Email this site to a contact

 

Corrupt and morally depraved, happily lying to a tribunal in 'Expert witness' reports, and to Jefferson House leaseholders

Brian Gale, MRICS - and 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').

 

(Snapshot under Advisors to Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3)

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

(NB: Brian Gale, MRICS, is covered in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement).

Brian Gale, MRICS, of Brian Gale & Associates, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 9BS.

WARNING LEASEHOLDERS: BRIAN GALE, MRICS, IS A CROOK

As discussed on this page, (like the rest of the Ladsky's gang of racketeers), Brian Gale, MRICS, demonstrated that he would do anything for his client or, to be more precise, for financial gains:

In other words: LIE like his thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman client Andrew David Ladsky.

I also draw your attention to the RICS "rules" governing the conduct of surveyors acting a expert witness (extracted from a 2003 LVT brochure):

"Where the surveyor is providing evidence directly as an expert he or she will be bound by the RICS Practice Statement which requires that

"the primary duty of the surveyor is to the judicial body to whom his evidence is given...The surveyor's evidence must be independent, objective and unbiased.

In particular, it must not be biased toward the party who is responsible for paying him."

(Predictably) in spite of his criminal activities being referred to on many occasions in my 02.02.05 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) (summary of my complaint # 6.2) (e.g. under headers 5.16 , 7.2 , 7.5 , 11.1 , 11.2, and in several parts of the summary)...

... - at January 2014 - Brian Gale, MRICS, was still operating as a "surveyor" - "regulated by the RICS" (!!!) i.e. criminally placed (like Martyn Gerrard and the then MRJ) before the public.

(More comments towards the end of this page about this island-Kingdom being dedicated to the assistance and protection of 'certain' criminals).

The following are extracts from the website:

Contrast also the following with what is contained on this page.

ABOUT US

"Brian Gale Surveyors were established in 1985. We have Building Surveyors and Valuation Surveyors who are experts in working with all types of property, especially period and historic buildings."

"We are extremely proud to be members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and are regulated by RICS Guidelines and protocol." (1)

"All Surveyors are RICS Registered Valuers under the RICS Accredited Valuer Registration Scheme, giving you confidence in our levels of training and expertise."

"We are an Independent Surveying Company...so you can relax in the knowledge that our advice will be truly impartial, and not influenced by any “third party interests!(2)

(1)- "RICS Guidelines and protocol" are not "regulations" (RICS Intro). This sector is not regulated - AT ALL.

(2)- In the case of Brian Gale, MRICS, if the target audience is landlords, translate: I will only obey your orders, whatever they might be, while totally ignoring the law.

The website lists Brian Gale, as well as Peter Moyle (e.g. with Gale, he attended the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal's 29.10.02 so-called 'pre-trial hearing': LVT # 1.4)

In his profile entry, Brian Gale states that he "founded the business in 1986...carrying out Residential and Commercial Building Surveys and Valuations in high value central London areas...".

This page demonstrates the type of work he does. (His 'competence' has previously been under the spotlight - as evidenced by e.g. the High Court case, Wallace vs. Brian Gale Associates, 1994-1997).

(I have no knowledge of the other 2 individuals listed on the website).

The first I heard of Brian Gale, MRICS, was...

..in the 21.12.01 letter 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX:

"On the instructions of Steele (sic) Services Limited prices have been obtained from surveyors and service consultants for an inspection of the block and the preparation of a Schedule of Works for the redecoration of the exterior... together with the associated repairs to the building and grounds."

"Subject to any observations which we may receive, it is the intention of Steele (sic) Services to instruct Brian Gale Associates and Michael Jones & Associates to carry out the work."

As can be seen in the attachments to the 21.12.01 letter, Gale (as well as other contractors) sent his tender to "The Office" at Jefferson House. Why? MRJ did not have an office there.

The reason was that the true addressee was Andrew David Ladsky (see e.g. Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - Introduction).

At the beginning of the tribunal hearings, Gale admitted that Ladsky was "a prior client". In other words: Brian Gale was appointed by Andrew David Ladsky and, in the process, totally ignored his 'professional' association code of conduct (above).

Back to list

 

SUMMARY OF EVENTS - BRIAN GALE, MRICS - 2002 - 2006:

(See, below, Breaches of the law)

(1) - Following his official appointment by Andrew David Ladsky in Dec 01, Brian Gale, MRICS, undertook a "condition survey" with 'supporting' photographs of Jefferson House, in Feb 02 (which, given subsequent events, make 'fascinating reading').

It was followed by, among others, an unsupported 15.07.02 demand of £736,206 (US$1.3m) 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), "for the works".

Outrage from the leaseholders led "Steel Services" (=Ladsky) - MRJ file a 07.08.02 application in Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) "to determine the reasonableness of the the sum demanded" (pt # 1)

(2) - The steps taken by the tribunal to limit the number of leaseholders challenging the application (LVT # 1), and Ladsky ignoring the tribunal's directions to the leaseholders "not pay the demand" (LVT # 1.5) - by filing a Nov 02 claim against me and 13 other apartments (WLCC # 1) - meant that I ended-up as the main leaseholder challenging the application.

Brian Gale and Andrew David Ladsky colluded and connived to undermine me and discredit me to the tribunal.

In the case of Gale, he did this in his 13.12.02 and 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" reports, by claiming falsely e.g. that "[I had] been provided with the priced specification" ; "[I was] the only leaseholder objecting to the demand" - and repeated this during the hearings, in tandem with Ladsky (pts # 2 , # 7).

