The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
A helping hand to 'Steel Services' |
LeaseholD Valuation Tribunal (LVT) - home
(NOTE: This section is c. 20 pages in length) The Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (LVTs) are part of the English legal system, and are positioned to deal with landlord-tenant disputes / issues.(NB: The LVT is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) Within days of sending the service charge demand, 'Steel Services', through Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, made an application to the LVT, dated 7 August 2002 , to
(amounting to £736,206 (US$1.3 million) - including VAT and management fee) Nearly one year later, it resulted in the 17 June 2003 determination , LVT/SC/007/120/02 (reference number 992 on the LVT database) Sections
(1) The 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearingIt led to a pre-trial hearing on 29 October 2002 attended, among others, by several leaseholders including myself (see below for other attendees). At this pre-trial hearing we (i.e. I and other leaseholders) were asked by the Chair whether we had already paid the service charge demanded in the 15 July 2002 letter sent by Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones - and associated invoice of 17 July 2002. We all replied that we had not for the reason that we had not been supplied with details of costings - at the time of the demand, nor since - hence, in breach of our staturory rights under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and, indeed, of our lease (Pridie Brewster . At this point, the Chair specifically told us that if we paid, the Tribunal would not be able to help us. To reinforce this point, we were handed a leaflet 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5 states the following:
Mr Andrew Ladsky (see Advisors, Owners identity, Headlessors and Directorships), Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS of Martin Russell Jones, as well as Messrs Brian Gale and Patrick Moyle of Brian Gale & Associates were in attendance at the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing - as can be seen from the directions issued by the LVT. It is important to note this given that precisely 'one' month later i.e. on 29 November 2002 , Ms Hathaway filed a claim against 11 leaseholders , representing 14 flats, in West London County Court for the full amount demanded. (This reinforces my view that Steel Services anticipated being able to 'steamroll' its application through the LVT with no opposition whatsoever - and thereby get the 'official seal of approval') A number of directions were captured as a result of the meeting. Most critically, they included:
(2) The LVT ignored my highlighting that Martin Russell Jones was not complying with the directions it had set, and refused my request for a postponement of the hearingThe 'Expert Witness' report from Mr Brian Gale, dated 13 December 2002, was delivered to me post 18 December 2002 and, therefore, after the deadline set by the LVT which was 17 December. (As can be seen from the envelop at the back of the pack, the stamp was not franked). Contrast this with the fact that Ms Hathaway had sent a fax to the LVT, dated 1 December 2002 , stating,
In my 18 December 2002 letter to the LVT Clerk, I communicated Martin Russell Jones's breach of the directions set by the tribunal and consequently my inability to comply with the 7 January 2003 deadline for instruction of an expert - as set in the 29 October 2002 directions . Because of this breach in the LVT directions, I sent another letter, dated 12 January 2003 , to the LVT requesting a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing. I gave as reason the fact that I
The LVT refused my request. I copied Ms Hathaway on my letter to the LVT. (3) Ms Hathaway and Mr Brian Gale lied to the tribunal, in the process committing a libellous, scurrilous act against me - as did Steel Services' counsel, Mr WarwickOn the same date, i.e. 12 January 2003, I also wrote her a letter, on which I copied the LVT, in which I emphasised that Ms Hathaway still had not provided me with a sufficiently detailed breakdown of the costs. In her 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT Ms Hathaway wrote, among others, that the documents I
She also states
In fact. the works were only started one year and eight months later, in September 2004 - see Major works - and the minute they started, so did the construction of the penthouse flat - as per the Planning applications that had been filed initially on 18 September 1998 and again on 13 November 2001 . That was the urgency! See this pack (2.4MB) for the overwhelming evidence of deceit by Ms Hathaway, Mr Brian Gale and their client. See also the Photo gallery for additional evidence, as well as the sections on Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale . In the same letter, Ms Hathaway (or, in all likelihood given the style of the letter, Mr Ladsky), also had the gall to say:
(NB: Ms Hathaway was informed at the 5 February 2003 hearing that I had sent a letter to the LVT on 18 December 2002 ) This amounted to yet another false claim by Ms Hathaway to the LVT (see #12, #13 and #14). This is evidenced by the 8 October 2002 'Log of telephone conversation' captured by the LVT which states:
During the 5th February hearing, Ms Hathaway vehemently asserted, yet again, that a copy of the priced specification was available at the porter's lodge and that
She then contradicted herself in replying to a question from my counsel, by saying:
This is captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination:
