Email this site to a contact

 

This hellhole, masonic tribunal very blatantly assisted Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers in the implementation of their fraudulent demand from the leaseholders in the Jefferson House 'concentration camp'.

HER MAJESTY'S London LeaseholD Valuation Tribunal (LVT) (Now: First-tier Tribunal) - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, remember that the ROOT CAUSE for the actions and lack of action by her Panel, staff, President and Deputy Prime Minister is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

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

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

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

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

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

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

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

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

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

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

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, Panel, staff, President and Deputy Prime Minister...

joined the other assassins saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

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

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

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

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

Events with the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (*) are discussed under Overview # 2, kangaroo courts # 1 and Doc library # 1.1. There are also covered in numerous documents - among others:

(1)- My 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (Legal-Home # 9);

(2)- My 12.07.09 complaint (form) to the then Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham

(3)- My 03.06.08 Witness Statement; (re. the 27 Feb 07 fraudulent claim filed against me - Overview # 11)

(*) From 1 July 2013, the LVTs were combined into the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber and, in the process, renamed First-tier tribunal - Property Chamber (Residential Property) - see Note at the end of this page for further detail).

Within 2 years of Jefferson House Ltd and Steel Services Ltd” = Andrew David Ladsky et.al. taking over the headlease of Jefferson House in 1996, and the freehold in 1997, it became evident that a major scam was being set-up.

Among others, it included planning applications to build a massive penthouse that spans the whole length and width of Jefferson House, and for major alterations to the block, as well as 2 bogus “notices of first-refusal” (in 1999 and in 2000).

In Feb 02, Brian Gale, MRICS, Ladsky's surveyor, issued a so-called “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” (Gale # 7).

‘Based’ on 'the survey' by Brian Gale, MRICS, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), ‘managing’ agents for Jefferson House, issued a 15.07.02 global 'service charge' demand of £736,206 (US$ 1.3m) to the Jefferson House leaseholders...

...- claiming that these costs were for “repair and maintenance works” to Jefferson House - which turned out to be a 'very interesting' way of describing 'the major works' (Gale # 7).

Based on my 1.956% share, the sum demanded of me in the 17.07.02 invoice was £14,400 (US$25,400) (Overview # 1).

Of key importance: note that, 6 months earlier, in a 21.12.01 letter, addressed to "Dear Flat Owner", Joan Hathaway, MRICS, wrote:

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature.

Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

No detail of costing was supplied with the (above) 15.07.02 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: paras 14 and 16 of its 17.06.03 so-called ‘determination’: Gale # 6).

Within days of sending the (above) 15.07.02 'service charge' demand (Overview # 1)...

... - 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky - Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ filed a - fraudulent - 07.08.02 application in the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT):

"to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded"  

i.e. the £736,200 (US$1.3m) demanded in the 15.07.02 demand (Overview # 1)

(NB: The £564,467 quoted under para.2 of the 17.06.03 tribunal's report excludes the 'management' fees and VAT).

Typically, landlords run to the tribunal in the hope that its then deliberate policy (among many other biases) of preventing leaseholders from getting back their costs of proceedings will deter leaseholders from challenging their application.

AND, the surveyors know they have carte blanche from their 'regulator', the RICS, to do exactly as they please (RICS # A).

Andrew David Ladsky communicated to me that he had Her Majesty's London tribunal in his pocket, and therefore anticipated being able to 'steamroll' his above 07.08.02 application through the tribunal, with no opposition whatsoever - and thereby get the 'official seal of approval' - and ultimately his multi-million £ jackpot...

... - by telling me, on 25 Jan 03, 10 days before the 5th Feb 03 hearing (the 1st one at which the substantive hearings were postponed, because of colluding and conspiring being exposed) (# 3, below):

"Better luck next time!"

As this page demonstrates: 'the brother', Ladsky certainly did have Her Majesty's tribunal in his pocket...(among many, many others).

Nearly one year later, it resulted in the 17.06.03 so-called 'determination', LVT/SC/007/120/02 (reference number 992 on the LVT database) - see pt # 4, below, for the outcome of the hearings, and the issues about the report.

Following the above 07.08.02 application, my experience with Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT), between Oct 02 and Nov 03 - as the glaringly obvious innocent victim of organized crime (Case summary) - was horrendous and extremely traumatic.

I went through a whole year of absolute sheer utter hell with this hellhole, masonic, kangaroo tribunal. I was in a permanent state of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish and distress. (At the time, compounded by other events / actions also instigated by the evil Rachman Andrew Ladsky - aimed at inflicting further criminal psychological harassment (# 2.3, below), including in West London County Court).

It destroyed my life, and cost me £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life savings in professional fees, as well as many other costs - to challenge a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400).

Report that was then ignored by the Andrew Ladsky gang of racketeers - because the findings were not to Ladsky's 'liking' (# 4.3, below).

Since then i.e. 2003, Her Majesty's tribunal has also continued to defame my name, character and reputation by having on its online database accessible by the public, its 17.06.03 report, as well as a so-called 'summary of the case' that falsely and maliciously blame me for "the delay in dealing with the application" and a fictitious "[6%] increase in costs" (# 7, below).

 

My being subjected to this treatment was due to Her Majesty's London tribunal very clearly perceiving itself to be at the service of 'Steel Services'

= Andrew David Ladsky - 'the brother' - and his gang of racketeers: Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), and Brian Gale, MRICS...

... - at the complete exclusion of mine and of my fellow leaseholders - conjuring up one reason...

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

In addition to 'the Brotherhood factor', the other factor is that these tribunals are dominated by members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) who, (typically in this Kingdom), have carte blanche to do exactly as they please - without fear of sanction (see RICS # A for a snapshot of the RICS's 'response' to my - legitimate - 02.02.05 complaint against the then MRJ, as well as 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 blatant bias (**) of the individuals involved in my case - as detailed on this page, and hence: their failure to perform as per their legal remit - as summarised, below, under: (1)- Events; (2)- Breaches of the law.

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

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

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

(More detail under WLCC - 2002-04)

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

As summarised under kangaroo courts, for me, the then London LVT marked the start of an unbelievably traumatic and very costly experience of blatant injustice, of perverse turning of blind eyes and deaf ears to the glaring evidence, of extremely cruel, vicious, sadistic treatment - that comes under the banner of criminal psychological harassment.

Back to list

Summary of events - Her Majesty's (then) London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) - 2002-03 - and ongoing:

(See below, Breaches of statutes, and of my Lease)

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

The recurring descriptions for the events that took place with this hellhole, masonic, kangaroo tribunal are: collusion, conniving, conspiring, amorality, and turning a blind eye...

...- to assist the 'sacrosanct' Rachman landlord, and 'brother': Andrew David Ladsky in the successful implementation of his £500,000 (US$882,000) fraud.

(1) - The outcome of the hearings was a £500,000 (US$882,000) reduction (incl. contingency fund, 'said' to include £142k) in the global sum demanded of £736,200 (US$1.3m) (pts # 4.1 , Intro).

This is based on the assessment by my Chartered Surveyor - as Her Majesty's London tribunal's Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - failed to perform its legal remit...

...- by not including - in its 17.06.03 report ((ref LVT/SC/007/120/02 - #992 on the LVT database) - a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" (pt # 4.2).

(2) - Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, twice refused (12.09.03 , 26.11.03) my request (06.09.03 ; 06.10.03 ; 09.11.03) for a summary to be included in the report (pt # 7). In the process, she (typically) misrepresented my request, in order to 'justify' her answer that "the tribunal [could] not re-open a decision" (pt # 7).

Her 2nd 'No' (of 26.11.03 (pt # 7)) stated: "It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons"

= Unbelievable - in the light of the tribunal's statutory remit (pt # 4.2).

(YES! £500,000 (US$882,000) worth of additional reasons to my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund / go back to Her Majesty's West London County Court for its role in abusing its power, by bullying them and terrorising them into paying monies not due and payable (pt # 4 ; WLCC # 6)).

Of course, McGrath's refusal was endorsed by the then Office of John Prescott, heading Housing (pt # 7).

(3) - To assist further their 'Lord and Master', the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother': Andrew David Ladsky, in realising his multi-million £ jackpot (pt # 12):

In my 09.11.03 letter to Siobhan McGrath, I asked "to ensure that the summary is factually accurate as the current version is particularly misleading" (pt # 7).

In her 26.11.03 'reply', McGrath continued to play the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' in order to ignore my request - by claiming that "LEASE [was] responsible for the summaries" (pt # 7).

I had also copied Nicholas Kissen, LEASE, on my 09.11.03 letter. No action was taken.

Hence, SINCE 2003 - by having its 17.06.03 report and so-called 'summary of the case', on its online public database - Her Majesty's London Tribunal has - wilfully - been defaming my name, character and reputation.

(NB: Ditto about the police - because the British State is a state that views 'the little people' as pieces of dirt, who do not have the right to have rights, there to be used and abused, at will - by ALL in the State, as well as by its cronies and hangers-on).

 

(4) - It was a continuation of the collusion and conspiring by HM's London tribunal with the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother': Andrew David Ladsky - from the time he filed his application - AS:

  • Hence, we were told to not pay - until the tribunal had issued its report, and it had therefore been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand (pt # 1.5).

(NB: Clearly colluding with each other, HM's West London County Court was, likewise, turning a blind eye to my reporting the abuse of process of court: WLCC # 2.1).

  • (5)- Among the 'privileged' few he had contacted, Stewart also opted to not copy "some of them" on any of the supporting, critical documents to the application - including in my case (pts # 1.3 , # 3).
  • (6)- The Clerk, David Stewart waited another 2 days to inform some? of / the privileged few of a 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (pt # 1.4) - thereby giving us only a 10-day notice - knowing that many of my fellow leaseholders resided overseas (pt # 1.1).
  • (9)- Causing me an unbelievable amount of torment, anguish and distress - it forced me to employ, at very great costs, a team of advisors (pt # 2.3).
  • (12)- Unbelievably - considering that the tribunal hearings had resulted in finding that £500,000 (US$882,000) of the £736,200 (US$1.3m) demanded was "unreasonable" (pt # 4.1) - added to the many other lies to the tribunal by the Ladsky gang of racketeers (pt # 5.4), and its showing a one-finger to its directions (pts # 2.1 , # 02)...
  • ... and ending-up with a meaningless 'consent order' from the Ladsky gang that "['I] would not be charged for the tribunal-related costs" (pt # 5.3). Needless to say that the costs were, of course, placed on the 'service charges' (pt # 5.3) - and that this was forgotten when the next fraudulent claim was filed against me (Overview # 11).

Overall outcome on me (below)

My name for what has - and continues to take place?

