In one word:

C O R R U P T I O N (*)

(It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. My website demonstrates this very amply).

(*) Used in the dictionary’s sense of moral depravation, as well as in the sense of “Willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain” - because there has to be a reason for the glaring bias by HM's WLCC judiciary, court manager and other court staff ignoring repeatedly the evidence, breach of CPR, of statutes, of the Lease - and hence:

failing repeatedly to ensure the integrity of the rule of law - as summarised, below, under: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me.

(Other examples of bias by judges).

The test for judicial bias was set out by the House of Lords in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, especially per Lord Hope at [102]-[103].

More recently, the Master of the Rolls restated the relevant law at [4]-[7] of Howell and ors v Millais and ors [2007] EWCA Civ 720:

"The relevant question is whether ‘all the circumstances’ of the case would ‘lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a possibility …that the tribunal was biased’"

A moderately intelligent "fair-minded and informed observer" would have known, from the very early evidence that the claim was vexatious, and therefore an abuse of the court's process. Para.3.4.3.1 of The White Book Service 2010 (which also applied at the time):

"Vexatious proceedings - The function of the court is to do justice between the parties, not to allow its process to be used as a means of achieving injustice...

It is an abuse to bring vexatious proceedings i.e. two or more sets of proceedings in respect of the same subject matter which amount to harassment of the defendant in order to make him fight the same battle more than once with the attendant multiplication of costs, time and stress... In addition to striking out the statements of case in such proceedings, the court may make a civil restraint order"

Rule 3.4(2) of the CPR explicitly empowers the civil courts to strike out any proceeding that is "an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings".

Para.3.4.3 of the 2010 edition of the White Book, rehearses that "the categories of abuse of process are many and not closed", and reflects what Lord Bingham of Cornhill said in Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 F.L.R 759: that it involves "using that process for a purpose or in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use"

Para.3.4.3.1 "Vexatious proceedings" states: "The function of the court is to do justice between the parties, not to allow its process to be used as a means of achieving injustice..."

This is in addition to the fact that, in breach of CPR, WLCC accepted - and pursued the claim - in spite of the fact that the statement of truth was endorsed "by the managing agents", the then Martin Russell Jones.

(NB: Other people are also complaining of corrupt individuals in the judicial system - see e.g. Victims Unite (http://victims-unite.net) and the petition to Stop the Oppression of the British People (My Diary 3 Apr 10), as well as the Comments).

(NB: Note that (1)- many of the District Judges are current / ex. solicitors and barristers; (2) as evidenced by my very comprehensive first-hand experience (and that of others), criminal conduct by solicitors and barristers is widespread - and is encouraged by the fact that (typically) the so-called 'regulators' turn a blind eye to it.

As also evidenced by my first-hand experience - once they are in office, the judiciary can then rely on protection from HMCS 'Customer Service' - all the way up to the Lord Chancellor (my 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton in 2004 ; my 'cry for help' to Jack Straw in Dec 07 (WLCC # 18.1) - following my 13 Nov 07 complaint (WLCC from pt # 18)).

And, unsurprisingly, it also extends to the Office of Judicial Complaints (Queen's Bench # 4(7)(4)). (As to a previous Chancellor, an MP described him as being "in collusion with the Law Society" (Legal-Intro).

Because I started from the basis of having absolute trust and faith in the 'justice system' of this island-Kingdom - and had never set foot in court in the 30+ years I had been in the country by then - my experience with Her Majesty's English Court Service - as the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime - has shocked me and repulses me beyond belief.

These judges and the Lord Chancellor ought to read Lord Denning's book, "What next in the law?":

“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it the Government, State, employer, trade-union, or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy”

(NB: see media articles on the Legal - home page)

Back to sections list

Summary of events - Her Majesty's West London County Court - 2002-04:

(See below, Breaches of the law)

(NB: My adding these summaries to the page, in 2013, led to an immediate massive increase in the attacks against me by Her Majesty's British Transport Police helicopters: 2013 summary # 2 - that has continued ever since)

(1) - Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary proceeded unlawfully with the 29.11.02 claim, ref: WL203 537, filed by Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA - on behalf of 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky - against me and 10 of my fellow leaseholders, representing a total of 14 apartments - for the total sum of £303,794 (US$535,700) (pt # 1) - AS:

  • (2)- It knew that HM's then London LVT had specifically told me - and fellow leaseholders - at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial hearing to NOT PAY the 'service charge' - until the tribunal had issued its determination and the findings had therefore been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand.

(2) - It also proceeded with the claim - in spite of knowing that, contrary to the assertion, the lease supplied with the claim was not representative my Lease - and imparted a highly material false obligation on my part (and I am sure, my fellow leaseholders) (pt # 3).

(3) - By means of Charging Orders and Judgments (pt # 5) - Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary terrorised at least 7 of my fellow leaseholders into paying - the full amount demanded (pts # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9)..

...- before the tribunal had issued its 17.06.03 report - thereby breaching their statutory rights, as well as rights under the lease - and leading them to be very seriously ripped-off (pts # 6 , # 8).

(4) - Ignoring the damning evidence I supplied: (i)- HM's District Judge Wright proceeded with the 24 Jun 03 'hearing' (pt # 8) and, (ii)- at the time - set-up a Summary Judgment 'hearing' against me - in the 24.06.03 Order (pt # 8).

(5) - During the 26 Aug 03 so-called 'hearing' of the 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me (pt # 10) - HM's District Judge Wright did not challenge any of the claims made by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, in her full of lies Application (pt # 10) - in spite of my having provided her with more damning evidence against it (pt # 10).

(6) - Her Majesty's WLCC made miss - deliberately - the 28 May 04 'hearing' - so that Ladsky's 'brother', Her Majesty's District Judge Madge could "stay" the action against me - in the 28.05.04 Order (pt # 13(2)) (Falconer # 3 , # 4).

Further: (i)- it first insisted that "no hearing took place" (Falconer # 5.2) ; (ii)- kept me deliberately in the dark as to what had taken place at 'the hearing' - by not providing the recording of 'the hearing' until 2 months afterwards, having first, sent the wrong tape, one month after my 04.06.04 request (Falconer # 5.3).

(It is one of the typical criminal psychological harassment tactics used by the British Establisment: Persecution # 1(4)(8)).

(7) - In spite of knowing that agreement had been reached (pt # 13(2)), in a 09.06.04 Notice - without giving any detail - Her Majesty's WLCC informed me falsely that "[I was] the Defendant in a trial" in HM's Wandsworth County Court - which the latter then maintained for several weeks (pt # 13(3)).

(8) - Other criminal psychological harassment tactics, included:

  • (1)- Falsely telling me - and persisting in doing so over a period of 10 days, that a 4 Apr 03 hearing concerned me (pt # 5) (Falconer # 1).
  • (2)- Falsely telling me, on 31 Mar 04, that an 18 Mar 04 judgment had been entered against me (pt # 13(2)) (Falconer # 2).

This atrocious conduct of this kangaroo court is what led me to accept the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' from SS =Ladsky, of £6,350 (US$11,200) - even though, legally, I did not owe this amount either (pt # 12)...

... - v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded of me in the 29.11.02 claim - "for the major works" (pt # 1) (Overview # 3).

My name for all of that? ‘

The wonders of 'the Brotherhood’', in very sick, "corrupt Britain" - in which the Establishment acts as one with 'certain criminals'...

...and especially those from a group that makes "cherished contributions" to Her Majesty's government = shower it with a lot of money.

(Adding credence to my conclusions - see the Jan 14 Indy articles that report on police's findings of "corruption of the criminal justice system et.al. by Freemasons").

Overall outcome on me - below

(Of course, the mafia continued with the treatment, in 2007-08, following another fraudulent claim filed against me by 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky (Overview # 11)...

- because somebody with my profile can, 'of course', be treated like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL).

Back to sections list

Breaches of the law - Her Majesty's West London County Court - 2002-04:

In - my NON-LAWYER opinion (*) - Her Majesty's West London County Court's judiciary, as well as staff committed breaches of Civil Procedure Rules, of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as breaches of my Lease:

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

Further, I highlight that my adding these summaries to the page, in 2013, led to an immediate massive increase in the attacks against me by Her Majesty's British Transport Police helicopters: 2013 summary # 2 - that has continued ever since.

(See above: (1)- summary of events; (2)- definition of 'bias' and 'vexatious proceedings')

•  Civil Procedure Rules

  • (2) - Ignoring the misuse of Rule 7.3 - by accepting one claim against 11 of us, leaseholders - implying that we were jointly and severally liable for the £304,293 (US$536,000) claim - which we were not.
  • ... (3)- in its 24.01.03 letter, WLCC threw the ball back at me, by asking 'me' to sort things out (pts 2(1) , # 5 , # 6).
  • (8) - Failing to take action - under Rule 32.14(1) - against Ayesha Salim, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and by extension, their client, Andrew David Ladsky - for "contempt of court by making false statements in their documents and verifying them by a statement of truth" - as they, most definitely, could not have had "an honest belief in their truth".
  • (9) - Failing to take action following my reporting in my 17.12.02 Defence that - contrary to the claim made in the Particulars - the lease supplied (‘apparently’ 'for apartment 23') was materially different from my Lease - Rule 16.4 (pt # 3).
  • (11) - At the 24 Jun 03 'hearing', in her 24.06.03 Order, HM's District Judge Wright set-up a Summary Judgment hearing against me - in spite of: (1)- the evidence I had, by then, already supplied ; (2)- my having Leave of Appeal to the (then) Lands Tribunal (pt # 8).
  • (She did however throw me a few 'crumbs', by making Ladsky pay "[my] costs for the day" (and those of my fellow leaseholders who attended the 'hearing')).
  • (2)- accepted, without the bat of an eyelid, Salim's 'explanation' as to why she was now accepting payment of £2,255 (US$4,000) - instead of the £10,917+ demanded in her Application - as being due to "a clerical error" (pt # 11(3)).

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985:

  • s.19(2) ; s.20(4) - As a result of issuing charging orders and judgments - making at least 7 of my fellow leaseholders pay the full amount demanded in the claim - before the tribunal had issued its 17.06.03 report, that had the effect of reducing the sum demanded by 70% (incl. contingency fund) (pts # 5 , # 6 , # 8 , # 9).

•  Theft Act - s.21 - Blackmail (see extracts)

•  My Lease

•  Malicious Communications Act 1998 (see extracts): (= criminal offences)

  • (2) - Falsely telling me - and persisting in doing so over a period of 10 days, that a 4 Apr 03 hearing concerned me (pt # 5) (Falconer # 1).
  • (3) - Sending me a 12.06.03 'Notice of hearing' - without providing any detail as to what the hearing was about (at a time when the then London LVT had not yet issued its report) (pt # 7).

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (see extracts): (= criminal offences)

  • (1) - By wilfully and repeatedly ignoring all my - very compelling - evidence against the claim, and hence my rights, and pursuing it - in the process, also breaching court rules.

In addition to the items, under Malicious Communications Act 1998, above:

  • further: (1)- first insisting that "no hearing took place" (Falconer # 5.2) ; (2)- keeping me - deliberately - in the dark as to what had taken place during 'the hearing' - by not providing the recording of 'the hearing' until 2 months afterwards, having first, sent the wrong tape, one month after my 04.06.04 request (Falconer # 5.3).

