In the autumn of 2001, several leaseholders approached Nucleus, our local Citizens Advice Bureau asking for its assistance in relation to service charge queries and numerous other issues, including identification of the identity of the owners of the block (our statutory right). (See Owners identity for detail on the latter).

In relation to the queries on the service charges, Nucleus 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)

Nucleus helped us put together an Arbitration document.

Lessees getting 'free advice' from the Citizens Advice Bureau was totally contrary to another critical element of the ' Business Model of the Unscrupulous Landlord in 21 st century England' - which is to ensure that they pay for professional advice.

The more they pay, the greater the likelihood that, to use Mr Silverstone (Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor)'s expression (as he told me at the 24 June 2003 hearing), they will "make a commercial decision" i.e. pay what the landlord asks for...

...as the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

It led to Nucleus receiving a 14 November 2001 letter from 'Steel Services' , stating,

"We write in relation to an application made to RICS by you on behalf of [Leaseholder A, the Elderly Resident] and other tenants.

We will of course be holding the tenants liable for any costs to which we are put as a result of their failure to properly consult with us on any matters that they wish to raise.

We are seeking legal advice as to whether you may be liable, personally or as an organisation for this conduct and we will of course be writing to RICS appropriately.

if you could give us an explanation as to why you are in fact dealing with this matter at all.

It is our understanding that [Leaseholder] and [Leaseholder] are persons with substantial means.We cannot believe that your organisation was established for the purpose of assisting wealthy individuals .

Should we not receive an explanation within seven days it is our intention to take this matter to the leader of the Kensington and Chelsea borough council, RICS and Mr Michael Portillo ."

Clearly, these threats amount to intimidation of Nucleus 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', tone and presentation from 'Steel Services', dated 2 January 2001 was sent to the Elderly Resident.

While I received a letter, under Ms Hathaway's name, dated 16 December 2003 , which I consider to have the same originator as these other three letters .

(In this instance, some of the text from this letter was captured six months later in a letter to me from Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT , dated 25 June 2003 ("...where a very full, frank and meaningful discussion took place with a large number of residents who subsequently paid their service charge in full." )

In addition, Nucleus also received threatening phone calls - as detailed in the ' Chronology of Events ' section, on page 6 of the draft Arbitration document they helped us prepare:

31. 13/11/01: A Mr [ ] phones to talk to manager of Nucleus / HASKC. Says that he is a freelance reporter. Refuses to state who has instructed him. Quotes Jefferson House 11 Basil Street . States HASKC is representing people with money. He is interested in running a story on this.

Manager points out that HASKC represents people in Kensington and Chelsea who are vulnerable. Irrespective of race, sexuality, gender, religion, financial means, age. We provide impartial advice and are interested in rights not privileges

32. 28/11/01 : a Mr Davies called Nucleus. He said he worked for Steel Services but refused to say in what capacity.

Was very abusive to Ms [ ] , manager.   He wanted to know why she was dealing with the case and said he would be referring her to the Law society.

He was equally abusive to Ms [ ] 's manager"

Back to top