The same damning evidence is found in Mr Brian Gale's 24 February 2003 report, under point 2.04: "...the un-priced or priced Specification.has been. freely available for all lessees to view" In actual fact, the priced specification was delivered to me only 36 hours before the 5 February 2003 hearing. Hence SEVEN MONTHS after the original demand. Consider this in light of the letters Ms Hathaway had written over the previous six months in which she categorically affirmed that I (and other leaseholders) had been provided with the priced specification - and that she had therefore acted in line with the statutory requirements imposed under the L&T 1985 legislation. For example, her-'Mr Ladsky style' letter of 16 December 2002 (in response to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT)
The outcome was a postponement of the first day of the substantive hearing to 13 March 2003 , giving the reason stated under point 16 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report (LVT/SC/007/120/02)
At the 13 March 2003 hearing the opening statement from Mr Warwick , Steel Services' Counsel, was that
(Although it was not his meaning), damn right I was not going to pay £14,400 (US$25,400) without justification. (4) The outcome of the 17 July 2003 LVT determination was a reduction of nearly 70% in the £736,207 (US$1.3 million) global sum demandedAs discussed below (under my below 'My assessment of the LVT'), the LVT failed in its remit to "determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded". Consequently, the following is a summary of the assessment of the determination by my surveyor: (Please note that my surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners, is a Chartered Surveyor, member of the RICS. To which I will add: a highly professional surveyor, with the utmost level of integrity) The total sum demanded was £736,207 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and management fees of 11%)
Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded. In other words, £500,000 (US$881,700) of the sum demanded was NOT considered as reasonable.Among others, consider this outcome in the context of Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - which states
Of the many damning comments in the report (see Brian Gale section), I draw your attention to the penultimate sentence under point 64, on page 15
(*) Note: Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force Steel Services to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2 (2) (e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the LVT report), under point 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code. While, under point 63 , it argues that
The refusal to use the contingency fund amounted to a change of position relative to Ms Hathaway's 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" in which she wrote
(NB: Because I had highlighted that I had a copy of this letter, in the 21 October 2003 'offer' from 'Steel Services', Ms Ayesha Salim , Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, wrote: " ..our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund to reduce the total figure." As implied by the word "notionally" this was not taken into consideration for other leaseholders. I only received confirmation of my suspicion, when, with its 29 August 2006 letter, the ICAEW supplied me with the 2002 and 2003 contributions paid by the leaseholders (Needless to say that Martin Russell Jones had never provided me with a copy of these - in breach of, among others, my lease) (Clause (2)(2)(g)(i) ) - as it provides damning evidence of the scam. Indeed, it shows that 25 FLATS, hence the majority of the leaseholders were made to pay the FULL amount - thanks to the bullying and intimidation tactics employed by Ms Hathaway (see Martin Russell Jones # 19, # 21, # 25, # 26), Mr Silverstone and Ms Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (see CKFT #2, #3, #5, #6.2, #6.3, #6.6, #6.7) - and the operating environment of the courts. This includes nine out of 14 leaseholders listed on the 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim. See this pack (1.1MB) containing my analysis and supporting evidence. This is very WRONG... considering also among others point 64, on page 15, of the LVT report: "...the Respondent and other tenants could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal." ) Note the assessment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales : Pridie Brewster # 18
In a letter dated 7 April 2003 my then solicitors informed the LVT that
(The same letter, dated 7 April 2003 , was sent to Ms Hathaway) On 30 July 2003 , I wrote to the LVT saying,
To which the LVT replied on 1 August 2003 by sending me a form to complete. I enclosed my completed form, dated 10 August 2003 , with a letter dated 12 August 2003 stating that I assumed that
I concluded my letter by stating:
To this, the LVT replied on 14 August 2003 stating: "A copy has been sent to the respondent and they have been invited to submit their comments on this application by 28 August 2003." It was followed by: • the 22 August 2003 letter from Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, stating, among others:
Ms Salim copied me on this letter, in her letter of 22 August 2003 • the 28 August 2003 letter from Ms Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones, stating, among others:
The LVT Clerk obliged, as can be seen in his 29 August 2003 letter
If this does not qualify as 'siding with crooked landlords' : what does? I went through absolute sheer, utter hell at the time of filing my 20C application - see Piper Smith Basham # 7.18 and Martin Russell Jones # 43 , which includes evidence against Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (referred to under CKFT # 6.9 ) - as well as in My Diary , September 2003 Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?