(3) - The outcome of the 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' by the tribunal was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund of £142k) - or nearly 70% in the global sum demanded (pt # 5)

(4) - The tribunal was highly critical of the specification and pricing drawn-up by Brian Gale, MRICS, e.g.

  • "the reports were a "wish list" for refurbishment" (quoting from a sub-contractor);
  • "not prepared by having regard to the rights and responsibilities under the lease";
  • "the tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail in the specification and in Mr Gale's evidence";
  • "Works were not clearly identified, were not measured where they clearly could have been, and there was some element of duplication";
  • "Some items were not specified at all, e.g. the types and capacity of the boilers" (pt # 6)

(5) - What Brian Gale, MRICS, had claimed in his "Expert Witness" reports e.g.

(1)- He objected to the findings from my surveyor, claiming:

  • "the amending and re-tendering procedure would be time consuming, expensive and entirely prejudicial to the majority of tenants";
  • "any cost savings from the original tendering procedure will, undoubtedly, be more than absorbed by the continuing delays and efflux of time";
  • "It is my honest opinion that any attempt to save a modest sum of money [NB: £500k!!! pt # 5] in the short term by curtailing the extent of the works or specification will, in the long term, be regretted. (The expression "penny wise - pound foolish" is entirely applicable in these circumstances, I believe)";
  • "Again, I confirm that it is my professional and honest opinion, that the works should proceed as tendered and priced."

(2)- He also claimed:

  • "I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat"
  • "I confirm that the Specification and Tender Document prepared by Brian Gale Associates did not contain any known enhancement or improvement works."

(6) - Brian Gale, MRICS, continued to LIE to the very end to the leaseholders about the nature of "the works" undertaken - in the process describing the construction of the penthouse as "replacing asphalt roof" (pt # 8)

(7) - The reason for Brian Gale's lies (pt # 9)

Overall outcome on me - below

Back to list

BREACHES OF THE LAW - BRIAN GALE, MRICS - 2002 - 2006:

(See, above, Summary of events)

In - my non-lawyer opinion (*) - Brian Gale MRICS and his client, Andrew David Ladsky, have (like CKFT, Portner and Jaskel and MRJ) committed: breaches of Civil Procedure Rules' equivalent for the tribunal; of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as breaches of my Lease:

(*) I contend that it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to arrive at the conclusions.

•  Tribunal rules (that must have existed - at the time)

  • Lying in "Expert Witness" reports, that were each endorsed by "Expert witness statements" (pts # 2 and # 7).

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

(1) - s.19(2) (see extracts)

  • By claiming falsely in 2 "Expert Witness" reports that "the costs [were] reasonable" - and therefore compliant with the landlord's obligations under the Lease - as well as challenging the assertions by my surveyor that they were not (pts # 2 , # 5 , # 6 , # 7) .

(2) - 20(3)(b) (see extracts)

  • By claiming falsely that "a copy of the priced specification had been available [for me] to look at " (pt # 2).

•  My Lease

•  Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A (see extracts) (= criminal offences):

  • (1)- Sending me (and the tribunal) the 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report that contained claims aimed at portraying me as a liar (pt # 2).
  • (2)- Supplying the 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report to my surveyor, and the tribunal, that contained lies about me (pts # 2 , # 7) - and sending me a 02.05.06 letter that challenged my legitimate comments (pt # 8).

•  Criminal Justice Act and Public Order Act 1994 (see extracts) (= criminal offence)

  • Causing me distress during the hearings - by repeating the lies against me contained in the 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report, and criticising my challenge of the application - and doing this in tandem with Andrew David Ladsky (pts # 2 , # 7).

•  Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2 (see extracts) - including breaching s.7(3A) by aiding and abetting the harassment on behalf of Andrew David Ladsky (= criminal offences) - BY:

  • (1)- making false claims in the 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report - intended to portray me as a liar (pt # 2);
  • (2)- Continuing to make false claims against me in the 24.02.03"Expert Witness" report (pts # 2 , # 7);
  • (3)- Repeating the false claims during the course of the hearings - and doing this in tandem with Andrew David Ladsky.

•  Defamation Act (see extracts):

  • By portraying me falsely in 2 "Expert Witness" reports as a liar, and as somebody who challenges "reasonable" 'service charge' demands, 'with the motive of avoiding to fulfill my contractual obligations', and again portraying me as a liar in a letter (pts # 2 , # 5 , # 7 , # 8).

•  Data Protection Act 1998 (extracts)

(The Fraud Act was not in operation at the time).

OVERALL OUTCOME ON ME of the above Events and Breaches of the law - as the innocent victim of crime:

Due to his unbelievable LIES in his documents - Brian Gale, MRICS, caused me to suffer:

23 months of absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, horrendous torment, anguish, distress and trauma in...

...Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court...

...- as well as with 'my advisors', Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Stan Gallagher.

Loss, from my very-hard-earned life savings, of £40,000 (US$70,000) spent on 'professional' fees, as well as many other costs.

Loss of over 450 hours of my life.

Other actions taken against me for 'daring' to challenge the fraudulent demand - based on his documents - that have resulted in totally destroying my life.

(NB: Towards the end of this page, I discuss the fact that there was absolutely no point my complaining to the RICS against Brian Gale, MRICS).

WHY did Brian Gale, MRICS, LIE?

With the objective of assisting his client 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' who decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot through theft and extortion at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders)...

...to which he said:

Yes, of course! O' Great One!

 

Back to list

 

(1)- The Feb 02 so-called "condition survey" by Brian Gale, MRICS = the start of the implementation of the scam by Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.

Brian Gale, MRICS, 'completed' the so-called "condition survey" and his 'supporting' photographs - in Feb 02.