In fact, the above, comes under the banner of criminal psychological harassment.

•  Defamation Act (see extracts)

  • By its ongoing processing of the claim and other documents - it accepted and endorsed without question - as detailed in this section, and under Events, above.

•  Data Protection Act 1998

•  European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998):

For the reasons detailed under the above Summary, and in this section:

...as further confirmed by the non-response to my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice' (Legal-Home # 9), and the 'Get lost!' to my 12.07.09 complaint (form) to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

BUT: see my above Note. Hence, it can be argued that there have been no breaches.

(NB: What took place in Her Majesty's WLCC was a continuation of the treatment by Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - and it continued - demonstrating that it is a standard policy in my case - see kangaroo courts).

In addition to their breaching the above (as relevant) - Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary also turned a blind eye, and therefore also endorsed the following breaches by:

(1)- Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT ; (2)- Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ - and, by extension, by (3)- Andrew David Ladsky "who instructed them" (e.g. CKFT # 6. 4 , # 6.5):

•  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chp 41

  • (2) - ss 27-28 (as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999, s.42): “As officers of the court, lawyers have a duty not to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court”.

•  Theft Act 1968 Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 (= criminal offences):

  • (B)- a full of lies 24.06.03 "Draft Order and Case Summary" (pt # 8).

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

•  My Lease

As per above, for the WLCC judiciary.

•  Malicious Communications Act 1998 (see extracts) (= criminal offences)

In addition to ALL the items listed, above, under s.21 - Blackmail:

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (see extracts) (= criminal offences)

In addition:

•  Defamation Act (see extracts)

  • By filing the claim, and other documents, as well as in correspondence to the court - as detailed under this section, and under Events, above.

•  Data Protection Act 1998

(NB: Note that, equally typically:

(1)- The Law Society made a blanket rejection of my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT, including falsely claiming that many issues were outside its remit: Doc library # 2.5...and, its lapdog, the then Legal Services Ombudsman, Zahida Manzoor CBE endorsed its 'assessment': LSO # 2.

On this page, in the course of discussing events, I refer to some of 'the gems' from the Law Society.

(2)- The RICS dismissed all of my 02.02.05 complaint against MRJ: snapshot - RICS # A).

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

20 months of absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma.

Of being treated like a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, there to be used, abused and tormented at will - by ALL - including being also treated as a liar and an imbecile by HM Court Service 'Customer Service'.

Hundreds of hours of my life; it destroyed my life.

c.£15,000 in costs - from my very-hard-earned life-savings - to fight against a fraudulent claim.

These are not courts of law - but kangaroo courts "criminally placed before the people".

With a court (and tribunal) system like that - as 'a certain type' of criminal: YOU'VE GOT IT MADE: you set the ball rolling and, all you have to do is: sit back, and watch the courts / tribunals do your dirty work. (Ditto with the police - et.al.).

 

I remind you of the root cause (top of page) for all of the above Events and Breaches of the law - added to ALL the others - as well as ALL the other events reported on this website.

Unbelievable; isn't it?

Back to sections list

 

(1)- The first issue: while Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) allow a claim to be filed against more than one defendant, it seems to me - in my non-lawyer opinion - that the WLCC judiciary should not have accepted the 29.11.02 claim, ref. WL203537, by 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky, against 11 Defendants, representing 14 apartments...

- as it implied that we were jointly and severally liable for the claim - which we were not.

 

On 6 Dec 02, I took delivery of this 29.11.02 claim, ref. WL203537, from Her Majesty's West London County Court (WLCC).

It was filed by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) on behalf of 'Steel Services' (SS) = Andrew David Ladsky - on which I was listed with 10 of my fellow leaseholders - representing 14 apartments in total.

The total sum claimed was £303,794 (US$535,700).

In my case, the £14,988 demand in the Particulars of claim are detailed as "Major works contribution" £14,400 (US$25,400).

This amount was in the 17.07.02 demand 'from' the 'managing' agent, Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ. She had preceded this by a so-called 'notice' of 15.07.02 for a global (fraudulent) demand of £736,206 (US$1.3m) (Overview # 1).

As can be seen from my (Litigant in Person) 17.12.02 Defence to the claim, practically every other entry on the claim was wrong. They also included electricity charges, for which I had never received an invoice - in spite of repeated requests to Hathaway; see MRJ # 21; # 47.

While CPR Rule 7.3 - "Right to use one claim form to start two or more claims" - states:

"A claimant may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings"

...it seems to me - in my non-lawyer opinion - that accepting one claim against all of us was wrong - as it implied that we were jointly and severally liable for the £304,293 (US$536,000) claim - which we were not.

Indeed, under the terms of the Lease, each one of us is only liable for a fixed percentage of the total charges - as evidenced by e.g. (1)- the attachment to SS - the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)'s 07.08.02 application to the then London LVT; (2)- Hathaway's letter to me of 30.08.02 (MRJ # 19).

The upside to Ladsky of being allowed to do this, was that it only cost £500 (US$880) to file the fraudulent £303,794 (US$535,700) claim against 11 of us.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(2)- The other issues do not require being a lawyer to determine that Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary unlawfully proceeded with the claim as:

(NB: Includes previous section # 4)

(2.1)- Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary had absolute knowledge that the claim was an abused of process of court - and, unbelievably, threw the ball back at me to sort it out.

(In addition to causing me extreme anguish and distress: My Diary 6 Dec 02) (which, of course, was the objective - as per the business model)...

- I was very baffled by the above claim because, at the 29.11.02 then London LVT pre-trial 'hearing' (LVT # 1.4) - that took place as a result of Andrew David Ladsky's 07.08.02 Application to the tribunal (Overview # 2)...

... - we (the leaseholders) were very specifically told - by Her Majesty's tribunal - to NOT pay the 'service charge' as, if we did, the tribunal would NOT be able to help us.

To reinforce the point, we were handed a booklet by the tribunal: 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5, 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 booklet).

Hence: we were told to NOT pay the 'service charge' - until the tribunal had issued its report - AND the findings had therefore been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand.

(See LVT # 1.5 for detail - including of the collusion and conspiring between the tribunal and the Ladsky gang: LVT # 1).

As can be seen from the 29.10.02 pre-trial directions, the gang leader, Andrew David Ladsky (claiming that he was "just a resident"), with his puppets, Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS of the then MRJ, 'managing' agents for Jefferson House, and his other surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS - attended the pre-trial 'hearing'.

YET, the 29.11.02 Particulars of claim - endorsed by 'a statement of truth' by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, (see # (2), below, issue about that) - that: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" - stated that:

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

 

As detailed under LVT # 3, on 5 Feb 03, the 1st day of the substantive hearing was set for 13.03.03 (followed by others).

Hence, relative to when the 22 Nov 02 claim was filed (# 1, above):

  • it took place 3.5 months later;

 

I immediately brought the abuse of process to the attention of WLCC:

•  My 10.12.02 letter:

"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 17.12.02 letter (included with my 17.12.02 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 17.12.02 Defence to the claim, 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."

(NB: 3 months later, in my 25.03.03 letter, I repeated: "ACTION TO BE STAYED": # 5, below)

In support of my (non-lawyer) position that there definitely was an abuse of process of court, and that the action ought to have therefore been stayed, I cite the following from 2 law firms:

09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, to my then solicitors:

"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"

 

12.12.02 letter from solicitors acting for Leaseholder D, to CKFT:

"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?

(NB: Unbelievably - but (typically) - the Law Society endorsed the conduct - see CKFT # 6.1 for its 'reply' to my complaint) .

As part of the criminal psychological harassment regime, following my above letters, the court left me in limbo for more than 6 weeks, during which time, I was, of course, frantic (My Diary 6 Dec 02; end Jan 03).

And, clearly determined to continue with the regime:

in 'response' to my above Dec 02 letters, it wrote, in its 24.01.03 letter:

"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"

Unbelievable! Indeed, I found it extraordinary that Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary 'did not see' that it had a role to perform as a result of being informed - repeatedly - of an abuse of process of court - committed by an officer of the court - which is what a solicitor is.

I view this as the judiciary committing a breach of CPR's Overall Objective:

Rule 1.4 “Court’s duty to manage cases”, including 1.2(a) “Ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing”

Rule 1.4.(2) “Active case management includes – (a) encouraging the parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings

 

Yet, while the WLCC judges had absolute knowledge that an abuse of process was taking place - and had the power to take sanction against CKFT and its client, SS = Andrew David Ladsky...

... - under e.g. CPR Part 3 3.3 “Court’s power”;

CPR 44.14 “when it appears to the court that the conduct of a party or his legal representative, before or during the proceedings… was unreasonable”,

and Part 44 – PD“Section 18 Court’s powers in relation to misconduct”...

...- they took no action, opting to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. WHY? I repeat my above note.

Note that I sent Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary a total of 7 letters + my Defence - raising the issue of abuse of process of court - due to the concurrent then London LVT action.

I also highlight that I brought the abuse of process to the attention of Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs: my 09.12. 02 letter.

She, likewise, turned a blind eye and deaf ear to it - as it resulted in an (equally typical) 'Get lost! We don't care!' letter of 11.12.02 (LVT # 02).

= Both washed their hands of it.

There I was - a Litigant in Person - (typically) sent from pillar to post - with, as key reason: both being controlled by their most revered master, 'the brother': Andrew David Ladsky.

I did not do as 'suggested' by WLCC - as it was abundantly clear to me that I did not stand a chance of achieving this - given that, (among other), in 'reply' to my 17.10.02 question (following his - illegal - 07.10.02 threat of "forfeiture" (copy of definition): CKFT # 1 , # 6.2):

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

Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, wrote in his 21.10.02 letter:

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

In spite of the evidence I provided in my 17.10.02 letter, Silverstone nonetheless continued with his threats of prosecution in his 21.10.02 letter - thereby, not only denying me my statutory rights, but also breaching the terms of my Lease.

Furthermore, as detailed above, his Rachman client Andrew David Ladsky and his 'managing' agents, the then Martin Russell Jones - knew that the tribunal had told the leaseholders to NOT pay (LVT # 1.5).

Adding to the unbelievable torment, anguish and distress, is the fact that I was facing similar treatment from Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - see e.g. My Diary c. 17 Jan 03 ; End Jan 03. = the mafia typically acting in tandem - to inflict maximum mental torture.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

(2.2)- The statement of truth was endorsed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, 'managing' agent - a non-recognised party which, under CPR, also prevented Her Majesty's judiciary from pursuing the claim.

Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary proceeded with the 29 Nov 02 claim (# 1, above) - in spite of the fact that the statement of truth on the 29.11.02 Particulars of claim was endorsed by Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, 'managing' agent for Jefferson House.

Under Civil Procedure Rules PD 22 para.3.11: "An agent who manages the property…for the party cannot sign a statement of truth.

Consequences of "Failure to verify a statement of case" - PD 22 para.4.1:

"If a statement of case is not verified by a statement of truth, the statement of case will remain effective unless it is struck out, but a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth”.

(NB: I only discovered this 5 years later, as a result of having the - fraudulent - 27.02.07 claim filed against me by Portner and Jaskel, in WLCC (Overview # 11) as, 2nd time round, I made a point of familiarising myself with CPR. (My Diary 9 Mar 07).

