The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
The English injustice system...in the residential leasehold sector
|
west london county court - Post 2004
If you have read the other section on West London County Court (WLCC), as well as the section on the Court Service's Customer Service then headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton, you will know that my experience with this court between 2002 - 2004 was very traumatic. (See also Comment # 19 for the experience of a visitor to my site with this court) To give you an overview of my assessment of WLCC, three years on, I will quote the header I used in my 5 December 2007 complaint to Her Majesty Court Service (HMCS) Customer Service department:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 Sections(The documents referred to in this section are also listed under the 'Document library': Year 2007+ )
(1) WLCC accepted the 27 February 2007 claim against me in spite of the fact that it breached Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)On 27 February 2007, Portner and Jaskel filed a (fraudulent) claim, 7WL 00675, against me in WLCC for £10,357 (US$18,262). I took delivery of this claim on 9 March 2007. The first - very important thing to note - is that the claim gives TWO DIFFERENT names for the Claimant - see point # 2, below The claimed sum is made-up of:
(1.1) In breach of CPR Part 16 - Statements of Case, Section 7.3, Portner and Jaskel had not supplied my 'contractual obligation' i.e. my lease with the claimThe section ‘Brief details of claim’ states: “Non payment of monies due under a lease dated 10th March 1986” while, under the ‘Particulars of Claim’, the third paragraph states: “Under the terms of the lease dated 10th March 1986, the Defendant covenanted to pay the Claimant all service and other charges as they fell due. The Claimant will refer to the said lease for its full terms and effect” Portner and Jaskel did NOT supply a copy of my lease i.e. 'contractual obligation' with the claim. Why not? This in in breach of Civil Procedure Rules - Part 16 - Statements of Case - Practice Direction
WHY did WLCC accept the claim given that it breached this CPR? (NB: With the 29 November 2002, WL 203 537, claim, WLCC ignored my highlighting in my defence that contrary to the Particulars of Claim stated, the lease supplied with the claim was "different from mine" - see WLCC # 3 And there was another, major issue with the 29 November 2002 claim - as the Statement of Truth was signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - and a "managing agents cannot sign a statement of truth" - see the sub-section in My Diary under 9 March 2007 (1.2) In breach of CPR Part 16 - Statements of Case, Section 2.2, Portner and Jaskel had not captured the address for "Roostock Overseas Corp" on the claimThis particular CPR states: "2.2 The claim form must include an address at which the claimant resides or carries on business. This paragraph applies even though the claimant’s address for service is the business address of his solicitor" WHY did WLCC accept the claim given that it breached this CPR? (Had there been an address, there might not have been the opportunity for a 'good laugh' (Portner # 27) as revenge for my establishing that: (i) the 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal " is bogus (Portner # 1); (ii) Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones and Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were: threatening me (and my fellow leaseholders) with proceedings (MRJ # 26 , # 32 ; # 14) and forfeiture (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2) in the name of a company - 'Steel Services' - which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time as I determined that it had been "Struck-off the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of the licence fee" (Owners identity # 2 ; CKFT # 1) (2) On 22 March 2007 I sent an Acknowledgement of Service (1) highlighting the fact that the claim has 2 different names for the claimant: "Roostock Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services"; (2) stating "[I] intend to contest the jurisdiction of the court". WLCC IGNORED the first point (and continued to do so during the following 16 months). In relation to the second, in its 3 April 2007 Notice, it FALSELY wrote that I intended to "defend part of the claim"(1) As can be seen on my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service, I went to great lengths to highlight the fact that the claim contains two names: “Roostock (sic) Overseas Corp” and “Steel Services Ltd”. I did this by sticking a label in the box on the Acknowledgement of Service headed “Claimant (including reference)”, stating “Roostock Overseas Corp (?), or Steel Services Ltd (?)” As can also be seen, I attached a copy of:
(NB: There is also a third name on the claim: Sloan Development - see Portner and Jaskel ) WLCC did not come back to me on that. WHY not? WHY is it that, having absolute knowledge of this, WLCC proceeded with the claim for the following 16 months - including issuing an order for £293.70 costs against me, on 24 August 2007?(Note ay 30 January 2009: During the Detailed Costs Assessment hearing, on 30 January 2009, at the Supreme Court Costs Office (My Diary 30 Jan 09), Deputy Master Hoffman told me that I "should not have done this". To which I replied "There are two names for my 'landlord' claiming money from me, and you expect me to not highlight this?" I then said that I had raised the issue a total of 11 TIMES over a 16-month period. To which he replied "The court sent you a form to complete. That's the only thing you should have returned to the court". My translation of Deputy Master Hoffman's comments: 'My friends in WLCC are extremely angry that you have this 'black on white' evidence against them. It's very 'inconvenient'. To which can be added: 'And other 'black on white' evidence from events over the following 16 months, as well as in relation to the previous claim of 29 November 2002 e.g. proceeding with the claim in spite of the fact that (1) the statement of truth was signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, 'managing agents' (WLCC intro); (2) WLCC had absolute knowledge that you and fellow leaseholders had been told by the LVT to NOT PAY' (my 8 documents to to the courts) (LVT # 1) (2) I believe that, in my 22 March 2007 Acknowledgment of Service I could not have made it any clearer that I "intend to contest the court's jurisdiction". Well, six weeks later, through Portner and Jaskel, I obtained a 3 April 2007 WLLC "Notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed" that states: "The Defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim" (see point #7 below for further detail) This is massively different in terms of implication. WHY did WLCC capture this instead of what I had written? (3) On 4 April 2007 I sent my Evidence in support of my application contesting the court's jurisdiction - keeping my fingers crossed that I had done it correctly as the court's information does not provide guidanceWhile the guidance notes supplied by the court with the claim go into great length about the procedure for admitting the claim / part of the claim, or disputing it, only a passing reference is made to 'contesting the court's jurisdiction'. I conclude from this that, while people are allowed to be 'litigants in person' i.e. can represent themselves, the courts evidently do not view this as extending to contesting the jurisdiction of a court.. I therefore opted to look for guidance in the CPR, which I found under Part 11 - "Disputing the court's jurisdiction" for which Rule 11.2(b) states that the application must "be supported by evidence". While the CPR does not mention the need to complete a form for this purpose, I nonetheless went through all the 100+ forms contained in the CPR to make doubly sure. I could not find one. I summarised my 4 April 2007 Evidence in my application as:
(4) In the same, 4 April 2007 document, I also made a second application: "An Extended Civil Restraint Order against the ‘Landlord’"In the process of going through the majority of the CPR (a major undertaking!) I came across:
I wrote that I was making the application "On the basis that this is the second false Claim filed against the Defendant by her ‘Lessor’. Details contained in this document" (I repeated my application in subsequent documents to WLCC in: my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument; my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" At December 2007, this application has not been acknowledged by WLCC - perhaps because the Order can only be issued at the end of the hearing (?)... as and when it takes place!