In 'her' 26.03.02 letter to the leaseholders, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:  

"The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million [US$1.8m] + VAT and fees [1]

We would stress that this is a very rough indicative estimate and should in no way be relied upon as an exact figure.

The tendering contractors may produce a price which is significantly more or less than the price indicated above depending on numerous factors which contractors take into account when tendering" (2)

(1) = c. £1.5m - which was c. 10 times the cost of previous 'repairs and maintenance' which, no doubt, included some rip-off.

(2) = Alarm bell. How can an 'experienced' surveyor make such 'an estimate' - bearing in mind that the works that ought to be taking place were 'repairs and maintenance works'.

I read this as Hathaway = Ladsky preparing the ground in order to refer back to this letter at a later stage, along the lines of: "But we did warn you in March 2002." (See 'Major works' for what happened).

In 'her' 15.07.02 letter, Hathaway, MRICS, informed lessees that:

"the cost of the works will be £736,206 (US$1.3m) [1] ...It is intended to maintain the existing Reserve Fund [2], in part to cover any additional costs." (3)

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification [3] or to problems encountered while the works are in progress."

(1)- "the cost of the works will be £736,206" = c. 6 times the previous 'repairs and maintenance' costs.

(2)- "keeping the existing reserve fund" = More signs of the intended scam - especially in light of the fact that, 6 months previously,...

...in her above 21.12.01 letter, addressed to "Dear Flat Owner", Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature. Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

(3)-"to cover any additional costs"; "subsequent changes in the specification"

= construction of a massive penthouse + addition of 3 other apartments... as part of the "repairs and maintenance works"! (Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30).

The mini revolt that the 15.07.02 demand created among the leaseholders, led 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky to file a 07.08.02 application in Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)...

...- that was kept quite for 2 months, to allow the Ladsky racketeers to bully and terrorise the leaseholders into paying: LVT # 1.1. (See LVT # 1, for the other conniving and colluding that took place at the time between both mafia: Ladsky gang and tribunal).

A pre-trial 'hearing' took place on 29.10.02 - at which directions were set (LVT # 1.4).

Brian Gale, MRICS, then issued a 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report.

The report was delivered to me post 18 Dec 02 - having ensured that I had left the country for the Christmas break - and, therefore, after the deadline set by the tribunal. (As can be seen from the envelop at the back of the pack, the stamp was not franked).

Contrast this with the fact that Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, had sent a 01.12.02 fax to the tribunal, stating:

"I understand that you have already received our expert report direct" .

The steps taken by the tribunal to limit the number of leaseholders challenging the application (LVT # 1),...

...added to Ladsky ignoring the tribunal's directions to the leaseholders "not pay the demand" (LVT # 1.5) - by filing a Nov 02 claim against me and 13 other apartments (WLCC # 1)...

...- meant that I ended-up as the only leaseholder challenging the application in the tribunal.

Of note:

  • (1)- I had not been supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled (discussed under # 2, below);

= I could not challenge the 7 Aug 02 application.

BUT: continuing to fall over backwards to assist 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - the tribunal opted to 'believe' the lies: LVT # 2 - that were finally exposed at the 5 Feb 03 hearing.

Back to list

 

(2)- In Her Majesty's then London LVT, Andrew David Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS, colluded and connived to undermine me and discredit me, by falsely claiming that: (1)- "[I had] been supplied with the priced specification"; (2)- "[I was] the only leaseholder challenging the costs".

(NB: Includes previous section # 4)

While Her Majesty's London tribunal colluded with Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers from the start (LVT # 1 , # 2),...

...of course, the collusion and conniving also took place between Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS.

(2.1)- The LIES against me 'by' Brian Gale, MRICS:

Note that, of course, ALL the lies were fed to Brian Gale, MRICS, BY Andrew David Ladsky: see below, Ladsky's letter to the tribunal.

And, being an "RICS regulated surveyor", Gale, of course, complied.

 

In his 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal

The following is in 'response' to my (among others) 25.11.02 letter to the tribunal, that I had not been supplied with a priced copy of the specification:

Para.4.01(3)(1.1) - "Copies of the Schedule of Condition, the Specification and Tender Documents and final detailed costing [1] by Killby& Gayford have been provided in triplicate to MRJ and additional copies provided (at a charge) to individual Lessees when requested."

"I understand that 1 set of these documents were left with the Porter for ease of reference and access to all Lessees."(2)

Para.4.01(3)(1.1) - [NB: In 'reply' to my feedback] "the Specification and Tender were made available from the end of July 2002 [2] as soon as the Section 19 Notice [3] was served on the Lessees."

(1)- "detailed costing" - Contrast that with the findings from the tribunal hearings, under # 5, and # 6, below.

(2)- "A detailed costed version of the specification was left with the Porter from the end of July 2002"

This LIE by the Ladsky mafia (one of many to the tribunal: LVT # 5.4) was exposed during the 5 Feb 03 hearing (LVT # 3).

It came as a result of the tribunal forcing me to employ a team of advisors, as it was opting to 'believe' the blatant lies by the Ladsky mafia against what I (LVT # 2.1) (and fellow leaseholders) had been communicating repeatedly to the tribunal: we had NOT been supplied with the information to which we were legally entitled, and needed to challenge Ladsky's 7 Aug 02 application.

Having refused my request for a postponement - until I was supplied with the necessary information (LVT # 2.2) - at the 5 Feb 03 hearing, the Chair finally agreed to the postponement of the substantive hearings "in the interests of justice" (LVT # 3) (!!!).

