Email this site to a contact

 

A very brave and very decent man, with a lot of 'guts' and integrity - who 'dared' to stand-up to Rachman Andrew David Ladsky

Elderly Resident - At 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').

 

Having led Leaseholder H (Head of Residents Association) to leave the block, Andrew David Ladsky's attack then focused on Leaseholder A (who was an elderly gentleman)... as he was refusing to be treated like a doormat.

For starter, there was the fact that Leaseholder A (and Leaseholder B) had complained against Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police. ( He also told me the person he had (subsequently?) spoken to at Kensington & Chelsea police was Emma Whitlock, number 92ES) (NB: confirmed under the 08/04/02-14h32 entry of the 22 Jul 11 version of the 2002 "crime report").

Their complaint to the police was followed...

... by an identical letter from Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), to both of them, dated 11 Oct 01 (letter to Leaseholder A; letter to Leaseholder B) - stating:

"We are solicitors instructed by Mr Andrew Ladsky .

Our client was visited by Mr D Malam from the Chelsea Police Station" (1)

"The allegation was slanderous...our client's credit and reputation have been damaged." (2)

"He has suffered embarrassment and distress." (3)

"Our client requires you to compensate him in respect of the loss and damage that he has suffered." (4)

"He requires your formal written apology" (4)

"The police have investigated the allegation and have determined that it was completely unfounded" (5)

(1)- No doubt, bowing down to the floor, and to take instructions from 'the brother'.

(2)- Considering the evidence contained on this website: cue to laugh out loud!

(3)- Oh Dear!

(4)- Of course! And so that he can parade it to the rest of the 'Jewish' landlord fraternity, to show that he has complete control over his 'concentration camp'?

(5)- Quelle surprise! (See Kensington, Chelsea and Notting Hill police)

(NB: It seems to me that this letter from Ayesha Salim amounts to harassment of witnesses)

Another point to note: this is the 'standard Andrew David Ladsky template'. Indeed, see:

 

Around the time of the above identical letter of 11.10.02 'from' Ayesha Salim to the residents, several leaseholders, including Leaseholder A, had approached Nucleus, our local Citizens Advice Bureau for assistance in relation to 'service charge' demands.

In Nov 01, Nucleus had suggested we appoint an arbitrator (as per the clause in the Lease - Clause 2(2)(g)).  

(NB: At the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' at the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, the Chair highlighted the arbitration clause to us (i.e. the leaseholders) and told us that, because of this clause in our Lease, the application by 'Steel Services' might actually not proceed to a hearing by the tribunal).

Because Leaseholder A paid the initial £250 (US$440) application fee to appoint an arbitrator, his name featured on the application document. As we subsequently discovered that the arbitrator would be charging £130 (US$230) an hour for this service, we did not proceed with the application.

Following on from this, Leaseholder A received a letter from 'Steel Services' = Ladsky (1), dated 02.01.02, stating, among others:  

"The arbitration you have undertaken and which you have now suspended, or cancelled, has caused this company financial loss."

"Your appointment of an arbitrator where no dispute existed [2] was inappropriate, frivolous and vexatious." (3)

This company has incurred legal fees amounting to £705 [US$1,250]... and surveyor fees of £881 [US$1,560]... (4)

We require payment of the above amounts within fourteen days, failing which we shall take such appropriate steps as may be available to us, including issuing proceedings against you without further notice" (5)

(1)- Comparing the inimitable, Hitler-style of the letter, with: (i)- the 14.11.01 'from Steel Services' to Nucleus; (ii)- Ladsky's 25.01.01 letter to me (and other leaseholders).

(2)- We were disputing the 'service charges' and, as can be very easily believed from e.g. the Overview ; Extortion ; Advisors to Jefferson House, etc. - it was, of course, falling on deaf ears.

(3)- The unbelievable arrogance of that evil vermin (I repeat my Comments under Persecution (1)(4)) - who very clearly does not know the meaning of the words (Overview).

(4)- Really? How?

(5) = The 2 ingredients used by Rachman Ladsky and his equally racketeer aides: demanding payment of unwarranted sums - combined with the threat of proceedings

(Overview; more detail in e.g. Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and # 26 ; Martin Russell Jones # 14 ; # 24 ; # 25 ; # 26).

The undeniable proof of this: the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = the FRAUD TOOLS used by the 'Jewish' mafia.

As Leaseholder A was not paying the sum demanded, in a letter dated 28.01.02, Portner and Jaskel demanded payment of £1,337 [US$2,360], stating:

"We are instructed to inform you that unless we are in receipt of the aforementioned sum by 4.00 p.m. on 31 January next proceedings shall be issued against you to recover without further notice"

Within less than a month, Leaseholder A received a claim from Central London County Court for £1,532 (US$2,700), dated 26.02.02. This claim was filed by Portner and Jaskel.

(Some 'good' came of it as 'Steel Services' stated an address in the British Virgin Islands, which prompted me to follow this up, leading me to discover that 'Steel Services' had been "Struck off the registry for non-payment of the licence fee". See Owners identity for background detail, and British Virgin Islands).

This claim against Leaseholder A was NOT justified - as it was purely and simply 'revenge' by Rachman Ladsky against this very brave, elderly Resident, who 'dared' to stand-up to Ladsky.

His solicitor told him that it would cost as much as the sum demanded, if not more, to defend it so, he might as well pay. (This, to me, smacks of collusion). The poor man did pay.

The sena qua non of the 'Business Model of the Unscrupulous Landlord in 21st century England'...

... 'the costs' combined with intimidatory litigation - had worked!

= Rachman landlord: £1,532 [US$2,700] better off!

In relation to this bunch of thugs' method of operating, see Portner and Jaskel for my horrendous and very traumatic experience with it in 2007-08, namely with Jeremy Hershkorn and Ahmet Jaffer:

In relation to the bogus 10.02.06 "notice" sent by Daniel Broughton, Portner (Portner # 1), as I captured in My Diary under 18 Feb 06, at the time I received the "notice":

"It appeared to offer a golden opportunity for PAY-BACK to Portner and Jaskel - and its client - for what they had done to the Elderly Resident. I WAS RIGHT! And I had great fun doing it"

While under the entry for Saturday 29 Apr 06, I wrote:

"As I hand the [30.04.06] letter tomorrow at the post office, my thought for Portner and Jaskel will be "With my compliments and those of the Elderly Resident you bullied and tried to intimidate - you scum!"

As, typically, the so-called 'regulators' of the legal sector turn a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to malpractice by lawyers, consumers are left with battling it out on their own (Portner # 4 and # 5 ; summary of the outcomes of my complaints).

P.S. Like me, and Leaseholder H, Leaseholder A received anonymous phone calls - of course, from Ladsky, the Rachman sociopath / psychopath.

This is confirmed under the 18/02/02-18h53 entry of the 22 July 11 version of the 2002 "crime report"). The Elderly Resident told me that he ended up asking British Telecom (BT) to block calls from the number.

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top