The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
"If you are a landlord, we’ll help you intimidate the leaseholders " (My interpretation of Kensington & Chelsea police’s position) |
kensington & chelsea Police - Home
(NB: Kensington & Chelsea police is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) Kensington & Chelsea police dismissed my complaint and that of at least four other leaseholders when we (separately, over time) reported Mr Andrew Ladsky for harassment and intimidation. Hence, a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 However, the following year, when Mr Ladsky reported me for "swearing at him" , Kensington & Chelsea police no longer had any concern about the "need for evidence", nor 'judicious' use of resources. See section 1 below for instances of harassment, intimidation, assault (one occasion, on 26 February 2002) I have suffered, as well as infringement on my privacy. Examples of other harassment, subsequent to my reporting events to Kensington & Chelsea police in 2002: 27 July 2003 ; 27 August 2003 ; 19 April 2005. To these, can be added Mr Ladsky's attempt to bully and intimidate me during the tribunal hearing on 5 February 2003 - which he preceded by filing a complaint against me with Kensington & Chelsea police in January 2003 - see section 2 below (And other residents have suffered the same treatment from Mr Andrew Ladsky - see the (incredibly brave) person who headed the residents assocation ; the Elderly Resident ; Other Residents. Considering the approach and content of the correspondence, to this can also be added the harassment and intimidation of the local Citizens Advice Bureau, Nucleus ) In addition to these events amounting to repeated criminal offences against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, they also amount to breaches of my Human Rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998:
NOTE at 20 March 2007 : Kensington and Chelsea police has, not only yet again confirmed that it considers me as having no rights, it also readily implied that I had 'committed a crime'... on which it then backed-down following being challenged by my website Host - although it continued to refer to a "racist incident" - while still not providing evidence in support of this statement. It also branded me "a Nazi"- see My Diary 20 March 2007
Sections
(1) Harassment, intimidation and assault in 2002The following are hyperlinked to My Diary 30 January 2002 - At c. 23h00 when I came back from work, Mr Andrew Ladsky forced me into the building by coming within centimetres of me as I was at the front door. I asked him who he was (I had never seen him before), whether he was living in the block. He replied: "None of your business" 1 February 2002 - (At the time I had just replied to Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for the block, that the planned survey for the block dealt with items connected with the building of an extra floor rather than with redecoration). At 22h45 somebody presses my door bell and immediately walks into the building (i.e. has the key to the front door). The lift is activated for a long time i.e. going up several floors. Mr Ladsky was living on the 5th floor at the time. I conclude that it is him, given the encounter on 30 January 2002, as well as the history of harassment and intimidation of other residents, including in particular of the person who was running our residents association the minute she interfered with his plans. (See also Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000 , as well as harassment of other residents: Elderly Resident , Other Residents - and of Nucleus, local Citizen Advice Bureau ) 15 February 2002 - At 23h45 a small hard object is thrown at my windows. It is immediately followed by somebody coming into the building. Yet again, the lift is activated for a long time. Again, I conclude that it must be Mr Ladsky. 17 February 2002 - I received anonymous phone calls at home in succession from 21h50. British Telecom (BT) told me that 13 calls were made that evening. (I switched the bell off after 8-9 calls in succession). (Note: Although I did not have a trace on my phone on 17 February, BT was nonetheless able to trace the calls) 18 February 2002 - In the evening, I went to the local police station, Kensington & Chelsea, to report the calls, as well as pressing of my door bell and object thrown at my windows. I was subsequently told that the form I had completed at the station was lost. I therefore had to complete another one - crime report BS 560 4102/02C 19 February 2002 - Another seven anonymous phone calls were made to my home phone. All were traced by BT (I also received anonymous phone calls at work: late February / early March 2002) w/c 18 March 2002 - After an extensive amount of correspondence to get the police to take action (see Document library), Kensington & Chelsea CID told me that the calls made from a mobile number were from a phone that belonged to Resident K who then lived in flat 33 (apparently, below that of Mr Ladsky). (NOTE In August 2007 this resident was still in the block - which I find most extraordinary - see the note at the beginning of the section on Ex(?) Resident K ) CID also told me that Resident K had said that her phone had been stolen in November 2001.