In complete breach of the tribunal's directions, as I reported under para.12 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement, I only received the - partially - priced specification, just 36 hours before the 5 Feb 03 hearing - and therefore 7 months after the original demand for payment of £14,400 (US$25,400) (Overview # 1).

As I reported in my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement - under:

  • para.12 - 6 times, over a 6-month period, I had asked for a copy of the priced specification (and listed the letters);

(3)- As is glaring obvious from the tribunal's findings ( # 5, and # 6, below), the 15.07.02 demand (Overview # 1) was most definitely NOT a "Section 19 Notice".

 

In his 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, Brian Gale, MRICS, claimed:

(NB: Includes previous section # 3)

Para.2.03 - "At this stage [29 Oct 02 pre-trial tribunal 'hearing'], of the 35 flats within the block, 11 Lessees had already paid the relevant service charge, a further 10 had partly paid and had promised to pay the balance and were not in disagreement. [1]

Of the remaining tenants, only the 5 attending as Respondents had indicated any objection to payment of the service charge, reasonableness of the works or their cost" (2)

Para.2.04 - "At the tribunal hearing...some of the 5 Lessees indicated that they had not received, or seen, copies of vital documentation [3]. In particular,...the un-priced or priced specification and schedule of works [4],...

...even though these documents had, through the middle to latter part of 2002, been deposited at the porters desk in the entrance, freely available for all Lessees to view."

Para.2.07 - "Martin Russell Jones arranged for a meeting on 14th November 2002...I personally attended, bringing with me all of the relevant documentation, in particular and including...specification of works with fully priced tender...copies of these documents were provided to tenants who had requested them." (5)

Para.2.09 - "The result of this was that (and as far as I am aware and advised by Martin Russell Jones) 4 of the 5 objecting Respondents who attended the Pre-Trial Review on the 29th of October 2002, were now not objecting any further and had agreed to pay, or had paid, the relevant increased service charge." (6)

Para.2.11 - "I must say that I find the statements made by Ms Dit-Rawé's Counsel on 5th February 2003 astonishing [7], but fully respect the tribunal's position in being faced with a request for an adjournment under the circumstances.

However, I felt that it is my duty to the tribunal to explain very clearly, the procedure and the opportunities afforded to Ms Dit-Rawé throughout this entire procedure (from the receipt of tenders back in April 2002 onwards) to receive all, and any, documentation that she required to satisfy herself as to the position." (8)

Para.5.01 - "I would like to draw to the attention of the Tribunal that I am advised by the managing agents that now some 31 of 35 tenants have paid, either in full or substantial contributions toward the cost of the proposed works" (9)

Para.5.02 - "It would therefore appear, and following on from the representations at the pre-trial review with Mr Sharma on 29th October 2002, that only one lone tenant continues to make any representation or objection of the 35 tenants." (10)

Para.5.04 - "The vast majority of the tenants in this block have been fully and completely consulted throughout all stages of the procedure, are in full and complete agreement and have paid substantially, or entirely, for the works [11] and improvements [12] to take place" .

(1)- "[ by 29 Oct 02] of the 35 flats, 11 had already paid, a further 10 had partly paid and had promised to pay the balance and were not in disagreement".

As I reported under under para.10 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement: one month after the 29 Oct 02 so-called 'pre-trial hearing',...

...'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky, filed, in West London County Court, a 29.11.02 claim against me, and 13 other apartments (WLCC # 1) = the majority, as many were under Ladsky' control.

Further:

(1)- The 23.05.03 application sent by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to West London County Court for a 'Case Management Conference' highlighted ongoing action against 4 leaseholders (WLCC # 6).

(2)- On 31 Mar 04, when I was told falsely by the court that "a judgment [had been] entered against [me] on 18 Mar 04", I was eventually told: "No, the judgement is not against you, it's against Defendant number 9" (Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2 )

(3)- Under para.50 of the 17.06.03 tribunal report :

"On the last day of the hearing a legal representative for another lessee in the subject property attended to say that her client was also unhappy about the service charges demanded of the proposed works"

 

The "legal representative" was Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, who had written in her 09.04.03 letter dated to my then solicitors:

"...the landlord has intimated to the LVT that no other lessee is disputing the service charges demanded. That is clearly not the case."  

 

(4)- CONTRAST the claims made to the tribunal by Brian Gale, MRICS, Ladsky and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - with Hathaway's (= Ladsky's) 26.03.04 letter to "All Lessees" i.e. one year later:

"Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all [NB!!!] lessees..."

(2)- "only the 5 attending as Respondents"

The low attendance by my fellow leaseholders was the outcome of conniving between Her Majesty's tribunal and Ladsky - see LVT # 1.

(3)- "some of the 5 Lessees"

At the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (LVT # 1.4) - we ALL clamored for a copy of the price specification. Further, the tribunal had also received communication from me, and my fellow leaseholders, in which we had repeated this endlessly.

(4)- "the un-priced or priced specification"

Note how Gale,MRICS, is hedging his bet v. what he had claimed, more than 2 months previously, in his 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report, under para.4.01(3), (above): "the detailed costing was made available from the end of July 2002 with the porter" - which he then repeats in this "Expert Witness" report.

I repeat my comments, under # 2 above, re. the same claim in Gale's 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report.

(5)- "I personally brought the price tender and supplied it to the tenants who requested it"

I repeat my above comment # 1, and add to that, para.11, the fact that 4 months had elapsed since the 15.07.02 demand (Overview # 1)

(6)- "4 of the 5 objecting who attended the Pre-Trial Review on 29th of October 2002, were now not objecting any further and had agreed to pay, or had paid, the relevant increased service charge."

I repeat my above comment # 1.

