Email this site to a contact

 

A trade association protecting its members – in the face of - extremely serious misconduct

ROYAL InstitutION of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

 

(NB: The RICS is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

In December 2005, the website of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) stated that:

"It is one of the most respected and high profile global 'standards and membership' organisations for professionals involved in land, property, construction and environmental issues"

"136 years of representing property professionalism; 110,000 members across 120 countries worldwide...Accountable to both members and the public, RICS has three main roles:"

"To maintain the highest standards of education and training"

"To protect consumers through strict regulation of professional standards."

"Why is it important to get an RICS member?"

"All RICS members must follow a strict code of conduct..."

" Consumers are protected by a formal complaints handling procedure"

The section on Martin Russell Jones, combined with the following, demonstrate how the claims made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors translate in practice

Sections

2004-2005

2008

 

(1) The false claims became immediately evident following my complaint against Martin Russell Jones

In December 2004, I started to compile a complaint against Martin Russell Jones to the RICS . It turned out to be the longest of all my complaints.

I had heard from several people that filing a complaint with the RICS would be a complete waste of time - as it is with other professions' so-called 'regulatory bodies' i.e. trade associations - because their focus is on protecting their members' interests - not the end-user, or consumer. I nonetheless opted to go down this route, as this is the proper channel to follow.

In addition to the code of conduct, a factor that influenced my decision was the fact that, on the RICS website of disciplinary cases, I had seen the case of a surveyor who had 'apparently' been expelled from the RICS. It listed a dozen offences, each followed by the statement that it had been ground for expulsion. One of these was the non-production of accounts.

On seeing this, I thought, given the overwhelming body of evidence I have against Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, the RICS is bound to take action against Martin Russell Jones.  

Nonetheless, based on my experience to date with the professions' so-called 'regulatory bodies', I was determined to not give the RICS the opportunity for an excuse to not consider my complaint.

During the Christmas break of 2004, I went to the RICS' bookshop where I bought a book, 'The RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code'. I went through this book page by page. I also obtained a copy of the code of conduct, as well as a guidance book on applying the code of conduct i.e. aimed at surveyors.

I sent my 2 February 2005 (1MB) complaint to the RICS with a complaint form , a covering letter of the same date, detailing that my complaint comprised of a 19 page summary supported by a 99 page document (with which I included a detailed contents page ), as well as 220 supporting documents.

It is a long summary as I reproduced the sections, as appropriate, from the Service Charge Residential Management Code, detailing a summary of my complaint under each. I took the same approach with the RICS code of conduct.   I did this to avoid any potential confusion as to what I was referring to.

The initial acknowledgement from the RICS was dated 7 February 2005 . This was followed three weeks later by a letter dated 1 March 2005 , stating

"we are able to investigate allegations of professional misconduct to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" .

It also states that the "appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint are "through civil or criminal proceedings"

Also, that the RICS has "no power to award any compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid"

 

 

This reply did not require being a clairvoyant to predict that the ultimate response would be:

 

In my 5 March 2005 reply, I challenged the RICS response to parts of my complaint, every time highlighting the Core Values and Principles comprised in the RICS code of conduct I considered to have been breached by Martin Russell Jones. Hence, to quote the RICS ,

"...breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" .

I also related the recent outcome of my battle in relation to getting a copy of the year-end accounts.

On 21 March 2005 , I sent a letter to the RICS as further support of a point in my complaint that, "MRJ has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does not respect residents' statutory and common law rights."

This was the 28 February 2005 'dictate' (posted two weeks later on 14 March and received on 16 March) from Ms Hathaway that is, yet again a breach of my lease - associated with the now very familiar threat of legal proceedings (see Martin Russell Jones # 26 , # 24 )

Indeed, the 28 February 2005 'dictate' refers to an intention to enforce, yet again, a breach of my lease with the threat of legal proceedings as Ms Hathaway stated that

"...from 31 March there will no longer be any rubbish collection. Rubbish must be taken down to the rubbish room...there is an absolute restriction in your lease against rubbish on the common parts of the building."

"Your landlord Steel Services have told us that they will strictly enforce with legal proceedings and associated costs."

