The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and policeWebsite of Noëlle Rawé, Jefferson House, Basil Street, London Victim of leasehold fraud and corruption |
A helping hand to 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky et.al. and their aides |
London LeaseholD Valuation Tribunal (LVT) - home
Introduction(SEE BELOW KEY POINTS OF NOTE AND QUESTIONS , BREACH OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS , SECTIONS LIST) (NB: The London LVT is covered in:
The Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (LVTs) are part of the English legal system.The panels’ Chairs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor (http://www.rpts.gov.uk.about_us/lvt.htm) The Government claims that "the LVTs are a forum where flat owners can challenge service charges without the need for professional representation, and where each party pays its own costs". Indeed, Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs, was quoted in The Times of 3 October 2004 (headed "Property - " Landlord squabbles resolved" ) as saying that the LVTs are an
It certainly is NOT my experience - nor that of other leaseholders I know (see My Diary 22 Nov 08)
(*) I use the term ‘corruption’ in the sense of the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition 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 conduct of the indviduals involved in my case - as detailed on this page - and hence: FAILURE to perform as per their legal remit). (Other people are also complaining of corrupt individuals in the judicial system see e.g. http://www.gopetition.com, United Kingdom, petition to "Stop the oppression of the British people", as well as the "comments" (sent together with a letter to Her Majesty The Queen). See also other comments that have since been added)
(See other related sections: Major works ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) ; Pridie Brewster ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton ; Stan Gallagher) Within two years of “Jefferson House Ltd” and “Steel Services Ltd” (SS) aka Andrew Ladsky et. al taking over ownership of Jefferson House in 1996-97, it became evident that a major scam was being set-up. Among others, it included planning applications to build a massive penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of Jefferson House, and for major alterations to the block, as well as two bogus “notices of first-refusal” (in 1999 and in 2000). In February 2002, Brian Gale, MRICS, issued a “condition survey” of Jefferson House, a block of then, 35 apartments. Given subsequent events, of the many ‘gems’ in Gale’s report, of note are his comments about the roof of Jefferson House “...the roof has exceeded [its] modern life span… replacing the asphalt roof...needs to dealt with as a matter of urgency”. ‘Based’ on 'the survey' by Brian Gale, MRICS, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), ‘managing’ agents for Jefferson House, issued a 15 July 2002 global service charge demand of £736,206 (US$ 1.3 million) to the leaseholders claiming that these costs were for “repair and maintenance works” to Jefferson House. Based on my 1.956% share, the sum demanded of me in the 17 July 2002 invoice was £14,400 (US$25,400). NO detail of costing was supplied with the demand – in breach of my - and fellow leaseholders - statutory rights under S.20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. (The Tribunal recognised that detailed costing had NOT been supplied: points 14 and 16 of its 17 June 2003 ‘determination’) Within days of sending the 15 July 2002 'service charge' demand - SS through Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ made a 7 August 2002 application to the LVT to
Nearly one year later, it resulted in the 17 June 2003 so-called 'determination', LVT/SC/007/120/02 (reference number 992 on the LVT database) - see point # 4, below, for the outcome.
Sections
The 7 August 2002 application to the London LVT by SS aka Andrew Ladsky, led to a pre-trial hearing on 29 October 2002 attended, among others, by several leaseholders including myself. The London LVT did its damnedest to prevent my fellow leaseholders from challenging the 7 August 2002 application - by:
In other words: the London LVT colluded with 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky and his aides: Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ ; Brian Gale.And the body language and the looks exchanged between the panel members and SS's parties at the 5 February 2003 hearing were other telltale signs (point # 8.1.5 below; My Diary 5 Feb 03) Andrew Ladsky (see Advisors, Owners identity, Headlessors and Directorships), Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS of MRJ, as well as Messrs Brian Gale and Patrick Moyle of Brian Gale & Associates were in attendance at the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing, led by J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS - as can be seen from the directions issued by the LVT. It is important to note this given that precisely 'one' month later i.e. on 29 November 2002, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor filed a claim against 11 leaseholders , representing 14 flats, in West London County Court for the full amount demanded (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ; # 6.1 ; WLCC # 2)... ...and equally important to note that my bringing this to the attention of Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs resulted in the equivalent of: 'Get lost! We don't give a damn!' - see point # 10.6 This, in addition to the very blatant help it received from the LVT, reinforces my view that 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky anticipated being able to 'steamroll' its application through the LVT with no opposition whatsoever - and thereby get the 'official seal of approval' - and ultimately his multi-million Pound jackpot. At this pre-trial hearing we (i.e. I and other leaseholders) were asked by the Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, whether we had already paid the service charge demanded in the 15 July 2002 letter sent by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - and associated invoice of 17 July 2002. We all replied that we had NOT for the reason that we had not been supplied with details of costings - at the time of the demand, nor since - hence, in breach of our statutory rights under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and, indeed, of our lease. At this point, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, specifically told us that if we paid, the Tribunal would not be able to help us - in other words: J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, told us to NOT pay the 'service charge' until the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had been implemented. To reinforce this point, we were handed a leaflet 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5 states the following:
THE 'DON'T PAY' MESSAGE COULD NOT BE ANY CLEARERA number of directions were captured as a result of the hearing. Most critically, they included:
It is important to note that the tribunal withheld critical information from us - see point # 10.3 below
The "Expert Witness" report from Brian Gale, MRICS, dated 13 December 2002, was delivered to me post 18 December 2002 and, therefore, after the deadline set by the LVT which was 17 December. (As can be seen from the envelop at the back of the pack, the stamp was not franked). Contrast this with the fact that Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, had sent a fax to the LVT, dated 1 December 2002 , stating,
I sent three letters to the LVT stating that MRJ was failing to comply with the 29 October 2002 directions - and was thereby preventing me from complying with the directions, as well as placing me in a highly prejudiced position:
WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, and Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, to conclude that they could repeatedly ignore my correspondence in which I kept highlighting non-compliance by MRJ of the tribunal’s 29 October 2002 pre-trial directions – resulting in my NOT being able to comply with the tribunal’s directions due to NOT being provided with the necessary information – to which I am legally entitled? It was abundantly clear that the tribunal had ears and eyes only for the lies of one of its RICS clan members, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, who, among others, wrote to the Clerk, David Stewart, on 20 January 2003 FALSELY claiming that I had been provided with the information - as the tribunal REFUSED my request for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing (What took place at the hearing: point # 3, below) WHAT led the tribunal to conclude that it could refuse my request for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing – in spite my REPEATEDLY informing it that I had NOT been supplied with the necessary - and legally required - information to challenge the action at a hearing - and in the process, conclude that it could imply that I am a liar? Of course, Joan Hathaway had taken step to capitalise on her 'preferred status' in the London LVT by supplying it with a copy of Brian Gale's "'Expert Witness" report BEFORE 1st December - as indicated by her 1 December 2002 fax to the LVT in which she states: "I understand you have already received our experts report direct" - and thereby making it easier for her to brand me as a liar (point # 3, below). WHAT led ALL the tribunal’s parties to conclude that they could FAIL to take any sanction whatsoever against SS parties by TOTALLY overlooking their absolute, utter contempt of Her Majesty’s Tribunal – which is blatantly obvious from their verbal and written submissions to the tribunal, including: FALSE claims in the 7 August 2002 application and in the supporting enclosures; in the “Expert Witness” reports by Brian Gale, MRICS (13 December 2002; 24 February 2003 - my 13 March 2003 reply to s.2 of the latter - given, at the hearing, by my counsel to Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP), in the correspondence to the tribunal from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ (8 October 2002; 20 January 2003; 4 Mar 2003), as well as in the letter from Andrew Ladsky to the tribunal (point 50 in the 17 June 2003 report) - all of which, thanks to my advisors, were exposed during the hearings as a PACK OF LIES, and blatant intended theft? In refusing my legally sound request for the postponement of the hearing - the London LVT breached its own rule about the consequences for an applicant who fails to comply with the Tribunal’s directions - which it stated at the bottom of its 29 October 2002 pre-trial directions:
WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, to conclude that they could ignore the tribunal’s own rule that “failure to comply with the directions may debar a defaulter from relying on evidence at a hearing” – by NOT taking any sanction whatsoever against MRJ – in spite of my repeatedly informing the tribunal that MRJ was NOT complying with the 29 October 2002 pre-trial directions? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal)
A 'Log of telephone conversation', in which the Clerk, David Stewart, recorded the main points of a conversation he had with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, on 8 October 2002, states:
On the day I sent my 12 January 2003 letter to the 29 October 2002 pre-trial Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, I also sent a 12 January 2003 letter to Joan Hathaway, on which I copied Sharma, and in which I emphasised that Hathaway still had NOT provided me with detailed costings. In her 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT Hathaway wrote, among others, that the documents I
This amounted to yet another LIE by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, to the LVT (see MRJ #12, #13 and #14). She also states
In fact. the works were only started one year and eight months later, in September 2004 - see Major works - and the minute they started, so did the construction of the penthouse flat - as per the Planning applications that had been filed initially on 18 September 1998 and again on 13 November 2001 . That was the urgency! See this pack (2.4MB) for the overwhelming evidence of deceit by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, Brian Gale, MRICS, and their client Andrew Ladsky. See also the Photo gallery for additional evidence, as well as the sections on Martin Russell Jones and Brian Gale . In the same letter, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, (or, in all likelihood given the style of the letter, Andrew Ladsky), also had the gall to say:
(NB: Hathaway was informed at the 5 February 2003 hearing that I had sent a letter to the LVT on 18 December 2002) During the 5 February 2003 hearing, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, vehemently asserted, yet again, that a copy of the priced specification was available at the porter's lodge and that
She then contradicted herself in replying to a question from my counsel, by saying:
This is captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination:
The same damning evidence is found in Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 "Expert Witness" report, under point 2.04: "...the un-priced or priced Specification.has been. freely available for all lessees to view" In actual fact, the - partially - priced specification was delivered to me only 36 hours before the 5 February 2003 hearing. Hence SEVEN MONTHS after the original demand of 17 July 2002. Consider this in light of the letters Joan Hathaway, MRICS, had written over the previous six months in which she categorically affirmed that I (and other leaseholders) had been provided with the priced specification - and that she had therefore acted in line with the statutory requirements imposed under the L&T 1985 legislation. For example, her-'Ladsky style' letter of 16 December 2002 (in response to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT)
In addition to exposing the lie by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - my counsel pointed out that, in sending me a copy of SS 7 August 2002 application, the LVT had NOT included any of the supporting enclosures. Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP asked the Clerk, David Stewart, to confirm this. He replied,
The outcome was a postponement of the first day of the substantive hearing to 13 March 2003, giving the reason stated under point 16 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report (LVT/SC/007/120/02)
WHAT led the tribunal to conclude that it could refuse my request for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing – in spite my REPEATEDLY informing it that I had NOT been supplied with the necessary - and legally required - information to challenge the action at a hearing - and in the process, conclude that it could imply that I am a liar? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) At the 13 March 2003 hearing the opening statement from Mr Warwick, 'SS' Counsel, was that
Damn right I was NOT going to pay £14,400 (US$25,400) without justification. These people's arrogant, self-belief in some 'divine right' to rip-off leaseholders is absolutely breathtaking. (4) The outcome of the 17 July 2003 LVT so-called 'determination' was a reduction of nearly 70% in the £736,207 (US$1.3 million) global sum demanded - based on my (RICS) surveyor's assessment as, 'very conveniently' for SS = Andrew Ladsky et.al., the London LVT FAILED TO PERFORM ITS LEGAL REMITAs discussed below - under 'My assessment of the LVT' (point # 6 ) - the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT, as defined under s.19 of the L&T Act 1985 - to "determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded"- (point # 6, below) . Consequently, the following is a summary of the assessment of the determination by my surveyor: (Please note that my surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners, is a Chartered Surveyor, member of the RICS. To which I will add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity) The total sum demanded was £736,207 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and management fees of 11%)
Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded. In other words, £500,000 (US$881,700) of the sum demanded was NOT considered as reasonable.WHAT led the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, to conclude that they could FAIL to perform their legal remit by NOT including, in their report, a summary of their ‘determination’ on the global sum demanded of £736,200 - and therefore breach the legal requirement imposed on them under s.19(2) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - which they captured at the start of their 17 June 2003 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” – and in J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, 29 October 2002 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”? Among others, consider this outcome in the context of Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - which states