(7)- "I find the statements made by Ms Dit-Rawé's Counsel on 5th February 2003 astonishing"

= A Ladsky input. Refers to my Counsel catching Hathaway out on her lies, as well as exposing the conniving by the Clerk, David Stewart: LVT # 3.

(8)- "procedure and opportunities afforded to Ms Dit-Rawé throughout...to receive all, and any, documentation that she required to satisfy herself as to the position"

I repeat my comment, under # 2, above.

(9)- "...now some 31 of 35 tenants have paid, either in full or substantial contributions toward the cost of the proposed works"

I repeat my comment, under # 1 above. Note that this was, of course, fed to Gale by Ladsky - see, below, Ladsky's letter 1 month later to the tribunal.

(10)- "It would therefore appear that only one lone tenant continues to make any representation or objection of the 35 tenants"

Ditto about repeating my comments.

(11)- "vast majority of the tenants have been fully and completely consulted throughout all stages of the procedure, are in full and complete agreement and have paid substantially, or entirely, for the works"

Ditto about repeating my comments.

(12)- Under my Lease, I am ONLY liable for "maintenance, repairs and replacement where necessary".

(I wrote a reply to Brian Gale, MRICS, dated 13.03.03, that was handed to the tribunal's Panel by my Counsel, on 28 Apr 03).

 

(2.2)- The LIES against me by Andrew David Ladsky:

(In addition to being behind ALL the other lies by his gang of racketeers - snapshots LVT # 5.4)

In the case of thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky, it was in his 28 Apr 03 letter, captured under pt 50 of the 17.06.03 report :

"It is noted that, apparently, the majority of the tenants wish all the works to be carried out. A letter from Mr Ladsky, the lessee of flats 34 and 35 dated 28 April 2003 stated:

"31 or 32 of the 35 tenants have paid their contribution towards the major works. They are, therefore, in agreement with both the scope and cost of the proposed refurbishment."

Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works, it must surely follow that if the overwhelming majority of lessees in the building are ad idem, some considerable weight must be given to their collective view.

It seems to me that it would be wholly inequitable for one lone tenant acting entirely unilaterally to be able to frustrate and delay the building works desired by the many"

In response to ALL of this, I repeat:

Of course - thanks to Her Majesty's tribunal Panel's lies in its report (LVT # 7), and its failure to perform its legal remit (LVT # 4.2 , # 7)...

...- the Ladsky gang of racketeers continued - post the substantive hearings - with the false and libellous accusations against me: 'Summary of the case' # 1.2.

Back to list

(3) (Moved to # 2.1, above)

(4) (Moved to # 2, above)

 

(5)- The outcome of the 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' by Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, LVT/SC/007/120/02, was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund) - or nearly 70% in the global sum demanded.

 

Most 'conveniently' for 'Steel Services' = 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky...

...- in breach of its statutory remit - in its 17.06.03 so-called 'determination', LVT/SC/007/120/02, (ref #992 on the LVT database)...

...Her Majesty's London tribunal did not include a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,206 [US$1.3m]" (LVT # 4.2).

The total sum demanded in the 07.08.02 application (LVT Intro) was £736,207 (US$1.3m) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and management fees of 11%).

Based on my Chartered Surveyor's 31.07.03 assessment, (see LVT # 4.1 for my comments about the credibility of his assessment), the outcome of the tribunal's findings (LVT # 4.1) - was:

Disallowed / breach

Amount

% of global sum

"Because improvements" (1)

£169,498 (US$298,900) (£129,958 (US$229,200) excl. VAT and "management fees")

23%

"Could not make a determination due to lack of specification" (1)

£188,784 (US$332,900) (£144,745 (US$255,200) excl. VAT and fees)

25.6%

Considering the covenant in the lease (para.59), as well as RICS' best practice (para.62) - "opinion that the reserve fund should be used as contribution" (2)

'Said' to contain £141,977 (US$250,400)

19.3%

(1)- See # 6, below, for extracts from the tribunal's 17.06.03 report.

(2)- For the issue about the reserve fund, see LVT # 4.1.

Hence, taking the contingency fund into account - left an amount that 'could' be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original £736,207 (US$1.3m) demanded in the 07.08.02 application.

In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered "reasonable".

 

'Could' be charged - as, in the end, the Ladsky gang of racketeers opted to ignore the tribunal's 'very inconvenient' findings, and appointed a new contractor, Mansell - in breach of consultation procedures...

...- which meant that the maximum that could be asked of each apartment was £250 (US$440), or a total of £8,750 (US$15,429)...

...v. the £736,200 (US$1.3m) demanded in the 15.07.02 demand, and 7 Aug 02 application to the tribunal - see Overview # 5 and Note 2 (see also Extortion).

Back to list

 

(6)- In its 17.06.03 (LVT/SC/007/120/02) so-called 'determination', Her Majesty's London tribunal was highly critical of 'the specification' and pricing drawn-up by Brian Gale, MRICS e.g.

The tribunal's 17.06.03 (LVT/SC/007/120/02) so-called 'determination', (ref #992 on the LVT database):

 

•  Para.44 - "The reports [Brian Gale's Feb-Mar 02 "SPECIFICATION"] prepared on behalf of the Applicant and provided to the Tribunal were, in the words of Mr Jones, "a wish list" for refurbishment of the subject property to a high standard.

They do not seem to have been prepared on behalf of the Applicant having regard to its rights and responsibilities under the lease.

The Tribunal would normally expect alternative proposals to be costed and produced, in order to make a proper and considered judgement of the best way forward to meet the obligations of both the landlord and the tenants"

•  Para.45 - "The question for the tribunal is not solely whether costs are reasonable, but whether they would be reasonably incurred..."