Hence, it gives only two working days to do this, as the document would need to be sent by Wednesday 2 April. (While the order is dated 19 April, it was posted more than one week later on 27 April 2007!) Using up a considerable amount of my time on Monday 30 April trying to speak to the court, I eventually resorted to sending a fax, which I nonetheless had to follow-up with another call. WLCC agreed to one extra day i.e. for the document to be with the court on Friday 4 May. How very generous! Outcome: As I am in full time employment, for me to prepare documents means having to work through the night. I ended-up taking three days of my annual leave - which is lost income to me. So, more of my annual leave swallowed up by this horrendous nightmare. Just as well I bought an extra week of annual leave! (6) Filing of the Skeleton Argument was in preparation for a hearing set by WLCC for 8 May 2007. With one working day to the hearing, WLCC cancelled it following communication from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn - and rescheduled it for 24 August 2007 i.e. three-and-half months laterThe 19 April / 26 April 2007 Order states:
As the Order also states: "in some instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly a different court", on Friday 4 May 2007, I phoned WLCC to confirm where the hearing would be taking place on 8 May - which was a Tuesday. Monday 7 May was a bank holiday. I was told that "the hearing has been cancelled". When I asked for the reason, I was told: "It's not on the file" (!!!) Then, at some point, that it was "because of communication from the claimant". The person added that "A letter has been sent to you yesterday" I asked for the communication to be faxed to me. This is what I received - which I found hilarious...
...as, seeing so much emphasis being placed on 'independence' conjured up to me: 'the court has been ordered to cancel the hearing'
This letter, which, I had been told, was the reason for the hearing being cancelled, was not faxed to me. I phoned the court but, because I had not asked for the name of the person I spoke to in the morning, I was asked to fax my request as my file "cannot be found", "assumed to still be with the person who has sent you the fax". I sent a fax at 15h00 requesting it. I did not receive anything. WHY NOT? Was I by then 'smelling a rat'? Oh yes I was! And more than one! Especially when considering the events so far with WLCC (added to what happened with this court between 2002 and 2004) As ever, my 'internal radar' WAS RIGHT! The following day I went to my PO Box: of course, there was no letter from WLCC. In actual fact, I only received it on Tuesday 8 May i.e. on the day the hearing had been scheduled to take place. Hence, had I not phoned WLCC on Friday morning 4 May - and insisted on being faxed the correspondence that had "been sent to me" - I would have had a wasted journey to the court (and so would my friend who had agreed to accompany me). Note at January 2008 - WLCC claims that it cancelled the hearing because I "had not filed an application for contesting the jurisdiction of the court" (which is false - as evidenced under # 3 ) - see point 23 below Note at April 2008 - With the benefit of yet more knowledge since: it probably said this because I did not use a court's form to do this. Well, this time: I HAVE! (point # 28 below) (6.1) The reason given for the three-and-half months delay is that 'apparently' "There is only one judge in WLCC"During my conversation with WLCC, I was told that the hearing had been rescheduled to 24 August 2007. The reply to my questioning this long, three-and-half month delay was: "There is only one judge in WLCC" WHY is it that WLCC had no difficulty finding a slot - within one month of my submitting my Evidence for 'contesting the court's jurisdiction' - whereas now it could not find a slot until three-and-half months hence? The point to note about 24th August 2007: (1) August is the holiday period; (2) the 24th was a Friday - just before the bank holiday. Hence: a time when many people tend to be away... including judges?? (NB: The person who presided over the 24 August 2007 hearing was Deputy Judge McGovern. See below for the outcome of the 24 August 2007 hearing) Note at January 2008 - Of course the Court Service continues to stick to the same story: letters of 20 December 2007 and 10 January 2008 (7) WLCC supplied a 3 April 2007 Notice to Portner and Jaskel falsely stating that I "intend to defend part of the claim"While, on Saturday 5 April 2007 I had not received any communication from WLCC, I had two letters from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel waiting for me at my PO Box. The first one, dated 1 May 2007, is to copy me on what he sent to West London County Court. It comprises of a letter dated 1 May 2007 stating that he "only just received today"` the 19 April 2007 WLCC order - which he attached, having written - himself - on it "Received 1/05/2007". Yeah, right!`I receive it on Saturday 28 April, but the solicitors that filed the claim against me, receive it two working days later!! ((As can be seen from Mr Hershkorn's letter to WLCC, solicitors and the courts have a DX system to communicate between each other) Mr Hershkorn continues: "We wish to bring to the Court's immediate attention that apart from receiving Notice that an Acknowledgement of Service has been filed by the Defendant dated 3'" April 2007..." ...(a copy of which we enclose)... Look at what the West London County Court 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed" says:
How much bigger did I need to make the cross on the 22 March 2007 Acknowledgement of Service when I selected option #3 "I intend to contest jurisdiction"? In the fourth box, at the top of the form, I underlined - in red : "wish to contest the court's jurisdiction" NOBODY CAN FAIL TO SEE THIS.Yet again I ask: WHY did WLCC not capture on its 3 April 2007 Notice what I had written on my Acknowledgment of Service? (See below, point 17 for my four letters asking for an amended version and point 23 how the Customer Service department attempts to blot out this action through deceit) (7.1) The 'advantage' of this to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, was the ability to claim that he had "not received a defence" from me - thereby providing a reason for asking that the 8 May 2007 hearing be cancelledIn his 1 May 2007 letter to WLCC, Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel states:
My reply to this is: not my problem. Firstly, because it was not I who did not capture what I had written on the Acknowledgment of Service. Secondly, the guidance notes supplied with the claim by WLCC only make a passing reference to contesting the court's jurisdiction. I had to look at the CPR to determine that "an application must be supported by evidence". As I wrote to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, in my 30 June 2007 letter when I supplied him with a copy of my 4 April 2007 Evidence in support of my application for contesting the court's jurisdiction: "This lack of information led me to consult the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 11 - "Disputing the court's jurisdiction". It does not stipulate a requirement to serve a copy of the evidence on the other party". If Mr Jeremy Hershkorn is to be believed: he had not heard anything from WLCC since the 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed". Some 'very interesting' points to note here:
Have I got 'S T U P I D' written on my forehead? (Having just looked in the mirror I can answer that: No!) OF COURSE PORTNER AND JASKEL HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH WLCC DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL: This is evidenced by the 19 April - 26 April 2007 Order - Point 2: "In view of the defendant's application the claimants request for judgment is refused" I guess that I should be 'grateful' that WLCC did not accede to Mr Jeremy Hershkorn's demand. (8) The other reason given by Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, for asking that the 8 May 2007 hearing be cancelled, is that Portner and Jaskel had received a cheque for £1,069 (US$1,885) falsely claiming that it had been sent "on my behalf"See Portner and Jaskel # 14 for detail Mr Jeremy Hershkorn concluded his 1 May 2007 letter to West London County Court:
How about: "We are profusely grateful for your unfailing assistance to our client?" (considering also events in 2002 - 2004) (I summarised some of the events in my 5 December 2007 letter to HMCS Customer Service) These letters are: • 30 June 2007 to Mr Jaffer, copied to WLCC: "You have had my skeleton argument since 4 May 2007. I require that you provide me with your skeleton argument within seven days of receipt of this letter, so that I can make my own preparations for the forthcoming court hearing" • 12 August 2007 to Mr Jaffer, copied to WLCC:" URGENT AND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION - You have failed to provide me with your Skeleton Argument. In my attached letter of 12 August, I have asked the court's assistance in ensuring you send me your Skeleton Argument by 16 August 2007. I remind you that you are in possession of my Skeleton Argument since 4 May i.e. for more than three months. Your failure to provide me with the requested information adds weight to my – amply supported position - that your client’s claim against me is dishonest and vexatious." • 12 August 2007 to WLCC, copied to Mr Jaffer: Headed: "Your assistance in getting the skeleton argument from Portner and Jaskel". I wrote: "I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Portner and Jaskel has so far failed to supply me with its skeleton argument, and by the same token, evidence in support of its client’s claim against me. By contrast, it received my skeleton argument on 4 May 2007 i.e. more than three months ago. The hearing is scheduled for 24 August 2007. Clearly, non-provision of the skeleton argument puts me in a highly unfair and very disadvantageous position in relation to the hearing. Hence, Portner and Jaskel is in breach of its legal obligations under Section 1.3 of the CPR, “Duty of the parties: The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective“" • 16 August 2007 fax to WLCC, copied to Mr Jaffer: "One week to the 24 August 2007 hearing and Portner and Jaskel has not supplied me with its skeleton argument. Yet, it has now been in possession of my skeleton argument for three and half months (since 4 May 2007) The unwillingness to date to provide the requested information - including failure to comply with your court’s order of 26 April 2007 - provide overwhelming support to my position that the claim against me is dishonest and vexatious. (Hence, a repeat of Steel Services Ltd claim filed against me in your court in November 2002). Concurrently, this conduct provides evidence that the claim is a waste of court time, as well as my time. Quite clearly, this breach of the rules of court is intended to gain an unfair advantage and calculated to inhibit your court from furthering the overriding objective" Eventually, sometime on Wednesday 22 August 2007, a two-page “Skeleton argument on behalf of the Claimant for hearing on 24 August 2007” produced by Mr Greg Williams of 2 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers, and attached covering letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer of Portner and Jaskel were delivered by courier to my PO Box address. Hence, less than 48 hours before the hearing (on 24 August 2007) - and three-and-half months after it had received mine WHY did WLCC not take action following my reporting that Portner and Jaskel had not sent me its Skeleton Argument?