25 March 2002 - Kensington & Chelsea CID said that Resident K admitted having made the calls . Apparently, that she had said that "she had nothing against me" ; "she did not know why she made the calls" ; "she was very sorry" . The sequence of events implies that, in the space of c. three hours, the police had contacted the resident, made her come to the police station (for her interrogation), and completed the report (if, indeed, report there was, as the CID person never complied with my request to give me - in writing - what he had told me). On 25 March 2002, the CID person also told me that Resident K had also complained of being harassed by Mr Ladsky (NB:!!!) (This is captured in my 2 April 2002 letter to Paul Webster, Detective Inspector, Kensington Police station. Clearly, I would not have written this to the head of the local police if it were not true. Note also that the CID person never came back to me to challenge what I wrote in the letter) I subsequently found that a "caution", filed on 10 October 2003 in favour of Steel Services had been entered on the Land Registry for flat 33 . See the details of the Particulars of Claim (1.1.MB) supplied with the claim filed in West London County Court on 29 November 2002, which indicate that the claim against flat 33 was the second highest, at £62,000 (US$109,300) (NB: Please note that the 29 November 2002 claim was drawn-up by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Mr Andrew Ladsky's solicitors, and filed in court - under a Statement of Truth - by Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones This claim is FALSE as explained throughout this site e.g. Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 , # 6 , # 7 ; Mr Brian Gale, Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor, Martin Russell Jones, Mr Stan Gallagher, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Pridie Brewster point # 18 Not surprisingly, finding themselves with the equivalent of having 'a gun held to their head' (see CKFT # 5 , # 6.1 and # 6.2 ) - in the context of West London County Court opting to ignore the fact that the court action was an 'abuse of process of court' as it continued with the action against the leaseholders - including issuing judgement/s - led to nine out of the 14 flats to pay the full amount demanded in the claim - as explained in the section on Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 , # 6.3 , # 6.6 , as well as Pridie Brewster point # 18 ) A detail of events is captured in my 2 April 2002 letter to Paul Webster, Detective Inspector, Kensington Police station. You will see that the police story simply does not 'stack-up'.
Please, compare this against the following - which predates Mr Webster's letter: • An identical letter, dated 11 October 2001, sent by Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor , to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B who had reported Mr Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police:
The next sentence reads:
• The CID person telling me that Resident K (who allegedly made the anonymous phone calls to me) had told him that Mr Ladsky had been harassing her (as I captured on the second page of my 2 April 2002 letter to Mr Paul Webster). (As previously stated: very clearly, I would not have written this to the head of the local police station if it were not true). • The CID person telling me that "nobody else has complained about him" (i.e. Mr Ladsky) (NB: Proving that he had heard of Mr Ladsky!) When I replied "how about the man in flat [x]?", his split second reply was: "the 71 year old man" . This is captured in my 13 March 2002 letter to the Police Complaints Authority - on which I copied the CID person. (Likewise, I would not have written this if it were not true. Note also that the CID person never challenged me on this). • The fact that the person who headed our Residents Association had reported Mr Ladsky to the same police station in 2001 / 2002. While I have absolutely no doubt that she did it, this was confirmed in an email to me from another leaseholder, dated 18 April 2002
This leaseholder then continues:
After several months of battling with Kensington & Chelsea police (see Document library), I escalated my complaint to Sir Toby Harris, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, asking for his assistance in my letter dated 5 May 2002 , requesting an independent review of the investigation conducted by Kensington & Chelsea police. What prompted me to do this was the department's remit on its website:
In this letter, I provided comprehensive details of events, and identified Mr Ladsky as the perpetrator of the harassment and intimidation I was suffering. As my letter had not been acknowledged, I sent an email on 31 May 2002 addressed to the Chair - in which I related more recent events with Kensington & Chelsea Police - because, yet again, they don't 'stack-up' . Indeed, CID told me that the (then) resident of flat 33 was also the originator of the anonymous phone calls made from a landline phone. CID claimed that the calls had been made by this resident from the Carlton Tower hotel. This explanation is very difficult to accept as: (1) it implies that the resident would have booked a room in the hotel (how else could the calls be traced to her?); (2) the hotel is 150 metres from Jefferson House where she had a large flat. (Also, would the hotel keep a record of telephone calls for four months?) My chaser email led Sir Toby Harris to reply on 11 July 2002
He goes on to say,
He also wrote
I replied to the Chair on 4 August 2002 . In this letter, I wrote, among others:
I concluded my letter by stating:
Subsequent events in 2003 only served to reinforce my feelings.(The 7 August 2002 reply from the Metropolitan Police Authority to my 4 August 2002 letter, once again stresses the need for "evidence" ) I should also add that in 2002 Kensington & Chelsea police tried to talk to me. However, given my experience, the only communication I was prepared to have with the police was in writing. Because of this, in a letter dated 20 June 2002 , the A/Inspector, Chelsea Police station, informed me that my
Evidently, Kensington & Chelsea police does not consider the contents of correspondence as evidence. (Hence, same attitude as two other government departments in the borough of Kensington & Chelsea: West London County Court in 2002-2004 and from 2007 , as well as Kensington & Chelsea Housing) This is how Kensington & Chelsea Police treated me. (2) By 2003 - 'mysteriously'- Kensington & Chelsea Police no longer had concerns for "evidence" and the 'judicious' use of resourcesIn January 2003, Mr Andrew Ladsky reported me to the same police station for "swearing at him" This was preceded on 3 January 2003 by Mr Ladsky telling me "I am going to get you this year". Evidently anticipating that he would "get me" at the 5 February 2003 tribunal hearing, on 20 January 2003, Mr Ladsky told me "Better luck next time" The complaint from Mr Ladsky generated a letter from Neil Watson PC 206BS, Crime Investigator (NB !!!!), dated 27 January 2003 in which he wrote:
Very clearly, no concern here about: "acting only on the basis of established facts" (The 11 July 2002 reply to me from the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority). And, obviously, another of the Chair's comment in his 11 July 2002 letter that I must
did not apply in this instance either. Moreover, whereas complaints (spread over time) against Mr Ladsky by at least five residents are not recorded, his complaint against me is! My assessment of this: COMPLICITY Neil Watson PC 206BS, asked me in his 27 January 2003 letter to contact him "to clarify this situation" .
My not responding led to another letter dated 6 February 2003 from Neil Watson PC 206BS: "...please contact me" . When I replied by recorded delivery on 11 February 2003 asking for precise details - in writing - of the allegation, there was no (official) follow-up whatsoever by the police. In light of events, I hold the view that Kensington and Chelsea police had committed an offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Please note that I had brought Kensington & Chelsea Police to the attention of my then Member of Parliament, Mr Michael Portillo, in my pack to him dated 27 May 2002 - from which (on page 18) I quote:
Please, note also that in the pack to Mr Portillo, I also report that I have been the victim of harassment, intimidation and assault. I also state that other residents, as well as Nucleus, our local Citizen Advice Bureau, have, likewise suffered harassment and intimidation by Mr Ladsky. (3) In conclusion, at least five leaseholders have complained to Kensington & Chelsea police against Mr Andrew Ladsky:
'Apparently', the tenant of Leaseholder E also complained against Mr Ladsky sometime in 2004 (see Other Residents section) Are there other lessees / their tenants who have reported Mr Ladsky to Kensington & Chelsea police?Oh! but of course, as Paul Webster, Detective Inspector, wrote in his 23 April 2002 reply to me
And indeed, as Ms Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor captured in her identical letter of 11 October 2001 to Leaseholder A and Leaseholder B:
(NB: It 'seems' to me that this 11 October 2002 letter from Mr Salim amounts to harassment and intimidation of witnesses - which is a very serious offence) In addition to which:There is the harassment and intimidation of Nucleus, our local Citizen Advice Bureau. Comparison of the 14 November 2001 letter it received from 'Steel Services' with the 25 January 2001 letter Mr Andrew Ladsky sent me (and other leaseholders) suggests the same originator: same layout, same typeface, same writing style. (Another letter in the 'same style', from 'Steel Services', dated 2 January 2001 was sent to Leaseholder A, the Elderly Resident) (NOTE at October 2006: In its 3 October 2006 letter to my then ISP, Portner and Jaskel has 'helpfully' confirmed what I knew from the time of what I view as the vicious 'attack' on the Elderly Resident: its client is Mr Andrew Ladsky) And the police's position is that: "there is not enough evidence to take action against Mr Ladsky" ??? Compare this with events when Mr Ladsky reported me to the same police station for "swearing at him"... (Subsequent note - And add to that my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police in March 2007 )
(4) The outcome is that it is 'I' the INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME who ends-up with a police record......which I assume from the 27 January 2003 letter:
In theory, under the Freedom of Information Act, I have the right to request a copy of the information held on me by the police. In practice, judging from the 4 December 2006 article in The Guardian, "Afraid of the daylight" (back-up extracts), I am highly unlikely to get anything:
(I note that Mr John Prescott (subsequent note: Head of Housing at the time) does not feature as one of the parties with 'clearance rights' - see below as well as Mr John Prescott # 3 and the Home Office ) Juding from the article in The Independent of 15 December 2006, headed "Blair questioned by police on day of 'burying bad news' " , Lord Falconer (then Head of the DCA) is pressing ahead with ensuring that his employer i.e. the taxpayer is kept in the dark as to what fortress government gets up to:
(5) I saw no point reporting the various parties to the police for committing - allegedly - criminal offencesIn light of my first-hand experience with the police, when, in reply to my complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, the Law Society stated that my "alleged criminal offences should be reported to the police", and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors took a similar line in reply to my complaint against Martin Russell Jones - I saw no point doing this. I captured this in my 20 February 2005 letter to the Legal Services Ombudsman. (6) Additional food for thought...... It seems that if Mr Ladsky was 11 years old, I and the other residents 'might' have been able to get an ASBO (Anti-social behaviour order) placed on him. The attached Daily Mail article of 6 June 2005 reported such a case
Clearly, there is no point referring this question to the Home Office . Indeed, in August 2003, I copied it on each of the dozen (identical) letters I sent to various media (e.g. The Guardian ) in which I referred to my experience with Kensington & Chelsea police, its 27 August 2003 reply stated that it had forwarded my letter to Mr Prescott's Office "for a suitable reply" . Translation: "Get lost!" It is interesting to note that landlord-tenant related matters involving the police were de-facto referred to Mr Prescott's office. Had Mr Prescott issued directives to the Home Office on how the police should handle complaints by leaseholders against their landlord? Have directives been issued which include harassment and intimidation of 'troublesome' leaseholders who insist on exerting their statutory rights and common law rights? Given events, I consider this to be a fair question for me to ask. (See My Diary from the summer of 2005) My seven-month battles with Kensington & Chelsea police, and subsequently with the Police Complaints Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority have cost me c. 100 hours of my life (=nearly THREE WEEKS, based on a 35-hour week) And the most unbelievable part of it is that it is 'I' the INNOCENT VICTIM OF CRIME who, it seems has ended with a police record Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress - and protection on this island'? I stand up to what I stated in the introduction to this site.
KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA POLICE AND THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE. THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING . (7) I wonder what 'punishment' awaits me for 'daring' to capture my experience with the policeWhy am I saying that? In addition to my first-hand experience - as detailed above - fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I draw your attention to what happened to the Canadian Lady for "doing the right thing" in relation to Mr Jean Charles de Menezes. Note at February 2008: Well in addition to the action by Kensington & Chelsea police in March 2007, there have been other concerted efforts - see the introduction to My Diary 2008. And of course, I, the "Nazi", have continued to be closely monitored e.g. My Diary 25 October 2007 - in continuing breach of my Human Rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights - comprised under the Human Rights Act 1998:
(8) Additional information on Kensington police
The Times , 16 September 2003 "Police tried to destroy me, says cleared officer - A FOUR-YEAR corruption investigation into a top-ranking police officer collapsed yesterday, leaving taxpayers with a bill of up to Pounds 5 million (US$8.8 million) " "Superintendent Ali Dizaei.was the focus of the biggest investigation of a policeman, involving 100 officers, MI5, the Inland Revenue and police in the United States and Canada . He was trailed, bugged and filmed " "The officer had been accused of being a drugtaker, a threat to national security and a friend of drug traffickers and money launderers" "But the marathon inquiry ended in ignominy for the Metropolitan Police when the only remaining actual charge, fiddling Pounds 270 (US$480) mileage expenses, was dropped " "Dr Dizaei [said] .I find it astonishing and extraordinary that taxpayers' hard-earned funds could be abused in this way." "His defence described the investigation as having "Orwellian proportions". "One undercover officer joined his gym hoping to entrap him over drugs" "Police spent Pounds 15,000 (US$26,500) renting a flat in Kensington as part of the officer's cover story" "Surveillance teams followed Dr Dizaei for 91 days. Police recorded 3,500 telephone calls and monitored 250 hours of conversation . CCTV cameras watched him all over London" "Police checked his claims to a married man's allowance and even went to his dry cleaner to see if he got a discount " "The jury cleared him in two hours" "Charges that Dr Dizaei had fiddled mileage expenses were dropped at the Old Bailey yesterday, two weeks before a second trial was due. The CPS had realised that it could probably claim that only Pounds 270 (US$480) might have been fiddled" "It also admitted that Dr Dizaei...may even have been owed Pounds 400 (US$700)"
The Guardian , 20 March 2004 "By the time he was tried last year, all charges had been dropped, bar two: perverting the course of justice (over where his car had been parked) (NB!!!) and misconduct in public office (relating to a pounds 270 (US$480) expenses claim)" "After an estimated pounds 7 million (US$12.4 million) of public money had been spent on the investigation, he was acquitted on both counts at two Old Bailey trials" "...the prosecution was forced to admit that, rather than overclaiming pounds 270 (US$480) from the Black Police Association (BPA), Dizaei was owed around pounds 400 (US$700) " "Dizaei [said] "Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Imagine there were 44 people you worked with who got up every morning for three years , with all the executive power at their disposal, all the money they wanted.." The 44 people he refers to are the officers who formed Operation Helios, the team created to investigate him in 1999" (NB. I know exactly what Superintendent Dizaei felt like, having his life totally invaded. See My Diary , in particular from the summer of 2005) "At his trial last year, documents disclosed to the defence revealed the lengths to which Helios officers were prepared to go to find something of which they could accuse Dizaei." "...Fly to south of France to obtain statements from a concert-goer re sale of concert tickets" "...Trace and take statement from every taxi driver who has given defendant a receipt since 1998."
And the extent of this is an unknown quantityIndeed, the Sunday Telegraph, in its 18 June 2006 edition, reported:
I wonder why the Home Office has "failed to maintain proper books and records in 2004-2005" ? The Home Office started to come under fire in April 2006 from several corners, leading to the head being replaced. The new head was reported as saying that he viewed the Home Office as "not fit for purpose'' This statement led a journalist at the Daily Express to write (16 June 2006)
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with this journalist. |