•  Para.46 - "In this case the Tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail in the specification and in Mr Gale's evidence.

Works were not clearly identified, were not measured where they clearly could have been, and there was some element of duplication.

Some items were not specified at all, e.g. the types and capacity of the boilers"

•  Para.47 - "[My counsel] argued that with insufficient detail in the specification, the tribunal could not say that the specification was reasonable, because it was impossible to judge the standard to be achieved.

The tenders could not be compared where there was no detailed specification and it followed that the Tribunal could not determine that costs were reasonable"

•  Para.16.07 - "It would appear to the Tribunal from the above, and the evidence given by Mr Jones that his instructions were obviously client led rather than an independent opinion.

The specification is considered inadequate in that it is vague and lacked specific detail e.g. the provision to "remove and replace with new the boiler plant and all associated pipework. It is noted that initially, there was no breakdown of the specification until 7 March 2003"

•  Para.38 - "Mr Gale also accepted that there were no boiler specification in the tender document which merely stated "to remove and replace with new the boiler plant and all associated pipework"

•  Para.16.07 - "In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that it has sufficient information to make a proper judgement and therefore makes no determination in respect of the boilers.

This is an area which, in the Tribunal's view, alternatives and costings should have been explored"

(NB: The sum demanded for the boiler and associated pipework was £89,824 (US$158,000). Therefore, with the addition of VAT and management fees the total amount was £117,153 (US$207,000). See # 7.1, below, for more detail).

•  Paras 19 & 20 (of the tribunal's report) - " Mr Jones, C Eng MCI Bsc of Michael Jones & Associates, Engineering consultants, said that the report on the condition [of the lift] at the time had been 'a wish list"

•  Para.16.07 - "The recommendation of Michael Jones and Associates to prepare a specification and drawings appeared to have been ignored by Mr Gale in his own specification.

The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work, and he conceded during the hearing that there may have been an element of duplication.

Pg 11 - Paras. 16.25 and 16.26 - "It does not appear to the Tribunal that these costs in respect of repairs and maintenance were of such magnitude on their own so as to indicate that replacement [of the lift] was the only option.

Further the comment from Mr Jones that the maintenance contractor had failed to attend to check the lift for three months appears to indicate that there was no failure of the lift during that period, since otherwise, presumably, complaints would have been received from the tenants on an ongoing basis, and no firm evidence of this was produced"

"The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work."

"Further, no proper explanation has been given for the increase from £27,300 [US$48,300] to £60,000 [US$106,000] [for the lift] over a matter of months."

"the Tribunal is unable to make a determination on the specification, since it is considered inadequate"

The real reason for the 'requirement for a new lift' was the plan to build a penthouse apartment - see # 7, below.

Due to my being conciliatory (in the light of the most vehement claims that the penthouse was NOT going to be built) - as captured by the tribunal: "However, the Respondent has agreed £27,300 (US$48,200) and this sum is therefore allowed"

•  Para.37 - "In respect of the provision for downlighters Mr Gale said: I agree that there is latitude for contractors to fit 25 or 50 units. We may have to tighten it up"

Examples of items in the 23% of the global sum demanded (# 5, above) which the tribunal disallowed because "improvements" and therefore not chargeable to the lessees under the terms of the lease:

•  Para.42 - "Mr Gale was questioned on the provision of £20,000 [US$35,300] in the specification in respect of the porter's desk.

He also accepted that there could have been a fixed, rather than a provisional sum for this within the specification and said "it was a time factor really". He acknowledged "there is no specification yet"

•  Para.41 - "Mr Gale accepted that he had been "upping the specification" for the fire doors" .

 

As pointed out by the tribunal in its 17.06.03 report:

•  Para.54 - "Assuming that, on a proper construction of the lease, the services in issue are covered by the charging clause, this does not mean that the landlord enjoys carte blanche to incur costs."

•  Pg 15 - Para.64 - "...the Respondent and other tenants [NB: !!!] could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal..."

Back to list

 

(7)- Her Majesty's then London LVT's findings in its 17.06.03 report (# 5, above) - and those it - unlawfully - failed to include (# 5, above) - demonstrate the unbelievable LIES by Brian Gale, MRICS, in his "Expert Witness" reports to Her Majesty's tribunal - in order to assist the defrauding of the Jefferson House leaseholders.

 

(7.1)- Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert witness" report

(NB: Includes contents removed from previous section # 2)

Examples of the 'gems' in Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert witness" report:

•  Para.3.02 - "I confirm that the Specification and Tender Document prepared by Brian Gale Associates did not contain any known enhancement or improvement works."

•  Para.3.04 - "I confirm that there was no inclusions within the specification or tender documentation intended to improve or enhance any future potential development of the site by either the freeholder or head lessee"

•  Section 4-1.4 - "I am able to categorically state that the Specification makes NO provisions for any construction of an additional floor nor any future requirement in the building to create a penthouse flat"

In fact, when 'the works' finally started in Sep 04, so did the construction of a penthouse (Photo gallery), resulting in the following outcome:

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

See also the Feb 02 photographs taken by Brian Gale, MRICS, of the back of Jefferson House at the time he undertook the "condition survey", ...

...as well as extracts from his 20.02.02 "condition survey" - in particular noting his "remedies" relative to the "defects" he identified - including the following:

"...the roof coverings will need to be replaced [1] and provisions made to cover any additional works may become apparent." (2)

(1)- In fact, the roof was 'so bad' that it was entirely demolished... to build a penthouse - that spans the whole length and width of Jefferson House...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6,500,000 (US$11.5m).