Of course, in typical style, HMCS 'Customer Service' threw that back at me when I raised it in 2007 (WLCC-Post 2004 # 18.2)).

WHAT led Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary to conclude that it could allow SS = Andrew Ladsky - CKFT to breach CPR PD 22 para.4.1?

Answer: I repeat my above note.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(3)- In breach of CPR, Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary took no action following my highlighting, in my 17.12.02 Defence, that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine. Critically, the lease imparted a highly material - false - obligation on me.

 

CPR PD 16 Statements of Case - para.7.3 - states:

"7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing"

 

Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary knew that the assertion made in the 29.11.02 Particulars of Claim (# 1, above) - that

The Claimant attaches…(i) a copy of the Lease of Flat 23 which contains covenants in the same terms as all of the leases…”

- was NOT true – as I stated in my 17.12.02 Defence:

“Part of my lease is different from that provided to the County Court”.

(NB: I did not expand as, in those days, I was very naïve: I believed that the court would do its job by taking action).

The difference was highly material as the lease, ‘apparently’ 'for apartment 23' states, under Clause (2)(2)(c)(i):

"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..."

(NB: Equivalent to saying: ‘Give your cheque book to the landlord who will write himself a cheque for an amount he deems fit’) (And the mafia brands 'me' "a Nazi" - "because of my franco-german (sic) origin" !!!).

By contrast, in my Lease, the same Clause (2)(2)(c) (i), states:

"The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year. shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings...by the aggregate of the rateable value (in force at the end of such year) of all the flats in the Building"

And nowhere does it state the above, as claimed 'for apartment 23 lease'.

(NB: It amounted to a repeat of what SS = Ladsky and his puppet, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, had done with their 07.08. 02 application to the tribunal - as they supplied a lease, 'apparently' for apartment 22, with the same clause as for 'apparently' apartment 23 - falsely claiming that it was representative of all the leases (see LVT # 1.3 ; MRJ # 23).

Come on! It worked with the tribunal, why not do it with the court as well!).

I do not believe that, unlike my lease, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) for apartments 22 and 23 gives the Rachman landlord carte blanche to charge the leaseholders whatever amount he sees fit. (See # 6, below, for further detail)..

My flagging-up, in my 17.12.02 Defence, the fact that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine, led Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to send me a 23.01.03 letter - 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"

Note that the racketeering, criminal vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) had the gall to threaten me by quoting 'its rights' - under CPR.

(As can be seen from the letter (on which I affixed the post office receipt, I sent a copy of my Lease).

Note that Silverstone did this 2 months after filing the (fraudulent) claim against me. (see also CKKT # 6.7).

WHY did Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary turn a blind eye to this other breach of CPR - (in addition to proceeding with a claim that:

Answer: I repeat my above note.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)-Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

(4) (Moved to # 2, above)

 

(5)- Totally disregarding the abuse of process of court, Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary proceeded with the claim, issuing Judgments and Charging Orders against my fellow leaseholders - and leading to my being wrongly, and persistently told that a 4 Apr 03 Charging Order hearing concerned me.

WLCC sent me this 21.03.03 Notice that a Charging Order hearing was due to take place on 4 Apr 03.

I challenged this in my 25.03.03 letter, addressed to "District Judge"

Headed: "ACTION TO BE STAYED"

"...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 J.C. Sharma JP, 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" (LVT # 1.5)

"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 J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, Chair, at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing', as he told us (i.e. the leaseholders) that, because of this clause in our lease, the (07.08.02) application by SS might actually not proceed to a hearing by the then London 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 25.03.03 letter, WLCC still persisted in telling me, in its 27.03.03 letter, that the 4 Apr 03 Charging Order hearing concerned me:

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

As I wrote, e.g. in my 29.06.04 'cry for help' (of course, typically, in vain) to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then Lord Chancellor:

Para.26 - "Until this false claim filed against me by the unscrupulous Claimant, Steel Services, landlord for the block, I had never had any dealings with courts in my life.

I did not know what a ‘Charging Order’ was. This frightened me. I was in the most appalling state on reading this, trembling, and was actually physically sick" (NB: = the fear and criminal psychological harassment tactics)

Para.27 - "I phoned the Court but, as I was not getting anywhere, I opted to write a letter on 25 March 2003 in which I yet again reiterated – among others – my request [# 2, above] for the action to be stayed as the proceedings were still taking place with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) (see enclosed)"

Para.30 - "I was in a frantic state. I desperately tried to find out the meaning of a ‘Charging Order’.

I phoned your office, Lord Chancellor, but was not provided with an answer. [*]. I tried my then solicitor, but his reply was that I had asked him to advise me in relation to the LVT, not in relation to the Court. If I wanted advice in relation to the Court, he required £2,000.00 in advance. (By then I had already paid him £9,000.00 in fees!).

Eventually, through my network of contacts, I determined that a ‘Charging Order’ could only be made against me if a judgment had been entered against me. I told my friend that, if that was the case, then I did not know anything about it"

(*) Note that in its 23.08.04 'reply'', Falconer's 'Customer Service' in effect, called me a liar (LFT # 1)

At my wits end, I sent a 30.03.03 letter to the members of the then London LVT Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - on which I copied the "District Judge" - stating, 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 J.C. Sharma, 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?"

They had 'a line of communication' alright: that of 'the Brother' saying: Get the bloody Bitch! Make her suffer as much you can - so that she gives up. I need the money!

After days of extreme anguish and distress (My Diary 24 Mar 03 ; 25 Mar 03 ; 1 Apr 03), desperately trying to find out the information to challenge WLCC - and being literally minutes away from paying another £2,000 (US$3,500) to my then solicitor...

...- when I again contacted WLCC - this time 'armed' with the appropriate terminology (obtained through my network) - I was finally told:

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

I captured this in my 01.04.03 letter, addressed to the "District Judge" - 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 (above) 1st April conversation with WLCC, 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" (My Diary 4 Apr 03).

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.

A consent order relating to the 7th Defendant, dated 02.04.03, had been faxed to the court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - stating:

"Upon agreement having been reached between the claimant and the Seventh Defendant by consent it is ordered that:

(1) Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003 be set aside.

(2) The Seventh Defendant's Defence shall be deemed to have been served as at the date of this order.

(3) No order as to costs.

(The above events are also discussed under Falconer # 1. Of course, his then 'Customer Service': (1)- in effect, branded me a liar; (2)- lied to cover his mates in the court).

What Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary did in relation to this Defendant (among others! - see point # 6, below) is absolutely appalling.

Indeed the consent order states: "Judgment against the Seventh Defendant dated 28 January 2003..." The tribunal signed its report 4.5 months later! on 17.03.03.

WHY did Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary do that (in addition to proceeding with a claim that:

Answer: I repeat my above note.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(6)- Totally ignoring: (1)- covenants in the Lease; (2)- statutory requirements; (3)- the fact that Her Majesty's tribunal had very specifically told the leaseholders to not pay the 'service charge' demand until it had issued its report, and it had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand...

- Her Majesty's WLCC's judiciary was instrumental in making 7 leaseholders pay before the report was issued.

 

As evidenced by the 23.05.03 application to WLCC by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, for a case management conference:

"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 (# 5, above).

As there were 11 leaseholders listed on the 29.11.02 claim, it provides incontrovertible evidence ("has obtained judgement") that:

Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary was instrumental in making 7 of my fellow leaseholders pay BEFORE HM's tribunal issued its report, dated 17.06.03 (LVT/SC/007/120/02 - under reference #992 on the LVT database) - see London LVT # 4.

The 2002 and 2003 "summary of contributions to the major works fund" sent to me by the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales (ICAEW) with its 29.08.06 ‘reply’ to my complaint against its member, Pridie Brewster, accountants for Jefferson House) (snapshot under Pridie Brewster-ICAEW # A) - and to which I have added my analysis - demonstrate that:

  • 17 apartments had been made to pay the full amount by 31 Dec 02 (Hence, before the start of the tribunal hearings).
  • By 31 Dec 03, 9 out of the 14 apartments on the 29.11.02 WLCC claim - had also been made to pay the full amount.
  • = Had been ripped=off - see also Home page- Note 2 for my assessment of a £500,000 fraud .

(NB: Note that, in the light of subsequent events, the maximum that each leaseholder should have paid was £250 (US$441): Overview # 5)

 

NOTE the requirements of s.19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - which states:

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

 

As stated under para.64 of the 17.06.03 tribunal report

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

(NB: See, below, the outrageous letter from the ICAEW)

 

NONE of them should have been made to pay any monies before the LVT report was issued, and the findings implemented i.e. reflected in the demands:..

...as the landlord cannot charge the leaseholders differentially other than on the basis of their share - of a global service charge - which must be the same for all:

  • Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) of the Lease makes it clear that the amount of service charge payable by each lessee is a fixed percentage share calculated on a global sum which must be the same same for ALL the lessees.
  • 30.08.02 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ: "The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease. There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts.  The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%...".

These percentages are also clearly evident on MRJ's 'Major works apportionments' supplied to Her Majesty's West London County Court by Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, CKFT, for the, below, 24 Jun 03 ( # 8) and 26 Aug 03 (# 11) so-called 'hearings' (MRJ # 19).

(See also, # 9, below, the 21.07.03 reply from the then London LVT to Silverstone - proving further that (of course) the global sum applies to ALL.

Also below, points # 9 , # 12 for the 'offer' made to me, and # 10 for evidence that the WLCC judiciary had full knowledge of this - as well as Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 18 ; Martin Russell Jones # 19 , # 20) - and para.50 of my 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, under which I stressed this fact).

While the turning of blind eyes and deaf ears to the abuse of process of court - by both - Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary AND the Head of the then LVTs (# 2(1), above) demonstrated collusion...

...- I strongly contend that the judiciary felt free to do the above - in the knowledge that their mates in the tribunal would issue a report - that would fall right into the hand of their 'Lord and Master', 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky (# 8, below).

 

Hence, Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary totally ignored:

  • covenants in the lease;

WHY? Answer: I repeat my above note.

In its 29.08.06 ‘response’ to my complaint against Pridie Brewster, the ICAEW wrote:

"What is crucial in the decision is that the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs should they wish to do so"

To which my reply is:

If the leaseholders were that “willing”, how come they ended-up having the 29 Nov 02 claim filed against them?

How do you answer that one, Pridie Brewster and ICAEW?

Of course they were NOT “willing”:

  • We had been denied our legal rights.

On the upside: the ICAEW confirmed that the leaseholders were made to pay “extra costs” i.e. monies not due and payable.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(7)- Continuing to operate at the 'beck and call' of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) = that of 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky - before Her Majesty's tribunal issued its report - HM's West London County Court sent me a 12.06.03 'Notice of hearing' - without any information as to what the hearing was about.

 

WLCC sends me a 'Notice of hearing', dated 12.06.03 - stating:

"TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing will take place on

24 June 2003 at 2:00 PM

at West London County Court, 43 North End Road, W Kensington, London, W14 8SZ

When you should attend"

That's the sum total of it. No explanation whatsoever as to what the hearing is about.

(= Another example of the utter contempt and disdain by Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary and court staff). (See Falconer # 5.4(2) for his then 'Customer Service' 'reply' to my complaint).

At the time of receiving the 'Notice', I had not received a copy of the then LVT's so-called 'determination', ref: LVT/SC/007/02 (as it signed it on 17.06.03).