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

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

 

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

Back to list

Breaches of the law - Her Majesty's (then) London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) - 2002-03 - and ongoing:

In - my NON-LAWYER opinion (*) - Her Majesty's (then) London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) Chairs, Panel as well as staff committed breaches of the Tribunal Rules, statutes - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as breach of my Lease:

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

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

(See, above: (1) summary of events ; (2) definition of 'bias')

•  Tribunal's rules

  • (2) - Failing to use its power under (as stated in its 29.10.02 directions) Regulation 4B of the Rent Assessment Committee (England and Wales) (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) Regulation 1993 (pt # 2.2) - when I reported - repeatedly - that the then Martin Russell Jones (=Ladsky) was not complying with the 29.10.02 pre-trial directions (pt # 2.1)...
  • ...forcing me to employ (in a hurry) a team of advisors - at very great costs (pt # 2.3) - that finally led the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, at the 5 Feb 03 hearing (pt # 3), to 'remember' the rule of law, by postponing the substantive hearings "in the interests of justice" (!!!) (pt # 3).

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985:

  • ... which, among others, included a lease endorsed as being "representative of all the leases in Jefferson House" - which it most definitely was not - and imparted a highly material, false obligation on me (pt # 1.3)).
  • (3)- Refusing to provide the application documents to those who subsequently became aware of the application (pt # 1.2).
  • (2) - Failure by the Panel - the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - to perform its legal remit under s.19(2B) (see extracts)...
  • (3) - Further, under para.2 of its 17.06.03 report, the Panel made an assertion about a fictitious "[6%] increase in the cost of the works" - at a date that was 3 months post its report - and libellously blamed me for it (pt # 7).

•  My Lease

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

  • Under para.2 of its 17.06.03 report, the Panel made an assertion about a fictitious "[6%] increase in the cost of the works" - at a date that was 3 months post its report - and libellously blamed me for it (pt # 7).

•  Defamation Act (see extracts):

•  Data Protection Act 1998

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

  • (2)- Waited 2 months to inform me of the application, and another 2 days to inform me of the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (pt # 1.4) - thereby giving me only a 10-day notice (pt # 1.1).
  • (3)- Opted to - deliberately - not copy me on any of the supporting documents to the application (pts # 1.3 , # 3). In addition to containing key documents to which I was legally entitled, and needed to challenge the application, they also contained a lease that imparted a highly material, false obligation on my part (pt # 1.3).
  • (4)- Opting to ignore my repeated assertion (pts # 2.1 , # 2.2) (backed-up by some of my fellow leaseholders: pt # 1.4), that I had not been supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled - and needed to challenge the application...
  • - they refused my request for a postponement of the 5 Feb 03 hearing (pt # 2.2) (NB: Letter misled - but evidence can be seen under pt # 3).

In fact, what they did - and continue to do - comes under the banner of criminal psychological harassment.

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

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

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

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

(NB: What took place in Her Majesty's London tribunal continued in Her Majesty's West London County Court - and it continued - demonstrating that it is a standard policy in my case - see kangaroo courts).

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

13 months of absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, terrible torment, anguish, distress and trauma; (compounded by other actions from evil, criminal Rachman Andrew David Ladsky: pt # 2.3).

Contrary to what I had been led to believe - ending-up with a deliberately near-useless17.06.03 report, that cost me £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life-savings, and many other costs - to challenge a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (pt # 4.3)...

...- report which Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers then ignored - because the findings were not to 'his liking' (pt # 4.3 ; Overview # 5).

I incurred these huge costs due to the colluding and conspiring between Her Majesty's London tribunal and West London County Court, and Andrew Ladsky and his gang - that resulted in my being the main leaseholder challenging Ladsky's 07.08.02 application (pt # 1.6).

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

But then, Andrew David Ladsky had told me before the start of the hearings: "Better luck next time!".

So, my reply to the claim of:

  • "No need for professional representation" (pt # 8.1) = a lie
  • "Each party pays their own costs" (pt # 8.2) = another lie

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

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

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

Unbelievable; isn't it?

Back to list

 

(01)- David Stewart, Clerk for Her Majesty's (then) London LVT, failed to acknowledge my correspondence in which I highlighted the fact that...

'the Applicant', 'Steel Services' was a non-existent company and could not therefore pursue an action in the Tribunal – nor, of course, demand monies from the Jefferson House's leaseholders.

(NB: Was previous section # 10.8)

Within days of my receiving, from Her Majesty's London tribunal Clerk, David Stewart, a copy of an application form by 'Steel Services' (# 1.1, below), I sent him a 22.10.02 letter - supported by a bundle of evidence, (including letters from the Tenancy Relations Officer, Kensington & Chelsea housing: Ownership identity # 1) - that 'the Applicant', 'Steel Services' was a non-existent company...

... – as the British Virgin Islands authorities, where it was – finally - claimed to be domiciled, had replied to me on 08.08.02 that "Steel Services" had been:

“Struck-off the British Virgin Islands Register for non-payment of the licence fee”.

(Of course, the Andrew David Ladsky gang of racketeers had been claiming its existence - and demanding money in its name: Owners identity # 2).

The Clerk, David Stewart, did not acknowledge my letter. In the light of the UK's company laws, the "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, it was evidently perceived as 'immaterial'.

(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 05.11.02 (BVI # 1)).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

 

(02)- In blatant collusion and conspiring with Her Majesty's West London County Court, Her Majesty's London tribunal also turned a blind eye and a deaf ear when informed that 'Steel Services' was pursuing the same action in the court - thereby amounting to an abuse of process.

(NB: Was previous section # 10.6)

As discussed under # 1.5, below, at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing', we, leaseholders, were specifically told by the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, to NOT PAY the 'service charge' as, if we did, the tribunal would NOT be able to help us.

In support of this direction, we were given a booklet, reporting a Court of Appeal case, Daejan Properties v. London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - stating:

"LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid"

Hence: we were told to NOT PAY the 'service charge' - UNTIL Her Majesty's tribunal had issued its report - and it had therefore been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand.

In the light of this direction - issued by an English tribunal, part of the English judicial system - on receiving the 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky's West London County Court claim 29.11.02, ref. WL203537 - filed by Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), against me (and 13 other apartments) (WLCC # 1),...

...on 4 Dec 02, I phoned LEASE, explaining the situation. LEASE urged me to:

"bring this to the attention of the tribunal, as the same action cannot be pursued concurrently in 2 separate jurisdictions."

I then spoke to the Clerk, David Stewart, to ask whether the tribunal was aware that 'Steel Services' had filed a claim in West London County Court. He replied that it was not.

In response to my asking what I should do given the conflict with the tribunal's jurisdiction, I was told to “continue with the actions.

Following the above advice from LEASE, in my 09.12.02 letter to Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then 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?”

The 11.12.02 'reply' 'from' the Clerk, David Stewart to my above letter, was:

"...the tribunal...as a quasi-judicial body is unable to give independent advice." (1)

It is a matter for the parties to make formal applications to the Tribunal in light of the changed circumstances." (2)

"These are complex matters [3] and you may consider taking legal advice [4] ..."

"This letter and your letter are being copied to Ms Hathaway of Martin Russell Jones for their information..."

(1)- They are told that an abuse of process is taking place in relation to proceedings in their tribunal, and unbelievably (but typically) close their eyes to it.

(2)- What kind of "formal application" was I meant "to make to the tribunal [to communicate] the changed circumstances"?

As recommended by LEASE, I had sent a letter and, to make sure it received attention, addressed it to the President of the tribunals.

= In addition to being a confirmation of the typical 'Get lost!' - it also comes under the banner of the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' by sending the 'little people' from pillar to post.

(3)- Funny how unlawful conduct by 'the Brotherhood' is always "[a] complex matter" (e.g. Comment # 23) - a 'Prole' 'like me', 'does not, (of course), have the mental capacity to understand'.

(4)- "you may consider taking legal advice"

= The reason behind the patronising comment: dictated by the 'sacrosanct' Rachman landlord, and 'brother': Andrew Ladsky - in the hope that I can be bullied into "making a commercial decision".

But also, the English Estabishment's standard 'Get lost!' reply - more examples under Doc library # 1.9.

 

Note also that, 7 weeks previously, in my 24.10.02 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart, I had brought to his attention...

...the fact that, in his 21.10.02 letter - in reply to mine of 17.10.02 - Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, had stated:

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

(NB: I supplied Stewart with a copy of the letter)

As discussed under WLCC # 2.1, Her Majesty's West London County Court also turned a blind eye - persistently - to my bringing the abuse of process to its attention - which I did 7 times in total -...

...demonstrating undeniably the collusion and conspiring between both: Her Majesty's tribunal and court and, of course, with 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky.

(See kangaroo courts for snapshots of my experience with the so-called 'justice' system of this island-Kingdom).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

 

(1)- Collusion between Her Majesty's London tribunal and Steel Services (SS) = Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)...

- to ensure minimum leaseholder attendance at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' - and minimise the number told to not pay the (fraudulent) 15.07.02 'service charge'.

(NB: This section includes the previous sections # 10.1, and # 10.2)

Her Majesty's London tribunal did its damnedest to prevent my fellow leaseholders from challenging the 07.08.02 application from the Rachman 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky:

(1.1)- Her Majesty's London tribunal waited 2 months to communicate that an application had been made, and waited another 2 days to communicate the date of the pre-trial hearing - thereby giving only a 10-day notice.

(NB: Includes previous section # 10.1)

The first communication by the tribunal of the 07.08.02 application from 'Steel Services'-the then MRJ = Andrew David Ladsky, was a 08.10.02 letter from the Clerk, David Stewart i.e. 2 months later.

Stewart, waited another 2 days to communicate that a pre-trial hearing had been set for 29th October: his 10.10.02 letter. Hence, giving only a 10-day notice.

The ‘very convenient’ 2-month delay gave the Ladsky gang of racketeers 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 (copy of definition) of my apartment, “legal proceedings and costs”:

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

Back to list

(1.2)- In breach of statute, and of the Lease, Her Majesty's London tribunal sent the above letters (# 1.1) only to 'some' of my fellow leaseholders.

(NB: Includes previous section # 10.2)

As suggested by e.g. the 09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, solicitors, to my then solicitors, not all the Jefferson House leaseholders were informed of this action.

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 para.50 of the 17.06.03 LVT report, LVT/SC/007/120/02).

YET: The tribunal had been supplied with all the names: L&T Act 1985, s.19(2B) - and they had also been asked on the 07.08.02 form (extracts, below, under # 1.3);...

...and ALL the leaseholders were very clearly "concerned" by the application: L&T Act 1985, s.20(4):

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

 

...Not only under the above statute, but also under the Lease:

(See e.g. West London County Court # 6)

Obviously, while Her Majesty's tribunal - of course - knew that the 07.08.02 application concerned ALL the leaseholders at Jefferson House...