(2)- Such as the 'incidental' cost of building a penthouse - as well as adding 3 other apartments!

 

'Of course', as Gale wrote in his 02.02.xx "condition survey":

"...the roof had exceeded [its] modern life span" (1)

and there was "...water ingress" to "some of the properties" , "replacing the asphalt roof" "needed to be dealt with as a matter of urgency". (2)

"...with special regards to lifts, plumbing and heating.  Again the majority of these components are showing their age and will need to be renewed as they have reached or are reaching the end of their useful life." (3)

(1)- As per my comment # 1, above.

(2)- 'The works' were so "urgent", that they were started 2.5 years later in Sep 04 (photo gallery) - once Andrew Ladsky had secured closure against the last valiant leaseholder on the court claim (Overview # 5).

(Note the tandem approach with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, who, in her 30.01.02 e-mail to me, also described the works as "urgent" - and both kept on repeating the same thing) (see extracts from the sequence of letters: 'Major works' - Note).

(3)- 12 yeas later - guess what Jon Wolbrom, MRIPM, Martyn Gerrard, claimed in his 10.01.14 letter? YEP! "the boiler has reached the end of its natural life" !!!! (see Notices 2 of 5)

It appears that "the boiler" was replaced in May-Jun 14 (Notices # 6) i.e. 12 years after Gale's claim that "[it had] reached the end of its useful life"...

...- thereby providing further proof of the fraud that took place.

Of course, it has not stopped the Ladsky mafia from asking for yet more money (Notices # 6.1)!

Para.3.05 in Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert witness" report:

"I confirm that, in my opinion, the extent of the works required is reasonable taking into account the condition of the building..." (1)

"...the cost of works detailed by Killby & Gayford on 8 July 2002 and totaling £564,467 represents a reasonable assessment of the cost of carrying out all necessary works" [15.07.02 letter from Hathaway: £736,206 (US$1.3m) with management fee and VAT]. (2)

(1)- Ditto re my above comments about the construction of a penthouse, and addition of 3 other apartments + contrast that with the findings from the tribunal hearings, # 6, above.

(2)- Likewise, contrast with the findings from the tribunal hearings, # 5, and # 6, above.

Further, as I reported under para.20 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement, it amounted to a major contradiction as,..

 

...in 'her' 26.03.02 letter, i.e. written after Gale had completed his 'Condition survey' (in Feb 02), Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:  

"The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million [US$1.8m] + VAT and fees." (NB: Bringing the total to c. £1.5m)

 

(7.2)- Brian Gale, MRICS, 24.02.03 "Proof of Evidence of Landlord's Expert Witness (Surveyor) Brian Gale"

(NB: Includes contents removed from previous section # 3)

The following are brief extracts; Brian Gale, MRICS, 24.02.03 report contains many more LIES.

•  Para.5.03 - "Even if there were any justification (which is robustly denied) in the Expert Report of Mr Brock on behalf of this Respondent, to the amendment, or re-tendering, to revise agreed Schedule of Works, it should be noted that this will have significant and unacceptable consequences, not only on the other tenants, but to all parties concerned" (1)

•  Para.5.05 - "The proposed process by Mr Brock of the amending and re-tendering procedure would be time consuming, expensive and entirely prejudicial to the majority of tenants who, as stated above, have paid or substantially paid, and in any event are in agreement with the scope and extent of the works" (2)

•  Para. 5.06 - "In this respect,(and aside from professional fees incurred in the contentious Tribunal proceedings) any cost savings from the original tendering procedure will, undoubtedly, be more than absorbed by the continuing delays and efflux of time" (3)

•  Para.5.07 - "The effects of inflation and increased costs from the contractors will outweigh any advantages of trying to trim back the extent of proposed works to gain advantage of the present situation. It should also be noted that any alterations (revision of tender and re-tendering etc) could well cost the tenants significantly more for no reason and for a less satisfactory finished product" (4)

•  Para.5.12 - "It is my honest opinion that any attempt to save a modest sum of money in the short term by curtailing the extent of the works or specification will, in the long term, be regretted. (The expression "penny wise - pound foolish" is entirely applicable in these circumstances, I believe)" (5)

•  Para.5.14 - "Again, I confirm that it is my professional and honest opinion, that the works should proceed as tendered and priced." (6)

(1)- "will have unacceptable consequences - to all parties concerned"

TRANSLATE: First and foremost on his Rachman client, Andrew David Ladsky who 'needed' the money to make his multi-million £ jackpot.

And secondly, on his gang of racketeers who were cashing in 11%+ of the global sum demanded as management fees (# 5, above). (Brian Gale's remuneration was at 'least' a 10% management fee added to the cost of 'the works': 15.07.02 demand).

(2)- "amending and re-tendering procedure would be...expensive and entirely prejudicial to the majority of tenants who have paid or substantially paid, and in any event are in agreement with the scope and extent of the works"

I repeat my comments, under # 2, above, and refer to the above tribunal findings, under # 5 and # 6.

(3)- "any cost savings from the original tendering procedure will, undoubtedly, be more than absorbed by the continuing delays and efflux of time"

Cue to laugh out loud - see tribunal findings, under # 5 and # 6, above.

(4)- "effects of inflation and increased costs will outweigh any advantages of trying to trim back the extent of proposed works...any alterations could well cost the tenants significantly more for no reason and for a less satisfactory finished product"

Ditto: # 5 and # 6, above.

(5)- "It is my honest opinion that any attempt to save a modest sum of money in the short term by curtailing the extent of the works or specification will, in the long term, be regretted. (The expression "penny wise - pound foolish" is entirely applicable in these circumstances, I believe)

Ditto: # 5 and # 6, above.