Of the many damning comments in the report (see Brian Gale section), I draw your attention to the penultimate sentence under point 64, on page 15
(*) Note: Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force 'SS' to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2 (2) (e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the LVT report), under point 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code. While, under point 63 , it argues that
The refusal to use the contingency fund amounted to a change of position relative to the 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, in which she wrote:
(NB: Because I had highlighted that I had a copy of this letter, in the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services', Ayesha Salim , Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, (CKFT) wrote: " ..our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund to reduce the total figure." As implied by the word "notionally" this was not taken into consideration for other leaseholders. I only received confirmation of my suspicion, when, with its 29 August 2006 letter, the ICAEW supplied me with the 2002 and 2003 contributions paid by the leaseholders (Needless to say that Martin Russell Jones had never provided me with a copy of these - in breach of, among others, my lease) (Clause (2)(2)(g)(i) ) - as it provides damning evidence of the scam. Indeed, it shows that 25 FLATS, hence the majority of the leaseholders were made to pay the FULL amount - thanks to the bullying and intimidation tactics employed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, (see Martin Russell Jones # 19, # 21, # 25, # 26), Lanny Silverstone and Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (see CKFT # 2, # 3, # 5, # 6.2, # 6.3, # 6.6, # 6.7) and the compliance of WLCC. This includes nine out of 14 flats listed on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim. See this pack (1.1MB) containing my analysis and supporting evidence. This is ILLEGAL... considering also among others point 64, on page 15, of the LVT report: "...the Respondent and other tenants could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal." ) Note the assessment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales: "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 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, filed against them in WLCC? At least the ICAEW confirmed that the leaseholders were made to pay monies NOT due and payable (see Pridie Brewster # 18 for detail) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal)
In a letter dated 7 April 2003 my then solicitors informed the LVT that
(The same letter, dated 7 April 2003, was sent to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ) In my 30 July 2003 letter to the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, I wrote:
The 1 August 2003 reply from Sheila Sanz, Clerk to the Tribunal, was to send me a 20C application form to complete. I returned my 10 August 2003 form to Sheila Sanz with a letter dated 12 August 2003 stating:
I followed this by quoting – from my surveyor’s 31 July 2003 assessment of the 17 June 2003 so-called ‘determination’ – the sums disallowed by the LVT - and concluded my letter by stating:
To this, the Clerk, David Stewart, replied on 14 August 2003 stating: "A copy has been sent to the respondent and they have been invited to submit their comments on this application by 28 August 2003." It was followed by: • the 22 August 2003 letter from Ayesha Salim, CKFT, stating, among others:
Salim copied me on this letter, in her letter of 22 August 2003 • the 28 August 2003 letter from Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, stating, among others:
Not surprisingly – considering what had been taking place with the tribunal from the very start, the Clerk, David Stewart, obliged, as can be seen in his 29 August 2003 letter
If this does not qualify as 'siding with crooked landlords' : what does?WHAT led the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb – to whom I addressed my 30 July 2003 letter asking them to issue a 20C Order - to conclude that they could agree to CKFT’s-MRJ's = Ladsky's demand for a hearing following my 20C application - instead of issuing a 20C Order – in the knowledge that they had disallowed £500,000 of the global sum demanded (incl. contingency fund), or nearly 70% (point # 4, above) - due to extremely damning evidence revealed during the hearings – and contained in their OWN 17 June 2003 report? I went through absolute sheer, utter hell at the time of filing my 20C application - see Piper Smith Basham # 7.18 and MRJ # 43 , which includes evidence against Ayesha Salim (referred to under CKFT # 6.9 ) - as well as in My Diary 3 Sep 03 The collusion by, and treachery and evilness of the parties I was dealing with led me to abandon my 20C Application – leading to Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, sending me a 3 October 2003 Consent Order between “Miss N K-Dit-Rawé, Applicant, and Steel Services Ltd, Respondent”, endorsed by MRJ and Piper Smith Basham, which states
Needless to say that this has been 'very conveniently' ignored ever since - see WLCC Post-2004 for the FRAUDULENT claim filed against me on 27 February 2007 by another of Ladsky’s crooked and unbelievably vicious puppets: Portner and Jaskel solicitors And of course, needless to say that legal fees were put on the service charge for Jefferson House amounting to:
(NB: Some of these fees will also some associated with the FRAUDULENT 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, drawn-up and filed in WLCC by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal)
The 17 June 2003 report is a fair representation of what happened. The Panel, comprised of the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, did not spare 'Steel Services', Martin Russell Jones and Brian Gale in its criticisms. The report accurately captures evidence (e.g. truly reflecting what Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, Mr Jones and Brian Gale, MRICS, said; reproducing the contents of a letter received by the tribunal from Andrew Ladsky (point 50 of the 17 June 2003 report). The Panel also drew on its experience and knowledge to add weight to its conclusions (e.g. drawing attention to the clauses in the lease; quoting cases). However, at the 11th hour, it made a U-turn and opted to assist 'SS' aka Andrew Ladsky as it did NOT include a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded - making it impossible for anybody who did not have access to the documents subsequently issued during the three-day hearing to figure this out. Hence, the LVT, for which the hearings were chaired by Mrs J Goulden JP, with Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb as Panel members - FAILED TO PERFORM ITS LEGAL REMIT to"determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded"Evidence that this was its legal remit: • In his 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing directions, the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, defined the tribunal's remit as:
• Under point 1 of their 17 June 2003 ‘determination’ (LVT/SC/007/120/02), the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, wrote:
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: as you can see from the 17 June 2003 LVT report, it is NOT what the LVT has done. Hence: the LVT has FAILED TO PERFORM ITS LEGAL REMIT (leading me to go into battle with its President, Siobhan McGrath - see point # 7, below)• Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, stated in his 21 July 2003 reply to the LVT
• Lisa McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:
• The 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ (but I believe to have been written by Andrew Ladsky) is also quite clear on this point:
• In the letter that Andrew Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the LVT report :
