Email this site to a contact

 

A very brave and very decent man, with a lot of 'guts' and integrity

Elderly Resident

 

Having led Leaseholder H to leave the block, Mr Andrew Ladsky's attack then focused on Leaseholder A (who is 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 Mr 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).

Their complaint to the police was followed by an identical letter from Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , to both of them, dated 11 October 2001 (letter to Leaseholder A; letter to Leaseholder B).

In this letter, Ms Ayesha Salim states (emphasis, and comments in brackets are mine)

"We are solicitors instructed by Mr Andrew Ladsky .

Our client was visited by Mr D Malam from the Chelsea Police Station.

The allegation was slanderous...our client's credit and reputation have been damaged (NB!!!... Considering the evidence contained on this site)

He has suffered embarrassment and distress . (Oh dear!)

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

He requires your formal written apology" (No less!)

The letter also stated,

"The police have investigated the allegation and have determined that it was completely unfounded" (What a surprise!) (See Police)

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

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

Around the time of the identical letter of 11 October 2002 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 November 2001, Nucleus had suggested we appoint an arbitrator (as per the clause in the lease - Clause 2(2)(g) ).  

(NB: At the 29 October 2002 pre-trial hearing at the 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 LVT)

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', dated 2 January 2002 which, among others states:  

"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 was inappropriate, frivolous and vexatious.

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

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"

= The two ingredients used by the unscrupulous Mr Ladsky et. al. and their equally unscrupulous aides: demanding payment of unwarranted sums - combined with the threat of proceedings (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and # 26 ; Martin Russell Jones # 14 ; # 24 ; # 25 ; # 26 )

As Leaseholder A was not paying the sum demanded, in a letter dated 28 January 2002 , Portner and Jaskel, solicitors, 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 further notice" (NB: i.e. two days after writing the letter)

Within less than a month, Leaseholder A received a claim from Central London County Court for £1,532 (US$2,700) , dated 26 February 2002 . This claim was filed by Portner and Jaskel.

(Some 'good' came of it as Steel Services states an address in the British Virgin Islands, which prompted me to follow this up, making a very interesting discovery - namely that Steel Services had been "Struck off the registry for non-payment of the licence fee". See section Owners identity for detail) (See British Virgin Islands for background information)

This claim against Leaseholder A was not justified, but 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. 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!

= 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: the threat of bankruptcy and forfeiture (point # 3 ); .filing a fraudulent claim against me (points # 6 , # 30 , # 31 , # 33)

In relation to Portner's bogus 10 February 2006 "notice" (Portner # 1), as I captured in My Diary under 18 February 2006, 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 April 2006, I wrote

"As I hand the 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 scums!

As 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 ; Lawyers, Courts & Legal Services Ombudsman)

PS. Like me, and Leaseholder H, Leaseholder A received anonymous phone calls. He told me that he ended up asking British Telecom (BT) to block calls from the number.

Back to top