- it was taking its orders from 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky - as to which leaseholder could / could not be informed of the 07.08.02 application - as evidenced by the following:

in addition to stating that filing of the claim in WLCC was an abuse of process of court (Overview # 3), in the same letter of 09.04.03, Lisa McLean wrote 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”.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(1.3)- In continuing breach of our statutory rights, among the leaseholders it had informed of the action, Her Majesty's London tribunal opted to not supply "some of us" with any of the appendices to the 07.08.02 application which, crucially, included a so-called "priced specification", as well as a lease, falsely claiming that it was "representative of all the leases".

(NB: Includes previous sections # 8.14 and # 10.3)

In his 08.10.02 letter to me, the Clerk, David Stewart, stated:

"I enclose a copy of the application and supporting documentation for your information"

 

The 07.08.02 Application form had the following ticked as being "enclosed":

"the evidence, including any reports or other documents which you want the tribunal to consider in support of your case"

"A copy of any notification of future charges showing the date when the charges will, or may be, due for payment:"

"A statement showing how the service charge is made up:

the individual items, or estimated items, included

a breakdown of costs of each item to show how the service charge is calculated"

"Schedule of names and addresses of every person liable for the service charge and a statement of the total number of flats in respect of which the service charge is payable" (NB: The tick box and some writing were redacted).

"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)".

It was signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ.

(NB: The content of an application to this tribunal is regulated by Section 19(2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (see extracts)).

 

In fact, the Clerk, David Stewart, did NOT provide me with a copy of ANY of the "Appendices" - in breach of my rights under s.20(4) of the L&T Act 1985 (extracts above).

As discussed under # 3, below, during the 5 Feb 03 'hearing', Stewart admitted that "Not all the residents were copied on the enclosures."

Other evidence of Her Majesty's tribunal discriminatory approach, and breach of the leaseholders' statutory rights, can also be seen in the 09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, under # 1.2, above,...

...in which she quoted David Stewart as saying: "...I have just had the opportunity of speaking to the chairperson...She says that there is no need for you ['to be copied on'] all the papers on this application".

The reason for not supplying us with any of the "Appendices" was due to complicity by Her Majesty's tribunal in the intended fraud - as demonstrated by the subsequent events.

As to the lease supplied with the 07.08.02 application, as a result of my phoning the Clerk, (post the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (# 1.4, below)), asking him to supply me with a copy...

...- I discovered that Andrew Ladsky had supplied a lease 'apparently' 'for apartment 22' - claiming "that it was representative of all the leases" (extracts from form, above)...

...- which it most definitely was not - thereby breaching, among others, s.19(2B) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) of this lease 'apparently' 'for apartment 22', imparted a highly, materially false obligation on my part, as it stated:

"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) ." (*)

(*) Equivalent to saying: "Give your cheque book to the lessor who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice" ) (And the mafia brands 'me' "a Nazi" !!!).

My Lease most definitely does not contain this outrageous contract term under the same numbered Clause - or anywhere else. Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) of my Lease reads:

"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"

(NB: Having done this with his 07.08.02 application to the tribunal, Ladsky repeated it with his fraudulent 29 Nov 02 claim in West London County Court - to which, of course, likewise, the court turned a blind eye (WLCC # 3)).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(1.4)- Demonstrating further the undeniable complicity and conspiring between Her Majesty's tribunal and the Ladsky gang of racketeers, at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing', in spite of our repeating that we had not been supplied with supporting documents to the 'service charge' demand - to which we were legally entitled...

- Her Majesty's tribunal continued to withhold, from us, the documents it had been supplied with 3 months previously.

As can be seen from the 29.10.02 directions issued by the tribunal, Andrew David Ladsky, Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS of the then MRJ,...

...as well as Brian Gale, MRICS, and Patrick Moyle of Brian Gale & Associates - attended the 29 Oct 02 LVT pre-trial 'hearing' - chaired by J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS.

(NB: As discussed under # 1.1 and # 1.2, above, the reason for the low attendance by my fellow leaseholders was due to Her Majesty's tribunal deliberately and unlawfully excluding them).

At this 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' we (i.e. I and fellow leaseholders) were asked by the Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, whether we had already paid the 'service charge' demanded in the 15.07.02 letter sent by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ (above) - and, for me, associated invoice of 17.07.02.

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 s.20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and, indeed, of our Lease.

Demonstrating further the undeniable complicity and conspiring between Her Majesty's tribunal and the Ladsky gang of racketeers - in spite of:

  • having already been made aware of this fact: by then, (since sending the (above) 10.10.02 letter - to 'some of us' (# 1.2, above)), HM's tribunal had received a 22.10.02 letter from me (supported by 28 appendices) - in which, under para.5.13 I asked for its assistance "in obtaining a copy of the specifications for the proposed works - with costings",...
  • ...as well as several from my fellow leaseholders (see below) - in which we all stated that we had not been provided with evidence in support of the 15.07.02 ‘service charge’ demand (Overview # 1).

... the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, and the Clerk, David Stewart, took NO action.

In addition to the above - communications Her Majesty's London tribunal had received from my fellow leaseholders:

(NB: Was previous section # 8.1.2)

•  Leaseholder M wrote to the Clerk, David Stewart, cc’d MRJ, on 19.10.02 (i.e. 3 months after Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, sent the original 15.07.02 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 28.10.02:

"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 tribunal with copy of his correspondence to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ. For example, the 24.09.02 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"

 

•  The 20.10.02 e-mail 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."

(*) = The whole of this e-mail is a clear demonstration of the Business Model in action.

•  As suggested in her 01.11.02 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"

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(1.5)- At the 29 Oct 02 (then) London LVT pre-trial 'hearing', the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, specifically told us, leaseholders, to NOT PAY 'the service charge' - and supported this by giving us a booklet.

At the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (# 1.4, above), the Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, told us, leaseholders, that, if we paid, the tribunal would not be able to help us.

To reinforce this point, we were handed a booklet 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5 stated 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: Blue type face: words emphasised in the booklet)

HENCE: the 'DON'T PAY' message could not have been any clearer.

It is important to note this given that (as covered under # 02, above), precisely 1 month later, Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, filed, in West London County Court, a 29.11.02 claim against 11 leaseholders, representing 14 apartments - for the full amount demanded in the 15.07.02 demand (above) (Overview # 3) ...

...and equally important to note that my bringing this to the attention of Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, resulted in the equivalent of (the typical): 'Get lost! I don't give a damn!' (# 02, above).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(1.6)- The colluding and conspiring between Her Majesty's London tribunal and West London County Court, and Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - meant that I ended-up being the main leaseholder challenging Ladsky's 07.08.02 application.

 

I ended-up being the main leaseholder challenging Rachman Andrew Ladsky's 07.08.02 application (Intro, above) - AS:

  • (2)- the short, 10-day notice of the pre-trial hearing (# 1.1, above) given to the 'privileged' few who had been informed of the action - resulted in some of these leaseholders being unable to attend (a significant number had their main residence overseas – a fact I pointed out in my 24.10.02 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart) - while many others did not, because they had not been informed of the action;

= the Business Model, combined with 'the wonders' of 'the Brotherhood' - had worked!

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

 

(2)- Her Majesty's tribunal's collusion and conspiring with 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, continued - by breaching my rights (and its own rule)...

... - forcing me to employ a team of advisors.

(NB: Includes previous section # 10.5)

(2.1)- The Chair, Mr J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, and Clerk, David Stewart, ignored repeatedly my highlighting that the then Martin Russell Jones was not complying with the tribunal's 29.10.02 directions to supply me with information to which I was legally entitled - and needed to challenge the 07.08.02 application.

 

The 29.10.02 Directions following the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (# 1.4, above), included - most critically:

"(1) The respondents will send a Reply to the application to the applicants and a copy to the Tribunal by 26 November 2002.

The Reply must list each item of the proposed work that is in dispute; stating fully the reasons for each disputed item.

The Reply should include all relevant information and supporting documentary evidence which are to be considered by the Tribunal."

(2) 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 they intend to call at the hearing to the applicants ... by 7 January 2003."

As I had written to HM's tribunal - pre the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing', in my 22.10.02 letter, and again repeated at the pre-trial 'hearing' (# 1.4, above) - I had not been provided with any evidence in support of the 17.07.02 £14,400 (US$25,400) demand.

Note that in total, as I reported under para.12 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement - between Aug 02 and Jan 03 I had sent 6 letters to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, asking for a copy of the priced specifications (and listed them).

I sent 3 letters to Her Majesty's tribunal stating that the then Martin Russell Jones was not complying with its (above) 29.10.02 directions - thereby preventing me from complying with the directions, as well as placing me in a highly prejudiced position:

(1)- My (5-page) 25.11.02 letter, cc'd to Martin Russell Jones:

"1.1 It is impossible for me to answer your question “the reply must list each item of the proposed work that is in dispute, stating fully the reasons for each item disputed” – as, other than the lump sum of £736,206.09 (from which my share of £14,400.19 was calculated) I have not been provided with any information whatsoever on the nature of the works to be carried out for this amount.

Hence, I am unable to ascertain what the works are and the costs and hence, the reasonableness of the costs."

"1.3.1 The current sum demanded of £736,206.09 is nearly half the declared value of the building....Are MRJ / associated parties currently suggesting that half the building needs to be rebuilt? (document # 19 - Norwich Union insurance policy which gives a declared value of £1,785,000 at December 2000)."

"1.3.2 The current sum demanded is c. five times that of previous refurbishments."

"1.4 It is also my belief – at this stage - given the lack of information - that this exorbitant sum is due to the intention to build an extra floor for a penthouse flat and associated costs for which, of course, I am not liable.

The fact that a three-year old planning application was renewed in February of this year indicates a clear intention to build the penthouse flat."

(NB: I was right! Note that I had already raised this in my 1st letter to the tribunal, of 22.10.02)

Her Majesty's tribunal did not acknowledge my letter - and took no action.

-----

(2)- My 18.12.02 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart:

"At the date of writing, I have not received any of the items I requested in my submission to your Tribunal of 25 November."

"Even if the documents were to arrive later on this week, due to the holiday period - I am not unable to meet the 7 January deadline set by your Tribunal."

He did not acknowledge my letter - and took no action.

-----

(3)- My 12.01.03 to J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS (above, # 1.4), cc'd Martin Russell Jones:

"Unfortunately, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) has still not, as of 12 January 2003, provided me with copies of any of the detailed estimates of the independent contractors it claims have tendered to carry out the remedies specified in the Schedule of Condition issued by Brian Gale Associates on 20 February 2002."

"None of the documents furnished by MRJ to date contains detailed third-party costings (i.e. on a remedy-by-remedy basis, in the format of the schedule of condition) that would enable an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the costs associated with each remedy and, thus, of the total charges to be paid."

"As a result, I am unable to 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 am, therefore, politely requesting that the 5 February trial be postponed until after my expert review has been carried out which, I am sure you will appreciate, can only be started once MRJ makes the above documents available."