(6)- "Again, I confirm that it is my professional and honest opinion, that the works should proceed as tendered and priced"

...What else can you expect from an 'MRICS' individual i.e. "regulated by the RICS" (see my other comments towards the end of this page) - who, on top of that, works for thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky?

He can only be a CROOK.

Back to list

 

(8)- Brian Gale, MRICS, continued to LIE about the nature of 'the works' undertaken - to the very end. However, there was absolutely no point my filing a complaint against him with the RICS - as it is in business to protect criminals.

(NB: Includes previous sections # 8.1 and # 9.1)

Brian Gale, MRICS, and Mansell's 04.11.XX "Brief description of works" - At the start of 'THE WORKS':

"General repair and refurbishment of the main structure of Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, to include cutting out of spalled and defective brickwork and replacing to match, replacing asphalt roofs, redecoration externally, redecoration of internal common areas, replacement of lift"

I repeat the above photographs:

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

Very clearly, Mansell - Brian Gale, MRICS, have a VERY UNIQUE interpretation of "replacing asphalt roof"! Maybe it's a question of economy with words, as they headed this "Brief description of work".  

The scaffolding - for the works described as "urgent" 2.5 years previously - started to be put in place in the 3rd week of Aug 04.

Nearly 2 years later, on 01.05.06, the works were not completed. (See Photo gallery).

Contrast the 16.06.05 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ:

"The refurbishment of the front entrance is progressing well."

...against the evidence contained in this pack, Jun 05 and, 1 year later - at 01.05.06. See Photo gallery for additional evidence.

19.10.05 letter from Brian Gale, MRICS:

"...Mansells, the contractors undertaking the works, have now completed the external redecoration"

"The external redecoration" ?

•  How about the construction of the penthouse?  

•  How about the addition of 3 other apartments?

'The works' resulted in 39 apartments - as can be seen by comparing the following titles from the Land Registry - for 'Steel Services' NGL373333:

(For evidence of 35 apartments at the start of the works see, e.g. para.7 of the 17.06.03 tribunal report ; Ladsky's 07.08.02 application to the tribunal).

In the same 19.10.05 letter, Brian Gale, MRICS, also admitted lack of proper supervision of the contractors, as he wrote:

"...if you could inform me of any windows which stick. I will then draw-up a schedule of work which needs to be rectified to ensure that Mansells undertaken (sic) work properly which they have been contracted to do."

 

Brian Gale, MRICS, sent another letter, dated 16.03.06 - that started with:

"The standard of workmanship undertaken by Mansells has not been acceptable and I requested that they carry out redecoration to windows..."

Using the 16.03.06 letter, on 29 Mar 06, I replied, among others:

"Mr Gale's letter of 19 October 2005 suggested that he had NOT PROPERLY SUPERVISED the works. This letter confirms it"

"The 15 July 2002 demand to leaseholders included over £60,000 [US$105,800] of management fees for Mr Gale. He should not receive this payment"

The predictable 03.04.06 'response' from Brian Gale, MRICS:

"we have been administering the contract and checking the work undertaken by Mansells"

In my above 29.03.06 letter, I also voiced criticism at Martin Russell Jones.

The 02.05.06 reply I received 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, = Andrew Ladsky) - was hilarious, and needs to be seen to be believed. Among others, note the gall in the last sentence:

"Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it"

(NB: I also assumed that there was a link with my 30.04.06 reply to Portner and Jaskel (Portner # 1), that had evidently 'upset' Ladsky and his racketeer solicitors).

What else can you expect from Barrie Martin, an 'FRICS individual' i.e. "regulated by the RICS" - who worked for thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky - and knows that his so-called 'regulator' will back him up on his criminal activities: snapshot of my complaint against MRJ: RICS # A.

I repeat my comment, under # 7.2, above, about Brian Gale, MRICS - and add that, in the light of the RICS' 'response' to my absolutely legitimate complaint against the then Martin Russell Jones: there was no point my complaining to the RICS against Brian Gale, MRICS.

In fact, as mentioned in the above introduction, in my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS against MRJ, on many occasions I referred to the key part played by Brian Gale in the major fraud. Typically: the RICS failed to take action.

WHY? Because there is this understanding within the Establishment (book reference) - that this island-Kingdom is dedicated to crime, and is consequently controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime. I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

(In addition to the collusion and conniving by Her Majesty's tribunal with the Ladsky mafia, I highlight the many among Her Majesty's ministers, police and judiciary, who not only turned - and continue - to turn a blind eye to the irrebutable evidence of criminality, but actually portray me as "the criminal", while they portray Ladsky as "the victim" e.g. My Diary # 2.6).

Back to list

(8.1) (Moved under # 8, above)

 

(9)- Why did Brian Gale, MRICS, LIE persistently to Her Majesty's London Tribunal, as well as to the Jefferson House leaseholders? So that his client, Andrew David Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot = because he is a CROOK.

Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, among others, Brian Gale, MRICS,...

...deciding that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable.

(*) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30.

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1, above),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6,500,000 (US$11.5m)

For the 3rd time, I repeat the above very damning visuals:

Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...

...and in September 2005

To be more precise:

 
 

(PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)

Unbelievable! Isn't it?

(9.1) (Moved to # 8, above)

 

ANDREW LADSKY ; BRIAN GALE, MRICS ; JOAN HATHAWAY, MRICS, MRJ ; BARRIE MARTIN, FRICS, MRJ - AS WELL AS THE RICS AND THE THEN LONDON LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL - CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top