Consequently, I saw myself as being - yet again - hounded by the court. In fact, considering the treatment so far, I felt that 'persecuted' was by now a more appropriate description. (NB: My experience since then proved my assessment to be correct - see Persecution page).  

Very clearly, the court did not care whether I had received a copy of the LVT report.

It reinforced my perception that SS i.e. Rachman Andrew David Ladsky and his racketeer solicitors, CKFT, were 'running the show' in West London County Court.

How else could I explain what had - and continued to be taking place?

And indeed: how to also explain what had - and continued to take place in relation to my fellow leaseholders? (point # 6, above)

(Evidently, 'SS' = Ladsky was keeping in close contact with his 'brothers' / henchmen in the the then London LVT, as the tribunal signed its report 5 days later - see London LVT # 4).

In my 17.06.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, 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?"

(The 'hearing' nonetheless took place. It turned out to be a 'case management' 'hearing' - see # 8, below - asked for by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT - # 6, above).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(8)- Ignoring my communicating that I had Leave of Appeal to the Lands Tribunal, Her Majesty's District Judge Wright proceeded nonetheless with the 24 Jun 03 'hearing' - in the process, also confirming the unlawful treatment of the leaseholders.

Continuing to ignore the damning evidence, as well as the lies by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, (who relied on the tribunal's wilful failure to perform its remit) - ensured further assistance to Ladsky by setting-up a Summary Judgment hearing against me (and fellow leaseholder).

(See prior communications, under # 7, above)

In my 22.06.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, I communicated:

"I have just received the LVT report.[17.06.03]".

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, Her Majesty's District Judge Wright decided that the hearing would nonetheless take place - confirmed in the 23.06.03 letter I received after the 'hearing' (See also My Diary 24 Jun 03)

"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", Her Majesty's judiciary bow to this diktat without questioning anything - in spite of the evidence provided.

At the 24th Jun 03 'hearing', just 10 minutes before seeing Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, continuing to demonstrate his racketeer colours - handed me 3 documents I had not seen previously.

They included a "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " produced 'by' the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) for which, in my case (and that of the other 5 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) (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) originally demanded in the 29.11.02 claim (# 1, above) and the 17.07.02 invoice) (Overview # 1)...

- whereas the impact of the then London LVT findings was a 70% reduction.

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

The remaining 2 documents from Silverstone were a " Draft Order and Case Summary" stating, among others:

"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"

As can be seen under London LVT # 4 and Brian Gale # 6 - this is absolutely not true. But...

...Silverstone's claims were to be expected as...

...- to be of assistance to 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky - members of Her Majesty's then London LVT panel: (1)- the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP; (2)- Mr J Humphrys, FRICS ; (3)- Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - HAD...

...- failed to perform their legal remit - under s.19(2B) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. Proof:

(1)- At the beginning of their 17.06.03 report:

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

 

(2)- By J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, in his 29.10.02 pre-trial directions:

"The application is for the Tribunal to determine the reasonableness of the refurbishment and repairs work proposed by the applicants at a cost of 736,206.09 (Overview # 1)

 

(3)- In its 21.07.03 letter to Lanny Silverstone, CKFT (see # 9, below, for surrounding events):

"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"

 

Other evidence - including from the Ladsky gang:

Letter of 09.04.03 from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, to my then solicitors - in which she captured a voice message from the (then) 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"

 

Silverstone's 21.07.03 reply to "The Chairman, Leasehold Valuation":

"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"

 

Andrew Ladsky's 28.04.03 letter letter to the then London LVT - it captured under para.50 of its 17.06.03 report:

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

 

Ladsky's other 'puppets', Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, in 'her' (=Ladsky's) 16.12.02 letter to me:

"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"

 

...- by not including, in their 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' (LVT # 4) - a summary of the impact - on the global sum demanded - of the findings, from the hearings...

... - and Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, refused repeatedly to address this very major failing (LVT # 7)

And, to further assist 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky, the tribunal published a so-called 'summary of the case' - that is a pack of lies.

My Chartered Surveyor's assessment (31.07.03) of the 17.06.03 then London LVT findings - led to the conclusion that the original sum demanded of £736,207 (US$1.3m) (Overview # 1) was reduced by £500,000 (US$882,000) (including the contingency fund, 'said' to include £144k) i.e. nearly 70% less. (See London LVT # 4 , # 7).

As a result of my 22.06.03 letter, during the 24th June 'conference', District Judge Wright reprimanded Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, 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'?)

ALL the leaseholders on the claim should have been “given the time to review the report”...

...as none of them should have been made to pay any monies before the tribunal issued its report:..

... as the landlord cannot charge the leaseholders differentially other than on the basis of their share of a global service charge which must be the same for ALL.

(See # 6 above, for detail - including what actually took place, and # 9, below, the 21.07.03 reply from the then London LVT to Silverstone - proving further that the global sum applies to all).

 

WHY did Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary conclude that it could breach leaseholders' statutory rights, and rights under the Lease?

Answer: I repeat my above note.

At least: District Judge Wright threw me a few 'crumbs' by ordering that 'SS' =Ladsky, pays my costs for the day (and that of other leaseholders present) - and, obviously, refused Lanny Silverstone's demand that I (and the other leaseholders) pay his client's costs for the day: 24.06.03 Order. (See also My Diary 24 Jun 03).

HOWEVER, note from the 24.06.03 Order, that Her Majesty's District Judge Wright was, of course, still playing along with 'the brother' Andrew David Ladsky and his mafia - in spite of:

...as the 24.06.03 Order stated:

"1. The directions hearing be adjourned to first open date after 19 August 2003 namely on Tuesday 26 August 2003 at 2.00 PM with a (sic) time estimate of 30 minutes before District Judge Wright to enable the claimant to issue an application for summary judgment such application to be filed no later than 4.00 pm on 19 August 2003"

(As detailed under # 10, below, the Ladsky gang filed an Application against me. See # 11, below, for what took place at the so-called 'hearing' of 26 Aug 03)

In my non-lawyer opinion: the hearing should not have taken place.

What 'SS' i.e. Ladsky wanted out of the day was the opportunity to put more psychological pressure on me (and my fellow leaseholders who were still fighting against the fraudulent claim) to pay what 'he decided' we should pay. And the Her Majesty's court obliged 'the Brother' - taking the opportunity to assist him further by capturing the above in the Order.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(9)- Her Majesty's District Judge Wright continued to treat me as a non-entity - and repeatedly ignored evidence that - in breach of my rights (and those of my fellow leaseholders) - 'Steel Services'-the then MRJ had not implemented the then London LVT so-called ‘determination’ of 17.06.03.

In my 15.07.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, cc'd Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, I informed her that:

"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 31.07.03 assessment of the tribunal's 17.06.03 so-called ‘determination’ - as Her Majesty's tribunal wilfully failed to perform its legal remit (# 8, above).

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 [US$25,400] to £10,917 [US$19,250]" (# 8, above)

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

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

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

Using intimidation tactics they appear to have succeeded in getting some residents to pay the full amount originally demanded for the major works. (NB: I was right! : # 6, above ; re. intimidation tactics - see e.g. LVT #  1.4)

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"

My letter triggered a 17.07.03 letter from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, with which he enclosed Part III - Revised price of the cost schedule.

My chartered surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the document, "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised", handed to me by Silverstone, in court, on 24th June (# 8, above).

Hence, it still fell very far short of my surveyor's assessment (see # 8, above).

Furthermore, as can be seen, Silverstone did not - of course - supply any supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at.

Silverstone also copied me on his 17.07.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, in which he implied that I was a liar, as he wrote:  

"For current purposes we wish to record the fact that figures quoted in Ms Rawé's letter [15.07.03] are wrong."

As Her Majesty's then London LVT had ‘very conveniently’ for his client, failed to perform its legal remit (# 8, above), it was Silverstone’s word i.e. Ladsky’s word against the assessment by my surveyor.

And of course, 'the brother', Ladsky carried a lot of weight among his 'brothers' in Her Majesty's WLCC: the masonic judiciary - and, by extension, so did his gang of racketeers.

('Thank you' John Prescott, then Head of Housing, and Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs for the poisoned chalice!)

As evidenced by SS = Ladsky's 21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) (# 12, below):

"our client has once again [NB!!!] reviewed the revised apportionment"

Ladsky and his gang of racketeers kept on challenging the 17.06.03 then London LVT report - but without going through the proper channel: appeal to the Lands Tribunal. WHY?

Because they had absolutely no intention of implementing the LVT findings - as evidenced by, among others - their lies - in connection with the 24 Jun 03 (# 8, above) and 26 Aug 03 (# 11, below) 'hearings'...

...and because it was highly advantageous to stay with the 17.06.03 report - as it - unlawfully - does not include a summary of the findings (# 8, above) - thereby allowing the Ladsky gang of racketeers to spin their concocted story to my fellow leaseholders - and extort monies not due and payable from them e.g. point # 6, above

Hence, the reason for the (standard formula) of ongoing bullying, harassment, blackmail, intimidation and other criminal psychological harassment tactics used by Silverstone to force me"to meet" with his Rachman client Ladsky - to 'strike a deal': letters from Silverstone of 25.06.03 , 24.07.03 and 07.08.03 (extracts under CKFT # 3).

And every time the greed-ridden, vampiric, criminal gang challenged the amount, it was done without any explanation, and hence in breach of statutory requirements.

(NB: As captured in my (above) 15.07.03 letter to District Judge Wright, cc'd Silverstone, I accepted the LVT's so-called 'determination'. What I repeatedly challenged - in vain (LVT # 7) - is the fact that the tribunal - failed - to perform its legal remit - by not including a summary of the impact of its findings on the global sum demanded (# 8, above).

In his 17.07.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, wrote that he was also contacting the then London 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" .

He provided me with a copy of his 17.07.03 letter to the LVT - stating:

"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 tribunal's Clerk, Sheila Sanz, replied in her 21.07.03 letter:

"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"

 

As discussed above, under # 8 - Her Majesty's then London LVT did not do this - thereby failing to perform its legal remit...

...and this was seized upon, among other, by Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary to bully 9 out of the 14 apartments on the claim into paying the full amount (# 6, above ; Overview # 3).

Note also that Sheila Sanz's letter of 21.07.03 was supplied to WLCC.

 

The above 21.07.03 letter - very clearly - demonstrates that the tribunal viewed the calculation of the service charges payable by individual lessees - as being based - on a global sum - which must be the same for ALL - and to which each apartment's fixed percentage share is applied - as the norm/ understands the terms of the lease as such - which indeed it is.

(See also # 10, below, for evidence that the Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary had full knowledge of this; see also # 12, below, for the 'offer' made to me).

(NB: See CKFT # 6.3, for the absolutely outrageous 'reply' from the Law Society to this part of my 20.12.04 complaint against Silverstone and Salim, CKFT).

 

WHAT led Her Majesty's District Judge Wright to continue to treat me as a non-entity - and repeatedly ignore the evidence against the claim (in addition to proceeding with a claim that: (1)- it could not pursue; (2)- had been an abuse of process of court)?

Answer: I repeat my above note.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(10)- As punishment for 'my daring' to refuse to strike a deal with Rachman Andrew Ladsky i.e. refuse to be ripped-off, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, filed a 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me (and a fellow leaseholder) - endorsing her lies with a statement of truth...