(As I did in my 30 March 2005 reply to Ms Hathaway) I highlighted to the RICS the 'absolute term in my lease under Clause 5 (5) (b) "(The lessor) to remove each day (excepting Sundays) from the flat all domestic refuse and rubbish (the lessee providing his own suitable receptacle)."

Back to list

(2) I had to keep on chasing a reply which then led to the claim by the RICS that it was "taking my complaint seriously"

On 18 April 2005 I sent a 'chaser' letter to the RICS asking when I could expect to receive a decision.

I sent another letter, on 5 May 2005 , as I still had no communication since the 1 March 2005 letter. I wrote that if I did not hear form the RICS by

"13 May 2005, I will assume that your Office approves of the conduct of Ms Hathaway and Mr Martin - as detailed in my 2 February 2005 complaint" .

I copied the RICS CEO and President on my letter.

It led to a 13 May 2005 reply stating,

"I would like to confirm that this department is taking your complaint seriously" .  

It also asked me to supply a summary, to which I replied on 2 June 2005 that I had already supplied one and would not therefore supply another one.

As more than three months had gone by since I filed my complaint, in my 17 May 2005 letter, I listed what I perceived as 'obvious' conclusions from the lack of action by the RICS. Namely, that, as the RICS evidently approved of Ms Hathaway and Mr Martin's conduct, it followed that all the other RICS members who had been involved in my case were all in the wrong.

Back to list

(3) The reply from the RICS is a complete and utter farce

I finally received a letter from the RICS, dated 10 June 2005 . The caseworker states that he

"would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously" .  

He takes the opportunity to throw back at me various parts of my complaint, including breaches of my lease, which, he states, "amounts to a breach of contract....no jurisdiction" .

The whole letter is a farce. The caseworker goes on to state that

"the Service Charge Residential Management Code is not mandatory ...is classified as a Guidance Note...an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations" .

He then adds that

"The Management Code was approved by the Secretaries of State under the provisions of Section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

I believe this could be an explanation as to why the Code does not have the status of being a practice statement as the Secretaries approved it. It is therefore outside the control of the RICS"

Hence, it is called a 'code' but it is not a code. For what purpose has it been "approved by the Secretaries of State"?   Decoration of the mantle piece?

Please, consider this reply as well in the context of what the caseworker had written in his 1 March 2005 letter:

"Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so"

 

 

Continuing on his nonsensical journey, the caseworker then states that

" the LVT can take the code into consideration when considering allegations that a member has not followed the recommendations of the code" .  

And that

"the RICS will consider whether such criticism constitutes a breach of RICS regulations" .

So, while the code is 'apparently' not mandatory, (1) the Leasehold Vauation Tribunal can base its determination on it and (2) the RICS will then "consider whether there is a breach " 

If the code is not mandatory and, according to the caseworker, "an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations", how can there be a breach?

Like the Court Service, you wonder whether these people understand what they are writing.

As to the point in my complaint that Martin Russell Jones has not implemented the LVT determination, the caseworker states that

"The RICS does not have the standing to determine something that the LVT did not make a decision on nor can compel the LVT to qualify a decision" .

Aside from the convoluted and off-the-mark reply, it amounts to the caseworker ignoring non-compliance by Martin Russell Jones of Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. (See also Martin Russell Jones # 16 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 )

Yet, in this letter, it also wrote:

"...the action of failing to follow the LVT determination is one that the RICS will look at"

Back to list

(4) The follow-up letters to my challenging the reply is blatant proof that the RICS opted to totally ignored my complaint

While this reply is a farce, more was yet to come as, in his letter dated 3 August 2005 , the caseworker wrote:

"I have received a reply to my letter of enquiry regarding your complaint. I would be grateful if you could review the reply and enclosure and give me your comments. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.".

Of course, he does not supply with the questions to which the answers relate. Yet, he expects me to comment!

To this, he attached a letter dated 25 July 2005 from Martin Russell Jones who had enclosed copy of what I assume is meant to be the insurance for the block for which it states the postcode as SW1 - which is wrong (it is SW3).   Hence, it once again supports one of the points in my complaint (1MB) (1.1.1.52 (ii) and 272) that even the address on the 'so called' insurance document is wrong. (See also Martin Russell Jones # 48 )

Just as well that the RICS "takes complaints seriously" (letters of 13 May 2005 and 10 June 2005 )

For a while, I debated whether I should waste yet more of my time replying to his letter. Eventually, I opted to do this on 14 October 2005 , yet again, emphasising some of the key points.