Understandably - given the LVT's legal remit - when I opted to challenge 'SS' aka Ladsky's action in the LVT - I thought I would end-up with a decision. Instead, I had an open-ended £28,000 (US$49,400) report (cost of my surveyor, solicitor and barrister)... for a £14,400 (US$25,400) demand over which I ended-up battling with CKFT - and for which I paid an extra £1,800 (US$3,200) to my surveyor to determine the impact of the determination on the global sum demanded. I consequently hold the view that the LVT has committed, among others, a breach of my rights under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to an effective remedy"... which does not appear to be comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 - and a concurrent gross breach of mandate and breach of trust . Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated on the home page to the site that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal)
As detailed under point # 6, above, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR LEGAL REMIT BY NOT INCLUDING A SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT OF THEIR DETERMINATION ON THE GLOBAL SUM DEMANDED. And, as also detailed under point # 4 above, assessment of the 17 June 2003 LVT report by my surveyor revealed that, of the £736,200 originally demanded by SS = Ladsky, the tribunal viewed c. £500,000 (incl. the contingency fund) as “unreasonable” – or a reduction of nearly 70%. As I was battling with Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) over the impact of the LVT report (see WLCC # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10), I wrote to Siobhan McGrath, Head LVTs, on 6 September 2003 asking her to include a summary to the report stating exactly what it has determined and the resulting impact on the global sum demanded . In her 12 September 2003 reply she refused, stating
Note that this answer is totally off the mark (in addition to being misleading: an appeal must be lodged within three weeks of a determination by the LVT). I did not say that I was dissatisfied with the decision. She continues:
In my 6 October 2003 reply, I argued that providing a summary of the decision did not amount to
This led to the second 'no' from McGrath who stated in her 26 November 2003 letter
WHAT led Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs, to conclude that she could twice refuse my request to address this very major failing – thereby playing into the hand of SS (= Andrew Ladsky) and his aides, of making us, leaseholders, ILLEGALLY pay for the construction of a penthouse flat, addition of 3 other flats to Jefferson House, and related costs (point # 4, above)? In between, I received a 6 October 2003 letter from John Prescott's Office (on which I had copied my 6 September 2003 letter) stating
This was - yet again - a letter I consider as a 'GET LOST! '. In my 9 November 2003 correspondence to Siobhan McGrath – on which I copied Nicholas Kissen, LEASE - I asked Siobhan McGrath to ensure that the summary of the case on the LVT database – accessible by the public – is “factually accurate as the current version is particularly misleading" - see section, London LVT Case Summary. So much for Siobhan McGrath's claim in e.g. The Times of 3 October 2004 (headed "Property - " Landlord squabbles resolved" ) that the LVT is an
(See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (8) My first-hand experience with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal leads me to DISAGREE with both claims made by the then Office of John Prescott(See also My Diary 22 Nov 08 for comments by other leaseholders: they share my views) (8.1) Claim 1 - "no need for professional representation"If I had not employed a surveyor, a solicitor and a barrister - at a total cost of £28,000 (US$49,400) - I would not have stood a chance in the LVT as there is TOTAL INEQUALITY OF ARMS . As also detailed under point # 2, above, on four occasions over a period of four months, I asked the tribunal for its assistance in obtaining, from Martin Russell Jones, a copy of the priced specification. These were on: 22 October 2002 ; 25 November 2002 ; 18 December 2002 to the Clerk, David Stewart, in which I highlighted the fact that Martin Russell Jones had NOT met the 17 December 2002 deadline set by the tribunal to provide me with the requested information - to which I am LEGALLY ENTITLED - so that I could get an adviser to look at it (as per the 29 October 2002 pre-trial directions set by the tribunal). The fourth time was my 12 January 2003 letter to Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, when I again emphasised that I had not received the information - and, at this point, requested that the 5 February 2003 hearing be postponed because of this. This was refused (point # 2, above). (At the same time, I had also copied Sharma on my letter of 12 January 2003 to Hathaway). I draw your attention to the bottom of the second page of the directions set by the tribunal
The priced specification was eventually hand-delivered to my door... just 36 hours before the 5th February 2003 hearing! (And, consequently, seven months after Martin Russell Jones had asked me to pay £14,400 (US$25,400) Consider that the LVT had, since 7 August 2002, a copy of the priced specification. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (8.1.2) Consider also that other leaseholders had, likewise, informed the LVT that they had NOT been provided with a copy of the priced specification. Yet, the LVT TREATED ME AS A LIARIn addition to stating that (1) filing of the claim in WLCC is an abuse of process of court (point # 1, above); (2) the LVT is refusing to send her documents relating to the application (point # 10.1, below) Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (PSB), solicitors, states in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors that my counsel, Paul Staddon, “says that he feels the LVT are influenced by the fact that of a number of lessees only your client is disputing the level of service charges and also that the landlord had intimated to the LVT that no other lessee is disputing the service charges demanded. That is clearly not the case”. The LVT KNEW that I was far from being the only one challenging the fraudulent demand – as, in addition to attendance of the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing by some of my fellow leaseholders (who managed to attend the hearing in spite of the machinations by the tribunal), it had also received objections from others e.g. (NB: Although their letters to the LVT are in the public domain, I am nonetheless opting to refer to them by using my coding system): • Leaseholder M wrote to to the Clerk, David Stewart, cc’d MRJ, on 19 October 2002 (i.e. three months after Ms Hathaway sent the original demand)
• Leaseholder K sent a fax to the Clerk, David Stewart, on 28 October 2002
• Leaseholder D who, I 'think' supplied the LVT with copy of his correspondence to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ. For example, the 24 September 2002 letter, stating
• There is also the 20 October 2002 email from Leaseholder C to the other Tribunal's Clerk, Sheila Sanz:
• As suggested in her 1 November 2002 letter to me, indications are that Leaseholder F also communicated her opposition to the demand
