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
"affordable, local solution" for landlords and leaseholders who are in dispute. We aim to provide an accessible and cost-effective forum for resolving residential leasehold problems"
It certainly is NOT my experience - nor that of other leaseholders I know (see My Diary 22 Nov 08)

|
My experience - also covered under the section for the LVT so-called 'Case Summary' - leads me to conclude that the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal perceived itself to be at the service of 'Steel Services' (SS) aka Andrew Ladsky et.al. and their aides, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, of Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) , and Brian Gale, MRICS - at the COMPLETE EXCLUSION of mine and of my fellow leaseholders - conjuring up one reason...
One factor contributing to this: dominance in the LVTs of members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - see my first-hand experience with the Office of the RICS in 2004-05 in relation to my complaint against MRJ, including its attempt to censor me in 2008. |
(*) 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)
 |
(= same attitude as:
(See summary in My Diary 6 May 08) |
(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
"to determine the reasonableness
of the global sum demanded"
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.
OF THE NUMEROUS POINTS OF NOTE AND QUESTIONS:
(1) The top level point is that the London LVT FAILED TO PERFORM ITS LEGAL REMIT - as it did NOT include, in its 17 June 2003 report ((ref LVT/SC/007/120/02 - #992 on the LVT database), a summary of its determination (points # 4, # 6) . Its President, Siobhan McGrath, refused my two requests to include a summary (point # 7) WHY?
(2) ‘Very conveniently’ for Steel Services (SS) - in addition to not including a summary of its determination in its report - the tribunal made a categorical claim in its report about a "cost increase" - at a date that was three months POST signing its report - and libellously blamed me for this so-called 'future increase' (See London LVT Case Summary section for detail) WHY?
(3) The tribunal took NO action when I reported that Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) was NOT complying with the directions set by the tribunal (points # 2 , # 10.4 , # 10.5 ) - and it continued to take NO sanction whatsoever against SS parties (points # 5 , # 9 , # 8.2 ) – in spite of the fact that the outcome of the hearings had overwhelmingly demonstrated that their submissions, including “Expert Witness” reports’ to the Tribunal (points # 4 , Brian Gale # 2 , # 3 , # 4 , # 5 , # 6), as well as correspondence (points # 3 , # 8.1.2) , were a pack of lies – hence, endorsing SS parties’ absolute, utter contempt of Her Majesty’s Tribunal. WHY?
(4) (Like West London County Court) the London LVT turned a ‘blind eye and a deaf ear’ when I reported that SS was pursuing the same action – in parallel – under two separate jurisdictions, both parts of the English legal system: the tribunal and West London County Court. Hence, turned 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to the abuse of process (point # 10.6). WHY?
(5) The London LVT took steps to ensure limited challenge to SS’s Application of 7 August 2002 by: (1) not informing "some" of my fellow leaseholders of the action (point # 8.1.3) ; (2) withholding from "some" of us, including myself, critical documents supplied with the 7 August 2002 Application (points # 8.1.3 , # 8.1.4 , # 10.3) ; (3) waiting more than two months to inform “some” of us of a pre-trial hearing (point # 10.1) WHY?...
...leading the tribunal to, overall, commit repeated breaches of our statutory rights. WHY? |
In addition to my other questions contained on this page - I ALSO ASK:
WHAT LED
- (1) the LVTs President, Siobhan McGrath;
- (2) the Chairs, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, and Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP;
- (3) the panel members, J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb;
- (4) the Clerks, David Stewart and Sheila Sanz;
- (5) Nicholas Kissen, LEASE...
...– to conclude that they were exempt from compliance with my rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 “to be treated fairly and with dignity by the tribunal and without prejudice” (Equality and Human Rights Commission (government website http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain))...
… in particular: Article 3 which “prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment” ; Article 6 “Right to a fair hearing" – including "the right to an independent and impartial court, and the presumption of innocence” ; Article 14 “Right to not be discriminated against”?
|
Sections