The 17 June 2003 report is a fair representation of what happened. The Panel did not spare Steel Services, Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale in its criticisms. It accurately captured evidence (e.g. truly reflecting what Ms Hathaway, Mr Jones and Mr Gale said; reproducing the contents of a letter it had received from Mr Andrew Ladsky (point 50). It also drew on its experience and knowledge to add weight to its determination (e.g. drawing attention to the clauses in the lease; quoting cases). However, it is as though, at the 11th hour, it made a U-turn and opted to protect Steel Services as it did not include a summary of the impact of its decision on the global sum demanded making it impossible for anybody who did not have access to the documents subsequently issued during the three-day hearing to figure this out. Hence, the LVT failed to meet its remit to "determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" Evidence that this was its remit: • The LVT's 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing directions
• Point 1 of its 17 June 2003 report states
• In its 21 July 2003 reply to Mr Silverstone, CKFT, letter of 17 July 2003 the LVT wrote
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: as you can see from the 17 June 2003 LVT report, it is NOT what the LVT has done. Hence: the LVT has failed to perform its remit. • Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, stated in his 21 July 2003 reply to the LVT
• Ms Lisa McLean's letter of 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors, in which she captured a voice message from the LVT Clerk:
• The 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (but I believe to have been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky ) is also quite clear on this point:
• In the letter that Mr Andrew Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the LVT report :
Understandably - given the LVT's remit - when I opted to challenge Steel Services' action in the LVT I thought I would end-up with a decision. Instead, I had an open-ended £28,000 (US$49,400) report (cost of my surveyor, solicitor and barrister) over which I ended-up battling with CKFT - and for which I paid an extra £1,800 (US$3,200) to my surveyor to determine the impact of the determination on the sum demanded. I consequently hold the view that the LVT has committed, among others, a breach of my rights under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to an effective remedy" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 . Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated on the home page to the site that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?
As I was battling with CKFT over the LVT determination (see West London County Court), I wrote to Mrs Siobhan McGrath, Head LVTs, on 6 September 2003 asking her to include a summary to the report stating exactly what it has determined and the resulting impact on the global sum demanded . In her 12 September 2003 reply she refused, stating
Note that this answer is totally off the mark (in addition to being misleading: an appeal must be lodged within three weeks of a determination by the LVT). I did not say that I was dissatisfied with the decision. She continues:
In my 6 October 2003 reply, I argued that providing a summary of the decision did not amount to
This led to the second 'no' from the Head of the LVT who stated in her 26 November 2003 letter
In between, I received a 6 October 2003 letter from Mr Prescott's Office (on which I had copied my 6 September 2003 letter) stating
This was yet again a letter I considered as a 'get lost ' letter . The government, and more precisely the then Office of Mr John Prescott, given that this Office is responsible for the LVTs, has positioned the LVTs as a forum where flat owners can challenge service charges without the need for professional representation, and where each party pays its own costs. Indeed, Mrs McGrath was quoted in The Times of 3 October 2004 (headed "Property - " Landlord squabbles resolved" ) as saying that the LVT is an