- lies Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Wright could not fail to see, but opted to ignore.

 

In her 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me - as punishment for my 'daring' to refuse to be ripped-off (see below) (and one of my fellow leaseholders), Ayesha Salim, CKFT, falsely claimed - under a Statement of Truth - that we owed the sum in the 06.08.03 " revised apportionment" - stating, among others:

"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" [PD 24].

(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 [1] and the Claimant knows of no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at Trial" (2)

Following the decision on 24th June 2003 [# 8, above], 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. [3] 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" (4)

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" (4)

(1)- v. 2.5 months later, the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' that knocked off more than £8,000 - # 12, below.

(2)- = the Business model approach (# 24.6): by not going to trial, the damning evidence against the crooks does not enter the public domain.

(3)- That was NOT true. As can be seen - the only difference between the "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised" issued by the then MRJ for the 24 Jun 03 'hearing' (# 8, above)...

and that attached to Salim's 06.08.03 application was that: the prior listed 5 apartments, while the latter listed all the 35 apartments in Jefferson House at the time (see e.g. Major Works).

In both documents, against each apartment the sum claimed amounted to a 24.19% reduction, relative to the 29.11.02 claim (# 1, above).

In my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) (v. the £14,400 (US$25,400) originally demanded in the 17.07.02 invoice (Overview # 1).

Hence, it was glaringly obvious that the sums demanded did not reflect the findings of the tribunal hearings (# 8, above ; LVT # 4) - and that Ayesha Salim had lied under 'a statement of truth'.

And, of course, Her Majesty's corrupt WLCC judiciary could see the blatant lie.

WHY did it also turn a blind eye to this? My answer: I repeat my above note.

(4)- Vampiric, criminal vermin! (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

(See also CKFT # 6.6, my complaint to the Law Society re. this application by Salim, and its (typical) denial that Salim had committed (among other) contempt of court. (Snapshot of my complaint under Doc library # 2.5)

Come on! Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary had turned a blind eye to it so, of course, another part of the Establishment would do the same thing!)

The above application was preceded by a 05.08.03 letter from Ayesha Salim, CKFT - stating:

"We write further to our letter dated 24th July 2003 [below] and note that we have no response from you.

In the circumstances, we have made an Application to West London County Court for Summary Judgment against you.

You will be served with Notice from the Court in due course."

In fact, between the 24 Jun 03 'hearing' (# 8, above), and the above 6 Aug 03 Application for Summary Judgment against me, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, sent me 3 malicious letters: 25.06.03 , 24.07.03 and 07.08.03 (extracts under CKFT # 3)...

...in which, he, of course, used bullying, harassment, blackmail, intimidation and other criminal psychological harassment tactics in an attempt to force me to strike a deal with his Rachman client Andrew David Ladsky.

My refusing to comply with the standard off-the-shelf approach (Overview- Note 4), led the vampiric, criminal mafia to punish me by filing the above application.

Partly in reply to these letters, I wrote a 09.08.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, cc'd CKFT - stating, among others:

"The LVT has made a determination on the reasonableness of the service charge for the block – as a whole – not just for myself

There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees. 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)"

I do not believe that I could have been any clearer in labouring the point that SS could not charge the leaseholders differentially - other than on the basis of their fixed percentage share of the global 'service charge' – which had to be the same for ALL the leaseholders (see above: # 8 and # 9).

As I wrote, under header 8.1 of my 20.12.04 complaint against Silverstone and Salim, CKFT, to the Law Society:

"Why did Steel Services make me an 'offer'?  

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

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

The 'reply' from Her Majesty's District Judge Wright to my letters of 15.07.03 (# 9, above) and of 09.08.03 (above),...

... AND who had also been copied on the 21.07.03 letter from the then London LVT (# 9, above), in the context of Silverstone's correspondence to her (# 9, above)...

...was an 18.08.03 Notice:

"Take notice that the case management conference & application hearing will take place on 26 August 2003..."

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(11)- By continuing to treat me as a non-entity, a piece of dirt - at great costs to me - Her Majesty's WLCC District Judge Wright forced me to employ 'advisers'.

It turned out to be a very big mistake, as the 26 Aug 03 so-called 'hearing' continued in the same vein, set since the claim was filed: a mockery of justice.

 

(1)- I made the very big mistake of appointing Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) to represent me for the 'hearing'

Whilst I had represented myself at the 24 Jun 03 'hearing' (# 8, above) - and clocked up a small victory (# 8, above) - my lack of knowledge and experience meant that I found the experience quite distressing.

This, added to my facing Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary's blind eyes and deaf ears since my first letter of 10.12.02, in which I first started to communicate the abuse of process (# 2, above) - led me to take a leap of faith, and ask Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB) to represent me at the impending 26 Aug 03 hearing...

- because: (1)- it had / was representing some of my fellow leaseholders; (2)- by letter of 09.04.03, Lisa McLean, PSB, had approached my then solicitor stating, among other, that the claim was an abuse of process (extracts, under # 2(1), above); (3)- I met her on the last day of the then London LVT hearings (PSB # 2).

As can be seen from e.g. (1)- the Summary of events on Stan Gallagher's page ; (2)- My 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement # 1 ; (3)- my 16.03.04 complaint against PSB to the Law Society (Doc library # 2.2) ...

- my decision turned out to be a very big mistake - that led me to fall into a mega trap.

I supplied Lisa McLean with a bundle of documents (PSB # 2), including my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright (extracts under # 10, above).

In my 21.08.03 letter to McLean, I made it very clear that I was not prepared to 'strike a deal' with Ladsky.

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

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

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

(How naïve of me! This scam had been in the making for years) (see e.g. Planning applications).

(2)- Pre seeing Her Majesty's District Judge Wright for 'the hearing' (above)

On 26 Aug 03, prior to seeing District Judge Wright, a conversation took place between my ‘advisors’, Lisa McLean, PSB, and David Pliener, barrister, she had engaged 'to advise' (22.08.03 brief), and Ayesha Salim, CKFT (PSB # 2). (I did not join the conversation).

It resulted in an ‘understanding’ to get me to pay what I had recognised in my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright (# 10, above).

They agreed on the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000). (This amount was different from what I had calculated. I repeatedly asked McLean for an explanation and never received a reply).

I agreed to pay the £2,255 - even, though, legally, I did not owe a single penny - because the demand was in breach of statutory requirements, under s.20(3)(a) , 20(3)(b) , 20(4)(e) and s. 21(5) of the L&T Act 1985, as well as in breach of covenants in my Lease - as I had stated in my 17.12.02 Defence to the claim.

What prompted me to do this were:

(1)- The glaring evidence, since my 1st letter of 10.12.02 (# 2(1), above) to Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary, that fair and just treatment of the case was evidently not part of its agenda - and that the dice were very heavily loaded in favour of 'Steel Services' i.e. 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky.

(2)- Just before the so-called 'hearing', I had been told by 'my advisors', Lisa McLean and David Pliener, that, if I did not make a payment, it would be likely to be held against me.

While it was part of their scare and bullying tactics (the Ladsky gang had not implemented the LVT findings: # 9, above), considering the actions and lack of actions by Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary to date, I had no difficulty believing them.

In any case, I had always recognised that works were needed to Jefferson House, and that, consequently, I would need to pay my share - as evidenced by my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement # 2 - and as also recognised by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in his 25.06.03 letter to me.

(3) During the 'hearing' (above)

During the 'hearing', Ayesha Salim's explanation to HM's District Judge Wright for the fact that her 06.08.03 application (# 10, above) was “for the court to enter summary judgement” against me for the sum of £10,917+ (US$19,250+)...

... - and that she was now agreeing to the sum of £2,255 (US$4,000) was: "It was a clerical error".

Of course, Her Majesty's District Judge Wright accepted this without the blink of an eyelid (My Diary 26 Aug 03).

Further, District Judge Wright did not challenge Salim on the claims contained in her Application. This is in spite of:

  • In other words: I might as well have been writing in invisible ink. (See also My Diary 26 Aug 03).

WHY? The glaringly obvious answer: I repeat my above note.

And yes! Nor did 'my' so-called ‘advisors’: Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (who had asked me for a £3,500 (US$6,180) deposit), and David Pliener, barrister (who charged me £881 (US$1,550) for attending.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(12)- My submitting a 19.10.03 Witness Statement led 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky to issue me a 21.10.03Part 36 offer’ of £6,350 (US$11,200) - which, legally, I did not owe either.

The bullying, intimidation and other criminal psychological harassment tactics to force me into accepting 'the offer' led me to take back control of my case in mid-Dec 03 - and send my own 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance - which threw a spanner in the works of the cabal.

 

(1)- The 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' from Rachman Andrew Ladsky

After the 26 Aug 03 so-called 'hearing' (# 11, above), the battle continued to rage on, as 'my' so-called ‘advisors’, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, very clearly joined forces with CKFT = Andrew Ladsky - to force me to 'strike a deal' i.e. enforce, by whatever means, the implementation of the standard off-the-shelf approach

(My 02.12.03 complaint to PSB (Doc library # 2.1), followed by 16.03.04 complaint against PSB to the Law Society (Doc lib # 2.2)).

I continued to refuse to do this – saying that: (1)- it was against the terms of my lease; (2)- in breach of my statutory rights and those of my fellow leaseholders; (3)- SS-MRJ had a legal obligation to implement the 17.06.03 (so-called)‘determination’ (# 8, above), etc.

The 26.08.03 Order (from the so-called 'hearing', # 11, above) required:  

"Disclosure by 19 September 2003;

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

In spite of 'my' advisor, Lisa McLean, PSB, failing deliberately to provide me with assistance in the presentation of my Witness Statement (My 19 Oct 03 WS # 1), I wrote this 19.10.03 Witness Statement (reproduced under # 2 of 'My 19 Oct 03 WS), and had it hand-delivered to her with a 19.10.03 covering letter.

Under CPR, the exchange of witness statements must be instantaneous. (I did not know this at the time). As discussed under My 19 Oct 03 WS # 1, it was abundantly clear that - in breach of her fiduciary duty to me - Lisa McLean had sent / discussed my witness statement with CKFT / its client Ladsky - as:

(1)- I never received a witness statement from SS =Ladsky.

(2)- Instead, at 17h43, 2 hours after the deadline for exchanging the witness statements, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, faxed PSB, a 21.10.03 Part 36 offer from SS =Andrew David Ladsky - for £6,350 (US$11,200) + plus £143 interest! (CKFT # 4)

It amounted to a reduction of £8,050 (US$14,200), or nearly 60% less than the original 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (Overview # 1) - (included in the Particulars of claim - # 1, above)

Salim's opening statement in the 'offer':  

"Our client maintains that as a result of the LVT decision dated 17 June 2003 [# 8, above], it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917.27 [US$19,250]" (1)

"Your client 's decision to challenge both the LVT decision [2] and to continue to defend these proceedings [2] is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building..." (3)

"...our client has, once again  [4] reviewed the revised apportionment dated 24 June 2003" (5)

we set out below details of the concessions our client is prepared to make.

our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund to reduce the total figure and, accordingly, your client's apportioned liability. (6)

Accordingly, the without prejudice reduced figures are. leaving your client with a liability of £6,350.85" to which it added "interest £143" (7)

This 'offer' sealed the proof that the threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = fraud tools.