|
(1) Collusion between the London LVT and SS aka Andrew Ladsky and his aides, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones and Brian Gale, MRICS - to ensure minimum leaseholder attendance at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing - and minimise the number told to NOT PAY the 'service charge'
|
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:
(1) waiting TWO MONTHS to communicate the application - and did this ONLY to "SOME" of the leaseholders (points # 10.1 , # 10.2 )
(2) it waited ANOTHER TWO DAYS to inform - likewise, only SOME of us that a pre-trial hearing was scheduled for 29 October 2009 - and thereby giving us only a 10-day notice of the hearing (points # 10.1 , # 10.2 )
(3) WITHOHOLDING CRUCIAL INFORMATION from the leaseholders who had been 'lucky enough' to be contacted, as well as from others who eventually managed to hear about the application (point # 10.3)
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:
"...a recent Court of Appeal case ruling
(Daejan Properties Limited v London
Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined
that LVTs only have the jurisdiction
to decide the reasonableness of disputed
service charges that
are still unpaid except under certain
circumstances" (NB: bold type
face as per the leaflet)
THE 'DON'T PAY' MESSAGE COULD NOT BE ANY CLEARER
A number of directions were
captured as a result of the hearing. Most critically,
they included:
"The Applicants [to] send
a Response to the Respondents and a copy to the
Tribunal by 17 December 2002.
the Respondents
to send the Report or Proof of Evidence
of any Expert Witness. by 7 January 2003" so
that leaseholders could have their own advisers
review the specification.
It is important to note that the tribunal withheld critical information from us - see point # 10.3 below
Back to list

|
(2) The Clerk, David Stewart, and the Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, ignored my repeatedly highlighting that MRJ was NOT complying with the directions Sharma had set at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, and - EVIDENTLY VIEWING ME AS A LIAR - REFUSED my request for a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing - in the process breaching the tribunal's rule. My being treated as a non-entity - and a LIAR - forced me to employ a surveyor, solicitor and barrister.
|
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 understand
that you have already received our
expert report direct"
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:
- 12 January 2003 to J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, in which I consequently requested a postponement of the 5 February 2003 giving as reason "I still have not been supplied with the priced specification and cannot therefore instruct an expert witness to determine the reasonableness of the cost of specific remedies and thus determine specific items of dispute for the trial" (i.e. as per the directions set by the LVT).
- I also copied Sharma on my 12 January 2003 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, in which I also highlighted her failure to comply with the 29 October 2002 directions
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:
"Failure to comply with these directions may result in prejudice to a party's case. In particular, failure to provide evidence as directed may debar the defaulter from relying on such evidence at the hearing. In the case of the applicants this could result in dismissal of the application"
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)
Back
to list

|
(3) Forcing me to employ a surveyor, solicitor and barrister as a resulting of treating me like a non-entity - at the 5 February 2003 hearing, exposure, by my counsel, of the LIES by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - and the evident complicity by the Clerk - FINALLY - led to the postponement of the substantive hearings "in the interests of justice" - but did not stop SS's counsel, Mr Warwick, from making a slanderous, scurrilous accusation against me
|
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:
"To: Joan Hathaway, From: "David Stewart (LVT): Ms Hathaway confirmed that the Leaseholders have already been served with copies of the estimate and specification."
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
"requested have been available in the porter's
room since the original notice was served and
she has in fact inspected them" .
This amounted to yet another LIE by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, to the LVT (see MRJ #12, #13 and #14).
She also states
"The work is becoming more urgent as there
are continuing problems with the roof, lift
and boiler. Due to the delay in implementing
them the problem with the roof is now deteriorating
and causing substantial damage to the top flat" .
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:
"The deadline for the residents to submit
their experts' reports was 7 January 2003 but
this letter [i.e. my letter] was
not sent until 12 January 2003.
Our clients feel that Miss Dit-Rawé has
had ample time to instruct experts and we would
obviously have assisted them in order to bring
this matter to a close"
(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
"the porter has confirmed that Ms Rawé has
looked at them" .
She then contradicted herself in replying to
a question from my counsel, by saying:
"Oh!,
there are so many reports in the porter's
lodge, he would not know which is which!"
This is captured under point 14 of the 17
June 2003 LVT determination:
"Ms Hathaway (of Martin Russell Jones),
on behalf of the Applicant, resisted the application
for an adjournment.
She maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had
seen the specification in the porter's room, but
was unsure as to whether this had been a priced
version "
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)
"We have, on a number of occasions, provided
you with the information that you have required. we
cannot, therefore, understand why you should
be asserting that you cannot ascertain what
the works consist of."
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,
"Not all the residents were copied on the enclosures" - (See related points # 8.1.2 and # 10.3, below)
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)
"In the interests of justice, the Tribunal
agreed to an adjournment."