"To enable this matter to reach a just conclusion, I urge you to compel MRJ to make these documents available with immediate effect."

Concurrently, I sent a similar 12.01.03 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ - on which I copied J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS.

It continued to be abundantly clear that Her Majesty's London tribunal had ears and eyes only for the lies of one of its RICS clan member, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ and, in particular, her client, 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky.

Indeed, following my above 12 Jan 03 letters, Hathaway = Ladsky sent a 20.01.03 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart, falsely claiming that I had been provided with the information. (Hathaway's lies = Ladsky's lies were exposed during the hearing - see # 3, below).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(2.2)- Opting to 'believe' the blatant lie by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, and Brian Gale, MRICS = Andrew Ladsky that "[I] had been supplied with the necessary information"...

- in breach of my statutory rights, rights under my Lease, and its own rule on "non-compliance" - Her Majesty's London tribunal refused my 12.01.03 request for a postponement of the 5 Feb 05 hearing.

 

(1) The 1st time that Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, falsely claimed that I (and fellow leaseholders) had been supplied with the necessary information is recorded in a 08.10.02 'Log of telephone conversation', in which the Clerk, David Stewart, recorded the main points of a conversation he had with her:

"To: Joan Hathaway, From: "David Stewart (LVT):

Ms Hathaway confirmed that the Leaseholders have already been served with copies of the estimate and specification."  

 

(2)- It was followed by a repeat of the lie, this time by Brian Gale, MRICS, in his 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, under pt 4.01(3) - in 'response' to my 25.11.02 letter (# 2.1,above):

"Copies of the Schedule of Condition, the Specification and Tender Documents and final detailed costing by Killby& Gayford have been provided in triplicate to MRJ and additional copies provided (at a charge) to individual Lessees when requested."

"I understand that 1 set of these documents were left with the Porter for ease of reference and access to all Lessees."

"the Specification and Tender were made available from the end of July 2002 as soon as the Section 19 Notice [NB: does not qualify as one] was served on the Lessees."

 

(3)- Note that Brian Gale, MRICS, continued to make this claim - before the 1st day of the substantive hearings - under para.2.04 of his 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - although, by then, he was hedging his bet:

"...the un-priced or priced [!!!] Specification has been freely available for all lessees to view, they had, through the middle to latter part of 2002, been deposited at the porters desk in the entrance, freely available for all Lessees to view."

(NB: For more of Brian Gale, MRICS 's lies in his report about the leaseholders being supplied with "the vital information", see Gale # 2).

 

(4)- Following my letters (# 2.1, above), in 'her' (given the style = Rachman Andrew David Ladsky's) 20.01.03 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart, 'Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ', wrote, among others:

"We would inform you that our clients [1] object to the delay."

"The deadline for the residents to submit their Experts' reports was 7th January 2003 [2] but this letter was not sent until 12th January 2003." (3)

"The documents that Miss Dit-Rawé requested have been available in the porter's room since the original notice was served and she has in fact inspected them" (4)

"She has been offered her own copies of the schedule of condition and the specification on the same basis as the other lessees, some of which took up the option, i.e. on payment of photocopy charges" (4)

"We also arranged a meeting of the lessees in November to discuss the disputed items and Ms Rawé declined to attend. At that meeting various points were discussed and those lessees who wanted a copy of the detailed breakdown of the estimate bought one at that meeting." (5)

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" (6)

(1)- "our clients" - Note the plural intended to mislead = Ladsky.

(2)- "7th January 2003 deadline for residents" - The 29.10.02 Directions; see # 2.1, above, for extracts.

(3)- "[my] letter was not sent until 12th January 2003"

I draw your attention to the fact that my 12 Jan 03 letter to Her Majesty's tribunal was the 3rd time, over a 2-month period, that I was reporting that Hathaway had not supplied me with the information I required (# 2.1, above)...

... - and that it took no action.

(4)- "[I was] offered [my] own copies of the schedule of condition and the specification"

Unusable because, as was confirmed later - by the tribunal (Brian Gale, MRICS, # 6):

  • "lack of detail";
  • "works not clearly identified, not measured, not specified";
  • "there was duplication";
  • "impossible to judge the standard to be achieved";
  • "could not determine that costs were reasonable";
  • "could not compare tenders", etc.

The 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report from Brian Gale, MRICS, to the tribunal, was delivered to me post 18 Dec 02 - having ensured that I had left the country for the Christmas break - and, therefore, after the deadline set by the tribunal in its 29.10.02 directions. (As can be seen from the envelop at the back of the report, the stamp was not franked).

A partially priced so-called 'specification' (Gale # 6) was eventually hand-delivered to my door... just 36 hours before the 5th Feb 03 hearing! - as I reported e.g. under paras 12 and 30 of my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (page: 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement # 2).

(NB: This is a typical trick used by criminal landlords e.g. Comment # 24). Hence, 7 months after the 15.07.02 demand (17.07.02 in relation to me) was sent (Overview # 1).

As I reported under para.12 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement, 6 times, over a 6-month period, I had asked for a copy of the priced specification (and listed the letters).

Of course, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, had taken step to capitalise on her 'preferred status' in Her Majesty's tribunal, by supplying it with a copy of Brian Gale's 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report before 1st December...

...- as indicated by Hathaway's 01.12.02 fax to the London tribunal:

"I understand you have already received our experts report direct"

- and thereby making it easier for her to brand me a liar (# 3, below).

(5)- "November meeting ; availability of detailed breakdown of the estimates" - In addition to my comments, under # 4, above...

... As I reported under e.g. paras 9, 10 and 11 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement: in addition to claiming to have provided "the supporting evidence" - 4 months after sending the demand:

those who attended the November meeting, reported that they had not been provided with a detailed costing - and ended-up, 2 weeks later, having the 29.11.02 claim filed against them (WLCC # 1).

(6)- "we would obviously have assisted Miss Dit-Rawé's experts in order to bring this matter to a close"

Look at e.g. the Overview, including its response (# 6) to my attempting to put an end to the matter - by paying monies I did not legally owe (# 3) ; snapshot of their letters, under 'Major Works' - Note ; Extortion, etc., etc., etc....

...- for how this thoroughly evil, criminal vermin "obviously assists in order to bring matters to a close". (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4))

 

To further ensure that he would nail me at the 5 Feb 03 hearing, in his above 20.01.03 letter, Ladsky also stated:

"The work is becoming more urgent [1] as there are continuing problems with the roof, lift and boiler." (2)

"Due to the delay in implementing them the problem with the roof is now deteriorating and causing substantial damage to the top flats." (3)

(1)- As can be seen from e.g. the extracts of letters, under 'Major works' - Note, the "need for the works", had been described as "urgent" 1 year previously, in Hathaway's 30.01.02 e-mail to me.

And, "the works" were "so urgent" that they were only started 1 year and 8 months later, in Sep 04 (see 'Major works') - once Ladsky had secured payment from the last valiant leaseholder on the 29 Nov 02 claim (Overview # 5).

(2)- As to "the boiler", it appears to have finally been replaced in May-Jun 14 i.e. 12 years later - thereby providing further proof of the fraud that took place (Notices # 6) - while, of course, not stopping the mafia from asking for yet more money!

(3)- In fact, as detailed in 'Major works' (and summarised at the top of the page), as soon as the works started, the roof was demolished entirely - in order to build a penthouse - as per the Planning applications that had been filed initially on 18.09.98 and again on 13.11.01.

That was the "urgency"! Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ's 'Lord and Master' Andrew David Ladsky had been planning this from the time he took over the headlease in 1996 / the freehold in 1997 - and was in a hurry to make his multi-million £ jackpot.

(See 'Major works # 2', for the other lies by the Ladsky gang of racketeers, about the penthouse, ...

...and below, # 5.4, for snapshots of its other lies to the tribunal).

IN SPITE of:

  • (1)- my above 3 letters, yet again, stating that I had not been supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled, and needed to challenge the 07.08.02 application (added to those of my fellow leaseholders who were saying the same thing: # 1.4, above) - therefore leading me to request a postponement of the 5 Feb 03 hearing UNTIL I was provided with the information;

...- Her Majesty's London tribunal not only failed - yet again - to take action...

...- it refused my 12.01.03 request (# 2.1, above)

(NOTE also, under # 1.2, above, that HM's London tribunal had refused to send the application documents to a solicitor representing one (or more) of my fellow leaseholders).

Anybody wants to argue me that ALL of that mafia was not colluding and conspiring?

It was criminal psychological harassment, and repeated breaches of s.7(3A) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - by aiding and abetting the harassment by the Ladsky gang of racketeers = criminal offences.

(See # 5.4, below, for a summary of the lies by the Ladsky gang of racketeers).

(NB: A repeat of the same mantra, that 'only the landlord and his party tell the truth', took place the following year with Kensington & Chelsea housing: # (2.4) , # (2.6)).

 

(1)- In doing this it (among others) endorsed the breach of:

(1)- my statutory rights under ss 20(3)(b) and 20(4) of the L&T Act 1985;

(2)- rights under my Lease;

and, furthermore...

 

...(2)- in doing this, it also ignored its own rule - stated at the bottom of its 29.10.02 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 and the required notice in accordance with Regulation 4B of the Rent Assessment Committee (England and Wales) (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) Regulation 1993 is hereby given."

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(2.3)- Causing me an unbelievable amount of torment, anguish and distress (added to the other actions by Rachman Andrew Ladsky) - my being treated by Her Majesty's tribunal as a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights, there to be used and abused - at will - and, as a liar - forced me to employ (in a hurry) - at very great costs - a surveyor, solicitor and barrister.

(NB: Includes previous section # 8.1.3)

Needless to say that Her Majesty's London tribunal's refusal of my 12.01.03 - legitimate - request for a postponement of the 5 Feb 03 hearing (# 2.1, above) caused me an unbelievable amount of torment, anguish and distress (My Diary 17 Jan 03 ; 23 Jan 03, End Jan 03, 30 Jan 03, including events on 5 Feb 03).

(Note that, at the time, the criminal psychological harassment by HM's tribunal was compounded by other events / actions also instigated by the vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky:

My being treated by Her Majesty's tribunal as a non-entity, who does not have the right to have rights, there to be used and abused - at will, as well as, very clearly, a liar - led me to conclude by early Jan 03 that I had to employ a surveyor, a solicitor and barrister – FAST!

(NB: Note that the treatment by HM's tribunal was a continuation of the treatment I had received from Her Majesty's Kensington and Chelsea police from early 2002 - the latter marking the start of the standard treatment I have - and continue to receive - wherever I have turned to for help in this island-Kingdom - that claims to have "a long and exemplary record on human rights": Overview # 19).

(See below, # 4.3, for the huge amount of costs I was forced to incur - IN VAIN!)