(1)- Looking at what this mafia did e.g.:

  • filing the fraudulent claim (# 1, above), supported by false information, including a lease, falsely claiming that it was "representative of all the leases" (# 3, above);
  • filing a fraudulent Application for Summary Judgment against me (# 10, above) (as evidenced the above 'offer');

...- do you actually believe that this vampiric gang of racketeers would have made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) = knocked off £8,000 - if it believed I owed the sum it claimed?

(2)- Oh! Dear! Oh! Dear! I was 'daring' to refuse to be ripped-off by the racketeering mafia:

  • (3)- not crumbling under her fraudulent Application for Summary Judgment against me: # 10, above).

(3) = Capitalizing on the lies 'ever-so-obligingly' included by Her Majesty's then London LVT in its 17 Jun 03 so-called 'determination', and in its so-called 'summary of the case': 'Summary' # 1.

(4)- As discussed under # 9, above, the mafia's gang leader, Andrew Ladsky, had no intention whatsoever of implementing the LVT findings - because 'highly inconvenient' to his plan for realising a multi-million £ jackpot.

(5)- See # 10, above, my comment # 3 to the Application, for the so-called '"revisions" claimed to have been made.

(6)- This is outrageous - as the landlord cannot charge the leaseholders differentially - other than on the basis of their fixed share of - a global sum service charge - which must be the same for ALL - including allowance from the contingency fund (see # 6, above)

The reason the Ladsky gang did this in my case, was because:

(7)- After what it had done, the vampiric Ladsky mafia had the nerve to ask for interest!

WHY? Because it implied (falsely) that I had owed this amount. As discussed on the Stan Gallagher's page- Summary of events - I battled over this with 'my' so-called 'advisors' who, as discussed next, were batting for Ladsky.

 

(2) The response to the 'offer' (above)

Rachman Andrew Ladsky had set the deadline for responding to his 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' by 13 Nov (13.11. 03 letter from his racketeer solicitor, Ayesha Salim, CKFT). 

Against my moral principles (# 10 above), and, in spite of the fact that, legally, I did not owe the £6,350 (US$11,200) claimed either...

- I accepted 'the offer' - because I was utterly repulsed by the atrocious conduct of Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary...

- forcing me to face reality: I would not get justice in this kangaroo court environment.

As summarised under Overview # 3; Gallagher- Summary of events, as well captured in my Comments to the 13.11.03 'reply' drafted by 'my' advisors - they batted for Ladsky, by making me go through absolute sheer hell, and attempted to force their so-called 'reply' on me.

(Events also captured in my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Basham/Watton (Doc library # 2.2), and in my 05.04.04 complaint to the Bar Council against Stan Gallagher (Doc lib # 2.4)).

Delighted with the reply sent by 'my' advisors - without my consent (Summary of events) - in her 19.11.03 fax to Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, wrote:

"Would you please endorse the draft Consent Order and re-submit the same to us. We shall then submit it to the Court."

After weeks of being subjected to horrendous, very traumatic, extremely vicious, cruel, sadistic, perverse treatment by the cabal, that also entailed battling with 'my' advisors to get them to send 'my reply' (My Diary 2003: 22 Oct to 28 Oct, and 6 Nov to November 03),...

in mid-Dec 03, to the cabal's extreme frustration and fury, I took back control of my case (My Diary December 2003) - which threw a spanner in the works of the cabal, making its psychological harassment strategy backfire (19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 1 ; PSB # 7.13.2 , # 7.13.3).

In my -own - 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance to CKFT, I stated that

"[I was] accepting the offer for the sake of bringing the dispute to an end"

- and refused to pay the interest claimed.

With this, I enclosed a cheque for £4,096 (US$7,200) (£6,350, minus the £2,255 already paid following the 26.08.03 'hearing' - # 11, above).

Obviously, I did not view this reply as affording me the justice and redress I felt I deserved given the circumstances of my case - but, the extremely traumatic treatment I had been subjected to by Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary, and by the lawyers, meant that I was literally near collapse (My Diary Dec 03).

I wanted out of the hellhole apartment; I wanted to be rid of the extremely evil, cruel, vicious, greed-ridden, vampiric, criminal vermin and monsters (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) controlling it.

And, at that point: I wanted out of this country as it no longer was the country I had opted to make my home for so many years.  

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!

Having told me in her 12.12.03 letter that she could no longer act for me, 'my' (by then) ex. 'advisor', Lisa McLean, PSB, came back crawling 6 weeks later - clearly with the objective of completing her pact with Ladsky.

When the Ladsky gang, that had been waiting in the wings to see what would happen, realised that McLean had failed,...

...Ayesha Salim, CKFT, wrote me, in her 27.01.04 letter:

"We have now located two of your letters dated 19 December 2003"

= 5 weeks later!

As discussed under My 19 Oct 03 WS # 1, not only had my correspondence been delivered, on 16 Jan 04, I had also asked another firm of solicitors to send an identical set to CKFT.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

 

(13)- 'My daring' to throw a spanner in the plans of the cabal led to 6 months of coordinated reprisals, and beyond.

 

(13.1)- Ayesha Salim, CKFT, continued with the criminal psychological harassment tactics - leading me to approach a Citizens Advice Bureau, which finally triggered actions.

 

In her 17.02. 04 letter, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, wrote:

"...[her] client is prepared to accept the sum provided.

Accordingly, we are presenting your two cheques for payment." (*)

(*) See # 12(2), above.

Due to CKFT's failure to acknowledge my subsequent letters, and then agree on a consent order - combined with my finally accepting that Her Majesty's WLCC judiciary would continue ignoring any correspondence it received from me - led me to seek advice from the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau (RCJ CAB). (Another branch from that approached by some of my fellow leaseholders, in 2001).

In its 02.04.04 letter to WLCC, the RCJ Citizens Advice Bureau wrote:  

"Ms Rawé has reached settlement on this matter with the Claimant and we attach ... copies of the correspondence evidencing the settlement reached.

On 31 March 2004 she was advised by the Court that the Claimant had taken no steps to progress matters and she was further advised that she should complete a Listing Questionnaire [02.04.04].

We ask that the judge orders the Claimant to provide to the Second Defendant the signed Consent Order within 14 days so that the matter can be concluded formally"

My resorting to using the RCJ's CAB proved to be a good move,...

...as it resulted in a 21.04.04 Order from Her Majesty's District Judge Wright ordering Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor to:

"file and serve pre-trial checklist",

otherwise the claim will "be struck out"

(NB: In fact, it should have been "struck out" - from the start (# 2, above))

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

(13.2)- Continuing to collude with Andrew David Ladsky, and his solicitor, Ayesha Salim, CKFT - his West London County Court's lapdogs and henchmen took over the reprisal baton = the criminal psychological harassment...

- BY making me miss - deliberately - the 28 May 04 'hearing' - so that HM's District Judge Madge could - in spite of knowing that agreement had been reached - give 'the brother' the freebie of having the action against me "stayed".

It first started by telling me falsely, on 31 Mar 04, that:

"a judgment has been entered against [me] on 18 March 2004" (see Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2, for detail).

This was followed by its deliberately ignoring the 21.05.04 instructions from the Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau - by sending the 18.05.04 Notice of the 28 May 2004 hearing to the RCJ's CAB, instead of sending it to me - leading me to miss 'the hearing'.

(It was the first one week break I had 'dared' to take in months). I concluded that this was done on information from Andrew Ladsky who had his informers at my then employer KPMG and /or had had me followed (Persecution # 2) when I made the trips to the travel agent.

As be seen from my 26.05.04 letter to CKFT, both, Her Majesty's WLCC and CKFT had gone into silent mode.

My being very conveniently 'out of the picture', provided Ladsky's racketeer solicitor, Ayesha Salim, CKFT, with the opportunity to spin her story to District Judge Madge - unchallenged - as well as walk away with a freebie: a 28.05.04 Order that the action against me was "STAYED".

This took place in spite of the fact that:

  • (1)- I had agreed a Consent Order with CKFT;

...- as evidenced by the 28.05.04 transcript of 'the hearing' (in relation to which, of course, WLCC took the opportunity to inflict more persecution before supplying it to me: Falconer # 5.3):

“If I can show you the last order that she sent us yesterday [my 28.05.04 letter] that she would be prepared to accept, I think that is fine

To which District Judge Madge replied Is there anything wrong with this draft consent order of 24 May?”

Reply from Salim: This one that we received yesterday, no, I do not see anything wrong with that…”

AND - this was confirmed further by HM 'Customer Service', following my 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Lord Falconer of Thoroton:

"In your particular case it is acknowledged that an agreement had been reached" (LFT # 4)

But, the lapdog, Her Majesty's District Judge Madge was determined to go out of his way to oblige Salim = 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky - as evidenced in the transcript of the hearing:

 

 

(NB: In place of a visual I cannot find: one person licking a certain part of the anatomy of another person - so hard, that you can barely see the feet sticking out)

 

To Salim's question as to whether District Judge Madge had read the skeleton argument, he replied:

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

(NB: Salim never supplied me with her skeleton argument)

 

Salim: ""the draft orders she has submitted to us have included monies that may be outside the scope of these proceedings"

WHAT? The payment of £6,350 (US$11,200) was in full and final settlement of the claim (see SS 'Part 36 offer' of 21.10.03 (# 12, above)...

...and my 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance (# 12(2),above).

Note also Salim's comment in the 28.05.04 transcript "The monies (that I sent) have been received and accepted"

Her Majesty's District Judge Madge:

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

To which, of course, Salim replied immediately: "Yes"

As stated above, but worth repeating: against that, note para.5 of the 23.08.04 'reply' from HM 'Customer Service' to my 29.06.04 'cry for help' to Falconer: "In your particular case it is acknowledged that an agreement had been reached." (Falconer # 4)

Then, as Salim portrays me as a 'difficult' individual, helpfully District Judge Madge tells her:

"You should sign (the consent order) and get it back to her before she changes her mind"

Wanting to ascertain he had extended all the help he could to Salim, District Judge Madge says:

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

My hand-written comment on the 28.05.04 transcript reads:

"From the point of view of justice, yeah!

Read the evidence and challenge what you are being told!  

That would be a good start!"

As you can imagine, I was in a terrible state when I discovered, from receiving the 28.05.04 Order, that I had missed 'the hearing' (Falconer # 4 ; My Diary 28 May 04).

And it continued - for a long time afterwards - as, due to being "STAYED", the action against me was still open to proceedings.

HOW to explain that Her Majesty's District Judge Madge opted to have the action against me "stayed", and he / others in WLCC ensured that I miss 'the hearing'?

Answer: I repeat my above note - and add: because they are lapdogs and henchmen rolled into one.

In her 15.06.04 letter, Salim wrote that she had sent the Consent Order "to the court for approval".

With her correspondence of 14.07.04, Salim sent me a copy of the Consent Order endorsed by a 01.07. 04 Order issued by District Judge Ashworth, Wandsworth County Court.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

(13.3)- In spite of knowing that agreement had been reached (# 13.2, above), Her Majesty's West London County Court henchmen continued with the mental torture - BY:

(i)- sending me a 09.06.04 Notice - falsely claiming that "[I was] the Defendant in a trial" in HM's Wandsworth County Court - which the latter maintained for several weeks;

(ii)- ensuring during that time that I remained in the dark - by waiting 2 months to supply me with a recording of the 28 May 04 'hearing'.