(8) My first-hand experience with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal leads me to DISAGREE with both claims made by the then Office of Mr John Prescott(See also My Diary 22 November 2008 for comments by other leaseholders: they share my views) (8.1) Claim 1 - "no need for professional representation"If I had not employed a surveyor, a solicitor and a barrister - at a total cost of £28,000 (US$49,400) - I would not have stood a chance in the LVT as there is total inequality of arms . On four occasions over a period of four months, I asked the tribunal for its assistance in obtaining, from Martin Russell Jones, a copy of the priced specification. These were on: 22 October 2002 ; 25 November 2002 ; 18 December 2002 in which I highlighted the fact that Martin Russell Jones had not met the 17 December 2002 deadline set by the tribunal to provide me with the requested information so that I could get an adviser to look at it (as per the directions set by the tribunal). The fourth time was my 12 January 2003 letter when I again emphasised that I had not received the information - and, at this point, requested that the 5 February 2003 hearing be postponed because of this. This was refused . (At the same time, I had also copied the LVT on my letter of 12 January 2003 to Ms Hathaway). I draw your attention to the bottom of the second page of the directions set by the tribunal
The priced specification was eventually hand-delivered to my door... just 36 hours before the 5th February 2003 hearing! (And, consequently, seven months after Martin Russell Jones had asked me to pay £14,400 (US$25,400)) Consider that the LVT had, since 7 August 2002, a copy of the priced specification. (8.1.2) Consider also that other leaseholders had, likewise, informed the LVT that they had not been provided with a copy of the priced specification. Yet, the LVT treated me as a liar(Although their letters to the LVT are in the public domain, I am nonetheless opting to refer to them by using my coding system) • Leaseholder M wrote to the LVT on 19 October 2002 (i.e. three months after Ms Hathaway sent the original demand)
• Leaseholder K wrote to the LVT on 28 October 2002
• Leaseholder D who, I 'think' supplied the LVT with copy of his correspondence to Ms Hathaway. For example, the 24 September 2002 letter, stating
• There is also the 20 October 2002 email from Leaseholder C to the LVT
• As suggested in her 1 November 2002 letter to me, indications are that Leaseholder F also communicated her opposition to the demand
Of course, in support of my claim - and that of the other leaseholders - that we had NOT been supplied with priced specification is the fact that I was listed with 10 others leaseholders (representing 14 flats) on the 29 November 2002 - false - West London County Court claim I INFORMED the LVT of this in my letter of 9 December 2002 to which I received a ' get lost ' from the clerk. Needless to say that the tribunal's refusal to my request caused me an unbelievable amount of torment, anguish and distress (which, at the time, were compiled by events with West London County Court) WHY, in the face of all of this evidence did the LVT refuse my request, thereby implying that I am a liar?Worth noting, is a 'Log of telephone conversation', in which the LVT Clerk, recorded the main points of a conversation he had with Ms Hathaway on 8 October 2002. It states
(8.1.3) I was forced to employ advisers to finally get the tribunal to agree to a postponment of the substantive hearingsWhile the LVT had denied my 12 January 2003 request for an adjournment of the hearing, it was finally granted at the 5 February hearing - as captured under point 16 of its 17 June 2003 LVT report:
I can only attribute this change of position by the LVT at the 5 February 2003 hearing to the fact that I was represented. Until 5 February 2003, I had not been. At the hearing, my Counsel pointed out that, in sending me a copy of Steel Services 7 August 2002 application, the LVT had NOT included any of the supporting enclosures. The Chair asked the Clerk to confirm this. He replied,
WHY NOT? Who dictated which leaseholder should be copied on the enclosures and which should not? And WHY DID THE LVT GO ALONG WITH THIS?
