The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineered

Since 2003, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has placed on its online database - ref #992 - a 'summary' of its 17 June 2003 determination, LVT/SC/007/120/02 that contains defamatory accusations against me - and is misleading

SECTONS

(1) The statements made about me in the summary of the case on the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal database amount to defamation of my name and of my character
1.1 The first part of the statement is misleading - as it falsely blames me for the adjournment
1.2 The second part of the statement suggests further collusion
1.3 Compilation of the misleading summary was helped by the fact that the LVT FAILED TO PERFORM ITS REMIT by NOT including a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded
(2) By - twice - refusing to include a summary of the determination, as well as not amending the entry on the database, the LVT has - and continues - to contribute to the defamation of my name and of my character
(3) THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED is due to...

(1) The statements made about me in the summary of the case on the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal database amount to defamation of my name and of my character

The 'very convenient' summary, of the 17 June 2003 determination, LVT/SC/007/120/02 - on the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal database, ref. # 992, (to which I have added my comments) - 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$1.045 million) or £600,904 (US$1.060 million) from 30 June 2003 to 30 September 2003"

1.1 The first part of the statement is misleading - as it falsely blames me for the adjournment

"Dispute concerned works that, following delay caused by adjournment requested by Respondent..."

As blatantly obvious from the section on the tribunal, the “adjournment” was caused BY THE TRIBUNAL - because IT COLLUDED with 'Steel Services' aka Mr Andrew Ladsky and his aides, Martin Russell Jones in ensuring that I was not supplied with the information to which I am legally entitled (LVT # 2 ; # 3 ; # 8.1.3)...

...and 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 February 2003 hearing - which it and its 'customers', 'Steel Services', Martin Russell Jones and Brian Gale were very clearly not expecting (LVT # 8.1.5)

Please note that Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, have accused me of being responsible for the LVT action - when, in fact, it was FILED BY 'Steel Services' on 7 August 2002:

• Mr Lanny Silverstone letter of 25 June 2003

"...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" .

• Ms Ayesha Salim, in her libellous, scurrilous 21 October 2003 'offer'

"...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."

• Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, in his equally outrageous, libellous and scurrilous letter of 4 August 2004, in which he states 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" .

Subtext of the above letters: You bitch! You've interfered with our plan: nobody was supposed to challenge the application to the tribunal. We were meant to walk away with a seal of approval for demanding that you - and your fellow leaseholders pay us £736,207 (US$1.3 million) (LVT # 4) - so that our 'dear' client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, could build his penthouse flat and add three other flats to Jefferson House. But, thanks to the bent infrastructure supporting the residential leasehold sector, we still got away with it - and generated a multi-million Pound Jackpot.

Back to sections

1.2 The second part of the statement suggests further collusion

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

Hence, the second part of the statement is equally defamatory.

This is in addition to raising questions as to the source of the claims of financial increase in costs - as the dates are POST the tribunal issuing its 17 June 2003 determination. Very, clearly, this was intended to help 'Steel Services' rip-off the leaseholders.

And it certainly proved 'very helpful' as, with the 29 November 2002 claim (Particulars of claim) so eagerly pursued by West London County Court, it must have helped secure FULL payment by the majority of the leaseholders, of the fraudulent July 2002 'service charge' demand (Pridie Brewster # 18) - which is a c. £500,000 fraud - resulting in a multi-million Pound jackpot.

1.3 Compilation of the misleading summary was helped by the fact that the LVT FAILED TO PERFORM ITS REMIT by NOT including a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded

The LVT's failure to perform its remit is discussed under the main section for the LVT, under points # 4 and # 6

Back to sections

(2) By - twice - refusing to include a summary of the determination, as well as not amending the entry on the database, the LVT has - and continues - to contribute to the defamation of my name and of my character

My requests to Mrs Siobhan McGrath, Head LVTs, and her refusals, are discussed under the main section for the LVT, under point # 7

In my 9 November 2003 correspondence to Ms McGrath, I asked her to ensure that the summary of the case on the LVT database is amended to reflect a

"factually accurate summary of the case" as "the current version is particularly misleading"

She replied in her 26 November 2003 letter that it had nothing to do with the LVT and that I needed to address my request to LEASE as it had responsibility for the database.

On my request to the Head of the LVTs, I had copied LEASE. My request was ignored.

I find it very odd that the Head of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals has no responsibility in relation to what is captured on the database given that the cases are from the LVTs.

WHO HAD A PART TO PLAY IN THIS?

Back to sections

(3) THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED is due to...

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.)

Jefferson House July 2002

Jefferson House September 2005

To be more precise:

( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)

UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT?

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

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.