(NB: Previously, was section # 14)

I received a 09.06.04 Notice of Transfer of Proceedings from WLCC which:

(1)- for ‘Defendant’ states Noel (sic) (*)Yvonne Sylvie Klosterkotter-Dit-Rawe + 8 others

(2)- In the box headed "To the Defendant" - it states my name and my home address.

The Notice states:

"To all parties"

"As a result of an order made on 28 May 2004, this claim has been transferred to the (sic) Wandsworth County Court for listing for trial before Circuit Judge"

(*) More than 1.5 years after unlawfully (# 2, above) proceeding with the fraudulent 29.11.02 claim - and they still persisted in misspelling my name. (They did the same thing with the follow-on 27 Feb 07, equally fraudulent claim against me = more demonstration of the dominant English public sector psyche).

 

I CANNOT begin to describe the state I was in on receiving this 'notice'. A state of shock, utter panic and extreme distress - as I simply did not understand what was going on. (My Diary 12 Jun 04)

Why am I going to end-up in a trial? How could I possibly end-up in a trial - given that the Consent Order has been agreed? (# 12(2), above)  

What hearing?

Why?

For what?

When?"

The Notice did not provide any information whatsoever as to the reason for "the trial" - Nor does it provide any contact detail for Wandsworth County Court.

Having:

  • (1)- been made to miss the 28 May 04 'hearing' - deliberately (# 12(2), above);
  • (2)- WLCC ensuring I remained in the dark by - equally deliberately - not supplying me with the tape of the recording - until 2 months after 'the hearing' (Falconer # 5.3)
  • And having told me, one week after 'the hearing' that "no hearing took place": Falconer # 5.2 (These people are sick beyond words)....

...- I had no idea what had been said at that 'hearing' – and therefore what was behind this 'Notice'.

(It is one of the typical criminal psychological harassment tactics used by the British Establisment: Persecution # 1(4)(8)).

What added to my unbelievable amount of anxiety and distress was Her Majesty's District Judge Madge's 'freebie' to Salim that the action against me be "stayed" (# 12(2), above).

= The henchmen's criminal psychological harassment tactics - for the benefit of 'the brother' Andrew David Ladsky - were definitely working.

And - in very sick "corrupt Britain" - the mafia continued (*) having its fun from its perverse, sadistic, extremely cruel, vicious tactics...

...'revenge' for 'my daring’ to challenge 'the brother' 'service charge' demand, and his gang of racketeers - and 'daring' to challenge those in the Establishment and its henchmen and flunkeys: the judiciary, court managers and other court staff.

(And this continued at a magnified level with this court, in 2007-08)

(*) In addition to telling me falsely that "[I was] the Defendant in a trial" - and not providing any information (above) - see above, a summary of prior events under 'Summary - Events'.

When I phoned WLCC to determine why I was due to be "the Defendant at trial", given that I had agreed a Consent Order with SS, the reply was:

“I don’t know, I can’t tell you because your file has been transferred”.

 

I then phoned Wandsworth County Court, and was told that:

"[It had] not received [my] file",

and therefore "could not answer [my] questions".

I wrote a 20.06.04 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC - headed: Yet again I am suffering extreme anguish and distress because of your Court’s carelessness – and related events, including quoting from, and commenting on the 9 Jun 04 Notice (above), as well as the above outcome of my phone calls to both courts - and stated:

"This makes it all the more critical for me to have a full transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing.

Hence, I will again stress the importance to your Court of sending the tape immediately to Beverley F. Nunnery & Co – (bearing in mind that I handed the completed Tape Transcription form to your Court 2 weeks ago)”

Obviously, I was desperate to get the transcript of the 28 May 04 'hearing' (# 12(2), above) to understand what was behind the 9 Jun 04 Notice.

BUT - as I related in my 08.07.04 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC (in which I also chased a reply to my 20.06.04 letter), more than one month after my 04.06.04 application requesting that it sends the tape of the 28 May 04 'hearing' to my selected company for transcription,...

WLCC sent the wrong tape to the company - eventually sending the right tape in the 3rd week of August = 2 months after 'the hearing' (Falconer # 5.3).

In the course of my contacts with both, HM's WLCC and HM's Wandsworth County Court, some of the staff often displayed (typically) extreme arrogance, a patronizing, condescending attitude and, at times, coming across as though they were enjoying my anguish and distress...

- because, (in addition to being evidently Masons' flunkeys), this is the all too familiar English public sector psyche. (Numerous other examples of this in the context of my complaints / 'cries for help').

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

(See Her Majesty's WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT for subsequent events - including with the 5th Defendant)

Back to sections list

(13.4)- More 'punishment' followed in Autumn 2004, by Andrew Ladsky getting his racketeer 'managing' agent, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), to repeat the same demand i.e. in the 29 Nov 02 claim.

Some of Ayesha Salim's comments - captured in the 28.05.04 transcript - (# 13(2), above) make very 'interesting' reading which, at the time, led me to conclude that Salim and her client, Ladsky saw the 01.07.04 Consent Order as an irrelevant piece of paper - as well as an intention to demand more money from me at a later stage.

I was right! Rachman Ladsky had other plans - and they came under the banner headed 'vengeance'.

Indeed, as summarised under Overview # 6, through his racketeer 'managing' agents, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, Ladsky repeated the original demand (# 1, above) - of course, without evidence whatsoever - and as though: no 'offer had been made (# 12, above); accepted and paid (# 12(2), above); sealed by a court-endorsed Consent Order (above, # 13(2)).

Please note that, in my 31.12.03 letter to Hathaway i.e. nearly one year previously - I informed her that I had "accepted the 'offer' from her client in settlement of my share of the major works and had paid £6,350 [US$11,200]".

I ignored the fraudulent demands.

(For evidence that the demands were, of course, bogus - and hence, fraud: see my 03.06.08 Witness Statement, header 13, paras.132-138 - in the context of the follow-on fraudulent claim filed against me by Ladsky (Overview # 11). See also Extortion).

The demands were preceded by a 02.08.04 letter from Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then MRJ - confirming that the Ladsky gang of racketeers was ignoring the LVT findings, and appointing a new contractor - of course, in breach of consultation requirements: Overview # 5.

At the time of the bogus demands, I decided that enough was enough! I had given in once, I was not going to give in a second time to a bunch of psycho, racketeering, criminal vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) - and proceeded with filing complaints against them with the so-called 'regulators':

etc...

...which, of course, in these totally unregulated sectors, led me to go into battles spanning the following 2 years - ALL resulting in the same outcome: 'Get lost!' (Overview # 7; Doc library for an overview of my complaints).

See the Overview for follow-on events i.e. from # 8.

Back to sections list

(14) Moved to # 13(3), above

 

(C) 'The English Injustice system'

I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person, considering the above events (summaries: Events ; Breaches of the law) will understand why my summary for this page reads 'The English Injustice system'.

Considering that, I - alone - wrote 8 letters to Her Majesty's courts (other leaseholders will have protested as well), can events with the courts be attributed solely to gross incompetence and gross mismanagement? NO.

The answer: I repeat my above note.

As detailed in the Document library - In total Her Majesty's West London County Court, Wandsworth County Court and her Court 'Customer Service' have cost me hundreds of hours of my life.

In addition, over £10,000 (US$17,000) in legal fees (Overview # 4), and many other costs...

...as well as an indescribable amount of torment, anguish, distress and trauma over a period of one year and nine months - and continued anguish for a long time afterwards as Her Majesty's District Judge Madge captured in the 28.05.04 Order that the action against me be "stayed" i.e. open to further proceedings (# 13(2), above).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease)

Back to sections list

(D)- How the 'Clan' sends people 'like me' - typically - 'from pillar to post'

 

The following exemplifies how the Law Society 'deals' with complaints against its members.

And, when combined with the above, plus responses from the Legal Services Ombudsman, as well as HMCS 'Customer Service'...

...demonstrates how the 'Clan' sends people 'like me' - typically - 'from pillar to post'.

The following represents the comments (in shaded boxes) I received from the Law Society in its 08.02.05 'reply' to my 20.12.04 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) (Doc lib # 2.5).

They are included because they make specific reference to West London County Court (WLCC).

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 20.12.04 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 17.12.02 Defence in court, I certainly expected the court to read it - and take action.

•  In my 22.06.03 letter to District Judge Wright, (# 8, above) I included highlights from the 17.06.03 LVT/SC/007/20/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database):  

"A substantial amount of the global sum demanded by the applicant has been disallowed by the LVT as being unreasonable.

Further 'substantial' amounts have been identified as 'improvements' and are not therefore chargeable under the terms of the lease.

As I am not contractually liable under the terms of my lease to pay these amounts, CKFT, Steel Services/ Mr Ladsky's solicitors are in breach of their professional conduct by demanding substantial sums of money that are not properly due and payable."

To this I added a note in which I referred to the 07.10.02 letter from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, in which he illegally threatened to forfeit my Lease (copy of definition) and contact my mortgage unless I paid immediately the sum of £14,400 (with the letter, I enclosed 8 pages from the LVT report).

•  In my 15.07.03 to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright (# 9, above), headed:

"Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the LVT" (LVT # 4 , # 7) (see Extortion)

I specifically stated that I disagreed with the "revised amount of £10,917" (US$19,250) demanded of me by 'SS' and asked for the court's assistance

"...in compelling Steel Services and Martin Russell Jones to comply with the LVT's decision".

(I copied CKFT and the then Martin Russell Jones on the letter).

•  I wrote another letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, dated 09.08.03 (# 10, above) again reiterating my position and providing, in evidence (among my 16 enclosures), a copy of the 17.06.03 LVT report (LVT/SC/007/120/02 (#992 on the LVT database),...

as well as of my surveyor's assessment (dated 31.07.03) which clearly demonstrated that the sum still being demanded of me - post the LVT issuing its report - did not reflect its findings.

"In their revised specification, the claimant (a) has not adjusted the 24 June 2003 demand to take full account of the LVT's decision; (i) has not complied with the consultation proceedings as detailed under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

My surveyor has reviewed the Killby & Gayford's 'Revised price' document which CKFT has enclosed in their letter dated 17 July 2003. The four key points from his (enclosed) assessment, dated 31 July 2003 are:.." .

At this point, I included precise details of the impact of the then London LVT 17.06.03 findings on the sum demanded - which had the effect of reducing the original sum demanded by nearly 70% (# 8, above) - followed by:

"In light of the above, I maintain the statement I made in my 15 July 2003 letter to the court that: "By reducing the amount by a mere 24.28%, Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones fall very short of implementing the LVT's decision" .

(I copied Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on this letter)

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!

See Summary of Breaches of legal requirements - because its judiciary lapdogs were at the beck and call of its 'brother' Andrew David Ladsky and hence, of his racketeer solicitors.

•  I also draw your attention to the following in the 23.08.04 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service' following my 29.06.04 letter to Lord Falconer of Thoroton - # 4  

"...why a claimant has not implemented a decision of the LVT. That is a matter for the claimant and their advisors.

lf you feel that they should be compelled to do so, you will need to seek legal advice from a Law Centre or Citizen's Advice Bureaux, who will be able to advise you what action to take.