Of course, in support of my claim - and that of the other leaseholders - that we had NOT been supplied with priced specification is the fact that I was listed with 10 others leaseholders (representing 14 flats) on the FRAUDULENT (court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, drawn-up and filed in WLCC by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) (NB: I INFORMED Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs, about the claim, as it was in breach of the tribunal' s directions, and an abuse of process - see point # 10.6) WHY, in the face of all of this evidence did the LVT refuse my request, thereby implying that I am a liar?(See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (8.1.3) As the tribunal EVIDENTLY VIEWED ME AS A LIAR - I was forced to employ advisers (who cost me £30,000 (US$53,000)) to - FINALLY - get the tribunal to agree to a postponement of the substantive hearings - in the process exposing the fact that the Clerk, David Stewart, INTENTIONALLY withheld crucial information from 'SOME' Jefferson House leaseholders - including myselfCausing me a huge amount of anguish and distress, my being treated as a non-entity by the Tribunal - as well as, very clearly, a liar (points # 2 and # 3) - led me to conclude by early January 2003 that I had to employ a surveyor, a solicitor and barrister – FAST! The total cost of doing this (including having to pay an extra £1,800 due to the tribunal's FAILURE to perform its legal remit (points # 4, # 6 , # 7, above) While the LVT had denied my 12 January 2003 request for an adjournment of the hearing - EVIDENTLY, VIEWING ME AS A LIAR - it was finally granted by the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, at the 5 February 2003 hearing - as captured under point 16 of its 17 June 2003 LVT report: "In the interests of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment." (point # 3, above) I can only attribute this change of position by the London LVT at the 5 February 2003 hearing to the fact that I was represented. Until (My Diary) 5 February 2003, I had not been. In addition to exposing the lie by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ (point # 3) - my Counsel pointed out that, in sending me a copy of SS 7 August 2002 application, the LVT had NOT included any of the supporting enclosures. Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP asked the Clerk, David Stewart, to confirm this. He replied, "Not all the residents were copied on the enclosures" - (See point # 3, above, and point # 10.3, below, for detail) Needless to say that the tribunal's refusal of my request to postpone the 5 February 2003 hearing caused me an unbelievable amount of torment, anguish and distress (which, at the time, were compiled by events with West London County Court) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (8.1.4.) Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, supplied a lease to the tribunal - that is MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM MINE - FALSELY claiming that it was representative of my lease - in the process breaching s.19(B) of the L&T Act 1985. As the Clerk, David Stewart, opted to - ILLEGALLY - NOT copy me on ANY of the enclosures supplied with the application, I only discovered this later on... because I specifically asked him for a copyI subsequently discovered that with the 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, had supplied as part of the enclosures a lease 'apparently' for flat 22 - FALSELY CLAIMING that it was representative of all the leases... ...amounting to a repeat of what she (MRJ # 22) and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT # 6.7) did with the West London County Court claim (WLCC # 3) As can be seen from the 7 August 2002 application form, it requires
This requirement comes from Section 19(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 "Content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge" (It is the result of Statutory Instrument number 1853 which came into force on 1 September 1997) It states:
As the Clerk, David Stewart, had 'opted' to NOT copy me on ANY of the the appendices to the application (point # 10.3, below), it is only when I received the 29 October 2002 directions - hence AFTER the pre-trial hearing, that I discovered this. (I phoned the clerk who then sent me a copy - an action I should not have had to take) Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) of this lease 'apparently' for flat 22, imparts a highly, materially FALSE obligation on my part, as it states
Whereas the same Clause in my my lease states
As can be seen on the 7 August 2002 application form, it states “Supporting information to be provided – Copy of the lease (or, where the application relates to more than one flat, a specimen lease together with a statement specifying any relevant differences between respective flats, or confirming that they are all the same)”. This requirement is from s.19(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 "Content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge". On the form, the box was ticked – and no “statement” supplied. Hence, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, breached this statutory requirement... with the assistance of the LVT.WHAT led the tribunal to conclude that it could overlook the requirement under s.19(B) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - by proceeding with the 7 August 2002 application by SS-MRJ on the basis of a lease that is NOT representative of my lease – as it contains a clause that is different from mine, and imparts a highly material, false obligation on me? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (8.1.5) Given past events, it is abundantly clear that, without a counsel, I would have been trampled upon at the hearing
I view the treatment I received from the LVT in the weeks preceding the hearing (as detailed above) as further evidence in support of this perception). I could see / sense total disbelief, as well as great annoyance at the fact that I had turned up for the 5 February 2003 hearing with a surveyor, a barrister and a solicitor. The looks exchanged between the panel and SS's parties were very telling. The beginning of the hearing was decidedly 'frosty'. (See My Diary 5 Feb 03, as well as prior days: 17 Jan 03, 23 Jan 03, End Jan 03, 30 Jan 03, including event on 5 Feb 03) Being represented by a barrister and a surveyor proved equally critical for the subsequent three days of hearing. Against the then Office of Mr Prescott claim that people going to the LVT "do not need legal representation" , I also highlight the fact that, to every single question I posed to the Clerk of the Tribunal, I received the same reply: "Get legal advice" (e.g. his 11 December 2002 letter) Furthermore, a fact not highlighted by the then Office of John Prescott, and which I had not anticipated because the LVTs are called ' tribunals ', is that they have NO jurisdiction whatsoever to get a determination implemented. As I have experienced first-hand, the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction is immediately brought to the fore with any follow-up requests e.g. Siobhan McGrath's letter of 12 September 2003 (point # 7, above) (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (Subsequent note - see other leaseholders' comments about the LVT: My Diary 22 Nov 08) (8.1.6) The 'merry-go-round' of tribunal and courtWhen I opted to challenge 'SS' application, I thought the procedure in the tribunal would draw a line under the costs and that the outcome would be a decision that could be enforced on SS. In reality, if, as in my case, there is an ensuing battle, partly due to the tribunal not performing its legal remit, and partly due to a landlord opting to not comply with the determination, the leaseholder must refer the case to court. (Of course = not only more advisory costs, but also high uncertainty on getting justice - as evidenced by my experience with West London County Court in 2002-2004, and in 2007-2008). (See also Lord Falconer of Thoroton) If the court cannot make a decision, as I understand it, the case might then be 'thrown back' to the LVT, or to the Lands Tribunal.
I personally know leaseholders who have been at least 2-3 times to the LVT and about the same number of times to court. And, when it came to the 'crunch': the landlord declared himself bankrupt (having first, it seems, siphoned-off the money to an offshore jurisdiction) (aided by the fact that landlords are not subjected to any kind of control - see latter part of the Financial Services Authority section). What a great system... if you happen to be a landlord! (8.2) Claim 2 - "each party pays their own costs"When it comes to the £30,000+ (US$53,000) of my life savings (surveyor, solicitor, barrister) I have spent as the result of the action through the LVT - I challenged as per my rights - because of a FRAUDULENT £14,400 demand - and as clearly established by the hearings - there is not the shadow of a doubt on my position: I cannot recoup a single penny of it - even though the reason for my spending this very significant part of my very hard-earned life savings was A SCAM by Andrew Ladsky et. al. and their aides. However, when on the last day of the hearing my Counsel told the tribunal I requested that SS be prevented from putting its costs on the service charge (point # 5, above), Ladsky's Counsel, Mr Warwick, replied,
WHY? This service charge demand is FRAUDULENT (Pridie Brewster # 12 , # 18) and the tribunal KNEW this from the findings during the hearings.