Point 5 of Rootstock Skeleton argument states “The Claimant has not received a copy of the Defendant’s skeleton argument in support of her application. The Defendant asserts in correspondence that the Claimant has had her skeleton argument since 4 May” Damn right it had received it - as I proved in my 22 August 2007 fax to WLCC by attaching a copy of the printscreen of the Royal Mail website confirming that my document had been delivered. I tried to also send the fax to Portner and Jaskel but, as its fax machine 'appeared' to not work, I ended-up having it biked over. Consider: 'IF'it were true that Portner and Jaskel had not received my Skeleton Argument: why did it wait until 48 hours before the hearing to say so? Since 30 June 2007, it had received four letters from me in which I asserted that it had been in possession of it since 4 May 2007(as detailed above under point # 9) And also evidenced by the above letters, WLCC also knew that Portner and Jaskel was lying. At the 24 August 2007 WLCC hearing, Mr Greg Williams, barrister, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers, asked me to show him the original post office receipts - which, of course, I had - knowing the evil, morally depraved mob I am dealing with.
(NB: In my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", under header # 9, I emphasised my concern at this refusal, stating: "Considering the above issues, the Defendant highlights her concern that her application for transfer of the case to the LVT was refused") Having refused my request, Deputy Judge McGovern ordered that I pay, "Roostock"'s barrister, Mr Greg Williams, costs: £293.70 (US$518). Firslty, this order was made in the absolute knowledge that there is an issue as to the identity of the Claimant - among others, the fact that there are TWO NAMES for the 'Claimant' on the claim: "Roostock Overseas Corp." and "Steel Services" - see point # 2, above. Evidently, for reasons better known to itself, WLCC decided that "Rootstock" was the 'claimant'. Secondly, no statement of costs was sent by Portner ahead of the hearing. This amount was arrived by Deputy Judge McGovern asking Mr Williams during the hearing how much his costs were, to which he replied "£293.70". I conclude that it amounts to breach of CPR Part 44 Practice Direction, paragraph 13.5(2) “Each party who intends to claim costs must prepare a written statement of the costs he intends to claim... (4) The statement of costs must be filed at court and copies of it must be served on any party against whom an order for payment of those costs is intended to be sought. The statement of costs should be filed and the copies of it should be served as soon as possible and in any event not less than 24 hours before the date fixed for the hearing” And of course, CPR Part 44 PD para 13.6 which states: “The failure by a party, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the foregoing paragraphs will be taken into account by the court in deciding what order to make about the costs of the claim, hearing or application, and about the costs of any further hearing or detailed assessment hearing that may be necessary as a result of that failure” - was also overlooked. As Mr Williams did not know top of mind what Portner and Jaskel's costs were, 'lucky me' was 'saved' from paying its costs as well. I never received an invoice. By contrast, I DID comply with CPR by sending my 22 August 2007 letter to Mr Jaffer to supply him with my costs - 24 hours ahead of 24 August 2007 hearing. (NB:I sent the cheque for £293.70 to Portner and Jaskel on 10 September 2007, and copied WLCC on my letter. (I only received the 24 August Order from WLCC on 7 September. it was posted on 6 September 2007) In addition, considering the nature of the issues under consideration - and the remit of LVTs - WHY did Deputy Judge McGovern refuse me the right to have my case transferred to the LVT? Subsequent note - My answer: Because the LVT would have had to recognise the evidence in support of my position that the 27 February 2007 claim is fraudulent. (I certainly would have made sure that it did). So, it was 'best' to keep the case under the control of WLCC. But the plan failed as Mr Ladsky eventually 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 (My Diary 7 June 2008 ; Portner and Jaskel # 29 ) And because it was a set-up (point # 6.1 above ; [ADD]) (*) Practising solicitors and barristers sit as Judges and Registrars in the courts. It is commonly recognised that it can result in unfair judgements. Consider that they can potentially preside over a case involving their own firm. How about that for conflict of interest! (See also below, point # 27, the breach of government policy)
I considered that WLCC already knew that, from (1) my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument, which was used at the 24 August 2007 hearing (points 1 and 4.9, and numerous other points); (2) my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" (header 8.64 , 5.4 - 5.10 , 5.12 and numerous other points) I therefore opted to title my 12 September 2007 document by reproducing WLCC's wording: "Defence & Counterclaim" (and it made sense to me, as I am making ‘counterclaims’ in my document ‘in defence’ of the claims against me). As Portner and Jaskel had lied by saying that it had not received my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument, the following day I captured a printscreen of the Royal Mail website confirming that my "Defence & Counterclaim" had been delivered. On that day, 13 September 2007, I sent the printscreen to WLCC, copying Mr Ahmet Jaffer on my letter. (13) When, on Monday 1 October 2007, I phoned WLCC to ask why, after more than one month, my nominated company had still not received the tape of the hearing for transcription, instead of getting a reply to my question, I was immediately told that I had "to pay £1,700 (US$3,000) to file your counterclaim"I could not believe my ears, replying that I had not received any communication to this effect. I was told that something had been sent to me. I added that, in any case, it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim - as was obvious from the Skeleton Argument I had filed in court - which had been used at the 24 August 2007 hearing. WLCC had posted its 27 September 2007 communication to me on the day - but did this second class. Hence, when I went to check my post on Saturday 29 September 2007, I had not received it. As to the tape, the purpose was to get a transcript to help me write my Defence - which was due to be filed on 14 September 2007. I sent the application to WLCC on 28 August 2007. By 1 October 2007, the transcribing company still had not received the tape. As can be seen in my 7 October 2007 letter to the company, WLCC said to have forwarded my request for the tape to a judge on 14 September 2007 i.e. the day on which I had to serve my Defence. On 1 October 2007, I was by WLCC that it still had not heard from the judge. Conclusion on events = more games being played.
It states:
This communication - which is just a letter - was issued by "Mr Joseph, Courts Section". It includes a stamp of the court. It 'seems' to me to add some 'officialdom' to it. While I am not an expert on communications from courts, it 'seems' to me that this correspondence might not be compliant with court regulations. In my 13 November 2007 complaint to HMCS Customer Service, I wrote that I viewed this letter as amounting to "bullying and intimidation", followed by:
See below point 22 and point 23 for the highly contradicting replies from Customer Service, including manipulation by WLCC of what I wrote in my Defence in order to justify sending me the 27 September 2007 demand - and the fact that, more than three months later, on 7 January 2008, it sent me a 19 December 2007 'order' "striking out" - my non-existent counterclaim. = more evidence of 'games' being played (15) Portner and Jaskel had sent WLCC a 26 September 2007 "Defence to Counterclaim" produced by Mr Greg Williams, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers - arguing that my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" is not a "Counterclaim". I replied to WLCC on 2 October 2007As you can see from his 26 September 2007 "Defence to Counterclaim", Mr Greg Williams argues that my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" is not a 'counterclaim'. In my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC, copied Mr Ahmet Jaffer - which is a reply to this 26 September document and to what I had been told when I phoned WLCC on 1 October - I explain how I had interpreted WLCC's wording in its 24 August 2007 Order i.e. "Defence & Counterclaim" - and emphasise that it was an impossibility for me to file a counterclaim stating, among other:
(16) By 14 October 2007, I had not received a reply from WLCC to my 2 October 2007 letter - leading me to send a chaser letter. By 28 October 2007, I still had not received a reply - leading me to send a second chaser letterIn each instance, I copied Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, on my letters. WHY has WLCC not replied to my 2 October 2007 letter? Note at January 2008: See below point 23 for the reply from the Customer Service (17) Likewise, WLCC has been ignoring four requests from me, between 30 June 2007 and 28 October 2007 for an amended version of its 3 April 2007 NoticeThe letters are: This is a breach of my right under Principle 4 of the Data Protection Act 1998: information held to be "accurate" WHY has WLCC been ignoring my request - in the process, breaching legislation? Note at January 2008: WLCC finally sent me an amended version dated 10 January 2008 - hence, more than six months after my original request - See below point 23 for the reply from the Customer Service (18) Events with West London County Court led me to file a complaint with the Customer Service of Her Majesty Court Service on 13 November 2007I ask a number of questions in this letter, in the context of relating events with West London County Court. The 15 November 2007 reply from Customer Service states: "...asked the Court Manager...for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next weeks" (19) WLCC not providing a reply as promised by the end of November, led me to ask, in my 5 December 2007 letter to HMCS for my case to be "immediately transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under CPR's Overriding Objective"In its 29 November 2007 letter, HMCS wrote: "Unfortunately we are not in a position to respond to you in full regarding your complaint, as this matter is being investigated by the court. We aim to respond to you in full regarding this matter within the next two weeks" Seeing this as a continuation of a game being played by WLCC, I replied to HMCS on 5 December 2007, heading my letter:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 Stating among other:
Having highlighted the fact that it still had not received a reply from WLCC to my 2 October 2007 letter, I then asked why WLCC was not managing my case - as per CPR's 1.4, and emphasised the Court and Legal Services Act 1990. To further back-up my demand for a transfer of my case to another court, I summarised some of the key events that had taken place with WLCC in 2002-2004, in relation to the 29 November 2002 claim from 'Steel Services' (20) As the 10 December 2007 reply from HMCS totally ignores my demand, while adding, yet again, a further two-week delay, I have escalated my demand to the Justice Secretary, on 11 December 2007In its 10 December 2007 letter, HMCS totally ignores my demand for my case to be transferred to another court - stating "I will look into this and respond to you within the next two weeks". Hence, another two-week delay was - yet again - being added. On seeing this, I opted to write to Mr Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, on 11 December 2007, to ask him to intervene. See below point 23 for the reply from the Customer Service (21) West London County Court - AND - Portner and Jaskel HAVE GONE INTO 'SILENT MODE' since my 2 October 2007 letter. I WONDER WHY?Since my chaser letters of 14 October 2007 and 28 October 2007 to WLCC (on which I copied Mr Ahmet Jaffer), I have written the above letters to HMCS, as well as to the Justice Secretary. Still no communication from WLCC. Hence, at mid-December, I have not heard anything from WLCC since the 27 September 2007 communication from "Mr Joseph, Courts Section" And NOR have I heard anything from Portner and Jaskel since the 26 September 2007 "Defence to Counterclaim" I WONDER WHY? :-) And the situation remains the same at the end of December Note at January 2008: my updating my website on 17 December, plus my claim of 'collusion' kicked WLCC into action - see below point 23 and point 24
To my question "I want to know why it cost somebody £250 to file a fraudulent claim against me whereas I am expected to pay seven times as much i.e. £1,700 to defend myself against it", the reply is:
Please, compare the following:
I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person would agree with me that this action is NOT the outcome of gross negligence / incompetence.I view this unbelievably underhanded action as a means of justifying sending the 27 September 2007 correspondence. And the motive for doing that? Considering the threat contained in this correspondence ("striking out" my counterclaim - with no recourse), the very tight deadline, and the demand for payment of the sum of £1,700 (US$3,000) - I view this correspondence as being motivated by an intention to prevent my case from proceeding to a hearing. The second factor leading me to this conclusion is the lack of response from WLCC to my 2 October 2007 reply. I attribute the reason to my letter having foiled the 'game plan' - and give the fact that Portner and Jaskel has, likewise, gone into 'silent mode' since the end of September, as further evidence in support of my conclusion. Among the other considerations are:
Secondly, I view the ongoing silence since the end of September 2007 as having the objective of letting time go by until it reaches the point when the case can no longer be heard. The Customer Service Officer: • Did not provide a reply to my question asking for confirmation that the 27 September 2007 correspondence complies with court regulations • Made no comment about its content - in spite of my having stated in my 13 November 2007 complaint “Giving me a three-day notice to pay £1,700 to file a counterclaim and threatening to have my counterclaim “struck-out” if I failed to do this…I view this as bullying and intimidation” • And nor did he probe the reason for demanding payment of the sum of £1,700 (US$3,000). As I wrote in my 27 December 2007 reply: "you also failed to pursue the demand for payment of the sum of £1,700 for a “counterclaim of £20,713.18 (US$36,520) ” As it is twice the amount of the claim, how come that it costs seven times as much to file it?" I contrasted this by quoting the fee for filing a claim ranging in value from £15,000 (US$26,450) - £50,000 (US$88,165) - which is £360 (US$635). Consideration of the above led me to write:
(*) See My Diary 3 October 2006, Advisors to Jefferson House and Directorships Turning to my other questions: • "Why has WLCC failed to send me an amended version of its 3 April 2007 "Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed" in spite of my sending four requests between 30 June 2007 and 28 October 2007?" This question was also totally ignored. (Please note that, among others, WLCC's action - or more appropriately: lack of action - amounts to a breach of my right under Principle 4 of the Data Protection Act 1998: information held to be "accurate") At this point, it led me to write:
• “I want an explanation for the three-and-half month delay in rescheduling the 8 May 2007 hearing”. Reply (which was to be expected) is that the 24th August was "the first available date". (NB: the initial reply from WLCC, in May 2007, was that "there is only judge - see point 6.1 above ) As I wrote back: "(1) August is the holiday period; (2) the 24th was a Friday - just before the bank holiday. Hence: a time when many people tend to be away... including judges - right?" (While I had my suspicions in May when I was given this date, considering events since then, I view my take on it as being justified) • "I want to know why it took WLCC one month to send the tape for transcription to my nominated company, and why there were further delays apparently caused by the court’s reviewing process – leading to the transcript being finally available to me ten weeks after the hearing" Extracts from the reply: "the tape included recording of another hearing and was sent to another transcriber". Once my nominated company had done the transcript "it was sent to the the Court for approval by the Judge on 14 November 2007 and was then sent back on the same day to the transcribers to be amended” I wrote back "While I do not have sufficient knowledge to challenge the reply, not surprisingly, in light of the rest of your letter: I do not believe this explanation" I concluded my letter with the following:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 If you have read the other section on WLCC, and related section on Lord Falconer of Thoroton, you will know that my experience with this court between 2002 and 2004 was very traumatic. As you can see, its method of operating has not changed - causing me yet, more horrendous torment, anguish and distress throughout 2007. This leads me to repeat what I wrote under Portner and Jaskel point #17: this country was the standard bearer on legal matters. What happened?
It looks like I have caused a bit of a stir in the Customer Service department of Her Majesty Court Service: by the end of January, I have received follow-up letters from five different people, two in the Southwark Office, and three in the Petty France office (the latter connected with my sending / copying my correspondence to the Justice Secretary). On the Southwark Bridge office side, the game continues, reverting the situation 'back to square one' as the 2 January 2008 follow-up to my 27 December 2007 letter (from yet, another person in the Customer Service department) reads: "I have asked the Court Manager... for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next two weeks" Seven weeks previously, the 15 November 2007 reply from Customer Service stated: "...asked the Court Manager...for a full report and we will provide you with a full response to your letter within the next weeks" Isn't that playing a game? From the Petty France office, I received this 21 December 2007 initial acknowledgement. I also replied on 27 December 2007, insisting that my case is immediately transferred to another court - repeating what I wrote (above) to the Southwark Bridge office. The 20 December 2007 reply from the Customer Service department led me to take my protest to the street. (See My Diary 9 January 2008 ) . It had the effect of immediately prompting 'another reply' to my complaint: a letter from the Petty France office, dated 10 January 2008. Reasons for my bullet point "Continuation of (laughable) cover-up by the Court Service through use of deceit...as well as the (familiar) rejection of its responsibilities" (The following are extracts from its 10 January 2008 letter, and my reply of 28 January 2008) • Holding me responsible for the adjournment of the 8 May 2007 hearing on the ground that, "contrary to procedural rules...[I] did not file an application for contesting the court's jurisdicition". As evidenced under point 3, above, this is not true: I DID file an application, and did this within the 14-day deadline. (Note at April 2008 - With the benefit of yet more knowledge since: it probably said this because I did not use a court's form to do this. Why didn't it say so - including in this 10 January 2008 letter? It knows that I am a litigant in person. Opted to keep me in the dark to catch me again? Well, this time: I HAVE filed in a form! and I am quoting the CPR rules and practice direction in support (point # 28 below) ) • Coming up with an entirely different explanation for demanding payment of a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee "to file a counterclaim": 'Apparently', the fee is due to my "filing a counterclaim for an unspecified amount". The previous explanation, on 20 December 2007 - arrived at by misrepresenting what I wrote in my document was that I had 'apparently' "filed a counterclaim for £20,713.18” (US$36,520) - see point 22 above As I wrote in my letter "You cannot even agree among yourselves on ‘the story’ you are going to spin" and concluded on this point by saying "When will you all stop 'digging your hole' and 'come clean' ?" • Attempting to cover-up the silence from WLCC following my 2 October 2007 letter in part by blaming me for what amounts to WLCC failing to perform its responsibilities, by saying that: "I had not taken action" since WLCC's correspondence of 27 September 2007 How about my letter of 2 October 2007, isn't that an action? As I wrote: "As the implication is that the Court Service is 'self-service', how about I issue my own judgment as well? I sure like that idea" Secondly, because "... judicial case management is only invoked when the court is satisfied that it has before it a claim and a valid defence. lt is unclear because of the striking out of your counterclaim whether that is the situation with this case, for example, you have made no formal application to reinstate your counterclaim" I replied "What a concoction! Who has determined that my defence is 'not valid'?...There is no counterclaim "to strike out", for the simple reason that I did not file a counterclaim.... What [ WLCC's] claim amounts to saying is that: it expected me to file a counterclaim against an unknown entity; for an unspecified amount" (To which I could have added: even if a counterclaim had been struck out, it does not mean that the court should stop managing the process. And it certainly should not opt to go into 'silent mode' ignoring all correspondence. What kind of court is that?) I remarked that I had not been provided with an answer to my question: "is the 27 September 2007 communication from WLCC compliant with court regulations?", adding that, judging from CPR, it seems to me that the correspondence should have been an 'order' - instead of just a letter. I repeated my position that the 27 September 2007 correspondence from WLCC amounts to "bullying and intimidation" of a Defendant, also stating that 'blackmail' 'might' be a more appropriate term in the circumstances - quoting from the Theft Act 1968 - S.24(1) - "A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another…or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces..." I followed this by repeating my perception that the 27 September 2007 correspondence "is ‘part and parcel’ of a plan intended to prevent my case from proceeding to a hearing – in front of a ‘real judge’ i.e. a judge committed to the concept of justice" As further evidence in support of my position, I reported that, on 7 January 2008 (NB !!!) WLCC had sent me an Order stating “The Defendant having failed to comply with the Court’s request by letter dated 27 September 2007 to pay the Counterclaim fee, the Counterclaim stands struck out” The counterclaim is dated 19 December 2007 and gives the processing date (?) as 4 January 2008. I stated that I view this 'order' as "lunacy" as I did not file a counterclaim, and attributed the three-month delay in doing this to an attempt to "tie-up the loose ends" - following two events: (1) the fact that, after remaining silent for seven months (to see what would happen), I had updated my website on 17 December, relating, among other, the events that have taken place with WLCC; (2) the header to my 27 December 2007 letter to the Customer Service: "Confirmation of collusion" (For another 'knee-jerk' / panic reaction by WLCC to these two events and /or because of my 9 January protest (?), see next point ) • Blotting out WLCC falsely capturing in its 3 April 2007 notice that I "intend to defend part of the claim" (see point # 7 above) by leaving out the 'inconvenient parts' from Portner and Jaskel's letter of 1 May 2007. The Court Service claims that Portner and Jaskel's letter demonstrates that it "had been made aware of [my] correct intention" v. what the letter states "...apart from receiving Notice that an Acknowledgement of Service has been filed...dated 3rd April 2007... we have not received anything further from.... the court" At least, one positive outcome: after my sending four letters over a period of six months, WLCC finally decided to send me an amended version of its 3 April 2007 notice, dated 11 January 2008 My reply to the comment “So far as your allegations of collusion are concerned, I have found no evidence whatsoever to support your contention…” is
I also wrote:
In relation to asking, in my 5 December 2007 letter (and subsequent letters), for my case to be transferred to another court, (point 19 above), the four letters that followed from the Customer Service (10 December 2007, 20 December 2007, 21 December 2007 and 2 January 2008) totally ignored my demand. It is only in the fifth letter of 10 January 2008 that I am finally told that I need to "make a formal application to the court" (I did - see next point ) I concluded my letter by saying "I no longer wish to correspond with your Office as it is proving to be a waste of my time". I copied the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, on this letter. There are more points covered in the 10 January 2008 letter, and in my reply of 28 January 2008. Of these, I draw your attention to my highlighting that a very serious breach of CPR took place with the 29 November 2002 claim (1.1MB) as it was signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, a 'managing agent' (as explained e.g. in My Diary - 9 March 2007). The reply from the Court Service:
To which I replied: "It is the duty of the courts to ensure they operate under the ‘Overriding Objective’. I have enough on my hands with fighting against repeated ‘attacks’ from a rogue landlord and his equally rogue aides, without taking on the responsibility of the courts. As a taxpayer, paying for the Court Service, I expect delivery on what I am paying for... (24) Instead of completing the 11 January 2008 Allocation questionnaire, I sent a 26 January 2008 application "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice" asking for transfer of the case to another court(Note at March 2008 - Under threat, I eventually returned an Allocation questionnaire - see below point # 26 ) I received an 11 January 2008 notice from WLCC to which was attached an Allocation Questionnaire, asking me to return it by 28 January 2008. Considering that my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim" has been with WLCC since 13 September 2007, why has WLCC waited until now to send this? I view this as a U-turn, triggered by my actions in December, intended to keep my case under its control. Indeed, this action, added to the 10 January 2008 reply from Customer Service (discussed under the previous point) further reinforces in my mind the views I expressed in December, under point 22:
One thing for sure: all that happened with WLCC this year, added to what took place in 2002-2004 has led me to totally lose my confidence in this court. So, instead of returning the allocation questionnaire, on 26 January 2008 I sent a letter "To: A Judge committed to the concept of Justice, c/o West London County court" asking for the case to be "transferred to a court and a judge committed to operating under the Overriding Objective" - and copied Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel on this letter. Some of my main points: • "... my perception [that] WLCC...has - and continues – to allow itself i.e. judicial process and its representatives to be treated in absolute and utter contempt by the Claimant and its aides" • "The Claimant and its aides, comprising of lawyers and surveyors have a well-documented history of lying to WLCC (as well as to Wandsworth County Court) – in relation to court claims against me (and other leaseholders at Jefferson House). Examples:"(1) Claim supported by false information..." ( (NB e.g. WLCC point # 2 , # 3 , # 10 ; LVT point # 1, # 4 , # 8.1.2 ; all the section on Mr Brian Gale ; Martin Russell Jones point # 16 , # 17 , # 14 , # 20 , # 21 , # 22 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 6.7 , # 6.3 , # 6.4 , # 6.5 , # 6.6 ; Portner and Jaskel point # 6.2 , # 6.3 , # 7 , # 15 , # 17 , # 19 , # 23 ) "(2) Abuse of process of court: in 2002-2003, by pursuing the same action (against me and 10 other leaseholders) concurrently under two separate jurisdictions: WLCC and LVT" (NB: LVT introduction ; point # 1 , # 6 ; Mr Andrew Ladsky ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 2 , point # 6.1 ; WLCC point # 2 , # 4 ; ) "(3) False reporting to a judge, in WLCC, of actions taken e.g. in 2003, in the context of a hearing that concerned me (and other leaseholders) falsely claiming that (i) the LVT determination had been implemented; (ii) it had been reflected in the leaseholders’ service charge demands. Both claims were made under a statement of truth in the application for hearing" (NB: Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 6.6 , # 6.3 ; Martin Russell Jones point # 16 , # 17 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 ; WLCC point # 9 , # 10 ) "(4) False claims of not receiving documents e.g. Portner and Jaskel claiming that it had not received my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument" (NB: Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel & Mr Greg Williams, 2 Gray's Inn Square Chambers - point # 17 ) In a note, I also highlighted "lying by the Claimant and its aides...in the LVT in 2002-2003 - hence, amounting to lying to other representatives of the judicial system....false statements by Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, Steel Services’ surveyor in his 13 December 2002 Expert Witness report to the tribunal:
"False statements in other evidence supplied to the tribunal: in statements made by Mr Brian Gale and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, in a report, as well as in correspondence from Ms Hathaway to the tribunal that included stating "...regarding the proposed penthouse...although the planning permission was granted it was subsequently found that the scheme was not a viable proposition...there are no plans to build the penthouse at the property ") • "...by turning down my application (at the 24 August 2007 hearing)...for transfer of my case to the LVT, WLCC has ‘lined me up’ for unjust treatment" (point # 11 , above)• "Anticipating that a proper evaluation of the claim will support my position that, at a minimum, the claim against me is largely false, and might even be entirely false, (NB: my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim") actions will need to be taken against the parties that have filed the claim against me. Considering WLCC’s actions to date, it would not do this".I followed this by listing what I conclude - "in my non-lawyer opinion" - are breaches of statutes and regulations by Portner and Jaskel and the 'landlord', as well as breaches of covenants in my lease by the 'landlord'. Examples:
I concluded by stating "As a (law abiding) British National, I have the right to demand access to the ‘justice’ system. And, as through taxes, I am already paying for a Court Service that is positioned to ensure I get ‘justice’, I expect to get this service at no additional cost i.e. not needing to pay for the cost of transferring my case to a court and a judge committed to operating under the Overriding Objective" (*) (*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 I copied the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, on this letter. (25) Lack of response from WLCC has led me to send another letter to Mr Jack Straw, Justice Secretary on 18 February 2008......asking "Has this country reached the stage where finding a court and a judge committed to operating under the 'Overriding Objective' (*) has become impossible?" (*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 I wrote: "To be absolutely clear: I now have NO CONFIDENCE and NO TRUST in WLCC.... I am sure that any fair minded, reasonable person considering what has taken place with this court since 2007, added to what took place in 2002-2004, would have no difficulty understanding my position. To also be absolutely clear: if your Court Service wants to continue ‘rolling over’ for Mr Andrew Ladsky et. al., I am prepared to continue fighting all of you for my right to justice and redress until the very end...
(In relation to this letter, I wrote in My Diary 18 February 2008 "Yes, I am sure that my 'un-English' way of being very direct and open is putting 'backs up'. At least, 'I' have the guts to say what I think - in a public forum - and to direct it at the people with the responsibility to do something about it..." ) In my letter to Mr Straw, I also refer to the 'List of Documents: Standard Disclosure', dated 4 February 2008, sent to me by Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel, on 7 February 2008 - ( see Portner and Jaskel # 24 ). I did this in case WLCC opted to proceed - without informing me. (As it sent an allocation questionnaire (point # 24 above ), the preceding stages to supplying a 'List of documents' are a case management hearing, followed by directions from the court). However, this would imply that WLCC had - without informing me - set the case management hearing within the next four working days following the 28 January 2008 deadline for returning the allocation questionnaire (Portner dated its document 4 February), and issued directions, likewise, without informing me. As "there is only one judge in WLCC" (point # 6.1 above ) which meant a three and a half months wait to reschedule the 8 May 2007 hearing (point # 22 above) - it seems highly unlikely, unless... Of note: comparing the list of documents in the 4 February 2008 'List of Documents' with the counterclaims / issues I have raised in my 12 September 2007 "Defence & Counterclaim", it is blatantly obvious that they do not address them.
On 13 March 2008, I took delivery of a 7 March 2008 Order from West London County Court, posted on 10 March 2008. It states:
The covering letter states a consequence of this as "the Claimant may apply for judgment" Had I gone to my PO Box one day later (!!!), you can bet your bottom dollar that this what would have happened... no doubt leading all to have a celebration. The letter refers to my 18 February 2008 letter to Mr Jack Straw - ignoring my 26 January 2008 letter addressed to "A Judge committed to the concept of Justice", c/o West London County Court (point # 24 above). It informs me that my request for transfer of the case to another court cannot be dealt with by letter "as previously advised". The "previous advice" I was given is in the 10 January 2008 letter from HMCS (point # 23 above) which states the need "to make a formal application", but does not refer me to any form. This information has only been provided to me for the first time in the 7 March 2008 correspondence from West London County Court. In light of the threat from West London County Court (*), added to being reminded of other leaseholders' appalling experience with other courts, as well as tribunals, I opted to return the Allocation questionnaire - supported by notes - explaining why I could not answer the majority of the questions. (*) Subsequent note: I have discovered that these terms are stated under Civil Procedure Rules Part 26, Rule 2.5 Given the deadline, I hand-delivered the documents to West London County Court on 14 March - as testified by the stamp from the court on the first page of the Allocation questionnaire. Having given me a 24-hr turnaround, by 13 April i.e. one month later, I have yet to hear from the court. I wonder why? Has my reply spoilt a plan? I am tempted to compare the pressure placed on me with that previously used in the 27 September 2007 Order (point # 14 above ). However, it would be unfair as, when it first sent me an allocation questionnaire in January (point # 24 above) , the court did give me considerable time to reply.
In its 5 March 2008 response to the "petition to abolish leasehold" (at http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14896.asp ) the Office of the Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, claims that the government is:
Why has West London County Court denied my application for transfer of my case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on 24 August 2007 (point # 11 above)?Why am I being treated differently?Subsequent note - My answer: Because the LVT would have had to recognise the evidence in support of my position that the 27 February 2007 claim is fraudulent. (I certainly would have made sure that it did). So, it was 'best' to keep the case under the control of WLCC. But the plan failed as Mr Ladsky eventually 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 (My Diary 7 June 2008 ; Portner and Jaskel # 29) And because it was a set-up (points # 6.1 and # 11 above ; [ADD])
On 30 April 2008, I hand-delivered this application to West London County Court. (NB: As a result of more 'crash learning', I have discovered that 'making an application' requires using one of the numerous court forms. I now assume that this is what was meant when I was told by HMCS in its 10 January 2008 letter that I "had not made an application for contesting the court's jurisdiction". (WLCC # 23 ) Why didn't it say so - including in its 10 January 2008 letter? It knows that I am a litigant in person. Opted to keep me in the dark in the hope of catching me out again? Well, this time: I HAVE filed in a form! and I am quoting the CPR rules and practice direction in support - and paid £40 (US$71)) (... the parable of the horse who fell down a well - My Diary 5 April 2007 ) My application is in response to the 9 April 2008 case management Order, issued by District Judge Ryan. This order was posted on 21 April 2008, with this 18 April 2008 'Notice of trial to the Defendant' - giving the date as 21 August 2008. (I took delivery on 23 April 2008) These actions are a follow-up to my filing the allocation questionnaire (point # 26 above). (NB: Contrary to Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 26.9 (1)(a), the court has not supplied me with a copy of 'Rootstock/Steel Services' 'allocation questionnaire (I copied mine to Portner and Jaskel at the time of filing it) ) As explained in my application, I have made it "in the interests of justice and efficiency" as the case management directions do not allow time to ensure I am supplied with the information I require to defend myself against the claim - as
In support, I quote: • PD 28 - 3.3: “The court’s first concern will be to ensure…that the necessary evidence is prepared and disclosed", and • PD 28 - 3.9 "Where the court is to give directions on its own initiative and it is not aware of any steps taken by the parties other than the service of statements of case, its general approach will be: As I note under Part C of my application, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders to obtain information, stating: "As repeatedly highlighted to the Court and the Claimant – over the last 12 months - in numerous documents (skeleton argument, defence to the claim, notes to the allocation questionnaire, etc.): I need better particulars to be able to defend myself against the claim – including writing my witness statement. By right, I should have been provided with the main evidence I require a long time ago" "Under Rules 26.5(3) and 31.12(1) the court had the option of giving directions / issuing an order for specific disclosure. It opted to not do this - in spite of my highlighting the need in the supporting document to my allocation questionnaire" I follow this by highlighting that "given the claimant's conduct to date, the timetable must allow for the filing of court orders for disclosure of information, under Rule 31.12, as well as under Rule 31.17 for court orders for disclosure against other parties (e.g. accountants for Jefferson House; surveyors involved in determining the percentage shares of service charges) [that] may also be required" And, "There may also be a need to apply, under Rule 18.1, for one or more orders to obtain further information to clarify matters" I emphasise that all the information supplied to me, as well as already in my possession, must be endorsed by statements of truth from the supplying parties In this context, I highlight that "As, in August 2007, the court denied me access to extensive expertise by refusing my legitimate application for transfer of the case to the LVT (point # 11 above), I require that disclosure information supplied to me by the Claimant, its accountants, surveyors, lawyers, others, if any - is endorsed by statements of truth. This is to provide me with reassurance on the veracity, authenticity, as well as compliance with my lease and statutory rights in relation to the accounts for Jefferson House, service charge demands and other information to which I am entitled e.g. detail of the ownership profile of Jefferson House" (NB: Fellow leaseholders: note the following CPR rules, in Part 32 - Evidence)I emphasise that"In highlighting this requirement for statements of truth, I am also conscious of Rule 32.19 (1) Notice to admit or produce documents - “A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial”, and of "Rule 32.19 (2) A notice to prove a document must be served – (a) by the latest date for serving witness statements; or (b) within 7 days of disclosure of the document, whichever is later” (NB: In making my requests, I was also conscious of, among others,
as my 'sixth sense' warned me of a potential plan to present me with "evidence" in situations where I would not be able to challenge it due to e.g. lack of information) I follow this by asking for changes in the directions for the trial bundle, and by a suggested revised timetable. Question for you fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: Considering the above, do you view the 9 April 2008 case management directions as reflecting consideration for the Overriding Objective (*) comprised under Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules:
(*) Sourced from the website of the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, on 14 March 2007 In justifying my heading for this entry "West London County Court continues to pursue its 'mission to make me pay', I also take the following into consideration: • The fact that it issued a 3 April 2007 'Notice that acknowledgement of service has been filed' falsely stating "The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend part of the claim" (Point # 7 above) • Its total lack of support in ensuring that Portner and Jaskel supplied me with the information I required (Point # 9 above) • Its refusal to have my case transferred to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (point # 11 above) • Its 27 September 2007 letter demanding that I pay a £1,700 (US$3,000) fee (point # 14 above) - and the subsequent contradicting explanations (point # 22 and point # 23 above) - not to mention the three months plus silence that followed my 2 October 2007 letter to WLCC • It has very clearly ignored my 26 January 2008 letter "To a Judge committed to the concept of Justice" (point # 24 above ) • It had, yet again, 'another attempt' with its 7 March 2008 order that contained the threat to "strike out [my] defence" by giving me a very tight deadline to reply (point # 26 above ) I interpret the above events as attempts to prevent the case from proceeding to a hearing, and conclude from the 9 April 2008 case management order that the objective is to now 'get me' at the trial. Well, WLCC was instrumental in making some of the other leaseholders in 2003-2004 pay a lot more than they were legally liable for (see WLCC , among others, point # 6 , point # 5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor point # 6.3 and point # 6.6 ; Pridie Brewster point # 18 )... ...and WLCC did this on the basis of a claim that was in very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules as the statement of truth was signed by Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones - see My Diary 9 March 2007 (In addition to being based on false information - which WLCC knew - WLCC point # 2 , point # 3 , point # 4 )
The above is my introduction to the 'standard disclosure' list of documents I sent to Portner and Jaskel today - as per the directions contained in the 9 April 2008 case management directions. (See My Diary - 6 May 2008 and, further detail, 15 May 2008) (30) In his 9 May 2008 Order, District Judge Nicholson, refused my 30 April 2008 application. The consequences I stated in my 14 May 2008 reply materialised: I was left with having to write my Witness Statement without the necessary evidence - in breach of CPROn 13 May 2008, I took delivery of the 9 May 2008 Order issued by District Judge Nicholson who refused my 30 April 2008 application for amendments to the 9 April 2008 case management directions issued by District Judge Ryan (point # 28, above) The Order states"If the Defendant wishes to obtain information from the Claimant the Defendant should make a request for the information, and if it is not given the Defendant should make an Application to the court” I replied on 14 May 2008 (copying the Rt. Hon Jack Straw, MP) that "the court is perfectly aware that the Claimant has not supplied me with the information I should, by right (covenants in my lease, and my statutory rights) have been provided with – a long time ago”. In support of my position of a “game plan to prevent me from getting the information in time to write my Witness Statement, I emphasised that, "given the Claimant’s conduct to date, I would need to make a request for information", and highlighted "PD 18 5.5(2) which requires allowing 14 days for reply before filing an application in court for an order". (In the last paragraph I wrote: "Whatever the outcome: my conscience is clear") I was proven right: on 19 May 2008, I sent a Part 18 Request to Portner and Jaskel, giving a 14-day deadline for reply by 2 June 2008. Portner and Jaskel did NOT reply. So, thanks to District Judge Ryan and District Judge Nicholson - in breach of CPR (point # 28, above) - I was left with having to write my Witness Statement without key information "required to clarify [Rootstock]'s case" That's the game the judges wanted to play: I had only one round. I would fight for a 'knockout'. One exception re. the provision of information - In the context of the 9 April 2008 case management directions, on 16 May 2008, I asked Portner to supply me with documents from its 4 February 2008 standard disclosure (Portner # 24). One turned out to be a transaction for Jefferson House's airspace. Demonstrating the perversion, deviousness and warped mentality of Mr Ladsky and his corrupt lackeys, Portner and Jaskel, is the fact that the airspace of Jefferson House was transferred from Steel Services to Rootstock (for "£1") (Headlessors # 5 ) seven weeks before filing the claim against me. (See Portner and Jaskel # 27 for more detail) (31) As per the 9 April 2008 case management directions, I sent my 'knockout' 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement (4 pg - Main Points) only to Portner and Jaskel... but I am sure that it quickly found its way to individuals connected with the court - and beyond. Another of my predictions materialised: I did NOT received a witness statement from 'Rootstock' i.e. Mr Andrew LadskyThe 9 April 2008 case management directions state “Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday, 4th June 2008, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely” Under point 2 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement I wrote: "Considering the (well documented) conduct of the Claimant, i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (et.al.?), the requirement “serving on themselves” leads me to anticipate that I will not receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement as directed – allowing Mr Ladsky and supporters at large to see my Witness Statement first – in the knowledge that there will be no sanction for not complying with the WLLC Order (as happened with the 19 April 2007 WLCC Order in relation to the skeleton arguments) (Portner # 16 ; # 17 ). I hope to be proven wrong" I knew I would not be proven wrong: I did NOT receive the witness statement from Rootstock Overseas Corp / Steel Services Ltd / Sloan Development (Portner and Jaskel # 6 ) i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky. = a REPEAT of what took place with the previous fraudulent claim of 29 November 2002, filed against me, also in WLCC (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) (32) On 5 June 2008, I replied to Mr Ahmet Jaffer's letter of 23 May 2008 - on which he copied WLCC - and in which he suggested that the case be moved "from fast-track to multi-track"Knowing that (as happened with the 29 November 2002 claim: My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement) I would not receive a witness statement from 'Rootstock', I opted to wait until the day after the deadline for the exchange of witness statements to send my 5 June 2008 reply to Mr Jaffer's letter of 23 May 2008. In this letter he suggested that the claim should be moved from 'fast-track' to 'multi-track' "to allow time for the very voluminous bundle of documents you have submitted as well as hear oral evidence..." As I wrote in my 5 June 2008 letter to Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Portner and Jaskel:
I also wrote to WLCC on the same day, i.e. 5 June 2008, reporting the fact that, in breach of the 9 April 2008 case management directions, 'Rootstock' had not submitted a witness statement and that it clearly had implications on the management of the case. The case management directions state
NB: In relation to Mr Jaffer's comment in his 23 May 2008 letter “We received your letter of 21st May 2008 enclosing two lever arch files of copy documents you wish to rely upon at the hearing of this claim. The majority of the documents provided (without any request from us)…”: I followed my 'sixth sense' opting to hand-deliver an integral copy of all the documents listed in my 6 May 2008 Standard Disclosure (point # 29, above) - as I explained in my 5 June 2008 letter.
...threaten my then ISP with "proceedings for defamation and for substantial damages and costs" because "[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Mr Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged..." (I can't stop laughing at that) (Portner # 2 ) (My Diary - 3 October 2006 ) ... repeatedly threaten my current website Host with proceedings unless my Host closed down my website, claiming that "all of the allegations on [my] website are clearly untrue and therefore defamatory" (point # 2 ; My Diary - 5 February 2007 ) If the claims on my website are "false", "outrageous", "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory" of 'the good character' of Mr Ladsky (I can't stop laughing at that): why has he dropped "ALL" of his (second) fraudulent claim against me? (The first fraudulent claim was in November 2002 - CKFT ; WLCC, Martin Russell Jones, LVT, etc.) Considering that - just one week previously - Mr Jaffer was asking for the case to be moved to a multi-track, why drop the claim now? Knocked out by my Witness Statement + somebody got 'cold feet'? Remember what I have said all along - including in numerous communications to Portner and Jaskel and WLCC over the past 15 months? This claim is FRAUDULENT. Of course, this time I was not represented at any stage of the process - thereby eliminating the possibility of arriving at 'an arrangement' with 'my' legal advisers - as happened with the equally fraudulent 29 November 2002 WLCC claim filed against me, also in WLCC (My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement ; home # 4.12 , # 4.13 ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.12.1) (For further detail, see My Diary 7 May 2008 / Portner and Jaskel # 31 ) Is this going to be the end of this claim? Civil Procedure Rule 38.7 states " A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if – (a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence (I did: 12 September 2007); and (b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim" Looking at what happened with WLCC since 2007, and in 2002-2004 with the previous fraudulent claim: only time will tell. (34) As per CPR 38.1, on 26 June 2008 I sent Portner and Jaskel my Statement of Costs - a total of £7,756 (US$13,676)... and the games continuedCivil Procedure Rules 38(6) states "...a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom he discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on him" In my 26 June 2008 Statement of Costs, spanning the last 16 months , I gave Portner until 4 July to reply, stating that if my costs are disputed, I will file an application for an order for costs. For subsequent events, see Portner and Jaskel # 32 , # 33, and # 34 - with more detail in My Diary 11 November 2008 which relate to District Judge Nicholson signing an order 4 hours before the hearing for the case to be transferred to another part of the Court Service. |
