Email this site to a contact


An extremely courageous Lady who deserved a lot more support - including from me - in standing-up to Rachman Andrew David Ladsky

Head Residents Association - 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: '' and click 'Add').


Leaseholder H, who headed the Residents Association at Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX , went through the most horrendous experience - from the time she coordinated the leaseholders' response to the so-called "offer" to buy the headlease. (See Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000).

Evidently, her action was interfering with Andrew Ladsky et. al's plans, as Ladsky 'cranked-up' the harassment and intimidation.

As I was a member of the Residents Association Committee, Resident H kept me informed of developments.

In her 18.12.00 letter she wrote:  

"Since arriving in the block, Mr Ladsky has persisted in demanding that the block is refurbished inside and out. [1] We all want that, but he wishes all this to be done at a cost that is extremely high - possibly as much as £1 million.

He feels that the reserve fund should be emptied and residents then should be forced to pay him for the extra costs that he deems would be necessary. He is not prepared to accept anything other than his specifications are the right ones. He also wishes wholly unnecessary work to be done, like the fitting of a new lift" (2)

"As Mr Ladsky is a property developer, I believe he may have plans for the block that the present residents may not find to be either to their taste and certainly not to their advantage" (3)

"...Mr Ladsky... has approached me demanding that I handover the Chairmanship and all the files of the Residents Association to him. He became rude and threatening when I refused"

(1) 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky: Headlessor # 1 ; Directorships ; Owners identity ; Advisors to Jefferson House

(2) WHY? Because of the addition of a penthouse!

(3) SO TRUE!


She copied me on her letter to Ladsky, dated 14.01.01, in which she wrote:

"On 30 December 2000 you rang me at home to tell me that you were buying the headlease of Jefferson House (1)

You made it clear that the residents could not take up first refusal to buy the headlease. I have informed the committee of your demand (made on 27 November 2000) that I hand over to you immediately the office of Chairman of the Association together will all its books and records..

.. your conversations with me and calls to me list a catalogue of statements that can only be described as threats.

These include threats to sue residents of Jefferson House if they do not allow you to act as you wish, suing them for punitive damages of £500,000 [US$882,000] and / or bankruptcy [2] if they take up the option to buy the headlease, taking me to court for contradicting your opinions.

"I also know that you have made a very large number of telephone calls to my home. (all number withheld) at a rate I consider to be unreasonable....

There is no reason for you to persist in ringing, including after midnight, without leaving a message.

People visiting me have witnessed this and last night my husband counted thirteen such calls during a twenty minute call I was having with him. Just one minute after you conducted your call to me you rang twice more” (3)

(1) See Notices # 2

(2) My caps. One of Rachman Ladsky's standard tactic: Portner # 3

(3) Note also Ladsky’s threats to her. (Ladsky did the same thing to me, when I 'dared' to challenge him and interfere with his plans: police # 1 - background)


In her 14.01.01 letter to me, she wrote:

"Given the extreme nature of the behaviour, and the fact I am getting no peace, I have written...

The conversation with Mr Ladsky was one sided, consisting simply of him ranting and becoming increasingly offensive and threatening. (*)

Mr Ladsky was immensely aggressive... if I spoke, he threatened all the more.

His last call to me was at 12.40 am, which can hardly be described as reasonable..."

(*) = The 4-year old having a tantrum.


Leaseholder E was one of the persons who witnessed harassment and intimidation of Leaseholder H by Ladsky, as evidenced by her 18.04.02 email to me (by then, Ladsky had succeeded in making Leaseholder H leave the block):  

"Her experience was horrendous. I was there on two occasions on Jan & Feb last year with this harassment going on"

This leaseholder also wrote in her email:

"Chelsea Police advised her off the record to fold her tent and go - which she did, can't blame anyone for that" (*)

(*) If any more was required, another proof of Kensington police being Ladsky's henchmen.

In her letter to me of 16.01.01, Leaseholder H stated:

"I have sent out the enclosed because I have heard from several residents that they have been spoken to by Mr Ladsky and either threatened or harassed, or told that they need not consider casting a vote to buy the lease.

Situation is pretty awful - phone calls to me all the time - and some residents terribly upset."


In her letter of 29.01.01 she wrote:

"Ladsky does not want to buy this block, redecorate it and be a landlord; he proposes to force residents out by making the financial situation intolerable, intervening to block sales (already done once) and cutting off rental income. He then forces residents to sell to him at a loss.

To fight is one thing, but to be the focus of harassment in your own home by a resident landlord is not something I would wish on anyone."


Her letter to me of 30.01.01:

"Mr Ladsky told me that he would own the block by the end of February..given that the prospective landlord. is already acting improperly by trying to eliminate the Residents Association, threatening residents, trying to buy their flats cheaply and telling them they can lease them back at high cost, etc."


Her 31.01.01 to the leaseholders:

"Some residents have received a letter from Mr Andrew Ladsky" [NB: 25.01.01]. This letter makes statements about law and 'legal implications'; Mr Ladsky is not legally qualified and the letter is inaccurate..."

"1. Mr Ladsky is an interested party because he wishes to buy the head lease for himself alone..."

"3. The minimum sum of £350,000 for repairs to the block came from Mr Ladsky himself..."

"Naturally, residents cannot be charged for the building of a new floor on the roof". [1] "This is like saying you do not have to pay if your neighbour builds an extension on his house"

"Works to a building cannot be carried out without a proper report and estimates. Mr Ladsky is incorrect in suggesting that this is not a legal requirement." (2)

(1) With Rachman Ladsky and his gang of racketeers + the very active help of 'the Brotherhood' = YES!

(2) He knew he could count on of 'the Brotherhood'.


While in her letter of 31.01.01 she wrote:

"I am working late and have no need for an alarm - I am getting 30 nuisance calls a day again only now he keeps the line open if I reply"


Unsurprisingly, once the so-called 'opportunity to buy the headlease' was taken away from us (see Notices by landlord - 13 December 2000), Leaseholder H left the block .

Hence, Andrew David Ladsky had achieved another key step in the 'Business Model of the Unscrupulous Landlord in 21st century England': eliminating the opposition and the possibility of leaseholders acting as a group.

From then on, Rachman Ladsky and his stable of racketeers could dish out different stories to the leaseholders...

e.g. Leaseholder F reporting to me in her 01.11.02 letter that she had been told by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), that:

"everybody else had paid their share of the major works".  

In fact, 28 days later, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) filed the - fraudulent - 29.11.02 claim, ref. WL203537, in West London County Court, against me and 10 other leaseholders (representing a total of 14 apartments) (Overview # 3).

Joan Hathaway, MRICS, endorsed the statement of truth on the Particulars of claim (to which, very conveniently, for 'the brother', the court turned a blind eye to: WLCC # 2.2.

But then, it had also turned a blind eye to an abuse of process (WLCC # 2.1)... all part of 'the service'!) (see also snapshot under 'Advisors to Jefferson House: CKFT ; MRJ)

In relation to the claim, see also LVT # 4 for the outcome of the tribunal's findings ; Ladsky's surveyor, Brian Gale (snapshot) - who produced this pack - and note his interpretation, in relation to 'the major works', of the "remedies" required in relation to the "defects" he identified in 'his' 'condition survey' of February 2002.

And note also the 02.05.06 response from Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, to my criticisms of his firm and of Brian Gale which was: "Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it"

See also: Home page-Overview ; then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal ; Pridie Brewster

And against all of these parties consider the undeniable proof that the threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = fraud tools; see also Extortion.

Yep! Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers are what the British State actively assists and protects!


  C O M M E N T S

Back to top