These included further evidence that Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones have not implemented the LVT determination as, in a letter dated 21 September 2005 i.e. 2 years and 3 months after the LVT determination, Martin Russell Jones wrote that " new pumps and a new control panel are required for the boiler "

The main points from the LVT determination in relation to the boiler (attached to the above letter from Martin Russell Jones) can be summarised as:

"The specification is considered inadequate in that it is vague and lack specific detail.

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" (See Brian Gale for detail).  

Furthermore, the need to replace the boilers had actually been questioned by the tribunal during the hearing ( points 23 and 16.07 )

The fact that Martin Russell Jones has sent me this "notice" suggests an intention to charge me for the costs.

(See also Martin Russell Jones # 16 , # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 29 )

I concluded my letter to the RICS by stating

"To date, I have not seen any evidence that your Office is taking my complaint seriously"

The RICS' 4 November 2005 reply was:

To the comment in my 14 October letter, "You do not enclose a copy of your letter to MRJ. Yet, you expect me to "review the reply.and give [you] [my] comments.In your 1 March 2005 reply you wrote that you "will be approaching the members named for their comments on three specific matters and one general one". What points did you raise that led to the 25 July 2005 reply from MRJ?"

Reply from the RICS:

"I am dismayed to learn that it took you ten weeks to inform me that I had not included a copy of the MRJ's reply." ( UNBELIEVABLE how the caseworker blatantly ignores the content of my letter )

Back to list

(5) The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors concluded that I had provided "an insufficient weight of evidence [against Martin Russell Jones] to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee"

In relation to my re-emphasising some of the key points in my complaint (after which I had stated the documentary evidence I had already supplied to the RICS / the reference number in my complaint under which I had provided detail), the reply from the caseworker was:

"I am quite dismayed by your letter as it appears that you have not taken on board any of the information I clarified to you in my letter of 10 June 2005.

I will not entertain any correspondence that brings new matters into the frame.

I am of the opinion that there is an insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee currently .

Should you be unable to provide corroborative evidence of a breach of the rules, I will have no option other than to close the matter"

 

 

I concluded that this letter did not warrant a reply.

Yet again, as with ALL the other English 'so called' regulatory bodies I have approached, I saw myself as doing the equivalent of hitting my head against a brick wall.

It has cost me 150 hours of my life to compile the complaint against Martin Russell Jones . In other words, 21 days - which included using up 15% of my annual leave.

Subsequent correspondence with the RICS has cost me another 50 hours + of my life.

200+ hours of my life gone the drain! = over SIX WEEKS of my life, based on a 35 hour week. (See Document library)

I WANT TO SCREAM MY HEAD OFF, AND SCREAM AND SCREAM AND SCREAM

Contrast the RICS reply with a disciplinary case, as well as another one featured on the RICS website in 2005, for which, for example, non-provision of an insurance certificate within six months of being requested was, 'apparently', on its own, ground for expulsion from the RICS membership. Really?

Back to list

(6) 'Weighty' voices, both externally and internally, are highly critical of the RICS - and deplore the appalling state of the sector

The failures of the RICS self-regulatory processes were exposed in a recent report by Professor Sir Bryan Carsberg , who found - to his "surprise" that the

 "RICS does not, as a matter of course, take action against [its] members' serious professional incompetence"  

While the RICS' reply to my complaint against Martin Russell Jones (which includes considerably more serious matters than just "incompetence" ) provides overwhelming evidence of this, the failings of the RICS are a widely recognised fact, as evidenced by the following in one of the sector's main publications, the Estates Gazette , 7 January 2006 issue

"The internal RICS complaints procedure cannot be said to inspire widespread confidence .."

" But it is also a bed of its own making: the system seems set up to investigate frivolous complaints often just because they are made, while the serious issues brought to its attention are not vigorously tackled"

•  As well as by some of the industry's players. For example, the MD of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 June 2006 issue of the Estates Gazette as saying (in relation to gross over-charging on insurance premiums by managing agents)

"The alternative is that managing agents improve the professionalism of their service."

"It will take an almighty shake-up to clean up the sector and improve standards"

In my 2 February 2005 complaint to the RICS, against Ms Joan Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin, I wrote

"...in JH having the designatory initials M.R.I.C.S, while BM has F.R.I.C.S - they sully the reputation of praise-worthy members of the RICS, as well as greatly devalue the standing of the RICS"

Back to list

(7) What I am now compelled to add is that the Office of the RICS itself brings its industry into disrepute - by acting as a fertiliser for malpractice

While I still hold the view that the RICS has "praise-worthy members" (e.g. my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock, LSM Partners), my subsequent experience with the RICS has led me to conclude that its only "standing" is that of a trade association whose sole objective is to protect its members' interests - regardless of their conduct . (Hence, like the Law Society # 2 and # 3 , the Bar Council and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales ).

Contrary to what Mr Graham Chase, vice-president of the RICS is quoted as saying in the Estates Gazette article of 10 June 2006 (in relation to gross overcharging by its members on insurance premiums)

"People who don't have a transparent position on what they are charging are bringing the entire industry into disrepute"

(The Mail on Sunday also had an article in its 30 May 2006 issue, headed " Landlords'£1bn insurance sting" .   Among others, the article states "The swindle is a result of managing agents and landlords secretly adding inflated 'administration' fees to premiums and then passing the combined bill to leaseholders under the guise of an insurance charge" )

I hold the view that to bring the industry "into disrepute" would require that it has a good reputation. IT DOES NOT. And the Office of the RICS itself does an excellent job at encouraging and perpetuating this perception by acting as a fertiliser for malpractice - on a massive scale.

Indeed, it is no wonder that there is so much corruption, fraud, etc. taking place in this sector. The evidence to back-up my claim? In addition to my own case, as well media reports, see the cases reported by C.A.R.L. in its newsletters, as well as the cases on the LVT database which, by the way... surprise, surprise...includes another damning case against Martin Russell Jones (see point 8 below).

I know of other leaseholders who, like me, have filed complaints with the RICS against its members. Like me, their complaints have been rejected outright. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I assume that, considering my experience with the RICS, you will not have difficulty believing this.

I strongly believe that I have a valid complaint against Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, if you have read the supporting documents in this section, I believe you have probably arrived at the same conclusion. If you still have doubts, please see Martin Russell Jones for comprehensive detail.

Do you see why I stated in the introduction to the site that: 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'?

Back to list

(8) Not surprisingly, Martin Russell Jones is repeating its 'winning formula' in other blocks

Of course, as Martin Russell Jones evidently has the full blessings of its trade association, the RICS, to behave as it does, it is no surprise to discover that it is repeating its 'formula' in other blocks - as evidenced by e.g. the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal case, LON/00AQ/LSC/2005/0258, 12 August 2006 (printscreen of website) which highlights:

(1) claiming large amounts of expenditure unsupported by invoices, as well as overcharging for services;

(2) failing to produce year-end accounts;

(3) failing to issue a section 20 notice.

(4) the use of solicitors to enforce payment of service charges (point 12)

Yep! All of that sounds very much like 'Déjà vu'!

MRJ had actually been appointed by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal as manager for the block of flats in question during previous proceedings, in 2000. On page 30 of the LVT report, Mr Barrie Martin is reported to have “confirmed that he was aware of the RICS Code and Members Accounts Regulations, and that his practice complied with both”

(And there are similar stories in other blocks that Martin Russell Jones 'manages' - see Martin Russell Jones # 18 , # 42 ; My Diary 6 May 2008 ; 19 May 2008 / Comments # 11 and # 12 )

Why should Martin Russell Jones stop behaving as it does? In addition to the blessings of the RICS:

•  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which covers local councils does not care and does not want to know

•  At the time that Martin Russell Jones needed to be registered with the Financial Services Authority it, likewise, could not give a damn!

•  Pridie Brewster the 'accountant' for Jefferson House has taken no action once it had absolute knowledge that criminal conduct had taken place (In my NON-LAWYER opinion, under Money Laundering Regulations - it should have reported Martin Russell Jones) - and its trade association, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has, likewise, turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' - see # 17 , # 18 , # 19 , # 20 , # 21 )

•  The courts, West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court have, likewise turned ' a blind eye and a deaf ear ' to the evidence - see # 8 , # 9 , # 11, as well as Lord Falconer of Thoroton

And the same attitude prevails in relation to the ' back-up enforcers ' (Martin Russell Jones # 25 , # 26 ) - see Legal Services Ombudsman

What this amounts to is that what Martin Russell Jones is doing is regarded as 'good practice' - rather than 'malpractice'

Back to list

(9) My conclusions on the RICS: a complete and utter farce... while the alternative is a dead end

My conclusion: the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is a complete and utter FARCE along with the other English so-called 'regulatory bodies' of the professions I have come across during the course of my horrendous and very traumatic nightmare experience.

These sectors are unregulated and hence: there is NO PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS .

As Martin Russell Jones is also an estate agent (its website (in 2004) stated " Members of. the NAEA (National Association of Estate Agents)" , I also approached the Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents by copying it on the complaint I had sent to the RICS.

In its 19 May 2005 reply it rejected my complaint because

"according to our records, Martin Russell Jones is not a member and your complaint is, therefore, outside the Ombudsman's terms of reference"

How many consumers know that membership of the Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents is voluntary? Obviously, those most likely to be found at fault by this Ombudsman are not going to register = another pointless scheme - which, as with everything else, you only discover once you start 'scratching the surface'

Back to list

(10) And what has all of this been in aid of?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, please remember that...

...THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED is due to...

Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides deciding that I (and other leaseholders) would be made to pay for this (2.4MB): the CONSTRUCTION OF A PENTHOUSE FLAT, ADDITION OF THREE OTHER FLATS AND RELATED WORKS - FOR WHICH WE ARE NOT LIABLE .

(This pack (2.3MB), as well as this pack (1.1MB) contain key evidential documents. As to the pay-off, it is evidenced by the block sale of flats in the latter part of 2006, beginning of 2007 which, of course, are in addition to the sale of the penthouse flat BGL 54 458 for £3.9 million (US$6.9 million) in December 2005, etc.

In October 2007, the selling price was £6,500,000 (US$11.5 millions)

Jefferson House July 2002

 

Jefferson House September 2005

 

To be more precise:

( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)

UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT?

THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS HAS CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF ITS OWN DOING .

(11) Without giving any detail whatsoever, in its 14 AUGUST 2008 letter, the RICS threatens me "with proceedings" if I do not "immediately cease all references that [I am] making to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in [my] materials online"

In its 14 August 2008 letter, the RICS makes claims that:

•  my website makes "reference to the RICS together with many assumptions which are inaccurate and misleading"

•  it has "no record for the authorised use of such RICS information and data by you on the Internet"

•  it "vigorously, regularly and successfully pursue such unauthorised use and particularly in this case when the reference to reports from the Institution are quoted incorrectly and are likely to mislead the reader"

•  Having stated "We therefore insist that you immediately cease all references that you are making to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in your materials online"

•  It concludes with "If we receive your confirmation that you have complied with the above...we will not pursue proceedings. If you are not willing to do so or we do not receive an adequate response to this letter within 14 days, then immediately legal action will be taken without further recourse to you which will include recovery of our legal costs"

In my 18 August 2008 reply, I took each point in turn, asking for clarification.

(12) Ignoring my 18 August 2008 approach (based on the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Protocol), in its 21 August 2008 reply, the RICS continues to order that I remove "all references to the Institution" from my website, and - in a complete turnaround to its previous position - in effect encourages Martin Russell Jones to file proceedings against me

Evidently, the RICS did not view my 18 August 2008 letter as "an adequate response", as its opening paragraph in its 21 August 2008 letter states:

"We... note that you are in effect refusing to remove the references to RICS and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors from your website.

Therefore, having already given you notice that your web references identify the Institution and clearly have an intention to damage the reputation of the RICS, we now intend to commence legal action against you for damages for slander and legal costs, if all the said references are not removed within 14 days”

Points in my 4 September 2008 reply:

•  “Slander” is the ‘spoken word’, and ‘libel’ the ‘written word’

•  The RICS has failed to "address my perfectly legitimate questions for clarification" in my 18 August 2008 reply.

•  While my website was first launched nearly 2 years ago, and the limitation period for filing a claim for defamation is one year, because "I pay paramount importance to the integrity of my website, including making 'fair comments', the one year limitation does not preclude addressing your concerns - which I neither admit nor deny - as I do not know what you are complaining about"

•  The CPR 'pre-action protocol for defamation' requires that the Letter of Claim identifies precisely "the words complained of", etc. - which was the objective of my 18 August 2008 reply.

The last sentence in the RICS's letter of 21 August 2008 states:

“No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you”

UNBELIEVABLE! See (in addition to the (long) section on Martin Russell Jones):

  • point # 1 above for the 2 February 2005 (1MB) complaint and 220 supporting documents I filed with the RICS, and the other sections for the 10-month battle I had to engage in which resulted in the 4 November 2005 verdict by the RICS "I am of the opinion that there is an insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee currently"

Consider also that Martin Russell Jones:

  • ...using the preposterous, laughable excuse that "it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord" (Portner # 33 )...
  • ... My reply to this preposterous excuse is on page 5, under point 2.2 of my 26 August 2008 application for an assessment hearing. In summary:

•  aside from highlighting the legislative requirement imposed on solicitors under the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to "know your client" (NB: making this the second time that Portner has breached this requirement - see Portner # 1, My Diary 18 February 2006 and 29 April 2006 re. events in relation to the bogus "Notice of first refusal" ), I highlight that:

•  (1) Portner also acts for 'Steel Services' (point # 3 - 10 February 2006 "Notice of first refusal") and has done so for a long time (Elderly Resident), as well as acts for Mr Ladsky (My Diary - 3 October 2006 threat of libel action against my then ISP)

•  (2) that over a period of 16 months, starting with my 25 February 2007 letter, I questioned the identity of my 'landlord' at least 8 times in various documents,

and conclude: "Having received all of the above – the Defendant waits 16 months - until “June 2008” to “obtain advice from counsel”?"

"The reality is that the Defendant could not defend its 27 February 2007 because it is fraudulent.

But, maximum fun was squeezed out of it by all over a period of 16 months..."

(NB: In 2002, also on the basis of false information supplied by Martin Russell Jones, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor had likewise threatened me with forfeiture unless I immediately paid the fraudulent sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 6.2 ; LVT # 4 , # 8.1.2 ; # 8.1.4 ; Major works-Home ; Brian Gale, MRICS ; Photo gallery ; Block sale of flats)...

...and proceeded to file a claim against me and 10 of my fellow leaseholders - also in West London County Court) (CKFT # 6.1 , # 6.3 , # 6.6 ; LVT # 1 , # 3 , # 10.6 , # 10.2 , # 10.3 , # 10.5).

Against that, please note that on 21 October 2003, 'Steel Services' made me an 'offer' for £6,350 (US$11,200) v. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 6.6 ; My 19 October 2003 Witness Statement)

To borrow a leaseholder's comment about his own landlord, I view the 2002 and 2007 court claims as "turning intimidatory litigation into an industry" - for the purpose of obtaining monies not due and payable - and Martin Russell Jones has played a key part in this.

Consider also the comments I received from leaseholders in other blocks:

"I happened upon your website while trying to check-up on Joan Hathaway from Martin Russell Jones.

I am extremely concerned. This woman is doing exactly the same to leaseholders in a block where I own a flat. Although I am at the end of my tether with their demands for more and more money for service charges, and her complete indifference to whatever letters I have been sending her, I really thought it was sheer incompetence. I had no idea I was dealing with a confidence trickster [].

*****

"We have just seen your interesting entry on the web about Martin Russell Jones. As
we have a similar problem with them (enormous demands etc.) and are going to [] We suspected that they are dishonest in the large demands being sent us as well as other signs and would greatly appreciate any advice or information you could give us. They were 'appointed' over our heads by [] which has connections with CKFT - very fishy!"

*****

"This firm [MRJ] were truly terrible. It did not even bother them in the slightest that most of the residents refused to pay their service charge - they knew they would get it all back by refusing licence to assign the lease when it came to moving.

...Some years ago [MRJ] charged a small fortune for a small amount of internal decoration work which was a rip off...

Another scam that MRJ operate is through the law firm [] Middlesex. I am told that MRJ are linked by family to this firm, though I do not know for sure. When I had to obtain licence to assign my lease, the firm charged £500 plus management charge of £75 plus VAT on each to read the two references that were required. Since they were holding me to ransom, I had no choice but to pay. I could not complain to the Law Society because I was not the client (the landlord was - and the landlord wasn't about to complain because, I am fairly certain, they were getting a cut.

MRJ is a very shabby outfit indeed who simply milk their position for all it is worth and do absolutely nothing for the service charge they levy..."

*****

"Martin Russell Jones 'run' [] Court, Kilburn, in a similar fashion"

*****

See also point # 8, above, for the LVT findings in relation to another block of flats

Am I on the wrong planet, or is the RICS living in a parallel world?

HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!

in my 4 September 2008 reply I wrote:

•  "You are threatening me with a legal action you cannot carry out"

•  That this comment "reflects a complete turnaround of your Institution's position".

I followed this by quoting extracts from this 28 May 1992 letter from the RICS to one of my contacts who was threatened with defamation proceedings by an RICS' member. Among others, the letter states:

"Any professional body which attempts to enforce a code of conduct on its members will rely largely on members of the public to report allegations of misconduct.

Such complainants cannot be expected to be experts on the Institution’s disciplinary code and if they find themselves at risk of defamation proceedings they are less likely to be forthcoming with their complaints.

The Institution has always and will therefore continue to take a dim view of such threats and such action may in some circumstances lead to a charge of “conduct unbefitting a Chartered Surveyor”.

That in its 4 May 2001 issue, Private Eye had reported “The threat was firmly criticised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and did not develop into legal action”.

I followed this with:

"Not only does your Institution evidently no longer “takes a dim view” of the threat of defamation proceedings by your members against members of the public who complain of their misconduct, and then expose them in the public domain due to lack of action by your Institution, it is clear that you now actively encourage them to do so.

And, without any evidence in support of your accusations, I am bound to conclude that your Institution adopts the same approach against members of the public when faced with criticisms about the manner in which you handle complaints against your members"

I concluded the section with:

"Considering the comments I am receiving on my website from leaseholders in other blocks, I suspect that a rather large courtroom will be required for the proceedings"

What has triggered this action by the RICS after all this time? Might it be that:

(1) The fingers are (finally) pointing in its direction? I have highlighted that the trigger for launching my website were the bogus invoices from Martin Russell Jones of 21 October 2004 for £14,500 (US$25,600) and of 16 November 2004 for £15,500 (US$27,300) (e.g. Martin Russell Jones # 18 ; My Diary 7 June 2008 ; 11 March 2007 ; header # 13 of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, covered in the main body of my statement under points 132-138)

In my 2 February 2005 (1MB) complaint to the RICS against Martin Russell Jones, I refer to these invoices in the summary under points 1.1.1.16 , 1.1.1.48 , 1.5.11 and 1.8 and, in the main body of my complaint, under point 260.

In addition to filing the complaint against Martin Russell Jones with the RICS, these invoices were also the trigger to my filing a complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor e.g. Home page # 4.16 ; CKFT # 4

And from these bogus invoices followed the domino effect.

(2) Martin Russell Jones is now finding it difficult to replicate its approach in other blocks as a result of other leaseholders being aware of my website?

If so: I AM OVERJOYED! If I can spare some people from going through the horrendous, sheer utter hell and mental torture I have been made to endure since 2002 for 'daring' to challenge the service charge demand (e.g. home # 1 ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997; My Diary 18 February 2008 ; Document library # 3 , # 4 ), it gives me great comfort to know that my ongoing suffering from the ever growing 'firing line' facing me is not in vain (My Diary 6 May 2008). And THAT will be part of my defence: Reynolds' defence ; Fair comment - to a jury - which I intend to request.

Of course, my fellow leaseholders at Jefferson House have also suffered greatly - as evidenced by e.g.

  • letter from Leaseholder C to the LVT "I paid...not of my own free will, but because I felt intimidated and threatened....It may appear that the persons who paid all or a portion of the assessment are accepting of the assessment and proposal from Steel Services and MRJ as fair. Not so in my case, it is out of fear. Steel Services and MRJ will take legal action if I do not comply"

leading a significant number to give up and leave e.g. Block sale of flats (Unlike me, the flat was not their main home) - and leaving me with trying to prevent others from falling into the trap: My Diary 9 January 2007 ; 3 March 2007

Note at mid-November 2008: no communication from the RICS since my reply of 4 September 2008

Back to top