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

 

(3)- At the 5 Feb 03 hearing, exposure, by my counsel, of the lies from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ (= Andrew Ladsky) - and the evident complicity with the Clerk, David Stewart - finally - led Her Majesty's London tribunal to agree to a postponement of the substantive hearings "in the interests of justice".

As detailed under # 2.1, above, I sent a 12.01.03 letter to the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' Chair, J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, (# 1.4, above) - requesting a postponement of the 5 Feb 03 hearing, ...

...because Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ = Andrew David Ladsky had - in breach of the tribunal's directions (# 2.1, above) - failed to supply me with the information to which I was legally entitled, and needed to challenge the 07.08.02 application (Intro, above).

I had also sent a similar 12.01.03 letter to Hathaway. (Both, Sharma and Hathaway were copied, respectively, on my letters).

As I reported in My Diary at the time, my turning-up with a small army of advisors (# 2.3, above) was very clearly not expected - by all - including Her Majesty's London tribunal's Panel.

The looks exchanged between the Chair of the Panel, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, and the Ladsky gang of racketeers were very telling. The beginning of the hearing was decidedly 'frosty'.

During the hearing, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, asserted vehemently, 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" .  

Hathaway then contradicted herself in reply 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 para.14 of the tribunal's 17.06.03 so-called 'determination':

"Ms Hathaway (of Martin Russell Jones), on behalf of the Applicant, resisted the application for an adjournment." [NB: 'Her' 20.01.03 letter (# 2.1, above)]

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."

 

In actual fact, as I report, above, under # 2.2, comment # 4, the partially priced so-called 'specification' (Gale # 6) - was delivered to me only 36 hours before the 5 Feb 03 hearing (e.g. paras 12 & 30 of my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (my 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 2).

Hence, 7 months after the original demand of 17.07.02.

Consider that in the light of the following:

(1)- The assertions, under # 2.2, above, made to the tribunal 'by' 'Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ', and Brian Gale, MRICS = Andrew David Ladsky.

(2)- The letters 'Joan Hathaway, MRICS = Andrew Ladsky - had written over the previous 4 months, affirming categorically that I (and fellow 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 e.g.

'Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ' = Andrew Ladsky's 16.12.02 letter (in response to mine of 25.11.02 to the tribunal (# 2.1, above))

"We have, on a number of occasions, provided you with the information that you have required. (1)

We cannot, therefore, understand why you should be asserting that you cannot ascertain what the works consist of."

"...we and our Clients cannot help but draw the inevitable conclusion that the correspondence in which you are consistently latterly engaging is for the purposes of avoiding the perfectly reasonable demand for payment of the sum due to refurbish the building." (2)

"We are always happy to deal with any tenant's reasonable and proper requests..." (1)

My overall comment is: lying, evil, criminal vermin (*).

And YES: That's the vermin (*) the British State - and others with its endorsement - actively assist and protect.

(*) I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)

(1)- "We have on a number of occasions provided you with the information"

Note that in total, as I reported under para.12 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement - between Aug 02 and Jan 03 I had sent 6 letters to Hathaway asking for a copy of the priced specifications (and listed them).

(2)- "the objective of [my] correspondence is to avoid paying the perfectly reasonable demand" - Contrast this claim with the subsequent outcome of the hearings: # 4.1, below.

= Another one of many defamatory claims made against me by Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

Of course, Ladsky's counsel, Warwick, regurgitated the same thing during the substantive hearings (# 5.4(4), below).

 

In addition to exposing the lie by Hathaway - my counsel pointed out that, in sending me a copy of the 07.08.02 application, Her Majesty's London tribunal had not included any of the supporting enclosures (# 1.3, above).

The Chair, 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" (*)

(*) I captured this under para.14 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement.

As captured under # 1.2, above, Her Majesty's London tribunal also refused to supply a solicitor who was representing one or more of my fellow leaseholders, with a copy of the application documents.

(Of course, while the tribunal was not copying the leaseholders with documents from the gang of racketeers, it meticulously ensured that the 'brother', 'Dear Mr Ladsky' received a copy of ALL that was sent by the leaseholders).

The outcome was a postponement of the 1st day of the substantive hearing to 13.03.03 - giving the reason stated under para.16 of the 17.06.03 tribunal report (LVT/SC/007/120/02)

"In the interests of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment."

 

WHY had there not been "justice" before?

Over a 4-month period, I had sent 4 letters to Her Majesty's London tribunal (# 1.4 and # 2.1, above),

Added to those of my fellow leaseholders (# 1.4, above),

Added to our repeating it at the 29 Oct 10 pre-trial 'hearing' (# 1.4, above):

We had not been supplied with the information to which we were legally entitled - and needed to challenge the Application.

WHY was it necessary for me to employ (at very great costs (# 4.3, below)), a barrister (plus a solicitor) to say what I had already communicated to the tribunal - on many occasions?

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

 

(4)- The outcome of Her Majesty's London tribunal's 17.07.03 so-called 'determination' was a reduction of nearly 70% in the £736,207 (US$1.3m) global sum demanded - based on my (RICS) surveyor's assessment as, 'very conveniently' for 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky, Her Majesty's tribunal failed to perform its legal remit.

 

(4.1)- Outcome of the findings from the hearings: a £500,000 (US$882,000) reduction in the global sum demanded of £736,207 (US$1.3m)...

...- thereby highlighting the very blatant lies by Brian Gale, MRICS, in his "Expert Witness" reports to the tribunal, and 'condition survey'.

The following is based on the 31.07.03 assessment by my Chartered Surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners, member of the RICS (to which I add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity)...

... - because, as discussed under # 4.2, below, the members of Her Majesty's London tribunal Panel: 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(2B) of the L&T Act 1985 - "to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded".

To those who will automatically opt to discredit my surveyor's assessment - because he worked for me (and, because, 'of course', 'only the landlord and his party tell the truth' (# 5.4, below') (*) - I highlight the following:

1

4 months after the tribunal issued its 17.06.03 report, Andrew David Ladsky made me a 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) (WLCC # 12)...

... - amounting to a reduction of £8,050 (US$14,200), relative to the original 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (Overview # 1) - and repeated in the 29.11.02 claim form and Particulars (WLCC # 1 ; Overview # 3).

(For the reasons discussed under WLCC # 12(2), I accepted 'the offer' in spite of the fact that I did not owe this amount either).

2

Andrew Ladsky's admission to the police - that:

This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly(An understatement).

3

The comment, reported by Lisa McLean, PSB, in her 09.04.03 letter to my then solicitors, from another surveyor - who had not been supplied with key documents to which my surveyor had had access to, as a result of the hearings (*):

"...we have spoken to a Surveyor whom we had instructed to attend the premises.

His preliminary view is that the service charges seem high and also that it would appear that the top floor flats are being enlarged.

Clearly if this is the case that is improvement rather than just repair."

(*) Note that, as reported under # 1.2, above, the tribunal had refused to send McLean the application documents.

4

From McLean's 23.06.03 letter, also to my then solicitors:

"There would seem to be a fairly substantial reduction in the sums claimed by the applicant as well as the clear indication by the Tribunal that they think the reserve fund should be used at least in part to fund some of the works making a further reduction in the sums due from the lessees."

(*) A standard position taken in relation to ' the little people' e.g. one year after the tribunal adopted this mantra (# 2.2, above), Kensington & Chelsea housing did the same thing: # (2.4) , # (2.6)).

The total sum demanded in the 07.08.02 application was £736,207 (US$1.3m) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and management fees of 11%) (Application, above).

Disallowed / breach

Amount

% of global sum

"Because improvements" (1)

£169,498 (US$298,900) (£129,958 (US$229,200) excl. VAT and "management fees")

23%

"Could not make a determination due to lack of specification" (1)

£188,784 (US$332,900) (£144,745 (US$255,200) excl. VAT and fees)

25.6%

Considering the covenant in the lease (para.59), as well as RICS' best practice (para.62) - "opinion that the reserve fund should be used as contribution" (2)

'Said' to contain £141,977 (US$250,400)

19.3%

(1)- See Brian Gale, MRICS, # 6 for extracts from the tribunal's 17.06.03 report.

 

(2)- Although the tribunal said to not have the jurisdiction to force 'SS' to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2(2)(e) of the lease (captured under para.59 of its 17.06.03 report), under para.62, the tribunal quoted from the RICS Code. While, under para.63, argued 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 07.06.01 letter to "All Lessees" from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then 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." (1)  

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." (2)

(1)- As noted under the Intro, above, 6 months later, in her 21.12.01 letter, Hathaway wrote: "Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

(2)- As discussed under West London County Court # 12, in his 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer' to me, Ladsky took the amount of the contingency fund into account - because, among others, I had referred to (and supplied a copy) of the above 07.06.01 letter with my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (my 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat # 2).

BUT: as discussed under WLCC # 6 - did not do the same thing with my fellow leaseholders - as the majority were bullied and terrorised into paying the full amount originally demanded.

(Repeating my above comment, # 2): Note that Rachman Andrew Ladsky - himself - admitted to the police - that: This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly”.

How does Ladsky explain that v. the amount that was paid by the leaseholders of the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - and kept? (WLCC # 6 ; 29.08.06 letter to me from the ICAEW ; Pridie Brewster # 18).

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

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

 

Hence, taking the contingency fund into account - left an amount that 'could' be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original £736,207 (US$1.3m) demanded in the 07.08.02 application.

In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered "reasonable".

'Could' be charged - as, in the end, the Ladsky gang of racketeers opted to ignore the tribunal's 'very inconvenient' findings, and appointed a new contractor, Mansell - in breach of consultation procedures...

- which meant that the maximum that could be asked of each apartment was £250 (US$440) - see Overview # 5 and Note 2; (see also Extortion).

These findings demonstrated the very blatant lies and intended fraud by Brian Gale, MRICS = his client Andrew Ladsky,...

in 'his' "Expert Witness" reports of 13.12.02 and 24.02.03 to the tribunal, as well as 20.02.02 'condition survey'...for which he had 'supporting photographs': see Gale # 7.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(4.2)- In breach of Section 19(2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Her Majesty's London tribunal Panel failed to perform its legal remit - by not including, in its 17.06.03 report, a summary of the impact of its findings on "the reasonableness of the global sum demanded".

(NB: Includes previous section # 6)

Her Majesty's tribunal's 17.06.03 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', the then Martin Russell Jones and Brian Gale, MRICS, in its criticisms.

The report accurately captures evidence (e.g. truly reflecting what Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, Mr Jones and Brian Gale, MRICS, said; reproducing the contents of a 28 Apr 03 letter received by the tribunal from Andrew Ladsky (para.50). 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, to be of assistance to 'SS' = 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky - at the the 11th hour, Her Majesty's tribunal's Panel: the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP; Mr J Humphrys, FRICS ; Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb...

- failed to perform its legal remit - under s.19(2B) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - by not including a summary of the impact of its findings on "the reasonableness of the global sum demanded"...

...(and, as discussed under # 7, below, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, refused my requests to include a summary).

The Panel's failure to perform its legal remit was extremely helpful to 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky - as the documents to which the leaseholders were legally entitled were only issued during the 3-day hearings - thereby making it impossible to figure out the true outcome...

...- leading them to be very seriously ripped-off - due to the concurrent collusion and conspiring with West London County Court (WLCC # 6).

PROOF that Her Majesty's tribunal, of course, understood it to be its remit:

(1)- In its 17.06.03 report:

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

"45. The question for the tribunal is not solely whether costs are reasonable, but whether they would be reasonably incurred..."

 

(2)- By J.C. Sharma JP, FRICS, in his 29.10.02 pre-trial directions (# 1.4, above):

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

 

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

"It is not the duty of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant"

 

Other evidence - including from the Ladsky gang:

Letter of 09.04.03 from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, to my then solicitors (1st referred to, under # 1.2, above) - in which she captured a voice message from the Clerk, David Stewart:

"I have had an opportunity of speaking to the chairperson of the tribunal and she informs me that what the tribunal is looking to determine is the reasonableness of the global figure that's attributable to the whole block"

 

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

"We are mindful of the fact that the LVT was, in fact, in a position to make a determination of the sums that it considered to be reasonable based on the evidence that it received at various hearings"

 

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

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

 

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

"the Chairman of the tribunal's instructions where he indicated that the tribunal was concerned with the reasonableness of service charges as set out in Section 19 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985"

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(4.3)- Failure by Her Majesty's London tribunal to perform its legal remit under Section 19(2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (above), meant that I ended-up with a deliberately near-useless17.06.03 report, that cost me £30,000 (US$53,000) of my very-hard-earned life-savings...

...- to challenge a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400)...

... - report which Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers then ignored - because the findings were not to 'his liking'.

Understandably, in the light of the above's tribunal' remit (# 4.2), when I challenged 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky's 07.08.02 application (Intro, above) in Her Majesty's London tribunal - I thought I would end-up with a decision.

This is what I was led to believe.

Instead, this hellhole, masonic, kangaroo tribunal, ensured that I ended-up with a deliberately near useless report (*) that cost me £30,000 (US$53,000), from my very-hard-earned life savings:

  • (1)- £28,000 (US$49,400) (cost of my surveyor, solicitor and barrister for the hearings);
  • (2)- a further £1,800 (US$3,200) to my surveyor to determine the impact of the 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' on the global sum demanded of £736,200 (US$1.3m) in the 15.07.02 demand (Overview # 1); as well as...
  • (3)- numerous other costs...

...to challenge a fraudulent demand of £14,400 (US$25,400)!!!! (see also WLCC # 12, for Ladsky's subsequent 21.10.03 'Part 36 offer').

(*) See e.g. Overview from # 3, for my subsequent battles

AND - because the tribunal's findings (# 4.1, above) were not to Ladsky's 'liking' i.e. did not fit in with his plan to make a multi-million £ jackpot at the cost of the leaseholders (Overview Note 2)...

- the Ladsky gang of racketeers opted to ignore them, (and appointed a new contractor, Mansell - in breach of consultation procedures - which meant that the maximum that could be asked of each apartment was £250 (US$440) - see Overview # 5 ; also Extortion).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

 

(5)- In spite of knowing that it had determined that £500,000 (US$882,000) out of the £736,200 (US$1.3m) demanded was "unreasonable", Her Majesty's London tribunal nonetheless agreed to Andrew Ladsky's request for a hearing of my 10.08.03 20C Application.

Then, they ALL took steps to make me abandon my Application, while Her Majesty's London tribunal turned a blind eye to all the lies by the Ladsky gang.

(NB: Includes the previous section # 9)

(5.1)- Unbelievably - considering that Her Majesty's London tribunal hearings had resulted in finding that £500,000 (US$882,000) of the £736,200 (US$1.3m) demanded (Intro, above) was "unreasonable" (# 4.1, above),...

'the Clerk, David Stewart' = 'the Brotherhood', agreed to 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky' request for a hearing of my 10.08.03 20C Application.

In his 07.04.03 letter, my then solicitor informed Her Majesty's London tribunal 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 07.04.03, was sent to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ)

Following on from my then solicitors' above letter, in my 30.07.03 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 [# 4.1, above], 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 01.08.03 reply to my above letter, from Sheila Sanz, Clerk to the Tribunal, was to send me a 20C application form to complete.

I returned my 10.08.03 20C Application form to Sheila Sanz, with a letter dated 12.08.03, 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 31.07.03 assessment of the 17.06.03 so-called ‘determination’ – the sums disallowed by the tribunal - 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 14.08.03:

"A copy has been sent to the respondent and they have been invited to submit their comments on this application by 28 August 2003."

To be expected, as this is the same David Stewart who:

  • (1)- ignored my letter that 'Steel Services' was a non-existent company, and could not therefore file an application (# 01, above);
  • (2)- sent me the equivalent of a 'Get lost!' to my letter informing the tribunal that 'Steel Services' (=Ladsky) was committing an abuse of process (# 02, above);
  • (4)- opted to copy only "some" of the 'privileged' few he had informed, on the supporting documents to the application (# 1.3, above) - finally admitting, when challenged at the 5 Feb 03 hearing, that he had done that (# 3, above);
  • (5)- at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial hearing, took no action when we, leaseholders, were all clamouring for a copy of the documents (# 1.4, above).

It was followed by:

(1)- A 22.08.03 letter 'from' Ayesha Salim, CKFT, stating, among others:

"We would ask you to confirm that the application [above] will be dealt with a hearing, rather than on paper"

Salim copied me on this letter, in her letter of 22.08.03.

Salim = Ladsky did this because they had known from the last day of the substantive hearings, 4 months previously - that it would be granted (see # 5.2, below).

(2)- A 28.08.03 letter 'from' Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ, stating, among others:

"we would confirm that our client does require an oral hearing as advised at the original LVT hearing"

 

Unsurprisingly – the Clerk, David Stewart continued to oblige his masters, 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky - et.al. in 'the Brotherhood' - by stating, in 'his' 29.08.03 letter:

"The hearing of the application has been scheduled for 9:45 am on 8 October 2003"

This decision was absolutely - unbelievable - given that the impact of Her Majesty's London tribunal's own findings was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) in the global sum demanded (incl. contingency fund), or nearly 70% (# 4, above).

If this does not qualify as 'siding with a criminal landlord and his gang of racketeers' : what does?

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(5.2)- In fact, this absolutely outrageous decision had been taken - behind closed doors, in consultation with 'the Brotherhood' - when Her Majesty's London tribunal's Chair of the Panel, Mrs J Goulden JP, called "a recess" on the last day of the substantive hearings - and relied on my being deterred by the additional costs.

It was followed by a cover-up by Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs.

On the last day of the substantive hearings, my Counsel reminded the Panel of the above, 07.04.03 letter from my solicitor, that I intended to file a 20C application to prevent SS =Andrew Ladsky, from charging his tribunal-related costs to the Jefferson House leaseholders.

To this, Ladsky's counsel, Warwick (see # 5.4(3), below, for his opening statement about me), replied:

"My client will not charge Ms K-Dit-Rawé for costs, but intends to charge the other residents"

(NB: As I reported in my (below) 06.09.03 letter to Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs).

Unbelievable - but to be expected from Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

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 had called - she declared,

"This will require another day of hearing" .

She then turned to my Counsel and said,

"How does your client feel about this?"  

(NB: I reported this in my (below) 06.09.03 letter to Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs).

This is absolutely outrageous - given that the impact of Her Majesty's London tribunal Panel's own findings was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882k) (incl. contingency fund), in the global sum demanded of £736,200 (USS1.3m), or nearly 70% (# 4, above).

Hence: Mrs J Goulden JP knew that the 'service charge' demand was highly fraudulent - among others, a breach of the Theft Act - s. 17 False accounting.

With 'whom' did Mrs Goulden "check on this" during the recess - which she called when this was raised?

Somebody in 'the Brotherhood' - as well as with the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother': Andrew Ladsky?

The sine qua none of the Business model: the costs!

The blatant use of fear and other criminal psychological harassment tactics to scare the lessees by stating that a hearing will be necessary / agreeing to a landlord's request for a hearing.

The tribunal knew that, by then, I had already spent in excess of £25,000 (US$44,000) - and it also knew that I was on a salary). (My letter 30.03.03 letter to the tribunal).

= The corrupt lapdogs playing the criminal landlord's hand.

From that point on, Ayesha Salim, CKFT = Ladsky knew that their request, made 4 months later (# 5.1, above) for a hearing of my application - would be granted.

What a colluding mafia! The wonders of 'the Brotherhood' - in very sick "corrupt Britain"!

•  They gamble on the fact that individuals such as myself will hesitate to challenge them because they cannot recoup their costs (My Diary 2011 Introduction: 1st , 2nd).

•  To add to the scare tactics: para.6 of Her Majesty's London tribunal's 29.10.02 pre-trial directions:

"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 my fellow leaseholders - added to the other factors / events, listed, above, under # 1.2.

And if the lessee takes-up the challenge? Who cares! The taxpayer picks-up the cost of the tribunals!

(Same attitude when processing court claims that are known - from the start - to be fraudulent e.g. the 29 Nov 02 claim (Overview # 3), and 27 Feb 07 claim (Overview # 11)).

In my 06.09.03 letter to Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs (other extracts from my letter, under # 7, below), I wrote:

"B. Unbelievably, your Tribunal has agreed to the Applicant’s request for a hearing in relation to my 20C order application.

On the last day of the hearing my Counsel told the Tribunal I requested that the landlord be prevented from putting their costs on the service charge, Mr Ladsky’s Counsel replied “my client will not charge Ms K-Dit-Rawé for costs, but intends to charge the other residents(1).

At this point, the Chair of the Panel said: “Oh well I don’t know, I am not sure, I’ll have to check on this”. After the recess she declares: “This will require another day of hearing”. She then turned to my Counsel and said: “How does your client feel about this?(2)

Given all the evidence the Panel had been presented with, I was in a state of disbelief. Nonetheless, as the Tribunal’s decision would be issued a few weeks later, there was no point arguing on this at the time.

But, for the Tribunal to now consent to CKFT’s request “…we would also ask you to confirm that the application will be dealt with at a hearing, rather than on paper” is absolutely beyond belief given the Tribunal’s findings."

(1) see above ; (2) see above.

In her 12.09.03 'reply', McGrath claimed:

"So far as the agreement to hold a hearing in relation to your section 20C application is concerned, this is a matter for which the tribunal has no discretion. [1] The regulations make no provision for applications to be decided on consideration of documents alone without the consent of both parties." (2)

(1)- "the tribunal has no discretion" - Really? How to explain what took place then (above)?

(2)- The tribunal paying attention to "the regulations" - That was a first! - AS e.g.

  • it equally ignored its power about "vexatious applications" - in the face of the outrageous lies by the Ladsky gang of racketeers (# 5.4, below)...

...as well as committing numerous other breaches of the law - as summarised above.

I repeat: What a colluding mafia! The wonders of 'the Brotherhood' - in very sick "corrupt Britain"!

But then, Andrew David Ladsky had told me before the start of the hearings: "Better luck next time!"

(See # 7, below, for how Siobhan McGrath continued to collude with Ladsky).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(5.3)- Seeing that their reliance on 'the costs' (above) was not deterring me, to make abandon my 10.08.03 20C Application (# 5.1, above), 'my advisors' and the Ladsky gang of racketeers colluded and conspired in subjecting me to horrendous criminal psychological harassment tactics...

- resulting in my caving in, and ending-up with a meaningless 'consent order' from the Ladsky gang.

Following my filing a 10.08.03 20C Application (# 5.1, above) - to make me abandon my Application, I was subjected to the most horrendous hell from:

From (continuing) to subject me to truly horrendous criminal psychological harassment tactics, they succeeded in making me abandon my 20C Application.

In her 'attendance note' of 08.10.03, Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, wrote that "[she had been] in contact with the LVT to ask when we would receive the sealed consent order".

McLean then supplied me with a 03.10.03 'consent order' faxed to her by the then Martin Russell Jones - endorsed by the then MRJ and Piper Smith Basham, stating:

Consent Order between “Miss N K-Dit-Rawé, Applicant, and Steel Services Ltd, Respondent

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 [Intro, above] 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

(NB: I was not provided with evidence that it had been endorsed by the tribunal...because it had not been. This was a con concocted by the evil mafia).

Hence: continuing with the Ladsky gang illegal treatment of the leaseholders (Warwick's comment, # 5.2, above) and, with 'my advisors' also colluding!

Needless to say that this 'consent order' has been 'very conveniently' ignored ever since. (See Overview # 11 for another fraudulent claim filed against me by the Rachman Ladsky gang ; also covered under e.g. Extortion ; kangaroo courts).

And of course, needless to say, as well, that legal fees were put on the service charge for Jefferson House amounting to:

•  £34,600 (US$61,000) in 2003 (see 31.12.03 'accounts')

•  £14,211 (US$25,200) in 2004 (see 31.12.04 'accounts')

(NB: Some of these fees will also have some associated with the fraudulent 29.11.02 claim, ref. WL203537, filed in West London County Court by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT - see Overview # 3).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(5.4)- Not only did Her Majesty's London tribunal turn a blind eye to the 'hit-you-in-the-face' massive lies - it identified from its own findings (# 4.1, above)...

- it also (of course) turned a blind eye to the numerous other lies by the Andrew David Ladsky gang of racketeers.

(NB: Includes previous section # 10.4)

(1)- LIES BY Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then MRJ - Andrew David Ladsky

  • In the 7 Aug 02 application, in addition to claiming that "the demand [was] reasonable", the equally false claim that the lease supplied was "representative of all the leases" (# 1.3, above).
  • In the 20.01.03 letter to the Clerk, David Stewart, in which they repeated the same thing, claiming that 'I had been supplied with the information', as well as lied about the nature of the works (# 2.2., above).
  • In Hathaway's claim (# 3, above) during the 5 Feb 03 hearing, when she continued to maintain that I had been supplied with the required information.
  • "A planning application was obtained, but it was subsequently found that the scheme was not a viable proposition; there are no plans to build a penthouse at the property" (# 2.2, above, for brief evidence of the lie).

(2)- LIES BY Brian Gale, MRICS - Andrew David Ladsky

Also in the light of the evidence, discussed briefly, under # 2.2, above.

  • His 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report, section 4 - 1.4: " I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat" (Gale # 7)
  • His 24.02.03 "Expert Witness", under para.2.04: "...the un-priced or priced Specification has been freely available for all lessees to view" (Gale # 2)...

(3)- LIES BY Andrew David Ladsky

  • In his 28 Apr 03 letter to the Tribunal (para.50 of the 17.06.03 report, LVT/SC/007/120/02), claiming that I was "a lone tenant objecting to the works", and that "31 or 32 of the 35 tenants have paid their contribution towards the major works. They are, therefore, in agreement with both the scope and cost of the proposed refurbishment

As evidenced by:

- these claims were very clearly not true.

(4)- LIE BY Mr Warwick - Andrew David Ladsky

On the first day of the substantive hearings, on 13 Mar 03, the opening statement from Rachman Ladsky's counsel, Warwick, was:

"the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" 

Note that Warwick was regurgitating what Ladsky had told him e.g. 16.12.02 letter, 3 months previously (# 3, above).

Also, that one month after the letter, Ladsky had also fed the defamatory assertion to his henchmen in Kensington police, who dutifully captured it in their so-called "crime report" against me: police # 2 - KP# 6.

Damn right I was not going to pay £14,400 (US$25,400) without justification (Overview # 1). These people's arrogant, self-belief in some 'divine right' to rip-off leaseholders is absolutely breathtaking.

Of course, Warwick's objective was to portray me - falsely - as an individual who defaults on her contractual obligations - thereby defaming my name, character and reputation.

What else can you expect from somebody prepared to work for Rachman Ladsky? He has to fit in with the rest of the gang of racketeers.

(NB: Note that Ladsky's henchmen in Her Majesty's Kensington police subsequently ensured that this label was captured in its so-called "crime reports" - and distributed far and wide.

AND, Ladsky's other henchmen in: (1)- the police (Overview # 18.1); (2)- the judiciary (Overview # 18.2) ; (3)- the European Court of Human Rights (Overview # 18.3 , # 18.4 and # 18.5) - have ALL ensured that this libellous label remains attached to my name).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(6) (Moved to # 4.2, above)

 

(7) Continuing (# 5.2, above) to collude with 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs - twice refused my request that Her Majesty's London tribunal performs its legal remit under Section 19(2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985...

- by including by a summary of the impact of its findings on "the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" - as did her 'head office', then headed by 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.

(NB: Includes previous section # 10.7)

As detailed under # 4.2, above, above, Her Majesty's London tribunal's Panel, the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb - failed to perform its legal remit - under Section 19(2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985...

... - by not including a summary of the impact of its findings (# 4.1, above) "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,200 [US$1.3m]" (Intro, above)

Typically for this Kingdom (Overview # 7), it led me to go into - a vain - battle to get this very major failing addressed.

As I was battling with Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, over the impact of the tribunal's 17.06.03 report (see CKFT # 3 ; WLCC # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 10),...

...I sent a 06.09.03, letter (other extracts under # 5.1, above) to Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs - stating that I had spoken to a journalist, I wrote, among others:

"A. I need your Tribunal to provide me with a summary of its decision, stating exactly what it has determined and the resulting impact on the global sum demanded.

The report I received from your Tribunal, dated 17 June 2003, does not provide a global view of the impact of its decision on the “global sum demanded” – which is what your Tribunal was asked to do – and is the whole point of going to the LVT: to get a decision."

I followed this by quoting from my surveyor's assessment.

In her 12.09.03 'reply' (other extracts under # 5.1, above) to my above letter, McGrath refused, stating:

"neither I nor the tribunal have the power to re-open a decision." (1)

"The correct course of action for a party who is dissatisfied [2] with an LVT determination is to appeal to the Lands Tribunal" (3)

"On that basis it is not possible to either change the decision or to provide a supplement to it"

"One of the difficulties for LVTs generally has been the limited nature of their jurisdiction under 19(2A) and 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Those sections confine the tribunal's power to deciding the reasonableness of relevant costs incurred, or to incurred in a service charge. The LVT cannot decide liability to pay a service charge.

OVERALL: I conclude that this letter was dictated by 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky and/or others in 'the Brotherhood'.

(1)- Aside from noting that she does not deny my above assertion - the claim of "re-opening a decision" is very clearly a blatant invention by Siobhan McGrath, to justify 'her' 'response'.

Further, in addition to the lie it, equally typically, demonstrates the English public sector's attitude of washing its hand of responsibility.

(2)- I did not say that I was "dissatisfied" = another invention by Siobhan McGrath to justify further her 'response'.

(3)- "to appeal to the Lands Tribunal "

Another typical English public sector 'response' - this one coming under the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' by sending the complainants from pillar to post...

... - and amounting to yet another lie - as an appeal to the (then) Lands Tribunal had to be lodged within 3 weeks of the tribunal issuing its report.

In my 06.10.03 reply, to Siobhan McGrath's above letter, I wrote:

"It seems that my letters may have been confusing. Let me stress that I want from you is:

A SUMMARY OF YOUR 17 JUNE 2003 TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION

i.e. what is it exactly – in monetary terms - that your Tribunal has considered – drawing from the main body of its 17 June 2003 report - to be:

1. Fair and reasonable costs – specifying the monetary value.

2. What costs has it considered to be unreasonable – specifying the monetary value.

3. What other key determinations/ views has it included in the main body of its report.

Providing me with this information:

Falls precisely within the remit’s of your Tribunal: “..the Tribunal’s power to deciding the reasonableness of relevant costs

And does not amount to “re-opening a decision” – rather it is about your Tribunal completing an unfinished report.

As I have explained before, as it stands – without a summary of its determination – your report makes it impossible to determine what costs your Tribunal considers to be fair and reasonable, and those that it considers to be unreasonable."

It led to the 2nd 'NO' from McGrath (1st, above), who stated in her 26.11.03 letter:

"First, the decision of the LVT is contained in the reasoned document dated June 17, 2003" (1)

"...the Tribunal may not reopen or to (sic) revisit their decision.

It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons" (2)

"In order to deal with your complaint more fully however, I have exceptionally asked the Tribunal to consider whether there is any aspect of the proceedings which has not been dealt with in the reasons provided. The Tribunal do not consider this to be the case." (3)

OVERALL: Ditto - As per my above conclusion that this letter was, likewise, dictated by 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky and/or others in 'the Brotherhood'.

(1)- Note how McGrath continues to deliberately fail to address the issue: "[a] reasoned document" is not a summary.

(2) "It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision"

Unbelievable! Contrast that with its statutory remit, under # 4.2, above.

"as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons" - Unbelievable!

Sure! £500,000 (US$882k) worth of additional reasons to my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund / go back to West London County Court for its role in abusing its power, by bullying them and terrorising them into paying monies not due and payable (# 4, above ; WLCC # 6).

But of course, this would have upset her 'Lord and Master', 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Ladsky' and his gang of racketeers’ plan to make us, leaseholders, pay for the construction of the penthouse, addition of 3 other apartments to Jefferson House (e.g. 'Major works'), and associated costs – and thereby 'deprive him' of a multi-million £ jackpot – starting with the sale of the penthouse for £3.9m).

(NB: I did my best to communicate to as many of my fellow leaseholders as I could, the true outcome of the tribunal findings: my 06.07.03 letter)

(3)- "whether there is any aspect of the proceedings which has not been dealt with in the reasons provided"

= Ditto about McGrath - typically - continuing to deliberately fail to address the issue.

Indeed, did I complain about that? NO! My complaint is that - in breach of its statutory duty - Her Majesty's tribunal Panel did not include, in its 17.06.03 report, a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" - as very plainly explained in my letter.

= Typically - a continuation - of the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game'.

 

This was a continuation of Siobhan McGrath personally assisting the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother': Andrew David Ladsky - she had first started doing by turning a blind eye to the abuse of process (# 02, above)...

... (preceded by her tribunal also turning a blind eye to the fact that 'the applicant' 'Steel Services' was a non-existent company (# 01, above).

But then, Andrew Ladsky had told me before the start of the hearings: "Better luck next time!"

 

In between, I received a 06.10.03 letter from John Prescott's Office (on which I had copied my 06.09.03 letter), stating:

"unfortunately, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal is unable to re-open your case".

= Another typical 'Get lost!' - this time from Housing, another State department - also controlled by residential landlords.

And Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, continued assisting the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother': Andrew David Ladsky - in the 17.06.03 report, as well as in a so-called 'summary of the case'...

- BY Her Majesty's London tribunal libellously blaming me for a future (!!!) increase in the cost of 'the works' - and, yet again, refused my request for amendments in the 'summary' placed, since 2003, on its online, public database.

As discussed on the 'Case Summary' page, very conveniently for 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Ladsky', in its 17.06.03 report - HM's London tribunal made an assertion under para.2, about a fictitious"[6%] cost increase" - at a date that was 3 months post signing it - and libellously blamed me for this so-called 'future increase'.

In my 09.11.03 letter to Siobhan McGrath, after reiterating my (above) demand to include a summary in the 17.06.03 report - I wrote:

"I would also appreciate your assistance in ensuring that the summary of the case held on your database is factually accurate.

The current version is particularly misleading. Please see attached what I downloaded from your 'Decisions' database on 7 October, and on which I have annoted my comments, as well as attached supporting documents."

In her 26.11.03 letter (already quoted above) McGrath also continued to play the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' in order to ignore my request - by stating:

"The summary you have referred to in your recent letter was produced by LEASE and not by the LVT" (1)

"The LEASE summaries are maintained on their web-site and not on the Tribunal's web-site." (2)

(1)- I do not buy the claim the the tribunal had "no responsibility" in relation to what is captured on the database - given that the cases are from the tribunals.

Further, both are ultimately part of the same crowd.

(2)- Irrelevant.

On my (above) 09.11.03 letter to McGrath, I had copied Nicholas Kissen, LEASE.

'Of course', likewise, in order to help their 'Lord and Master', 'the brother', 'Dear Mr Ladsky': they took no action.

Hence, since 2003 - by having its 17.06.03 report and so-called 'summary of the case', on its online, public database...

- Her Majesty's London Tribunal has - wilfully - been defaming my name, character and reputation.

 

So much for Siobhan McGrath's claim in e.g. The Times of 3 Oct 04 (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"

 

In her 28 Feb 10 article, in The Sunday Times,"The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (Overview # 20), the Guest Contributor, Harriet Sergeant, wrote:

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish..."

Siobhan McGrath (# 7, above) is a perfect example of this - as:

"since 1 July 13, she has been appointed as President of the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal - and will now be known as Judge McGrath" (!!!)

(See the NOTE at the end of this page about the 'new' tribunals)

Is this for 'services rendered to 'the Brotherhood''?

(NB: 2 others involved in my case: Fiona Woolf and Zahida Manzoor CBE who also turned a deliberate blind eye for the purpose of assisting criminal activities have also been rewarded for their conduct - see LSO Intro).

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

 

(8)- My first-hand experience with Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal led me to view 2 claims made by the then Office of John Prescott - as lies:

(See also My Diary 22 Nov 08 for comments from other leaseholders who share my views).

(8.1)- CLAIM 1 - "No need for professional representation" = A LIE

(NB: Includes previous sections # 8.1.5 and 8.1.6)

This LIE is very amply demonstrated by the above evidence against Her Majesty's London tribunal - under e.g.:

  • # 1.3, by withholding ALL the supporting appendices to the 07.08.02 application (Intro);
  • # 1.4, by continuing to do this, at the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' - in spite of the fact that we had ALL been clamouring for the information;
  • # 2.1, by ignoring my highlighting repeatedly that the Ladsky gang was not complying with the tribunal's directions to supply me with the information to which I was legally entitled, and needed to challenge the application - in the process, ignoring its own rule;
  • # 2.3, at this point, forcing me to employ advisors;

Further, 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 11.12.02 letter, # 02, above, informing him of an abuse of process).

And the Rachman vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) Andrew David Ladsky knew that he could count on his corrupt lapdogs in Her Majesty's London tribunal continuing to extend him all forms of support and assistance...

- as evidenced by him telling me, on 25 Jan 03: "Better luck next time" (Intro / police # 2 - Background) - not expecting me to be represented at the forthcoming 5 Feb 03 hearing.

I also highlight the fact - I had not anticipated - because they are called 'tribunals' - that these so-called ' tribunals' have no jurisdiction whatsoever to get a decision implemented - forcing leaseholders to then issue court proceedings when the landlord does not play ball. (NB: They cannot even force a landlord to comply with a leaseholder's lease e.g. issue about the contingency fund: # 4.1, above).

That is unless the landlord challenges the decision in the Upper Tribunal (previously, Lands Tribunal) - (which they usually do, as they know that they can, one way or another, charge the costs to the leaseholders) - leaving the leaseholders to face, yet again, more uncertainty (as the landlord can also have 'friends' - including 'higher up'), stress - AND COSTS!

If the court cannot make a decision, as I understand it, the case might then be 'thrown back' to the LVT, or to the Upper Tribunal.

And the 'merry-go-round' of tribunals and court keeps going...

...until the leaseholders give-up because of the unbearable stress / end-up broke because of the massive professional fees...

...leaving landlords, lawyers and surveyors as THE ONLY WINNERS...

...as intended by the set-up.

I personally know leaseholders who have been at least 2-3 times to the tribunal and about the same number of times to court.  

And, on one occasion, when it came to the 'crunch': the landlord declared himself bankrupt (having first, it seems, siphoned-off the money to an offshore jurisdiction (BVI # 2)) (aided by the fact that landlords are not subjected to any kind of control - see latter part of the then Financial Services Authority page). (It was then reincarnated in Apr 13 under the Financial Conduct Authority).

(See other leaseholders' comments about these tribunals: My Diary 22 Nov 08)  

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(8.1.2) (Moved to # 1.4, above)

(8.1.3) (Moved to # 2.3, above)

(8.1.4) (Moved to # 1.3, above)

(8.1.5) (Moved to # 8.1, above)

(8.1.6) (Moved to # 8.1, above)

 

(8.2) CLAIM 2 - "Each party pays their own costs" = A LIE

When a landlord files an application that it is very clearly vexatious and fraudulent (as very amply demonstrated in this instance by the fact that the £736,207 (US$1.3m) demanded was reduced by £500,000 (US$882,000) (# 4.1, above) - the tribunal can prevent the landlord from charging his costs to the leaseholders .

As discussed under # 5, above, in spite of this very damning evidence (to which are added many other lies to the tribunal by the Ladsky gang) - Her Majesty's London tribunal, colluded with the Ladsky gang of racketeers which, concurrently, conspired with 'my advisors', by subjecting me to sheer, utter hell - in order to make me abandon my 20C Application - and succeeded!

It was abundantly clear that, in deciding to hold a hearing for my Application (= equal more costs for me, on which they initially relied to stop me from proceeding) - the Panel Chair, Mrs Mrs J Goulden JP, had been 'consulting' - behind closed doors - with 'the Brotherhood', during the recess she had called.

Needless to say that Ladsky put his tribunal-related costs+ on the 'service charges' for Jefferson House - as intended by Her Majesty's London tribunal.

(See, above, for summaries of: (1)- Events ; (2)- Breaches of the law ; (3)- Overall outcome on me)

Back to list

(9) (Moved to # 5, above)

 

(10)- There were other actions by Her Majesty's London tribunal, aimed at assisting further the Rachman 'brother', Andrew David Ladsky, in the successful implementation of his £500,000 (US$882,000) fraud.

 

(10.1) (Moved to # 1.1, above)

(10.2) (Moved to # 1.2, above)

(10.3) (Moved to # 1.3, above)

(10.4) (Moved to # 5.4, above)

(10.5) (Moved to # 2, above)

(10.6) (Moved as section # 02, above)

(10.7) (Moved to # 7, above)

(10.8) (Moved as section # 0.1, above)

 

 

(11)- Who was 'running the show' in Her Majesty's London tribunal?

As glaringly obvious from the content of this page: the 'sacrosanct' Rachman landlord, and 'brother': Andrew David Ladsky - in part hiding behind his gang of racketeers racketeers.

Back to list

HER MAJESTY'S LONDON LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL, ITS HEAD, SIOBHAN MCGRATH AND ITS THEN OVERALL HEAD, JOHN PRESCOTT, HAVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE - AND TO CONTINUE MAINTAINING IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

NOTE - PROPERTY CHAMBER

From 1 July 2013, under the new 'Property Chamber', the LVTs have been combined into the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber and, in the process, renamed First-tier tribunal - Property Chamber (Residential Property). (And the previous Land Tribunal/s, has/ve been renamed 'Upper Tribunal/s' (or was it / were they already called 'Upper Tribunal/s'?)).

"The Chamber President and Principal Judge for Residential Property is Siobhan McGrath" (= An appointment which demonstrates that "those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish". See above, under # 7).

These 'new' First-tier tribunals, claimed to have "more power" and "new rules", and positioned, as previously - (and falsely) - as "providing an easier and cheaper access to justice"...

- will turn out to be no more than a reincarnation of the old version: the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (1) - BECAUSE:

  • (4) = An environment in which a tribunal that operates as per the rule of law would most definitely NOT fit in (2)

BUT: Their being promoted by the State, and the legal sector, as a 'new, improved version' will fool leaseholders who are new to the game (e.g. through the 'Right to Buy' scheme, the number of leaseholders is growing on a daily basis) - ensuring that the money-counting machines will remain active.

(And, of course, these 'new schemes' (another example of a waste of taxpayer money: "a new code of ethics for the police, and college of policing") provide civil servants with 'justification' for their salary, bonuses, expenses, etc.).

(1) Other example: the Financial Conduct Authority and its predecessor the Financial Services Authority.

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

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top