The Court will not of its own volition pursue this matter unless a particular action is requested by a party"

Note also, from the same letter, (para.13)

"You state that you provided the Court with details of LVT determination but are aggrieved that this was not raised at the hearing on 26th August 2003.

If you feel that the Judge has made a mistake, the correct procedure for you to follow is to appeal that decision to a Judge at a Higher Court "

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 21.10.03 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/Watton) and barrister (Stan Gallagher) that Lord Woolf's ruling applied, as I had not been provided with the information necessary for me to assess the 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' (# 12, above).

(This was ignored. It formed part of my 16.03.04 complaint to the Law Society against Piper Smith Watton (Doc libr # 2.2), and my 05.04.04 complaint to the Bar Council against Gallagher (Doc lib # 2.4).

I could not send the court the 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance I had sent to CKFT when I took back control of my case (# 12(2), above), as it took another 6 months for 'SS' i.e. Andrew Ladsky, to agree on the wording of a Consent Order - but with no intention of implementing it. (# 13, above ; CKFT # 6.4).

If the 28 May 04 'hearing' (at which the consent order was discussed) (# 13(2), above) was the time for me to show / file my Notice of Acceptance of 19 Dec 03 - and therefore raise the issue of the non-compliance of the 'offer' with CPR - I missed it - thanks to the deliberate ploy by Her Majesty's WLCC' (# 13(2), above ; Falconer # 3).

Anyway, considering that

(1)- the courts very clearly viewed me as a non-entity with no rights who might as well have been writing in invisible ink;

(2)- what happened with the 5th Defendant in Wandsworth County court (WCC # 2),..

...it is clear that it would not have made any difference.

Further, as evidenced by events (summary, above) from the time the claim was filed:

Her Majesty's WLCC judiciaries very clearly don't give a damn about CPR, legislation and leaseholders' lease (summary, above) - when the claim is filed on behalf of the 'brother', Andrew Ladsky...

...as proven, yet again, in 2007-08 (see also Extortion ; kangaroo courts)

 

1.1.3.5. Obtained Orders before the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal issued its 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 Her Majesty's then London LVT action to Her Majesty's courts a total of 8 times (all by 'Recorded' / 'Special delivery' post) - in very plain language, I believe.

1. My 10.12.02 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC (# 2(1), above):

"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)"

2. My 17.12.02 Defence (# 2(1), above) to the WLCC claim, WL 203 537 (# 1, above):

"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."

3. My 17.12.02 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC (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"

4. My 25.03.03 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC (# 5, above):

Headed: "ACTION TO BE STAYED"

“29 October 2002 - During the hearing [LVT # 1.5] Mr Sharma 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"

5. My 30.03.03 letter to Her Majesty's then London LVT, cc’d WLCC (# 5, above):

"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 Sharma, 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?"

6. My 17.06.03 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC (# 7, above):

"I am astonished that your court has persisted in allowing duplicate action to take place.

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

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

7. My 22.06.03 letter to Her Majesty's WLCC (# 8, above):

"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"

8. One year later - as the horrendous nightmare was continuing (# 13(3), above ; Falconer # 2 , # 3, # 4, # 5 , # 5.1 , # 5.2 ) - I also repeated this in my 22.07.04 letter to Her Majesty's Wandsworth County Court

"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"

And, in some of these letters, as well as in others e.g. 17.07.03 and 09.08.03, I communicated to the courts that the reduction in the sum demanded of me fell very short of reflecting the 17.06.03 LVT findings (LVT/SC/007/120/02 (#992 on the LVT database)...

...BUT - they knew that their mates in the tribunal had ensured that their report could not be used on its own i.e. without supporting documents and further analysis (# 8, above)

•  The claims made by Ayesha Salim, CKFT, in the 06.08.03 Application for Summary Judgment against me (and one of my fellow leaseholders) - were not true (# 10, above).

I again draw your attention to para.13 in the 23.08.04 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service':

"You state that you provided the Court with details of LVT determination but are aggrieved that this was not raised at the hearing on 26th August 2003.

If you feel that the Judge has made a mistake, the correct procedure for you to follow is to appeal that decision to a Judge at a Higher Court ". (Falconer # 4)  

Also, to para.12

"Court staff cannot be blamed for the actions of a solicitor"

(See also Extortion ; kangaroo courts)

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"

•  Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, copied Her Majesty's District Judge Wright on his 17.07.03 letter to the then London LVT - AND the 21.07.03 reply from the LVT (# 9, above) - stating:

". the duty of the Tribunal. is 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"

•  My 09.08.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright (# 10, above) - stating:

"...the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees.

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). (NB: See also the then MRJ's 'Major works apportionments' supplied for the 24 June and 26 August 03 'hearings')

The LVT has made a determination on the reasonableness of the service charge for the block - as whole - not just for myself" (I copied CKFT on this letter)

•  Her Majesty's court opted to ignore the fact I had stated in my 17.12.02 Defence to the claim that the lease supplied to the court with the claim was different from mine (# 3, above

•  I again draw your attention to paras 13 and 14 of the 23.08.04 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service'.

In the light of the overwhelming 'black on white' evidence, I believe that any fair minded, reasonable, person with integrity, would conclude that Her Majesty's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court...

have knowingly assisted Andrew Ladsky in breaching my rights (and those of my fellow leaseholders) and have failed to perform their legal remit.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of CPR, statutes, and of my Lease; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

 

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 Her Majesty's WLCC of 10.12.02, 17.12.02 and 25.03.03:

•  My 30.03.03 letter to Her Majesty's then London LVT Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - copied to the District Judge (# 5, above):

"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?"

•  My 17.06.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright (# 7, above):

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

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

•  My 22.06.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright (# 8, above):

"The original claim against me of £14,400.19 [US$25,400] for the major works is therefore rendered null and void."

•  I again draw your attention to para.14 of the 23.08.04 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service':

".. The Court will not of its own volition pursue this matter unless a particular action is requested by a party" .

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 10.12.02 , 17.12.02 , 25.03.03 and 22.06.03 to the court,...

as well as my Defence of 17.12.02, and my 30.03.03 letter to the then London 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 i.e. reflected in the demand; request that the action be stayed, and equally plainly, state

"your court is subjecting me to double jeopardy. I am astonished that your court has persisted in allowing duplicate action to take place"

I also draw your attention to para.12 in the 23.08.04 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service':

"Court staff cannot be blamed for the actions of a solicitor"

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"

As can be seen in my 17.12.02 Defence: I did do that!:

"Claimant already pursuing claim through the London LVT (LVT/SC/007/120/02) and process already fairly advanced".

Further, as detailed above, prior to submitting my Defence, I raised it in my 10.12.02 letter. And I also raised it again in my 17.12.02 letter to the court.

In addition to these, and my other communications, discussed above:

•  In my letter of 15.07.03 to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright, headed "Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the LVT" (# 9, above), I specifically stated that I disagreed with the revised amount of £10,917 (US$19,250) demanded of me by SS - and quoted from my surveyor's assessment in support of this.  

•  In my 22.06.03 letter to Her Majesty's District Judge Wright (# 8, above):

"As I am not contractually liable under the terms of my lease to pay these amounts, CKFT, Steel Services/ Mr Ladsky's solicitors are in breach of their professional conduct by demanding substantial sums of money that are not properly due and payable."

•  For the last time, I again draw your attention to para.12 in the 23.08.04 'reply' from HMCS 'Customer Service':

"Court staff cannot be blamed for the actions of a solicitor" [NB: how about the judges?], and para.13 "It is not for me to comment on the actions of the claim solicitors."

(See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for further detail)

Back to sections list

 

(E)- Conclusions on perceptions of responsibility for addressing the misconduct of a solicitor in court: up to the victim as...

•  The Law Society puts the responsibility at the courts' door.

•  When the courts ignore / turn a blind eye to the misconduct,

•  the Court Service washes its hands of everything claiming lack of responsibility because:

HMCS 'Customer Service'

"only deals with decisions made by Court staff or errors that have been made by Court staff" (para.13, 23.08.04 reply)

"Court staff cannot be blamed for the actions of a solicitor" (Para.12)

"It is not for me to comment on the actions of the claimant solicitors." (Para.13)

"I can only suggest that you speak to the Claimant solicitors." (Para.8)

The conclusion which, I believe, any reasonable person would draw from the 'black-on-white' evidence is:

It is evidently up to the public to police the conduct of solicitors... as well as that of Her Majesty's courts.

I repeat my note at the top of this page - and add...

The English legal sector: what A GIGANTIC HELLHOLE populated by absolute monsters who operate in bottomless cesspits of moral depravation and interconnecting caves of corruption - I summarise as: kangaroo courts.

At the time, I stated that my experience led me to fully endorse Sir David Clementi's conclusions following his review of the legal profession (as reported in the Financial Times of 16 Dec 04)

"The current regulatory system is flawed.

It has insufficient regard to the interests of consumers. .

I am not satisfied that the main frontline bodies have always put consumer interests ahead of their own interests."

(Of course, NO real action was taken).

Fair minded, reasonable visitors to the site who, like me, are just 'one of the little people': do you see why I have summarised the section on 'Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' as...

'The Wild West'?

Back to sections list

 

(F)- The key parties cannot plead ignorance of the facts and events

As you can see from the following, the key parties cannot plead ignorance of the facts and events in Her Majesty's West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court - nor can they claim not being made aware of issues at an early stage.

I captured the events in varying details to numerous parties, in particular, in government. These included, among others:

•  My identical letter in Aug 03 to a dozen media (e.g. 17.08.03 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 (then) Department for Constitutional Affairs, stated in its 01.09.03 'reply' that it had forwarded my letter to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, then headed by John Prescott - because it considered

"The issue raised is outside the remit of this department"

(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 29.06.04 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. BUT: see my above Note)

•  My 20.02.05 covering letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman in the context of my complaint against the Law Society in relation to its handling of my 20.12.04 complaint against CKFT. Hence, another department under Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

•  Paras 60-63 and 100-124 of my 11.11.04 letter to the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea Housing, as well as highlights in my letter, also of 11.11.04, to the Chief Housing Officer, Kensington & Chelsea council (pages 3-5). Hence, a department then headed by John Prescott's Office.

•  As I had filed a complaint on 17.09.04 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 John Prescott.

•  My 22.11.04 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Yet again, another government department.

•  My 06.04.05 letter to Michael Howard, then Leader of the Conservative Party.

•  My 20.12.04 complaint to the Law Society against CKFT (Doc library # 2.5).

•  My 02.02.05 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against the then Martin Russell Jones (snapshot-RICS # A).

For my other complaints and 'cries for help', see Doc library.

REALITY: The Establishment and its henchmen and flunkeys are dripping with absolute hatred of 'the little people'.

Journalist from the Daily Express who wrote (16 Jun 06)

"Contrary to Home Secretary John Reid's declaration that his department is "not fit for purpose" I would suggest that this whole Government is "not fit for purpose" - and the Home Office situation is just symptomatic of a general uselessness throughout this administration"

At the time I wrote: I wholeheartedly agree with you! Your comment is absolutely 'spot on'!

On the other hand, as its agenda is to oppress and persecute 'the little people' such as I, into submission and destruction for 'daring' to stand-up against Establishment-led organized crime activities...

 

ALL THE PARTIES REFERRED TO ON THIS PAGE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP, AND THEN MAINTAIN THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top