Email this site to a contact

 

On-going defamation of my name, character and reputation by the London Leasehold Valuation, in the so-called 'summary of the case' - intended to help Andrew David Ladsky in defrauding the Jefferson House leaseholders.

London LVT Case Summary - 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 'the summary of the case' by 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 - in 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

(NB: Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, is covered in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement (Overview # 11), and in my 02.01.10 Subject Access Request to the Ministry of (In)Justice (lawyers, home, # 9).

Since 2003, the Her Majesty's London tribunal has placed, on its online database - ref #992 - a so-called 'summary', ref #992, of its 17.06.03 so-called 'determination', LVT/SC/007/120/02, that contains defamatory accusations against me - and is misleading.

Back to sections

 

(1)- The statements made about me in the so-called 'summary of the case', ref. #992, on Her Majesty's tribunal database - since 2003 - amount to defamation of my name, character and reputation.

 

The 'very convenient' so-called 'summary', ref. #992 (to which I have added my Comments), of the 17.06.03 so-called 'determination', LVT/SC/007/120/02, by Her Majesty's London tribunal - on its database - since 2003, reads:

"Dispute concerned works that, following delay caused by adjournment requested by Respondent, had risen from £564,467 (US$995,400) to £592,762 (US$1.045m) or £600,904 (US$1.060m) from 30 June 2003 to 30 September 2003"

This is placed prominently on the first page of the 17.06.03 report, issued by the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb.

Back to sections

 

(1.1)- The first part of the statement: "Dispute concerned works that, following delay caused by adjournment requested by Respondent..."...

`- is a lie, as well as defamatory, as the tribunal was the cause of "the adjournment".

As blatantly obvious from the page on the tribunal, the “adjournment” was caused BY Her Majesty's London Tribunal...

...- because IT colluded with 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky and his puppets, the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) in ensuring that I was not supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled (LVT # 2 ; # 3).

It was forced to act as per its mandate as a result of my turning up with a surveyor, a solicitor and a barrister at the 5 Feb 03 hearing - which it and its 'customers': Ladsky, MRJ and Brian Gale, MRICS, were very clearly not expecting (My Diary 5 Feb 03 ; LVT # 2.3 , # 3).

It forced the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP to schedule subsequent hearings - which she said she was doing "in the interests of justice" (LVT # 3 ; para.16 of the 17.06.03 report)

Consider also para.64 of the 17.06.03 report (below), which states that "[I was] within my rights to challenge the application"

(See next point, for the Ladsky mafia falsely accusing me of "being responsible for the action").

Back to sections

(1.2) The second part of the statement: "...had risen from £564,467 [US$995,400] to £592,762 [US$1.045m] or £600,904 [US$1.06m] from 30 June 2003 to 30 September 2003" (NB: = a 6% increase) - demonstrates further collusion and conniving with 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers...

... - who then capitalized on this and, in the process, also accused me - equally falsely and libellously - of "being responsible for the tribunal action".

In the light of the above, this 2nd part of the statement:

"...had risen from £564,467 [US$995,400] to £592,762 [US$1.045m] or £600,904 (US$1.060m) from 30 June 2003 to 30 September 2003"

- is equally defamatory.

How on earth could the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArb, state – in their report dated 17.06.03 – that the “costs had risen from 30 June 2003 to 30 September 2003 to £600,904 [US$1.06m]hence, 3 months post – issuing their report?

Page 12 of the 17.06.03 report, states:

"The tribunal accepts the percentage increase which should be applied to sums determined. Clearly s.19(2B) envisages landlord proceeding in this way, and increased costs due to this process, where reasonable, are appropriate".

Absolutely unbelievable - when you consider the findings BY the tribunal in its own report (excerpts under Brian Gale, MRICS, # 6)

- that led to a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. contingency fund) in the £736,200 (US$1.3m) demanded = a 70% reduction (LVT # 4).

What a mafia!

ALL of the above was 'concocted' with the 'sacrosanct' landlord, and 'brother': Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - so that they could capitalize on the deliberate, wilful accusation against me by Her Majesty's London tribunal - and they sure jumped on it!:

25.06.03 from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT:

"...without going through the costly LVT process which has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project" .

 

21.10.03 'PART 36 offer' from Ayesha Salim's Rachman client, Ladsky:

"...and to continue to defend these proceedings is her own. Her decision to do so has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building."

While these accusations are very clearly false, and therefore highly defamatory, I suspect that this ‘story’ was fed to my fellow leaseholders.

My reply to Martin of 11.08.04 highlighting his lies (MRJ # 25)

Note that it is 'Steel Services' =Ladsky who kept challenging the tribunal's findings, not I - as evidenced by the statement in the 21 Oct 03 'offer'

"our client has once again (NB!!!) reviewed the revised apportionment dated 24 June 2003" (WLCC # 12 , # 10)

BUT, the Ladsky gang of racketeers was taking its cue from Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs = Ladsky and /or 'the Brotherhood', who - typically, using the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game' - falsely claimed in 'her' 12.09.03 letter to me that '[I] was challenging the tribunal's decision" (LVT # 7).

I repeat: What a mafia!

Of note, when, at the 5 Feb 03 'hearing' (LVT # 3), Rachman Andrew David Ladsky asked the Chair:

" Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to hearing?"

The Chair replied that I was perfectly within my rights to challenge the application made by Steel Services.

This is captured under para.64 of the 17.06.03 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report (ref. #992 on the LVT database):

"Although she is in the minority (*), " the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered"

(*) "[I was] in the minority" thanks to the collusion and conspiring between the tribunal, Ladsky and his mafia: snapshot under Overview # 2.

The reason behind the lies by Her Majesty's London tribunal?

The wonders of 'the Brotherhood' - in very sick "corrupt Britain".

As can be seen from the above letters, while it was at it, the Ladsky mafia, also accused me - equally falsely and libellously - of being "responsible for the tribunal action"...

...- when, in fact the 07.08.02 application to the tribunal was filed by 'Steel Services' = Ladsky (LVT Intro).

To these letters is added the 04.08.04 letter to me, 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, stating that:

" [I] refused to pay [my] contribution and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work"

Absolutely unbelievable!

No doubt, this letter was, likewise, circulated to my fellow leaseholders - who had been bullied and terrorised into paying the fraudulent 15.07.02 demand (e.g. Overview # 3)

I again draw your attention to para.64 of the 17.06.03 report, which states that "[I was] within my rights to challenge the application"

Subtext of the above letters: You bloody "Nazi" bitch! You interfered with our plan: nobody was supposed to challenge the application to the tribunal;

'our Lord and Master, Andrew David Ladsky', was counting on the fact that the State's deliberate policy of preventing you from getting your costs back would stop you from challenging his application.

He was meant to walk away with a seal of approval for demanding that you - and your fellow leaseholders pay him £736,207 (US$1.3m) (LVT # 4).

However, thanks to the bent infrastructure supporting the residential leasehold sector, our 'dear client' still got away with it - and generated a multi-million £ Jackpot (top of page).

Back to sections

 

(2)- Due to Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs - twice - refusing my request that Her Majesty's London tribunal performs its legal remit, by including a summary of its findings in the 17.06.03 report...

- as well as ignoring my request to amend the entry on the tribunal's public, online database - Her Majesty's London tribunal has - and continues, since 2003 - to defame my name, character and reputation - in the public domain.

Compilation of the misleading, and highly defamatory so-called 'summary of the case' was helped by the fact that Her Majesty's London tribunal Panel failed to perform its remit, under Section 19(2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985...

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

Failure by the Chair, Mrs J.S.L. Goulden JP, Mr J Humphrys, FRICS, and Dr A Fox BSc PhD MCIArbto to perform their legal remit is discussed on the London tribunal page, under point # 4.2.

My requests to Siobhan McGrath, then President of the then LVTs, to get the tribunal to perform its legal remit by including, in its 17.06.03 report, a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" and her refusals, are discussed under LVT # 7.

In my 09.11.03 letter to McGrath, after reiterating my 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 'reply', McGrath wrote:

"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)- As she had done in relation to my asking for a summary to be included in the 17.06.03 report (LVT # 7), McGrath was also continuing to play the 'Frustrate and Discourage Game'...

- as 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 09.11.03 letter to McGrath, I had copied Nicholas Kissen, LEASE.

My request was ignored - and has been ignored since then i.e. since 2003.

Hence, Her Majesty's London tribunal has been defaming my name, character and reputation - in the public domain - since 2003.

This is another typical 'response' from a government department - dictated to by 'the Brotherhood' - (typically) hell-bent on dishing out 'retribution' against a 'little person like me' for 'daring' to interfere with its aiding and abetting crime.

Back to sections

 

THE THEN LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL AND ITS THEN OVERALL HEAD, JOHN PRESCOTT, HAVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE, AS WELL AS MAINTAIN IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top