|
WHY HAD THERE NOT BEEN JUSTICE BEFORE?
Given what I (and my fellow leaseholders: point # 8.1.2 and # 10.3 below) ) had communicated to the LVT...
...WHY was it necessary for me to employ (at a very high cost) a barrister (plus a solicitor) to say what I had already said to the LVT on several occasions? |
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
"the reason [I have] been challenging
the service charge demand is because
I did not want to pay it"
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.
Back
to list
(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 REMIT
As 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%)
Amount disallowed by
the LVT because improvements: £169,498 (US$298,900)
(£129,958 (US$229,200) excl. VAT and
fees) = 23% of the global
sum demanded
Amount for which
the LVT could not make a determination due
to lack of specification = £188,784 (US$332,900) ( £144,745
(US$255,200) VAT and fees) = 25.6% of
the global sum demanded
A view supported by the LVT,
considering the terms of the lease ( point 59 ), as well
as RICS best practice (point 62 ) that the reserve fund should
be used as contribution : £141,977 (US$250,400) - or
19.3% of the global sum demanded (*)
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
"Where a service charge is payable before
the relevant costs are incurred, no
greater amount than is reasonable is so payable. "
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
"...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: 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 wording of the clause relating to
the contingency fund or reserve fund in the
lease is unambiguous. It refers to costs
expenses and outgoings "not being of an annually
recurring nature", and as such surely envisages
the type of works proposed at the subject property.
...the Tribunal considers
it inequitable that this fund should not
be used in part to fund the works ,
and cannot accept Mr Warwick's (Steel
Services) contention that to divest
or reduce the contingency fund would
be "wrong"
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:
"At present, there is approximately £125,000 (US$220,400) in
the Reserve Fund, but in view of the
scope of works required to be carried out it
is anticipated that the sum will be inadequate
to meet the costs.
This means that once the Specifications
have been prepared and estimates obtained,
a Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Notice will
be served on you giving details of the additional
payment required from you. "
(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)
Back
to list

|
(5) In spite of knowing that they had disallowed nearly 70% of the original sum demanded due to very damning evidence revealed during the hearings – and contained in their OWN 17 June 2003 report (ref LVT/SC/007/120/02 - #992 on the LVT database) - UNBELIEVABLY - rather than issue a 20C Order, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb et.al, complied with CKFT and MRJ = Andrew Ladsky's request for a hearing in relation to my 20C Application - intended to stop 'SS' from putting its Tribunal related costs on the service charges for Jefferson House
|
In a letter dated 7
April 2003 my then solicitors informed
the LVT that
"our Counsel will be making
an Application for an Order under Section
20 (c) of the Act in relation to costs not
being added to the service charge".
(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:
"In
view of your judgement of 17 June 2003,
I assume that there will be no obstacle in
your making a 20C Order preventing the landlord,
Steel Services from imposing their legal costs
on the service charges for Jefferson House"
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:
"Given
the Tribunal's decision of 17 June
2003, I assume that this is just for
your administrative purposes" .
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:
"The evidence is there. The facts speak
for themselves.
The Applicant cannot be allowed
to put on the service charge for
Jefferson House the costs it incurred as
a result of the action it pursued through
the LVT.
The Tribunal has the power to get
this decision implemented now and
I trust that it will do so."
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:
"We would
ask you to confirm that the application
will be dealt with a hearing, rather than on
paper"
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:
"we
would confirm that our client does
require an oral hearing as advised
at the original LVT hearing"
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
"The hearing of the application
has been scheduled for 9:45 am on 8
October 2003"
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
“All or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred by the Respondent in connection with any proceedings arising out of its application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal dated 7 August 2002 are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the Applicant”
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:
£34,600 (US$61,000) in 2003 (see accounts)
£14,211 (US$25,200) in 2004 (see accounts)
(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)
Back
to list

|
(6) My assessment of the London LVT: A U-turn at the 11th hour - amounting to FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS LEGAL REMIT under s.19 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - leaving me with an OPEN-ENDED REPORT that had cost me £28,000 (US$49,400)... for a £14,400 (US$25,400) demand - and on top of which I had to spend a further £1,800 (US$3,200) to determine the impact on the global sum demanded |
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:
"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."
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:
"The Tribunal was dealing with an application
to determine the reasonableness of a service
charge to be incurred under Section
19(2B) of the L&T Act 1985."
In her 21 July 2003 reply to the 17 July 2003 letter from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, the Clerk, Sheila Sanz, wrote:
"It is not the duty of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant "
|
Fair minded, reasonable
visitor to the site: as you can see from the 17
June 2003 LVT report, it is NOT what
the LVT has done. Hence: the LVT has FAILED TO PERFORM ITS 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
"We are mindful of the fact that the LVT
was, in fact, in a position to make a determination
of the sums that it considered to be reasonable
based on the evidence that it received at various
hearings"
Lisa McLean's letter of 9
April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which
she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:
"I have had an opportunity of speaking to
the chairperson of the tribunal and she informs
me that what the tribunal is looking to
determine is the reasonableness of the global
figure that's attributable to the whole block"
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:
"the Chairman of the tribunal's instructions
where he indicated that the tribunal
was concerned with the reasonableness
of service charges as set out
in Section 19 of the Landlord & Tenant
Act 1985"
In the letter that Andrew
Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which
is captured under point 50 of the LVT
report :
"Whilst I accept that the Tribunal
is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed
works."
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)
Back
to list

|
(7) Mrs Siobhan McGrath, President LVTs - twice refused - my request that the tribunal includes a summary of its decision - as did her 'head office', the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott - and she, and LEASE, have, SINCE 2003, taken NO ACTION to address the libellous accusations against me in the so-called summary of the case, placed on their public, online database |
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
"neither I nor the tribunal have the power
to re-open a decision. The correct
course of action for a party who is dissatisfied
with an LVT determination is to appeal to
the Lands Tribunal"
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:
"On that basis it is not possible to either
change the decision or to provide a supplement
to it".
In my 6
October 2003 reply, I argued that providing
a summary of the decision did not amount to
"re-opening a decision" - "rather
it is about your tribunal completing an unfinished
report" .
This led to the second 'no' from
McGrath who stated in her 26
November 2003 letter
"this may well be regarded as providing
additional reasons"
(NB: Sure! £500,000 worth of “additional reasons” to my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund / go back to WLCC for its role in abusing its power, bullying them into paying monies NOT due and payable (point # 4, above). But of course, this would have upset Ladsky et.al.’s and their puppets’ plan to make us, leaseholders, pay for the construction of the penthouse flat, addition of 3 other flats to Jefferson House (e.g. Major works), and associated costs – and thereby deprive them of a multi-million Pound jackpot (My Diary 6 May 08) – starting with the sale of the penthouse flat for £3.9m)
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
"unfortunately, the Leasehold Valuation
Tribunal is unable to re-open your
case" .
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
"affordable, local solution" for landlords
and leaseholders who are in dispute. We aim
to provide an accessible and cost-effective
forum for resolving residential leasehold problems"
(See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal)
Back
to list
(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
"Failure to comply with these directions
may result in prejudice to a party's case.
In particular, failure to provide
evidence as directed may debar the defaulter
from relying on such evidence at the hearing.
In the case of the applicants this
could result in dismissal of the application."
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)
Back
to list
(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 LIAR
In 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)
"I
have had several phone conversations with MRJ
requesting an executive summary of the planned
work such as 'description of work item', 'cost", 'priority'. I
never received such summary"
Leaseholder K sent a fax to the Clerk, David Stewart, on 28
October 2002
"Additionally no responses
have been received by neither my solicitor
nor myself to any query (see attached
letter)"
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
"The
opportunity is taken to remind you
that as of this date neither [name] nor the
writer have received the complete data you
undertook to provide at our meeting in your
offices on 30 July 2002 and confirmed in our
letter of 31 July.
This situation has
prevailed despite two further letters
of remind dated 27 August and 9 September"
There is also the 20
October 2002 email from Leaseholder
C to the other Tribunal's Clerk, Sheila Sanz:
"I paid a portion,
approximately £17,000 (US$30,000) ,
not of my own free will, but because I felt
intimidated and threatened.
It may appear
that the persons who paid all or
a portion of the assessment are accepting
of the assessment and proposal from
Steel Services and MRJ as fair.
Not so in my case, it is out of
fear. Steel Services and MRJ will take
legal action if I do not comply.
Living outside
the UK makes it virtually impossible
to allow oneself to become involved in a
lawsuit."
As suggested in her 1
November 2002 letter to me, indications
are that Leaseholder F also
communicated her opposition to the demand
"I
am urging my solicitor to forward
objections to Steel Services demands to the
Leasehold Valuation Tribunal within the next
week"
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)
Back
to list
(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 myself
Causing 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)
Back
to list
(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 copy
I 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
"...a specimen lease together with a statement
specifying any relevant differences
between respective flats, or confirming
that they are all the same".
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:
"6. (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), a
copy of the lease or leases.
6. (2) Where the application relates to
more than one dwelling and the leases or other
documents and the demands for payment of the
service charge for each such dwelling are in
the same or substantially the same terms, the
applicant need not provide such documents for
each dwelling providing that the applicant
does provide a specimen lease or other document
and demand for payment accompanied by a statement
-
(a) specifying those respects in
which such documents differ from the corresponding
documents for all the other dwellings concerned
in the application, and
(b) confirming that in all other respects
such documents are the same"
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
"The amount of Service
Charge payable by the Lessee for
each financial year of the Lessor
shall be a fair proportion (to
be determined by and at the sole discretion
of the Lessor) ." (NB: Equivalent to saying: "Give your cheque book to the lessor who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice")
Whereas the same Clause in my my
lease states
"The amount of the Service Charge
payable by the Lessee for each financial
year of the Lessor shall be calculated
by dividing
the aggregate amount of the costs
expenses and outgoings incurred by
the Lessor during such financial
year...by
the aggregate of the rateable value...of
all the flats in the Building...the
repair maintenance renewal insurance
or servicing whereof is charged in such
calculation as aforesaid and
then multiplying the resultant amount
by the rateable value (in force
at the same date) of the Flat"
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)
Back
to list
(8.1.5) Given past events, it is abundantly
clear that, without a counsel, I would
have been trampled upon at the hearing

|
My
view is that all concerned thought
that I would be a 'push over' at
the 5 February 2003 hearing...
...because they had never received
communication on my behalf from
a legal advisor. |
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)
Back
to list
(8.1.6) The 'merry-go-round' of tribunal and
court
When 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.

|
And
the 'merry-go-round' of tribunal
and court keeps going...
...until the leaseholders give-up / end-up broke because
of the massive professional fees. |
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!
Back
to list
(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,
"My client will not charge Ms K-Dit-Rawé for
costs, but intends to charge the other residents"
WHY? This
service charge demand is FRAUDULENT (Pridie Brewster # 12 , # 18) and the tribunal KNEW this from the findings during the hearings.

|
At this
point, the Chair of the Panel, Mrs J Goulden JP, said,
"Oh well I don't know, I am
not sure, I'll have to check
on this"
After the recess, she declared,
"This will require another
day of hearing" .
She then turned to my Counsel
and said,
"How does your client feel
about this?"
|
|
With 'whom' did Mrs Goulden "check on this" during the recesss - which she called when this was raised? |
(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:
"The parties should
note that the Tribunal may consider
requiring the respondents to reimburse
the applicants with the whole or part
of their fees in these proceedings in accordance
with Article 11A of the Rent Assessment
Committee. regulations 1993"
(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)
Back
to list
(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 Application
Indeed - 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:
£34,600 (US$61,000) in 2003 (see accounts)
£14,211 (US$25,200) in 2004 (see accounts)
(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)

|
So, landlords'
position with LVTs:
'head'
they win, 'tail' they win.
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO BUY THAT KIND OF TREATMENT? |
(See also my questions in relation to the breach of my Human Rights by this tribunal)
Back
to list
(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 hearing
From 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)
Back
to list
(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 rights
As 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 :
“When we contacted the LVT to obtain a copy of the application we received the following voicemail message…”Hi Lisa McLean, its David Stewart at the LVT just getting back to you… I’ve had an opportunity of speaking to the chairperson of the tribunal… She also says that there is no need for you to be copied on all the papers on this application”.
This is of course entirely unhelpful and,
if our client [x] is a party to the LVT
proceedings then surely we must be
entitled to receive a copy of the application
and be entitled to represent our client in
those proceedings....
...We have again today spoken to the LVT and
they confirm that they will contact the landlords
representative to ascertain exactly who is
a respondent to this application!"
(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:
- It had received letters, faxes and emails from my fellow leaseholders? (point # 8.1.2, above)
- At the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, the Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, and the Clerk, David Stewart, had heard - ALL of us, leaseholders, say that we objected to the demand because we had NOT received evidence in support (point # 1, above)
- And the Tribunal ALSO KNEW that (1) in breach of the directions it had given us at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to NOT pay the ‘service charge’ (point # 1, above); (2) and in total disregard of the fact that it was an abuse of process of court – 'SS' had filed a 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, against 14 flats, in WLCC - as a means of bullying the Jefferson House leaseholders into paying monies NOT due and payable (my 9 December 2002 letter to Siobhan McGrath)
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)
“(3) 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”
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:
"what the tribunal is looking to determine is the reasonableness of the global figure that's attributable to the whole block"
And the Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, captured this in the directions following the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing
"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."
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)
Back
to list
(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 application
In 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":
"statement showing how the service
charge is made up - individual items, or estimated
items, breakdown of costs of each item to show
how the service charge is calculated" ...
...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:
"7. A breakdown of the amount of such of
the costs incurred or, as the case may be,
to be incurred for services, repairs, maintenance,
insurance or management as together comprise
the service charge, so as to show how the service
charge and each element of it is calculated.
8. The matters upon which the applicant
intends to rely in support of his application;
and where he intends to rely on any document,
a copy of that document."
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)
Back
to list
(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 Tribunal
As 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)
Back
to list
(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 postponed
As 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
"Failure to comply with these directions
may result in prejudice to a party's case.
In particular, failure to provide
evidence as directed may debar the defaulter
from relying on such evidence at the hearing.
In the case of the applicants this
could result in dismissal of the application."
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)
Back
to list
(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 process
Bearing 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)
Back
to list
(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 leaseholders
In 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)
Back
to list
(11)
 |
WHO
WAS 'RUNNING THE SHOW'
IN THE LONDON LVT? |
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)
Back
to list
(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)

Jefferson House
July 2002 |
|

Jefferson House
September 2005 |
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 .
Back to
top