I consequently hold the view that the LVT has committed, among others, a breach of my rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to a fair hearing (trial)" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998. (8.1.4.) Ms Hathaway supplied a lease to the tribunal falsely claiming that it was representative of my lease. As the tribunal opted to - illegally - not copy me on any of the enclosures supplied with the application, I only discovered this later on... because I specifically asked for a copyAmong others, I subsequently discovered that with the 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal, Ms Hathaway had included as part of the enclosures a lease FALSELY CLAIMING that it was representative of all the leases (Hence, as she (#22) and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (#6.7) did with the West London County Court claim (1.1.MB) ) As can be seen from the 7 August 2002 application form, it requires
This requirement comes from Section 19(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 "Content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge" (It is the result of Statutory Instrument number 1853 which came into force on 1 September 1997) It states:
As the Clerk had 'opted' to NOT copy me on any of the the appendices to the application, it is only when I received the 29 October 2002 directions - hence AFTER the pre-trial hearing - that I discovered that Ms Hathaway supplied the lease 'apparently' for flat 22 with the application form. (I phoned the clerk who then sent me a copy - an action I should not have had to take) Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) of this lease is materially different from mine, as it states
Whereas the same Clause in my my lease states
As can be seen on the 7 August 2002 application form NO STATEMENT was entered on the form signed by Ms Hathaway. Hence, Ms Hathaway breached this statutory requirement... with the assistance of the LVT. (8.1.5) Given past events, it is abundantly clear that, without a counsel, I would have been trampled upon at the hearing
I view the treatment I received from the LVT in the weeks preceding the hearing (as detailed above) as further evidence in support of this perception). I could see / sense total disbelief, as well as great annoyance at the fact that I had turned up for the 5 February 2003 hearing with a surveyor, a barrister and a solicitor. The beginning of the hearing was decidedly 'frosty'. (See My Diary 5 February 2003, as well as prior days: 17 January 2003, 23 January 2003, End January 2003, 30 January 2003, including event on 5 February 2003) Being represented by a barrister and a surveyor proved equally critical for the subsequent three days of hearing. Against the then Office of Mr Prescott claim that people going to the LVT "do not need legal representation" , I also highlight the fact that, to every single question I posed to the Clerk of the Tribunal, I received the same reply: "Get legal advice" (e.g. his 11 December 2002 letter) Furthermore, a fact not highlighted by the then Office of Mr John Prescott, and which I had not anticipated because the LVTs are called ' tribunals ', is that they have NO jurisdiction whatsoever to get a determination implemented . As I have experienced first-hand, the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction is immediately brought to the fore with any follow-up requests e.g. Ms McGrath's letter of 12 September 20 (8.1.6) The 'merry-go-round' of tribunal and courtWhen I opted to challenge Steel Services application, I thought the procedure in the tribunal would draw a line under the costs and that the outcome would be a decision that could be enforced on Steel Services. In reality, if, as in my case, there is an ensuing battle, partly due to the tribunal not performing its remit, and partly due to a landlord opting to not comply with the determination, the leaseholder must refer the case to court. (Of course, equal not only more advisory costs, but also high uncertainty on getting justice - as evidenced by my experience with West London County Court in 2002-2004, and in 2007-2008). (See also Lord Falconer of Thoroton) If the court cannot make a decision, as I understand it, the case might then be 'thrown back' to the LVT, or to the Lands Tribunal.
I personally know leaseholders who have been at least 2-3 times to the LVT and about the same number of times to court. And, when it came to the 'crunch': the landlord declared himself bankrupt (having first, it seems, siphoned-off the money to an offshore jurisdiction) (aided by the fact that landlords are not subjected to any kind of control - see latter part of the Financial Services Authority section). What a great system... if you happen to be a landlord! (8.2) Claim 2 - "each party pays their own costs"When it comes to the £30,000+ (US$53,000) of my life savings I have spent as the result of the action through the LVT, there is not the shadow of a doubt on my position: I cannot recoup a single penny of it - even though the reason for my spending this very significant part of my life savings was A SCAM by Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides. However, when on the last day of the hearing my Counsel told the Tribunal I requested that Steel Services be prevented from putting its costs on the service charge, Mr Ladsky's Counsel, Mr Warwick, replied,
WHY? This service charge demand is FRAUDULENT (Pridie Brewster # 12)
(The Tribunal knew that, by then, I had already spent in excess of £25,000 (US$44,000) - and it also knew that I am on a salary). (My letter of 30 March 2003) How do I feel about this? That it is totally in the interest of landlords to take their case to the LVT: • They gamble on the fact that individuals such as myself will hesitate to challenge them because they cannot recoup their costs . • There is a bias in favour of landlords: Point 6 of the LVT's directions handed to leaseholders states:
(This acted as a strong deterrent to other leaseholders). (It is probably why I ended-up being left on my own to challenge Steel Services). (In addition to the false claim (WL203537) drawn-up by CKFT and filed by Ms Hathaway in West London County Court - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB)) Evidence of this bias can be seen on the LVT's database of cases (see e.g. issue 18 of the Leaseholder, C.A.R.L. , that reports the case of leaseholders stung by heavy punitive costs even though their grievance was found to be justified) How about when there is very damning evidence against the applicant (as was the case in this instance)? Well, if it happens to be a sacrosanct landlord: clearly not! Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? (9) In spite of its damning report, the LVT nonetheless agreed to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Martin Russell Jones' request for a hearing in relation to my 20C ApplicationIndeed, to top it all, consider that - unbelievably - given that the impact of the LVT determination was a reduction of the sum demanded by nearly 70%, the Clerk agreed to CKFT's request for a hearing in relation to my 20C Application. I give this as another example that LVTs actively support abusive, rogue landlords. Also in the context of Steel Services costs, consider the Chair's response that Mr Warwick's request would require another day of hearing (as detailed above). The sine qua none of the Business model : the costs! Scare the lessees by stating that a hearing will be necessary / agreeing to a landlord's request for a hearing. And if the lessee takes-up the challenge? Well, who cares: the taxpayer picks-up the cost of the LVTs! Right Mr Prescott and Mrs McGrath?(Same approach with the courts e.g. West London County Court which so obligingly agreed to CKFT's requests for hearings e.g. 24 June 2003 hearing. The taxpayer picks-up the tab. ) (The £500 (US$880) fee paid by Steel Services - or more accurately, the leaseholders - in filing the 29 November 2002 claim is derisory relative to the actual cost)
(10) There were other actions by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal that favoured Steel Services(10.1) It waited two months to inform 'some' leaseholders of Steel Services application to the LVTFrom the time it received the application from Steel Services, the tribunal waited two months to inform 'some' leaseholders of the application: it communicated this to us in a letter dated 8 October 2002 . It waited another two days to inform us of the pre-trial hearing set for 29 October, as it did this in its 10 October 2002 letter. As many leaseholders live overseas (a fact known to the LVT as it had the leaseholders' address), this barely gave them a 10-day notice of the pre-trial hearing giving them very little chance of being able to attend. WHY DID THE LVT DO THIS? (10.2) It quite clearly took its cue from Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones as to which leaseholders should NOT be informed of the application - in the process committing a breach of their statutory rightsAs suggested by the 9 April 2003 letter from Piper Smith Basham to my then solicitors, not all leaseholders were informed of this action. WHY NOT? As also suggested in this same letter, the LVT's discriminatory approach was dictated by Steel Services- Martin Russell Jones:
Why did the LVT take its cue from Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones as to which leaseholders should be informed of the LVT action? It knew that it amounted to a breach of leaseholders' statutory rights: Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20(4)
.Hence, the tribunal breached this statutory requirement. WHY? In addition to which, as captured in this same letter of 9 April 2003, it had left a message on Piper Smith Basham voicemail stating:
And it had captured this in the directions following the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island? (10.3) It did not supply "some" leaseholders - it had 'opted' to inform of the action - including myself, with any of the appendices, which included a priced specificationIn its 8 October 2002 letter it sent me (and other leaseholders), the LVT stated that it included a copy of the application and supporting appendices sent to the LVT by Steel Services. In fact, it did not include a copy of the Appendix:
it had been provided with. Section 19(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 "Content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge" (the result of Statutory Instrument number 1853 which came into effect on 1 September 1997) states:
Actually, as detailed earlier on, the tribunal did supply 'SOME' leaseholders (and I was not one of these) - as evidenced by the Clerk's reply to the Chair at the 5 February 2003 hearing:
WHY NOT? Who dictated which leaseholder should be copied and which should not? In spite of having the priced specification on file, it took no action when leaseholders were clamouring for a copy At the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing, all the leaseholders were clamouring for a copy of the priced specification. In fact, the LVT had a copy on file since 7 August 2002 . Yet, neither the Chair , nor the Clerk, said or did anything about it. WHY NOT? While the LVT was not diligent in copying correspondence from the other side to leaseholders, it meticulously ensured that Steel Services received a copy of all that was sent by leaseholders. (10.4) It took no action when I reported that Martin Russell Jones was not complying with the directions set by the tribunalIn my 18 December 2002 letter to the Clerk, I highlighted that we were now past the 17 December 2002 deadline set by the Tribunal and I still had not received anything from Martin Russell Jones. Consequently, I would be unable to meet the directions set by the LVT (getting my own expert to review, by 7 January 2003, the evidence meant to be supplied by Martin Russell Jones). The Clerk did not do anything . WHY NOT? In fact, the LVT had been provided with a copy of Steel Services' ' expert report ' before 1st December as indicated by the 1 December 2002 fax sent by Ms Hathaway to the LVT in which she states:
(10.5) In spite of my informing the LVT that Martin Russell Jones had not complied with the directions, it refused my request to have the hearing postponedThe directions set by the tribunal state
The LVT also refused my 12 January 2003 request for the postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing. Given the evidence I (and other leaseholders) had supplied - which included my informing the LVT in my 9 December 2002 letter that Steel Services had filed a claim in West London County Court against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats (1.1MB). How much more evidence was required? WHY DID THE LVT REFUSE MY REQUEST FOR A POSTPONMENT? One of the answers to the question is that Leasehold Valuation Tribunals are the 'arena' of the surveyors. Hence, panel members will tend to believe a member of their own 'fraternity' i.e. a member of the RICS, rather than leaseholders who are evidently perceived as a 'lying, dishonest bunch'. And, quite clearly, if damning findings are found against a member of the fraternity, no action is taken by anobody, leaving the member to continue on doing the same thing... until other leaseholders bring a case against the member (e.g. LVT LON/00AQ/LSC/2005 (printscreen of site) ). But that's 'just a small risk', as many leaseholders are put-off by the costs of pursuing an action in the tribunal - as well as by the unknown. In conclusion on this: I hold the view that it amounts to the LVT committing, among others, a breach of my rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Right to a fair hearing (trial)" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998. (10.6) (Like West London County Court) the tribunal turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' when informed that Steel Services was pursuing the same action - in parellel - under two separate jurisdictionsIn addition, the LVT (like West London County Court), turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the fact that the SAME CLAIM was being pursued concurrently under two separate jurisdictions (both part of the English legal system) : the LVT and the court (thereby amounting to an abuse of process of court) - as its reply was "not our problem" (and that from West London County Court was the same) (10.7) The LVT made a categorical statement about a cost increase at a date that was POST signing its report - and blamed me for this future increasePlacing it - prominently - on the first page of its report , the tribunal wrote
WHAT??? In relation to the first part,
how can the tribunal write this considering:
Furthermore, it also conveniently overlooks the fact that IT took nearly ONE year to get to this stage (it received the application from Steel Services early August 2002 )
As to the remaining part of the categorical statement that the cost had increased
how can it make such a categorical statement given that it signed its report TWO WEEKS previously, on 17 June 2003? Who dictated this whole sentence to the tribunal - including placing it prominently on the first page? Of course, the same statement is prominently captured in the summary of the case (ref #992) placed on the LVT database. The benefit of this? Makes it easier for Mr Ladsky et. al. to tell other leaseholders that I am the main 'black sheep' that has led to the inclusion of "legal fees" on the service charge, amounting to:
(As Ms Hathaway wrote to "All leaseholders" on 5 August 2003 "...there is a small minority who have not paid... Solicitors acting on behalf of Steel Services Ltd are actively taking action against the lessees in default in order that their payments are forthcoming” Actually, seven months after writing this, in her 26 March 2004 to "All Lessees", Ms Hathaway wrote: "Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees..." So: who knows? However, these two letters highlight more lies to the tribunal by Ms Hathaway, Mr Brian Gale and Mr Andrew Ladsky - See Martin Russell Jones #14, #15 and Brian Gale #4 ) (11)
Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that it is a fair question for me to ask considering events. My overall conclusion on the LVT, which I believe to be fair comment given my first-hand experience, is that it is another helping hand provided to landlords by the then Office of Mr John Prescott. ('Another' - I refer to my experience with Kensington & Chelsea Council housing department and ensuing complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman . All three, local government, Local Government Ombudsman and LVTs come under the then Office of Mr John Prescott) (12) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, consider that......THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE IS...Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE. (This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc. In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)
To be more precise :
( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006) UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT? THE LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL, ITS HEAD, Mrs MCGRATH AND ITS THEN OVERALL HEAD, Mr JOHN PRESCOTT, HAVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . |
