Email this site to a contact
This
section contains: my 'layperson' definition
of some of the terms used in this website;
dictionary definition of words; extracts
from legislation, codes of conduct and
my lease - on which I have
based my position
|
| You are here > Home > Abbreviations / Definitions |
|
Abbreviations / Definitions - (Under Ongoing development)
This section comprises of:
1. Abbreviations used on the site
2. Definition of
terms: freehold; leasehold; forfeiture
3. Definition of
words from dictionaries and
charity organisations, followed by examples.
In the case of the word 'breach', the
following legislation, codes of
conduct, as well as my lease are covered:
4. Extracts from
the above are compiled in this section
Abbreviations
BC |
Bar Council (Member: Mr Stan Gallagher) |
BGA |
Brian
Gale Associates, Mr Andrew Ladsky's
surveyor |
BM |
Mr Barrie
Robert Martin, FRICS (Fellow of the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors),
Martin Russell Jones
'Surfaces' when Ms Joan Hathaway
needs 'assistance'. |
BVI |
British
Virgin Islands Financial Services |
CKFT |
Cawdery
Kaye Fireman & Taylor, solicitors
acting for 'Steel Services' (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners identity ) - Contacts: Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim
Has identified Mr Andrew David
Ladsky as its client |
CPR |
Civil
Procedure Rules |
DCA |
Department
for Constitutional Affairs (Subsequently disappeared following the creation of the Ministry of Justice)
Headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton,
the (then) Lord Chancellor, it (then) covered
the courts, the Legal Services
Ombudsman, the Land Registry, and
other departments. |
FSA |
Financial
Services Authority |
ICAEW |
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales; member: Pridie Brewster |
JH |
Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS (Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors), Martin Russell Jones, the main contact for Jefferson House |
K&C |
Kensington & Chelsea council |
L&T [date] |
Landlord & Tenant Acts
|
LGO |
Local Government Ombudsman
Part of the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
At the time of my dealings with the LGO, it reported to the same minister (Nick Raynsford) who's other responsibilities included, among others, Local Government. (I perceive this situation as amounting to conflict of interest) |
LM |
Ms Lisa Mclean, Legal Assistant, Piper Smith & Basham/Watton
|
LSO |
Legal Services Ombudsman
Part of the (then) Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), (then) headed by Lord Falconer of Thoroton |
LVT |
Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
Part of the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) |
MRJ |
Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for Jefferson House since 1989
|
ODPM |
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister - then headed by Mr John Prescott
|
PJ |
Portner and Jaskel , solicitors acting for Rootstock Overseas Corp, Sloan Development and, previously Steel Services (Advisors to Jefferson House ; Headlessors ; Freehold ownership ; Owners identity ) Contacts: Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Mr Ahmet Jaffer, Mr Daniel Broughton
Has identified Mr Andrew David Ladsky as its client |
PSB |
Piper Smith Basham/Watton - solicitors who were 'supposed' to be acting for me. Contacts: Mr Richard Twyman, Ms Lisa McLean |
OSS |
Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. (It has since been re-badged as Consumer Complaints Service...and more since: My Diary 12 April 2007 ) (Members: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Piper Smith Basham/Watton , Portner and Jaskel )
(According to an article in the Law Gazette of 3 August 2006 , the Law Society's complaints service spent £29 million (US$51 million) to handle nearly 19,000 complaints over a period of one year) |
Resident H |
Person who was running the Residents Association at Jefferson House until May 2001 |
RICS |
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; members Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones ; Mr Brian Gale, MRICS
And TOTALLY unlike these corrupt, evil, morally depraved individuals: my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock, LSM Partners |
S.[number] |
A short-cut for 'section' when referring to a section in an Act |
TRO |
Tenancy Relations Officer - at Kensington & Chelsea Housing department |
WCC |
Wandsworth County Court |
WLCC |
West London County Court 2002-2004 ; West London County Court - Post 2004 |
Definition of terms: freehold, leasehold and
forfeiture
Introduction
The following is a mix of 'my layperson ' definitions
of some terms used in this website, as
well as some extracts from legislation.
Please, refer to the appropriate sources
for the 'official' / expert definition / the
latest version / updates e.g. the
website of Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE),
a London-based, government funded department
which also publishes free leaflets and guides.
My personal assessment of LEASE (from first-hand
experience) is that, being a government department,
you get the 'party line' (See Mr John Prescott # 5 and # 6 ). However, it demonstrated
good knowledge of legislation. To find out about
the drawbacks / limitations / difficulties in
implementing the legislation, talk to other leaseholders. (Note: At the 22 November 2008 C.A.R.L. AGM, some leaseholders told me that they assessed LEASE as "useless" - My Diary 22 November 2008)
As to various Acts, you can buy them at: TSO Customer Services, TSO, PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 IGN – tel: 0870 600 5522; email: customerservices@tso.co.uk ; www.tsoshop.co.uk. Also at: (1) The Parliamentary Bookshop, 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX, tel: 020 7219 3890; (2) Blackwell’s Bookshop email: holborn@blackwell.co.uk, tel: 020 7831 9501.
The problem with these is that they are amended
(at times, in a significant way) through Statutory
Instruments - which are not the easiest things
to find, and can also be superseded by newer
Acts. The only source I know of is the website
for 'The Office of Public Sector Information'. Again,
I would suggest to you that you talk to other
leaseholders.
If you do a search on the Web, you will find
numerous other sources of information on leasehold,
including books. (It is a big industry as there
are c.3 million leaseholders in the United Kingdom
, and it is probably fair to say that the majority
are being abused by landlords and their aides
in one form or another. I give the list of cases
on the websites of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
and the Lands Tribunal in support of my claim)
What is freehold?
A freehold property means a property owned in
perpetuity. It is yours to keep for as long as
you live. You can give it to your children, who
can then give to their children, etc.
In other words, it is the system in existence
practically throughout the world.
What is leasehold in the context of a residential
property?
Best summarised as: "A licence to print
money" . (An 'off-the-record' quote made
to me by a Member of Parliament).
It is the dominant form of tenure for flats
(apartments) in the United Kingdom , principally
England and Wales .
Hence, if you want to live for example in London,
you have very little choice but to live
in a leasehold flat - as relatively few
are 'Commonhold'. (Your other option is a house
(as I understand it, they are generally freehold
properties). Nowadays, you are unlikely
to find one for less than £1
million (US$1.8 million) - at least in
the centre of London).
The leasehold system is an archaic, feudal,
outrageously unfair form of tenure. You need look no further than the umbrella term for the legislation pertaining to it : 'landlord-tenant' to get the message. Unfortunately, it's only once you are in the trap that you notice these things.
Put simply, under a leasehold form of tenure,
you buy the right - from the freehold owner
of the block of flats, or the headlessor (one
level below the freehold owner) (see e.g. the
structure in my block - at February 2006) - to live in the
flat for a given number of years which can
be anything from a few years to 100 years+.
What you pay for is usually equivalent to the
full freehold value of the property - as you
can readily see when you compare the price of
flats in London with the price of flats, for
example, in the major cities in mainland Europe
.
This leads many people, especially foreigners
unfamiliar with the leasehold system, but also
many British people to believe that they actually 'own'
the property. You often hear people say
that they "bought a flat" (as I did). They have
not. They have bought a lease i.e. paid rent
for 'x' number of years in advance.
Those who have the foresight - and perseverance
- to carefully wade their way through the
legal jargon of the terms of the lease
(or contract) (e.g. mine)
(which is different for each block, and
sometimes within a block) will usually
conclude that some, if not many of the
contract terms are highly unfair and unjust.
In fact, many read like a form of 'enslavement'.
While throughout the term of your lease you
have paid for all the upkeep of the block,
and might even have paid for improvements
/ enhancements to it, at the end of the
term, you have nothing left. That's right:
NOTHING! You end-up with your possessions on
the pavement as the freehold owner / headlessor
regains the property from you and sells the lease
again on the open market - of course, at the
current market price... in a perfect state of
repair and maintenance - as YOU have paid for
all the costs.
And the cycle repeats itself - thereby perpetuating
ownership of property in the hands of relatively
few freeholders. (Huge swathes of central London
are owned by a handful of so-called 'Great Estates'
e.g. Cadogan Estates, owned by the Earl of Cadogan,
the Grosvenor Estates, owned by the Duke of Westminster,
the Crown Estates and those of the Church with
thousands of residential and commercial properties).
What if you / your children / grand-children
want to stay in the property at the end of the
lease? You have to buy another term on the lease
i.e. you have 'to buy your flat' all over again - at
the current market price.
Whereas in other countries property tends to
be regarded as an investment that grows
in value over time, if you have a leasehold
flat in England and Wales, in effect, your
investment actually depreciates year-on-year
- until it gets to 'zero value'. However,
depending on a number of factors, including
the amount of time left on your lease,
the increase in property prices can still
lead to a significant return on investment
i.e. the lease on the flat can be sold
for more than the purchase price. (Remember
that this is my 'layperson' explanation.
Hence, consult expert, professional sources
for an informed assessment)
Some new legislation (Commonhold and Leasehold
Reform Act 2002) was introduced to, it was claimed
by the government, allow leaseholders to convert
ownership to commonhold i.e. buy their flat's
allocated share of the freehold (same principle
as ownership of flats in other countries). However,
there are so many hurdles to overcome that very
few blocks of flats have been able to take advantage
of it (e.g. The
Guardian , article of 6
August 2005 ). These hurdles are hugely
magnified when dealing with difficult freehold
owners (e.g. see My Diary 11 November 2006 ; 22 November 2008)
Clearly emphasising the intention to keep this
highly lucrative form of tenure in place
for the benefit of the freehold and headlease
owners (Sure enough! see My Diary 11 March 2008) is the fact that there is no compulsion
on developers to build new flats on a commonhold
basis (c.40% of new developments are leasehold).
(For detail, see towards the end of section Mr
John Prescott ; for more recent information: see The Leaseholder, Summer 2008 - Issue 24 on the C.A.R.L. website)
Back
to top
|
What is forfeiture?
In its Summer 2004, issue 12, C.A.R.L. ( www.carl.org.uk ) describes forfeiture as...
"...the weapon of mass destruction that bullying landlords use to intimidate leaseholders into paying excessive and often fraudulent service charge demands"
|
The first example of this is the 7
October 2002 letter I received from Mr
Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - on behalf of his client 'Steel Services' i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ), in which he also threatened to contact my mortgage lender. The intent
to bully, intimidate and coerce is particularly
evident when compared to the letter he
sent 10 days later to
the solicitor of another leaseholder
in my block (CKFT # 6.2 )
The second example is the 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel - on behalf of 'Rootstock Overseas Corp' i.e. also Mr Andrew Ladsky. Not only does Mr Hershkorn threaten me with forfeiture, he also threatens me with "bankruptcy proceedings... and costs" (Portner # 3 )
What the corrupt, morally depraved Mr Silverstone and Mr Hershkorn were threatening to do was to take the flat
away from me, unless I paid their client monies which were not due and payable. (To add insult to
injury, as I found myself thrown out on the pavement, I would still have had to pay my mortgage
lender any outstanding amount I had borrowed
to buy the lease on my flat).
As C.A.R.L. says, forfeiture "is the weapon of mass destruction..." widely - but illegally - used by rogue solicitors e.g. Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton (who was meant to act 'for me'), in spite of having absolute knowledge that the service charge demand was fraudulent (PSB # 7.7 ) - endorsed Mr Lanny Silverstone's letter of 7 October 2002 in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 stating "...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (PSB # 7.19 , # 7.18.5 )
It makes me think of the comment by the Reader of The Times "My father used to say that the mafia never got a foothold in this country because our legal system was more corrupt than they were. Now I know what he meant!" (My Diary 12 April 2007)
Rule 17.05 - Letters before action, in the Solicitors Code of Conduct states: “When writing a letter of claim a solicitor must not demand anything other than that recoverable under the due process of law” But the inappropriate use of the threat of forfeiture will continue because rogue solicitors have 'carte blanche' to do as they please by their 'professional' association, the Law Society, and by the Legal Services Ombudsman (CKFT # 6.2 , # 7 ; Legal Services Ombudsman # 2 ; Portner and Jaskel # 4 ) - making all these regulations, codes of conduct and legislation just window dressing. HOORAY FOR 'SELF-REGULATION' !
By the way, local councils also use forfeiture e.g. against an 84 year old man
As I understand it, the threshold allowing the
landlord to regain possession of the flat
from a leaseholder is now £350 (US$620). Unbelievably, this
is regarded as an 'improvement' (and has taken
endless hours of debate in the House of Lords
and various other quarters - by people who then
went back to... needless to say, their 'secure'
home).
As can be seen in the Evening
Standard article of 3 December 2003, headed " Left
homeless for £25 " (US$44),
a leaseholder was left homeless because her
landlord, used a landlord's right to forfeit
a lease for non-payment of her £25
(US$44) annual ground rent for her £60,000
(US$106,000) flat. (Apparently, the leaseholder
had sent at least two cheques to the landlord
but he was not cashing them, opting instead
to run along to the 'landlord-friendly' court
to obtain a forfeiture order).
The journalist describes forfeiture as "a
uniquely savage penalty inflicted only on leaseholders" . Here
is a law which, in the case of this leaseholder
gave her landlord the right to get possession
of an asset that was worth 2,400 times the
amount of the alleged debt.
A judge in Liverpool County Court was reported
in the press in 2004 as having thrown out a lender's
demand of £384,000 it claimed had accrued
from an original loan of £5,750 - on the
grounds that it "grossly contravenes principles
of fair dealing" .
Surely, current forfeiture law which
allows recovery of several thousand times the
alleged debt ought to more than qualify as "grossly
contravening principles of fair dealing"
In fact, as reported by C.A.R.L. ,
by having forfeiture on the statute book, the
government appears to be in breach of Article
1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Obligation to respect Human Rights" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998 .
This is illustrated by the decision in 'Commissioners
of Customs and Excise v. Newbury' ( Times Law
Report, 18 April 2003). In this case, judges
ruled that the attempt by Customs and Excise
to forfeit property in excess of the import duties
owed to it actually breached
Article 1 of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
C.A.R.L. also
views forfeiture as a breach
of Article 3, "Prohibition of torture" since it constitutes inhumane and degrading
treatment.
As captured on the home page and under Mr
John Prescott (# 4.3 ), in
2003, Keith Hill, then Housing Minister,
stated, on a BBC
Radio 4 programme, that the Commonhold
and Leasehold Reform Act does not adequately
address the serious problems posed to
leaseholders by the continued presence
of forfeiture on the statute books: "We
didn't probably appreciate quite how
significant this was for some of our
citizens." Oh,
really? (Might
it be because there are no 'citizens'
in this country - only 'subjects'?)
Definition of words - From dictionaries and
charity organisations
To ensure clarity of meaning, I have listed below a significant number of words used on the site, giving the dictionary description (COED = Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition) and followed them by examples that led me to use the words on the site.
A significant proportion of these words are drawn from my complaints : (1) to the Law Society against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (on 20 December 2004) and Piper Smith Basham (on 16 March 2004); (2) to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors against Martin Russell Jones (1.1MB) (on 2 February 2005); (3) to the Bar Council against Mr Stan Gallagher (on 5 April 2004)
The word 'breach' is used on numerous occasions and relates to the section of an Act / code of conduct, or a Clause in my lease. In these instances the name of the Act / code of conduct / the word 'My lease' links to the last part of this section 'Extracts from legislation, codes of conduct and my lease' that comprises of more comprehensive extracts
PLEASE NOTE that:
• Neither Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor nor Martin Russell Jones have come back to me since my complaint i.e. they have not refuted the content of my complaint. See Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher for their replies.
• In its 3 May 2006 reply to my letter of 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) Portner and Jaskel did NOT address a single point in my letter. Please note that, in this letter, I stated for example that its client (which I knew to be Mr Andrew Ladsky) had committed a criminal offence against me (under Section 10 (A) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987). Indeed, Portner and Jaskel wrote: “…your letter is irrelevant in places, misguided in others and incorrect in parts…”. In 'typical style', when I filed a complaint with the Law Society against Portner and Jaskel, it returned a verdict of "no malpractice" (Portner # 4 )
• Throughout the site (probably in excess of 40 times) , I have emphasised that I am NOT a lawyer e.g. Home page # 4.18 , # 7 , # 17 ; Home page to 'Lawyers, courts & Legal Services Ombudsman' # 5 ; Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6 , # 8 ; Martin Russell Jones # 13 , # 14 , # 24 ; Pridie Brewster # 21 , etc. In addition, when unclear, I write "it seems to me" e.g.re Laytons (under 'Notices by landlord' ) ; My Diary 18 February 2006, in relation to the so-called "notice of first refusal" sent to me by Portner and Jaskel
Against that, as stated on the home page to the site (# 15 ) : I TOO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD
(*) Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights "Right to freedom of expression" - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998; Defamation Act 1996 : Qualified privilege; Common law privilege ) |
Abuse |
COED
- "Treat with cruelty or
violence" |
Examples
|
• Used
by a leaseholder in the block to
describe Mr Ladsky, in her letter
to me of 1
November 2002
• My perception that West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court have assisted 'Steel Services' in abusing Jefferson House's leaseholders by turning a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence supplied against the claim WL203537, and associated Particulars of claim (1.1MB), as well as breaches of legislation (WLCC # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 4 )
• My perception that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has, likewise done the same thing by, among others: (1) wilfully failing to perform its remit ( # 6 , # 7 ); (2) in spite of its very damning report, LVT/SC/007/120/02, (3) agreeing to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's request for a hearing following my 20C application (# 5 , # 9 ) ; (4) failing to inform all the leaseholders of the application by 'Steel Services' ( # 10.2 ) ; (5) failing to copy "some" leaseholders on key elements of the application ( # 8.1.4 ; # 10.3 )
• My perception that
the Land Registry endorses
abuse of leaseholders by landlords
by registering title in complete
disregard of the impact on the lease - and refuses to take
action when brought to its attention (My Diary 28
March 2006 )
• The 'carte blanche' handed
to landlords and their aides by the
government, partly through / non-implementation of legislation (see e.g. Mr John Prescott # 4 and sub-points; # 5 , # 6 ),
and partly by having absolutely nothing
in place to help leaseholders who
fall victim of abusive landlords
and their aides - in spite of the claims to the contrary (see Mr John Prescott # 1 and sub-points ; # 2 and sub-points)
|
Arrogant |
COED
- "Having an exaggerated
sense of one's own importance or
abilities" |
Examples |
• Portner and Jaskel’s 10 February 2006 so-called “S.5 L&T 1987 Notice of first refusal” is fraudulent as it FALSELY claimed that 'Steel Services' was still the Lessor for the whole of Jefferson House at the time - when, in fact, six week previously, 'Steel Services' had disposed of its headlease interest to Lavagna Enterprises, thereby losing control of the last floor of Jefferson House - and becoming a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises (Headlessors ; Owners identity). (The 10 February 2006 "notice" is a carbon copy of previous notices when 'Steel Services' was the headlessor for the whole block (e.g. 13 December 2000 "notice" ; # 2 - 13 December 2000"Notice by landlord"). Nonetheless, Mr Daniel Broughton, Portner and Jaskel, repeated the lie twice during the notice period – as summarised in my 30 April 2006 letter to Mr Broughton - see Portner # 1 ; # 3 - 10 February 2006 bogus "Notice by landlord" ; Property Misdescriptions Act 1991
My guess that Mr Andrew Ladsky was the instigator of this malicious, vicious act also proved to be right as Portner and Jaskel helpfully confirmed this in its (libellous, scurrilous) 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP - PLUS the 'standard' Law Society's reply of 30 March 2007 to my 28 February 2007 complaint that Portner "Acted on the instructions of their client" - Portner # 5.1
What fuels this arrogance? Portner's knowledge that it has carte blanche from its 'professional' association, the Law Society, to do exactly as it pleases (Portner # 4 and # 5)
• The
court service charter allowing courts
10 days to reply to correspondence
while "courts are only required to give five
working days notice of a hearing
date"
• Every other government department I have approached for assistance during my horrendous nightmare experience since 2002 e.g. Kensington & Chelsea Council, the Local government Ombudsman, the Court Service
• All the so-called 'regulatory bodies' I have approached with a complaint against one of their members: legal sector, the RICS, the ICAEW...
...as well as their members e.g. Piper Smith Basham's response following what I view - considering events by then - as my very generous letter of 2 December 2003 letter to its Managing Partner and Complaint Officer ( PSB # 3 and its subsequent replies ) |
Assault |
COED
- "Law - An act that threatens
physical harm to a person, whether
or not actual harm is done" |
Examples |
• Being
pushed in the corridor by Mr Ladsky
on 26
February 2002 |
Bias |
COED
- "Inclination or prejudice for or
against one thing or person" |
Examples |
• My view of Mr Gallagher's assessment of my position - as I captured under point 135 of my 29 August 2004 reply (see also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct)
• Government departments
having ears only for a member of
their own 'tribe' - at the expense
of the leaseholders / consumers, in the process
implying that we are all liars, and / or imbeciles when putting forward evidence of breach statutory rights / malpractice e.g.
• The LVT taking
only notice of the correspondence
from Ms Hathaway e.g. her 8
October 2002 fax, 'her' 20
January 2003 letter - while
ignoring all of my correspondence
and that of numerous other leaseholders ( # 8.1 , # 8.1.2 , # 8.1.3 ) ,
as well as what we had all reported
at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial
hearing ( # 1 , # 10.3 )
• My view of events in West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court that they, in effect, let Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor 'run the show' (My 29 June 2004 letter to Lord Falconer )
• The judge in West London County Court I view as 'falling over backwards' to be of assistance to Ms Ayesha Salim -while admitting that he had not read the skeleton argument. And, very clearly, nor had he read any of the file (Lord Falconer # 3 )
• Reported by other leaseholders, as well as by the press (Lord Falconer # 4 )
• My view of the Legal Services Ombudsman's handling of my complaints against the Law Society (# 2 , # 3 ), and the Bar Council ( # 4 ), as well as # 5 and # 6
• My view of the Local Government Ombudsman's handling of my complaint against Kensington & Chelsea housing, and of the central housing department as being heavily biased towards landlords
• The view I now also hold of the police following my first-hand experience (see also My Diary 22 July 2005) |
Blackmail |
Definition
sourced from four different English
dictionaries, as well as the website
of charity organisations who deal
with this particular issue:
- “To exact or attempt
to exact (money or anything of
value) from (a person) by threats
or intimidation”;
- “The exertion of pressure
or threats, esp. unfairly, in
an attempt to influence someone’s
actions”;
- “The act of making
others do what one wants through
fear”;
- “Being made to feel
afraid or timid"
Under the Theft Act 1968, section 21 - "Blackmail", blackmail is a criminal offence |
Examples |
My - non-lawyer - assessment of the conduct of all of the following who did this with the objective of making me pay monies not due and payable:
• West London County Court that, in 2007, falsely claimed that I had filed a counterclaim; demanded I pay £1,700 and gave me three working days to do this - and subsequently, with the assistance of Her Majesty Court Service, attempted to cover it through deceit - point # 18 my complaint to the Court Service , point # 19 repeating the main points in my complaint, point # 23 and point # 22 highlighting the deceit and cover-up by WLCC and the Court Service
• West London County Court's actions in 2002 - 2004 that pursued the claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders - representing in total 14 flats) in the full knowledge that: (1) an abuse of process of court was taking place ; (2) the Particulars of claim were false; (3) proceeded to issue judgement/s against some of my fellow leaseholders - before the LVT issued its determination ; (4) to the very end, ignored my repeated claim that 'Steel Services' had not implemented the 17 June 2003 LVT determination
Among others, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor drew-up the - FALSE - claim against me and 10 other leaseholders - representing 14 flats - when, one month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal we, the leaseholders, had been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...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"
Among others, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, and Ms Hathaway were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing. One month later, Ms Hathaway filed the claim in West London County - under a Statement of Truth (1.1MB) (As she is the managing agent, it amounts to a very serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules by West London County Court - point # 23 ) • Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel who, in February 2007 - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky, threatened me with bankruptcy proceeding and taking the flat away from me, as well as Mr Ahmet Jaffer who took over from Mr Hershkorn - point # 3 and point # 15 , point # 16 , point # 17 , point # 23
• Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor e.g. point # 1 threatening to forfeit my lease and, on top of this, on behalf of a company that did not exist, point # 3 filing a fraudulent claim against me (and 10 other leaseholders) - and committing an abuse of process of court in the process , point # 5 a series of threatening letters, point # 6.2
• Ms Lisa McLean and Mr Richard Twyman, Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton) e.g.point # 7 evidently deciding with CKFT that they would force me to strike a deal, point # 7.2 falsely claiming I had seen the reply they sent to CKFT, point # 7.3 contrary to what had been agreed, agreeing to the payment of interest , point # 7.6 placing emphasis on threats instead of giving me a balanced opinion, point # 7.7 changing position to assist the scam, point # 7.9.2 my view that there was a shared understanding between Piper Smith Basham, Mr Stan Gallagher, CKFT and Martin Russell Jones that another - equally fraudulent service charge demand would be sent, point 7.11 engineering the situation to limit my ability to input into the reply, point 7.12 leading me to relinquish on my objective of getting my costs back from 'Steel Services'
The Law Society for England and Wales rejected my complaint against the above three firms : Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Piper Smith Basham (now Piper Smith Watton)
And the Legal Services Ombudsman rejected my complaint against the Law Society for its handling of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham and Cawdery Kay Fireman & Taylor
• Mr Gallagher who, at the time of the 'offer', repeatedly brandished the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious that this was the intention) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.4 ) , and continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Mr Gallagher # 5.1 ) (See also 'Breach' Bar Council Code of Conduct)
Of course, the Bar Council rejected my complaint against Mr Gallagher, and the Legal Services Ombudsman rejected my complaint against the Bar Council
• For instances of blackmail by Ms Joan Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin, Martin Russell Jones: they are endless
See also below:
• 'Breach': Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 - Section 4A
• 'Breach': Malicious Communications Act 1988
• 'Breach': Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Bullying , Coerce , Intimidate ; Torment ; Treatment - Medical |
Breach |
COED
- "The act of breaking a
law, agreement, or code of conduct" |
Breach |
Administration
of Justice Act 1970 - Section
40 - (1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-
harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;. |
Examples
In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' |
Having previously quoted breach of this Act in some of my documents, as well as listed examples in this section, going through the Act again has led me to change my mind as it refers to "debt due under a contract".
ALL my challenges of the service charge demands stem from non-compliance with my lease, statutory rights, non-provision of information, etc. - as listed e.g. in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement. Hence, the alleged debts were NOT due
|
Back
to top
Breach |
Bar
Council Code of Conduct - 303
(a) - "A
barrister must promote and
protect fearlessly...by...all
lawful means the lay client's
best interest...without
regard to his own interests..." |
Examples
In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' |
• Mr Stan Gallagher endorsed Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's position, and consequently that of Mr Andrew Ladsky, that the sum demanded for the "major works" was an "interim demand" - in spite of being provided with 'black on white' evidence to the contrary (Mr Gallagher # 1.3 , # 1.4 ) Under point 67 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council, I pointed that Mr Gallagher (and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor were "alone in their interpretation of my lease" as I had obtained an opinion from "several other lawyers" (Mr Gallagher # 2.2 )
• Under point 68 of my 25 March 2005 reply to the Bar Council's decision of 27 January 2005, I highlighted my disbelief at Mr Gallagher's endorsement of breach of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Section 21, as well as Section 25 - as he was of the view that "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts. can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" (his email of 12 November 2003) (Mr Gallagher # 2 , # 2.1 ) (Like me, Kensington & Chelsea Housing viewed non-performance as a breach of my statutory rights, including amounting to committing a criminal offence: K&C # 2 )
• Mr Gallagher ignored the fact that the service charge demand of 15 July 2002 (invoice 17 July 2002 ) breached several covenants in my lease e.g. Clause 2(2)(f) ; Clause 2(2)(g)(i) ; Clause (2)(2)(j) . This is evidenced by the fact that in the Notice of Acceptance, the sum total of his comments about my lease were: "The absence of due compliance with the service charge certification provisions prescribed by the lease" (Mr Gallagher # 1.6 , # 2 ; # 3.e.2 , # 7.1 )
To my subsequently challenging him on this point, he replied ( point 55, 9 June 2004 ) "the more vaguely this argument is presented, the better". To which my reply (point 123, 29 August 2004 ) was "For whom?" (Mr Gallagher # 1.6 , # 2.1 ; # 2.2 )
• Mr Gallagher continued to endorse 'Steel Services' breaches of not only my lease and my statutory rights, but also of what I consider as outright abuse of my most basic rights by stating (point 3(3) of his 11 October 2004 reply): "landlord's apparent breaches of the service charge accounting are not matters that negate a contractual obligation to pay service charges" (Mr Gallagher # 2.1 )
• In addition to ignoring my lease, Mr Gallagher also turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination by the tribunal (ref #992 on the LVT database), as the sum total of his comment in the Notice of Acceptance was: "...your client=s claim, as adjusted to take account of the LVT=s determination remains proceedings." Therefore, among others, Mr Gallagher made no reference to the fact that the lack/insufficient specification had not been addressed. (Mr Gallagher # 5.1 , # 7 )
• Further evidence that Mr Gallagher turned a 'blind eye and a deaf' to the LVT determination :
- (1) in his initial reply (point
21, 9 June 2004 ) to my complaint, Mr Gallagher described the LVT determination as a '"mix bag"
- (2) my reply (point 72, 29 August 2004 : "Given that the LVT determination is the crucial element in the resolution of the dispute, isn't it rather telling that, out of his 29 page reply, it is the only comment that Mr Gallagher has made about the LVT determination? " (Mr Gallagher # 3 (a) ; # 3.a.1 )
- (3) This led Mr Gallagher to change 'his tune' as, in his subsequent reply of 11 October 2004 , he wrote point 4(1)) : "At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings"
- Please note the "At the time". In other words, in Mr Gallagher's eyes a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded (inc. the contingency fund) "is not likely to carry much, if any weight on the court proceedings" (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.2 , # 3.a.3 )
- He eventually admitted (point 4(1)of his 11 October 2004 reply:
- "I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" (point 8)
- "I accept that it is possible that, given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a Court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs" (point 6) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.3 )
- (4) Yet , at the time of the 'offer', Mr Gallagher had repeatedly been brandishing the threat of "costs" in my face as a means of bullying me into accepting the 'offer' (I will not add 'allegedly' as it is glaringly obvious) (Mr Gallagher # 3.a.4 , # 4.1 ) , and had continued to do so in his initial reply of 9 June 2004 (I counted 10 instances in his 29 page reply) leading me to ask (point 67, 29 August 2004 ) "Mr Gallagher wants me to believe that, with this body of evidence, the odds were against me? Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" (Of course, he challenged my statement in his 11 October 2004 reply) (Mr Gallagher # 5.1 ) (I continued making this claim - because that is what I believe the evidence demonstrates - Mr Gallagher # 15 , # 19)
• Mr Gallagher also changed 'his tune' in relation to his assessment of the so-called "Notice" issued by Martin Russell Jones i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al. as, under point
3(2) of his 11 October 2004 reply that, at the time of the offer he had "concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure" while, previously, under point 58 of his 9 June 2004 reply, he wrote:
"The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered"
In addition to viewing Mr Gallagher's 11 October 2004 reply as an attempt to 'recover' from his 9 June 2004 'mistake' (triggered by my subsequent reply of 29 August), I also view him as having a rather unique interpretation of S.20 requirements - and this Lands Tribunal case (website printscreen) - which is very similar to mine - adds support to my view
Please note that in her 3 October 2003 letter to me (i.e. before the 28 October meeting), Ms McLean wrote "We had also discussed CKFT to prepare proper specification so that the items that were insufficient could be properly detailed...I accept that you had asked repeatedly for the specification. Where does this point take us now?" (PSB # 7.7 )
• Mr Gallagher held against me the fact that I had "refused opportunities" to strike a deal with Mr Ladsky et. al. Hence, Mr Gallagher held against me
- (1) the fact that I had obeyed (for as long as I could) the direction given to me at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing to NOT pay the service charge demand until the tribunal had issued its determination - and it had been implemented - in line with statutory requirements and the terms of my lease (Mr Gallagher # 3.e.1 , # 3.f.1 ) (Mr Gallagher took pains to emphasise that he was writing a book on LVTs i.e. to communicate that he is an 'expert' on the subject # 3.f.2 , # 12 )
- (2) the fact I have strong moral principles that prevented me from being treated differently from the other lessees i.e. striking a deal on terms other than those specified in my lease (Mr Gallagher # 3.e.2 )
• In his reply to the 'offer', Mr Gallagher ignored the fact that the lease supplied with the 22 November 2002, WL 203537 claim (1.1MB) against me - 'apparently' for flat 23 - is materially very different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) as it states "the amount of service charge payable is to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the lessor". My lease most definitely does not contain this outrageous contract term under the same numbered Clause. Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. (Mr Gallagher # 1.1 , # 9 , # 7.1 )
As a result of my pointing this out in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim - SIX WEEKS LATER (and therefore nearly two months after filing the claim) - in his 23 January 2003 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (see CKFT # 6.7 ; MRJ # 22 ; WLCC # 3 )
• As I captured under point 52 of 25 March 2005 letter to the Bar Council, in relation to Mr Gallagher boasting that the reply had been accepted: "He just said 'amen' to everything [in the offer]. Of course his reply was received was open arms" (Mr Gallagher # 11 ) and it certainly was! (My Diary Latter part of November 2003)
The reply did not reflect what had been agreed at the 28 October 2003 meeting (Mr Gallagher # 7 , # 8). In addition, my 'advisers' did not evidently consider breaches of covenants in my lease, of my rights under several Acts, etc. qualifying as sufficient reasons to challenge the 'offer' (Mr Gallagher # 9 , # 15 )
At the end of the day: Mr Gallagher (# 13 ), the Bar Council (Mr Gallagher # 16 ) and the Legal Services Ombudsman ( # 4 ) (Mr Gallagher # 17 ) disagreed with me that I had a valid complaint against Mr Gallagher - and, at the 'very end of the day', came up with the 'piece de resistance' that "Mr Gallagher's involvement concerned a time frame of only about three weeks" (Mr Gallagher # 18 )
In my 25 March 2005 letter to the Bar Council, I drew its attention to this rule in its Code of Conduct, as well as the rules below |
Breach |
Bar
Council Code of Conduct - 303
(b) - "A
barrister owes his primary
duty...to the lay client and
must not permit the intermediary
to limit his discretion as
to how the interests of the
lay client can best be served" |
Examples |
(See above ) |
Breach |
Bar
Council Code of Conduct - 5.
Conduct of work -
5.2 - "A barrister
must assist the court in the
administration of justice...must
not deceive or knowingly or
recklessly mislead the court" |
Examples
In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' |
• I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under point 26 of my 25 March 2005 reply (Mr Gallagher # 5. 1 ) |
Breach |
Bar Council Code of Conduct - Rule 901 - "Any failure by a barrister to comply with this Code shall constitute professional misconduct" |
Examples
In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' |
• I highlighted this rule to the Bar Council under point 81 of my 25 March 2005 reply (Mr Gallagher # 16 ) |
Back
to top
Breach |
Courts
and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter
41- Section 17 - A solicitor
has a "duty to ensure
the proper and efficient administration
of justice"
The courts expect "litigation to be started as a last resort after attempts have been made to settle the dispute by negotiations or other means..."
The parties "to have exchanged information (a 'cards on the table' approach): for claimants to provide to defendants detailed letters of claim (letters before action) to which defendants are expected to respond also in detail" |
Examples
In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' |
For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)
• The 16 February 2007 letter from Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, then at Portner and Jaskel, who - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - threatened me with "bankruptcy proceedings", forfeiture (taking the flat away from me), and "costs" in the name of "Rootstock Overseas Corp", a company I had never heard of (Portner # 15 ), if I failed to immediately pay £8,937 (US$15,800) (Portner # 3 )
• One of Mr Andrew Ladsky's responses to my 25 February 2007 reply asking for clarification was to ask Mr Hershkorn to file a claim against me in West London County Court, on 27 February 2007 (Portner # 6 )
• Knowing full well that the claim against me was fraudulent, Portner and Mr Ladsky kept the claim going for 16 months, when Mr Ladsky finally 'threw in the towel' on 6 June 2008 by dropping "ALL of the claim" against me (Portner # 31 ) They therefore ignored my reasons for challenging the claim - with evidence in support - in several documents, starting within 2 months of having the claim filed against me: (1) my 4 April 2007 application contesting the court's jurisdiction (WLCC # 3 ) (sent to Portner on 30 June 2007 - (2) my 3 May 2007 Skeleton Argument (WLCC # 5 ) - which obviously did not fit in with Mr Ladsky's plan, as Portner and Mr Ladsky's barrister, Mr Greg Williams, lied that they had not received mine - Portner # 17
The preceding events to the claim being dropped on 6 June 2008 were:
(1) my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg - Main Points) (Portner # 29)
(2) my letter of 5 June 2008, in response to the 23 May 2008 letter from Mr Ahmet Jaffer in which he suggested having the case transferred 'one level' up, from 'fast track' to 'multi-track'. In my letter, I highlight the main events of the previous 16 months proving that Mr Ladsky and Portner KNEW that the claim was fraudulent - detailed in Portner # 30 )
And further proof that the claim was fraudulent is the outrageous, preposterous excuse given by Portner for dropping the claim in its 11 August 2008 reply to my 22 July 2008 notice "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord". My response knocking out this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 reply (key points: Portner # 33)
• The 7 October 2002 letter from Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - acting for Mr Andrew Ladsky - in which he threatened to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I immediately paid the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 1 , # 6.2 ). Compared to the letter he sent ten days later to the solicitors of another leaseholder, it clearly demonstrates the intention to "cause me alarm and distress" - with the objective of making me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 6.2 ) (It caused me so much so distress that I ended-up being physically sick (My Diary 10 October 2002 ) )
• In my 17 October 2002 reply, I wrote: "2.1 As stated in my (recorded delivery) letters of 11 August 2002 and 16 September 2002 letters to Martin Russell Jones, I require additional information before I can agree to the demand. I have not received a reply...".
• Mr Lanny Silverstone's response of 21 October 2002 was "We are sure that Martin Russell Jones will provide you with copies of such information as you are entitled to receive pursuant to section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act"
• The 20 September 2002 reply to my request for information from Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones was: “…we have to require payment by return..if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services will have no alternative other than to instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings to obtain payment” ( MRJ # 25 , # 26 )
• The 29 November 2002 FRAUDULENT claim ( WL 023 537) filed in West London County Court by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor - FALSELY - stating in the Particulars of Claim (1.1MB) that "[I] have failed to pay the service charges... that they are now due and owing from [me] to the Claimant." and include a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones which states: "The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true" (CKFT # 2 , # 3 ) (NB: Endorsement of the witness statement by Ms Hathaway, a 'managing agent' - amounts to a very serious breach of CPR - My Diary 9 March 2007)
The Particulars of claim are FALSE given that:
- the tribunal had, one month previously, specifically told me (and other leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge) (*);
- seven months LATER, the outcome of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref #992 on the LVT database) was a reduction of nearly 70% (incl. the contingency fund) in the original sum demanded, from £736,206 (US$1.3 million) down to £235,947 (US$416,000) (see also LVT # 4 ; Pridie Brewster # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 8 , # 10 , # 12 , # 13 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 )
- the service demand breached statutory requirements: L&T 1985 - section 20(3)(a); 20(3)(b); 20(4)(e) - as amply demonstrated by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 determination (Stan Gallagher # 1.7 )
- the demand was in breach of the terms of my lease - Clause 2(2)(c)(ii); 2(2)(e); 2(2)(g)(i); 2(2)(j) (Stan Gallagher # 1.6 )
(*) One month previously, during the 29 October 2002 pre-trial tribunal hearing we, the leaseholders, had specifically been told to NOT pay until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented. In support of this, we were given a leaflet which, on page 5 states that ""...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" (LVT # 1 )
Among others, CKFT's client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, and Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, were in attendance at this pre-trial hearing.
In my 17 October 2002 letter I asked "Are you aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for determination of the reasonableness of the charge for the major works?" In his 21 October 2002 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone wrote: "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" (CKFT # 2 )
• Furthermore, to further assist its client's fraudulent objectives, with the claim, CKFT also provided a copy of the lease 'apparently' for flat 23 claiming that it is representative of my lease. This is NOT true, as it is materially different from my lease in relation to Clause (2)(2)(c)(i). Hence, it amounts to making materially untrue claims to the court as to my contractual obligations. As a result of my pointing this out in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim - SIX WEEKS LATER (and therefore nearly two months after filing the claim) - in his 23 January 2003 letter, Mr Lanny Silverstone asked me to supply a copy of my lease. (I did) (CKFT # 6.7 ; WLCC # 3 ; MRJ # 22 )
(See also West London County Court # 1 , # 2 , # 4 , # 6 ) • So, in addition to making inappropriate use of forfeiture legislation (CKFT # 6.2 ), ignoring breaches of covenants in my lease, and of my statutory rights (CKFT # 6.4 ; # 6.5 ) CKFT also committed an abuse of process of court (CKFT # 2 ; # 6.1 )
• Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim further lied during the proceedings (WLCC # 8 ; # 10 ) - including under a statement of truth (CKFT # 6.6 ) • With the assistance of Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones continued issuing - FALSE - documents to West London County Court - and to other leaseholders - namely for the 24 June 2003 (WLCC # 7 ; # 8 ) and 26 August 2003 (WLCC # 9 ; # 10 ) hearing, FALSELY claiming that I then owed £10,917 (US$19,250).
• Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, sent me a dozen highly threatening, fraudulent, libellous letters, always "with costs" (Of course! ) - principally intended to force me to strike a deal with their client, Mr Andrew Ladsky i.e. make me pay monies that were not due and payable (CKFT # 5 ; WLCC # 10)
• Letters from e.g. Leaseholder C and Leaseholder M, and other events demonstrate that the intimidation tactics used by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor / Martin Russell Jones / Portner and Jaskel LLP worked in relation to some of the other leaseholders (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ; LVT # 8.1.2 ; Other Residents ; Elderly Resident)
• Evidently - my 'advisers' - Mr Richard Twyman and Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, and Mr Stan Gallagher, did not view these serious breaches against me under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Ch.41, S.17, etc - as material - Mr Gallagher # 1.1 , # 5.1 , # 9 ; PSB # 7.12.1 ...
...because they are from the same breed as Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, and Mr Jeremy Hershkorn, Mr Ahmet Jaffer and Mr Daniel Broughton - Portner and Jaskel...
... - as further exemplified by the following: in spite of having absolute knowledge that the 17 July 2002 service charge demand was fraudulent (PSB # 7.7 ) Ms Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham/Watton , wrote in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 in relation to the 7 October 2002 threat of forfeiture of my lease by Mr Lanny Silverstone that "...it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of service charges" (PSB # 7.19 , # 7.18.5 )
Of course, what I have come to nickname "the fertiliser for malpractice" - the Law Society - (My Diary 12 April 2007) has dismissed all my complaints against its above members i.e. Portner and Jaskel, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and Piper Smith Basham/Watton. And of course, the same outcome of "no malpractice" from the Bar Council. And to round it off: the seal of approval from the Legal Services Ombudsman (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ; Stan Gallagher. And of course, likewise, the Court Service dismissed my complaint against West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court: Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Nice clubby set-up!
(See also related:
• What I view as Mr Ladsky and Portner and Jaskel's highly vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident; also in My Diary, 18 February 2006
|
Breach |
Criminal
Justice Act & Public Order
Act 1994 - Section
4A - "...criminal
offence to cause harassment,
alarm or distress with intent
by using threatening words" (It can only be an offence if it happens in a public place) |
Examples
In my 'NON-LAWYER opinion' |
For a comprehensive overview of surrounding events - see my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4pg Main Points)
• In the public environment of the tribunal hearing on 5 February 2003 - as members of the public came in and out of the hearing - portraying me as a liar and as an individual who defaults on her obligations, Mr Andrew Ladsky blamed the tribunal proceedings on me, asking 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?" (My Diary - 5 February 2003 )
• During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Warwick, Steel Services counsel - FALSELY - portrayed me to the tribunal as a dishonest person, who breaches contractual obligations, by stating that "the reason [I have] been challenging the service charge demand is because I did not want to pay it" (LVT # 3 ; My Diary 13 March 2003)
• During the tribunal hearings - as members of the public came in and out of the hearings - Mr Andrew Ladsky and Mr Brian Gale, MRICS - FALSELY - portrayed me as a liar, a dishonest person who defaults on her obligations (Brian Gale # 4 ).
• At the 24 June 2003 West London County Court hearing (My Diary - 24 June 2003), in front of other leaseholders and their party - hence: members of the public - Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, FALSELY portraying me as a liar and as an individual who defaults on her obligations, demanded that I pay for his client's costs for the day.
Prior to the hearing, in the waiting area of the court, in front of several people - Mr Lanny Silverstone handed me some documents stating that I owe his client money - which was not true (as, among others, the LVT determination had not been implemented) (My Diary 24 June 2003)
(See also related:
|
< |