(The tribunal knew that, by then, I had already spent in excess of £25,000 (US$44,000) - and it also knew that I am on a salary). (My letter of 30 March 2003) How do I feel about this? That it is totally in the interest of landlords to take their case to the LVT: • They gamble on the fact that individuals such as myself will hesitate to challenge them because they cannot recoup their costs . • There is a very blatant bias in favour of landlords: Point 6 of the LVT's directions handed to leaseholders states:
(This acted as a strong deterrent to other leaseholders. It is probably why I ended-up being left on my own to challenge SS - in addition to my fellow leaseholders being intimidated and bullied by the FRAUDULENT (court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, drawn-up and filed in WLCC by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) with a Statement of Truth signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ (See WLCC Key point # 3 for the major issue about this). ) drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), Evidence of this bias can be seen on the LVT's database of cases (see e.g. issue 18 of the Leaseholder, C.A.R.L. , that reports the case of leaseholders stung by heavy punitive costs even though their grievance was found to be justified) How about when there is very damning evidence against the applicant (as was the case in this instance)? Well, if it happens to be a sacrosanct landlord: clearly not! Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (9) In spite of its VERY DAMNING report, the LVT nonetheless agreed to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones' request for a hearing in relation to my 20C ApplicationIndeed - as discussed under point # 5, above - to top it all, consider that - UNBELIEVABLY - given that the impact of the tribunal's 17 June 2003 so-called 'determination' was a reduction of the global sum demanded by nearly 70% (point # 4, above) the Clerk, David Stewart ET.AL agreed to CKFT's and MRJ's request = Andrew Ladsky - for a hearing in relation to my 20C Application. I give this as another example that LVTs ACTIVELY SUPPORT abusive, crooked, landlords and their equally crooked aides. Needless to say that legal fees were put on the service charge for Jefferson House amounting to:
(NB: Some of these fees will also some associated with the FRAUDULENT 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, drawn-up and filed in WLCC by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT)) Also in the context of SS' costs, consider the response from the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden that Mr Warwick's request would require another day of hearing (point # 8.2, above). The sine qua none of the Business model : the costs! The blatant use of FEAR tactics to scare the lessees by stating that a hearing will be necessary / agreeing to a landlord's request for a hearing. (Note also that the threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) And if the lessee takes-up the challenge? Who cares! The taxpayer picks-up the cost of the LVTs! Right Mr Prescott and Mrs McGrath?(Same approach with the courts e.g. West London County Court which so obligingly agreed to CKFT's requests for hearings e.g. 24 June 2003 hearing. The taxpayer picks-up the tab) (Subsequent note: yet again proven in 2007-08 when West London County Court went out of its way to assist the mob in relation to the second FRAUDULENT claim against me, leading to a 16- month battle- in the process ignoring my 11 COMMUNICATIONS to the court challenging the issue as to the legality of the claim as it had TWO COMPANY NAMES; BOTH claiming to be 'my landlord'; EACH represented by a DIFFERENT firm of solicitors; EACH demanding that I pay a DIFFERENT amount). (In addition to collusion (snapshot in My Diary 22 Nov 08), its motive was revenge by persecuting me) (The £500 (US$880) fee paid by 'Steel Services' - or more accurately, the leaseholders - in filing the 29 November 2002 claim is derisory relative to the actual cost)
(See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (10) There were other actions by the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal that BLATANTLY favoured 'Steel Services'(10.1) The London LVT waited TWO MONTHS to inform ONLY 'SOME' leaseholders of SS-MRJ's application to the LVT - and WAITED ANOTHER TWO DAYS to inform only 'SOME' of the leaseholders of the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearingFrom the time it received the 7 August 2002 application from SS-MRJ = Andrew Ladsky, the Clerk, David Stewart, waited two months to inform only 'SOME' of the Jefferson House leaseholders of the application: it communicated this to 'the select ones' in a letter dated 8 October 2002 WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, to conclude that he could wait two months to inform me that SS-MRJ had filed an application in the Tribunal on 7 August 2002? The Clerk, David Stewart, waited another two days to inform us of the pre-trial hearing set for 29 October, as he did this in its 10 October 2002 letter. WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, to conclude that he could wait another two days to inform me that a pre-trial hearing was scheduled for 29 October 2002 – resulting in those of us who managed to attend losing the support of many more who could not attend due to the 10-day notice? Lack of awareness of the application among some of my fellow leaseholders (point # 10.2, below), combined with the short notice among those who had been informed of the action (as a significant number had their main residence overseas – a fact I pointed out in my 24 October 2002 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart) - ‘very conveniently’ for SS = Andrew Ladsky and his aides - resulted in many not attending / being unable to attend the hearing. Furthermore, the ‘very convenient’ two-month delay gave Ladsky’s puppets, MRJ and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), the opportunity to actively attempt to intimidate and bully me (and some of my fellow leaseholders) into paying the fraudulent ‘service charge’ by threatening immediate “forfeiture” of my flat, “legal proceedings and costs”: 7 October 2002 letter to me from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT; 20 September 2002 letter to me from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ. I brought this to the attention of the Clerk, David Stewart, in my 24 October 2002 letter, including supplying a 21 October 2002 letter from Silverstone, CKFT, to me, in which he confirms being aware that his client i.e. Ladsky has made an application to the LVT. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (10.2) The London LVT quite clearly took its cue from SS-MRJ as to which leaseholders should NOT be informed of the application - in the process committing a breach of their statutory rightsAs suggested by the 9 April 2003 letter from Piper Smith Basham, solicitors, to my then solicitors, NOT ALL the Jefferson House leaseholders were informed of this action. As also suggested in this same letter, the London LVT's discriminatory approach was dictated by SS' - MRJ :
(NB: Lisa McLean, PSB, attended the last day of the LVT hearing on behalf of her client/s – as evidenced under point 50 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report, LVT/SC/007/120/02). Quite clearly, while the Tribunal - of course - KNEW that the application concerned ALL the leaseholders at Jefferson House, it was taking its orders from Andrew Ladsky and his aides as to which leaseholder should/should not be informed of the application. In addition to stating that filing of the claim in WLCC is an abuse of process of court, in the same letter of 9 April 2003, Lisa McLean states that my counsel, Paul Staddon, “says that he feels the LVT are influenced by the fact that of a number of lessees only your client is disputing the level of service charges and also that the landlord had intimated to the LVT that no other lessee is disputing the service charges demanded. That is clearly not the case”. The Tribunal KNEW that I was far from being the only one challenging the fraudulent demand:
By failing to inform some of my fellow leaseholders of the 7 August 2002 application (on which all the flats are listed) / excluding them from other communications (proven during the hearings), the London LVT breached their statutory rights under s.20(4)(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985: “The tenants concerned are all the landlord’s tenants of flats in the building by whom a service charge is payable to which the costs of the proposed works are relevant”. The London LVT KNEW that it was breaching my fellow leaseholders' statutory rights, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20(4)
In addition to which - as captured in this same letter of 9 April 2003 from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, the Clerk, David Stewart, had left a message on PSB's voicemail stating:
And the Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, captured this in the directions following the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing
This exclusion of 'some ' of my fellow leaseholders had a major impact on me as, combined with the filing of the FRAUDULENT 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, in WLCC (which, as pointed out by, among others, Lisa McLean in her 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors, and by the solicitors of another of my fellow leaseholders in their 12 December 2002 letter to CKFT - is an ABUSE OF PROCESS) – it meant that I ended-up being the main leaseholder challenging the application. WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, to conclude that he could breach the statutory rights of some of my fellow leaseholders - under s.20(4)(3) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - by NOT informing them of the 7 August 2002 application by SS-MRJ / REFUSING to supply them with documents relating to the application – thereby having, among others, a major, detrimental impact on me (and, of course, on them)? What 'benefit' did the LVT gain from doing this? From whom? Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (10.3) The London LVT did NOT supply "SOME" leaseholders - it had 'opted' to inform of the action - including myself - with ANY of the appendices, which, crucially, included a partially priced specification - and, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, it CONTINUED WITHHOLDING the documents it had been provided with nearly three months previously with the applicationIn his 8 October 2002 letter sent to me (and "SOME" of my fellow leaseholders - point # 10.2, above), the Clerk, David Stewart, states that he includes a copy of the application and supporting appendices sent to the LVT by 'SS'. In fact, he did NOT include a copy of the "Appendices":
...the tribunal had been provided with. Section 19(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 "Content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge" (the result of Statutory Instrument number 1853 which came into effect on 1 September 1997) states:
While the Clerk, David Stewart, supplied "SOME" leaseholders - I was NOT one of these - as evidenced by his reply to the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP - at the 5 February 2003 hearing: "Not all the residents were copied on the enclosures" (point # 3, above) WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, to conclude that he could breach my rights under s.20(4)(3) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 “The Tenants concerned are all the landlord’s tenants of flats in the building by whom a service charge is payable to which the costs of the proposed works are relevant” - by not supplying me with any of the supporting enclosures to the 7 August 2002 application by SS-MRJ? Note as well the message from the Clerk, David Stewart, quoted in Ms McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 letter to my then solicitors: "...I have just had the opportunity of speaking to the chairperson...She says that there is no need for you to copy all the papers on this application". Ms McLean follows this by challenging the LVT's reply. In spite of having the (as it turned out: partially) priced specification on file for nearly three months (application filed on 7 August 2002), at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, the Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, and the Clerk, David Stewart, TOOK NO ACTION when we, leaseholders were ALL clamouring for a copy. This is in spite of the fact that the tribunal had received (since sending ‘some of us’ the 10 October 2002 letter) a letter from me, dated 22 October 2002 (and several from my fellow leaseholders - point # 8.1.2) in which we ALL stated that we had NOT been provided with evidence in support of the 15 July 2002 ‘service charge’ demand. WHAT led the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, and the Clerk, David Stewart, to conclude, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, that they could continue to NOT provide me (and my fellow leaseholders) with any of the supporting enclosures to the 7 August 2002 SS-MRJ application – in spite of being repeatedly informed by me (and my fellow leaseholders) pre, and during the hearing that, in breach of our rights, we had NOT been provided with evidence in support of the 15 July 2002 ‘service charge’ demand (fact that was proven at the 5 February 2003 hearing)? As detailed under point # 8.1.3, above, as a result of this being exposed by my barrister at the 5 February 2003 hearing (point 13 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report, LVT/SC/007/120/02), when asked by the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, the Clerk, David Stewart, admitted that "Not all the residents were copied on the enclosures" While the LVT was not diligent in copying correspondence from the other side to leaseholders, it meticulously ensured that 'SS' received a copy of all that was sent by leaseholders. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (10.4) The London LVT took NO action when I reported that Martin Russell Jones was NOT complying with the directions set by the tribunal - and it continued to take NO SANCTION whatsoever against SS parties – in spite of the fact that the outcome of the hearings had overwhelmingly demonstrated that their submissions, including “Expert Witness” reports’ to the Tribunal, as well as correspondence, were a pack of lies – hence, endorsing SS parties’ absolute, utter contempt of Her Majesty’s TribunalAs detailed under point # 2, I sent two letters to the Clerk, David Stewart, and one to J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, informing them that MRJ was NOT complying with the 29 October 2002 directions - thereby placing me in a highly prejudiced position in relation to the hearing. No only did they take NO ACTION - EVIDENTLY VIEWING ME AS A LIAR - they REFUSED my request for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing until I had been supplied with the information. WHAT led the tribunal to conclude that it could refuse my request for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing – in spite my REPEATEDLY informing it that I had NOT been supplied with the necessary - and legally required - information to challenge the action at a hearing - and in the process, conclude that it could imply that I am a liar? As also detailed under point # 2, in the process they also breached the tribunal's rule. The verbal and written submissions during the hearings, as well as surrounding events, very clearly demonstrated that Brian Gale, MRICS, had LIED to the tribunal in his 13 December 2002 and 24 February 2003 “Expert Witness” reports. (In relation to the latter, I also submitted to the Tribunal a 13 March 2003 reply to some of the sections). They also demonstrated that Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, had likewise LIED in her communications to the tribunal of 8 October 2002, 20 January 2003 and 4 March 2003. This is in addition to the LIES by Andrew Ladsky, among others, in his letter to the Tribunal (point 50 of the 17 June 2003 report, LVT/SC/007/120/02) - as evidenced by e.g. the 9 April 2003 letter from Lisa McLean, PSB, in which she wrote to my then solicitors that my counsel, Paul Staddon, “says that he feels the LVT are influenced by the fact that of a number of lessees only your client is disputing the level of service charges and also that the landlord had intimated to the LVT that no other lessee is disputing the service charges demanded. That is clearly not the case” Of course, ALL the lies were supported by SS’ counsel, Mr Warwick. The Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, and the other Tribunal’s parties - turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to ALL of this as well. Hence: turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to SS parties’ absolute, utter contempt of Her Majesty’s Tribunal. WHAT led ALL the tribunal’s parties to conclude that they could FAIL to take any sanction whatsoever against SS parties by TOTALLY overlooking their absolute, utter contempt of Her Majesty’s Tribunal – which is blatantly obvious from their verbal and written submissions to the tribunal, including: FALSE claims in the 7 August 2002 application and in the supporting enclosures; in the “Expert Witness” reports by Brian Gale, MRICS (13 December 2002; 24 February 2003 - my 13 March 2003 reply to s.2 of the latter - given, at the hearing, by my counsel to Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP), in the correspondence to the tribunal from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ (8 October 2002; 20 January 2003; 4 Mar 2003), as well as in the letter from Andrew Ladsky to the tribunal (point 50 in the 17 June 2003 report) - all of which, thanks to my advisors, were exposed during the hearings as a PACK OF LIES, and blatant intended theft? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (10.5) In spite of my informing the London LVT that MRJ had NOT complied with the directions, it REFUSED my request to have the hearing postponedAs detailed under point # 2, above, the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, and the Clerk, David Stewart, took NO ACTION when I - REPEATEDLY - reported that MRJ was NOT complying with the 29 October 2009 pre-trial directions. The directions state
WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, to conclude that they could ignore the tribunal’s own rule that “failure to comply with the directions may debar a defaulter from relying on evidence at a hearing” – by NOT taking any sanction whatsoever against MRJ – in spite of my repeatedly informing the tribunal that MRJ was NOT complying with the 29 October 2002 pre-trial directions? The LVT also refused my 12 January 2003 request for the postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing. Given the evidence I (and other leaseholders) had supplied - which included my informing the LVT in my 9 December 2002 letter that Steel Services had filed a claim in West London County Court against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats (1.1MB). How much more evidence was required? WHAT led the tribunal to conclude that it could refuse my request for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing – in spite my REPEATEDLY informing it that I had NOT been supplied with the necessary - and legally required - information to challenge the action at a hearing - and in the process, conclude that it could imply that I am a liar? Part of the answer is that the LVTs are the 'arena' of the surveyors. Hence, panel members will tend to believe a member of their own 'fraternity' i.e. a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, rather than leaseholders who are evidently perceived as a 'lying, dishonest bunch, out to get the 'poor landlords''. And, quite clearly, if damning findings are found against a member of the fraternity, no action is taken by anybody, leaving the member free to continue on doing the same thing... until other leaseholders bring a case against the member (e.g. LVT LON/00AQ/LSC/2005 (printscreen of site) ). But that's 'just a small risk', as many leaseholders are put-off by the costs of pursuing an action in the tribunal - as well as by the unknown - which is communicated and reinforced by means of FEAR tactics. (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (10.6) (Like West London County Court) the London tribunal TURNED 'A BLIND EYE AND A DEAF EAR' when informed that 'SS' was pursuing the same action - in parallel - under two separate jurisdictions, both part of the English legal system - thereby amounting to an abuse of processBearing in mind the instructions we had been given by the tribunal at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to NOT pay the 'service charge' until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented (point # 1, above) - on receiving 'SS' 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, filed against 14 flats, in WLCC, on 4 December, I spoke to LEASE, explaining the situation. I was urged to bring this to the attention of the LVT as the same action could NOT be pursued concurrently in two separate jurisdictions. I then spoke to the Clerk, David Stewart, to ask whether the tribunal was aware that SS had filed a claim in WLCC. He replied that it was not. In response to my asking what I should do given the conflict with the LVT’s jurisdiction, I was told to “continue with the actions”. In my 9 December 2002 letter to Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs, I explained events and asked “What action do you propose to take since this action in the County Court conflicts with the jurisdiction of the LVT?” (point # 7, above) The 11 December 2002 reply from the Clerk, David Stewart, was "...the tribunal...as a quasi-judicial body is unable to give independent advice. It is a matter for the parties to make formal applications to the Tribunal in light of the changed circumstances. These are complex matters and you may consider taking legal advice... This letter and your letter are being copied to Ms Hathaway of Martin Russell Jones for their information..." = the very familiar 'GET LOST! We don't give a damn! (and WLCC held the same position). (NB: Consider that the threat of forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS) WHAT led Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs, to conclude that she could ignore (David Clerk's reply of 11 December 2002) my reporting, in my 9 December 2002 letter to her, that a conflict of jurisdiction was taking place as, in spite of my being told (as well as my fellow leaseholders) by the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, to NOT pay the ‘service charge’ – and being given an LVT leaflet in support of this direction – SS had nonetheless started an identical action in WLCC by filing the 29 November 2002 claim, ref WL203537? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (10.7) The London LVT made a categorical statement about a cost increase at a date that was POST signing its report - and libellously blamed me for this so-called 'future increase'(See London LVT Case Summary section for detail) (10.8) The Clerk, David Stewart, FAILED to acknowledge my correspondence in which I highlighted the fact that SS was a NON-EXISTENT company and could not therefore pursue an action in the Tribunal – nor, of course, demand monies from Jefferson House leaseholdersIn my 22 October 2002 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart, I provided ample evidence, supported by a bundle of documents (including letters from the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea housing - see Ownership Identity), that SS WAS A NON-EXISTENT company – as the authorities of the British Virgin Islands, where it was – finally - claimed to be domiciled, had replied to me on 8 August 2002 that SS had been “Struck-off the British Virgin Islands Register for non-payment of the licence fee”. (One week previously, in his 1 August 2002 letter, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, had replied to Kensington & Chelsea housing that “Steel Services is an existing entity”. Very clearly, this was NOT true). The Clerk, David Stewart, did NOT acknowledge my 22 October 2002 letter. (As a result of my copying CKFT on my letter to Stewart, the fee was evidently paid, as CKFT supplied a BVI ‘Certificate of Good Standing’ for SS, which the Tenancy Relations Officer sent me on 5 November 2002). WHAT led the Clerk, David Stewart, to conclude that he did not need to acknowledge my 22 October 2002 letter in which I informed him – with evidence in support - that SS was a non-existent company, and could NOT therefore: (1) pursue an action in the Tribunal; (2) demand any monies from me (and, of course, nor from my fellow leaseholders)? (See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal) (11)
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that it is a fair question for me to ask considering events. My overall conclusion on the LVT, which I believe to be fair comment given my first-hand experience, is that it is another helping hand provided to crooked landlords and their equally crooked, corrupt aides by the then Office of Mr John Prescott. ('Another' - I refer to my experience with Kensington & Chelsea Council housing department and ensuing complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. All three, local government, Local Government Ombudsman and LVTs came under the then Office of Mr John Prescott) (There many more other sources of unfailing support to crooked landlords and their aides - as summarised in My Diary 6 May 08) (12) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, consider that......THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE IS...Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE. (This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc. In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)
To be more precise :
( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006) UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT? THE LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL, ITS HEAD, Mrs MCGRATH AND ITS THEN OVERALL HEAD, Mr JOHN PRESCOTT, HAVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . |
