Email this site to a contact
trade association protecting its members – in
the face of - extremely serious misconduct
|You are here > Works & Surveyors > Institute of Chartered Surveyors
InstitutION of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) - Re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX
This page is under review
|(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').
In reading this page on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) remember that the ROOT CAUSE for its actions and lack of action is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...
...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:
and related works - for which we are NOT liable...
(1) Since 2011, "RICS, ARMA, ALEP et.al. regulated" Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat
(2) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Gerrard # 30.
Introduction (under review)
In Dec 05 (one month after I received the final 'Get lost!' to my complaint against MRJ, 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"
11 years later, in an Aug 16 FT article, "Leasehold flats: what estate agents won’t tell you", the RICS was quoted as saying that
"[its] code cannot strike off managing agents or other “unfit persons” responsible for levying unreasonable charges because there is no compulsory register"
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.
(NB: In August 2008, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors threatened me with defamation proceedings unless "you immediately cease all references that you are making to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in your materials online" - see from point # 11 below)
As can be seen from the snapshots on the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) under: Advisors to Jefferson House ; Extortion - my experience (and that of my fellow leaseholders) with this "RICS regulated" firm of 'managing' agents,...
...in particular with Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, but also with Barrie Martin, FRICS, from the time they took over the 'management' of Jefferson House, in 1989 (MRJ Intro ; Directorships # 1.4), defies the imagination.
What triggered my 02.02.05 complaint (summary) (supported by 220 documents) against them (pt # 1) (summary # 6.2) were the fraudulent invoices of 24.05.04 , 21.10.04 and 16.11.04 (Overview # 6) (my (identical) Comments are attached to these invoices)...
...- combined with the fact that they very actively supported their client, Andrew David Ladsky, in his tactic of "turning intimidatory litigation into an industry". (Overview # 1 ; MRJ # 21 to # 26).
Many people had warned me that, complaining against the then MRJ to the RICS, would be a complete waste of time and money. They proved to be right.
However, on the upside, it added to my, by then, growing irrebutable evidence of this island-Kingdom being controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime. I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.
To avoid any potential confusion as to what I was referring to, I structured my 02.02.05 summary by referring to sections in the RICS' 'Service Charge Residential Management Code', and in its 'code of conduct' (I bought at its office) - as it turned out: in vain!
I headed my complaint:
"This is a complaint against Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, M.R.I.C.S and Mr Barrie Martin, F.R.I.C.S Martin Russell Jones, Chartered Surveyors, London NW4 3JL for committing criminal offences against me and causing highly detrimental consequences on my physical and emotional health, as well as financial position - in the process of aiding and abetting its client, 'Steel Services' in unlawful service charge demands totalling £28,450"
in the conclusions, I wrote:
"Like their client’s, Joan Hathaway and Barrie Martin’s greed and arrogance know no bounds.
I view JH in particular, but also BM as evil, corrupt and morally depraved individuals who will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve their dishonest objectives."
The 01.03.05 initial reply:
- "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".
- "the appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint were "through civil or criminal proceedings" (1)
- claimed to "[have] no power to award any compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid." (2)
(1)- They must have been laughing their head off when they wrote this - knowing that it would amount to another massive waste of my time and money - see police # 7.
"The parts of [my] complaint" referred to breaches of statutes e.g. s.17 - False accounting ; s.21 - Blackmail ; Malicious Communications Act 1988 ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
(2)- A tactic aimed at limiting the number of complaints
In my 05.03.05 reply, I challenged the RICS' response, highlighting the 'Core Values and Principles' comprised in the RICS' 'code of conduct', I considered to have been breached by the then Martin Russell Jones.
Hence, to quote the RICS: "...breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" .
As more than 3 months had gone by since I filed my complaint, after 2 chaser letters (18.04.05 and 05.05.05), I sent a 17.05.05 letter (pt # 2) in which I stated my conclusions that:
- (2)- all the other RICS members who had been involved in my case were evidently "all in the wrong".
Determined to have fun with me, in its 13.05.05 letter, the RICS asked me to supply "a summary", to which I replied in my 02.06.05 letter that I had already done this (02.02.05).
In its 10.06.05 'reply' (pt # 3), the RICS threw back at me various parts of my complaint, stating, among other:
- "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"
- "The Management Code was approved by the Secretaries of State.
- 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?
Contrast this reply with the above initial reply of 01.03.05: "Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so".
Continuing with its 'Frustrate and discourage tactics' (Header 2), the RICS stated:
" [the (then)] 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"
Hence, while the code is 'apparently' "not mandatory":
- (1)- "the LVT can take it into consideration in its determination", and
- (2)- the RICS will then "consider whether there is a breach ".
If the code is "not mandatory", how can there be a breach?
While this reply was a farce, in the process treating me as a complete imbecile, more was yet to come.
Indeed, to its 03.08.05 letter (pt # 4), the RICS attached a 27 July 05 reply it had received from the then Martin Russell Jones, following contacting it - and asked me to reply to it - without providing me with a copy of the letter the RICS had sent MRJ.
For a while, I debated whether I should waste, yet more of my time and money replying to its 03.08.05 letter. Eventually, I opted to do this by letter of 14.10.05.
My comments in my 14.10.05 letter
The RICS's 04.11.05 'reply' (pt # 5)
"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?"
"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."
(Note what I wrote: "You did not enclose a copy of your letter to MRJ".
That's a typical English 'regulator' tactic: when you are wrong / have not got a leg to stand on: attack to shift the focus away.
In addition to blatantly ignoring the content of my letter: the caseworker knew damn well that he had not done it - because done deliberately).
Re. 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)
"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"
Contrast the RICS' 'reply' to my complaint, with a 17.05.05 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 6 months of being requested was, 'apparently', on its own, ground for expulsion from the RICS membership. Believe that?
I concluded that this 04.11.05 letter did not warrant a reply.
= Another win for one of the pillars of the British Establishment: the corrupt, morally depraved, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - to be added to the other 'Proles' / "Oiks" / "Great Unwashed" like me who, likewise, give up fighting.
This battle added another lot of c.260 hours of my life 'down the drain' - as well as c.£290 in costs (Doc library # 6.2).
As the then Martin Russell Jones had, very clearly, the full blessings of its trade association, the RICS, to behave as it did, it, of course, continued on its merry way (e.g. Overview # 11 ; Martyn Gerrard- Background).
Hence, it is also no surprise to see that the then MRJ also repeated its 'winning formula' in other blocks: pt # 8.
(See the Comments / pt # 12 for other leaseholders' assessment of MRJ which, unsurprisingly, echo mine)
Of course, in 2010-11 (pt # 13), the RICS repeated its 'performance' in relation to my sending it a 16.12.10 letter in which I suggested an 'RICS Surveyor of the Year Award' for Joan Hathaway, MRICS' - supporting it with the fact that she was continuing to send me fraudulent upon fraudulent demands, while ignoring ALL my correspondence (Martyn Gerrard -Background).
While the RICS attempted to 'muzzle me' in 2008 (pt # 11) from exposing its true method of operating, (as well as held the view that "MRJ should issue defamation proceedings against [me]" (!!!) (pt # 12)...
...it cannot go against the tide: see pt # 6 ; the CentreForum report that "...leasehold managing agents operate without any form of regulation" - Overview Note 9.
As the then Martin Russell Jones was 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 19.05.05 reply, with which it supplied a leaflet, 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 Estate Agents Ombudsman is not compulsory - and consequently operates in a different manner from the other ombudsmen?
= Another sham at leading 'the little people' into believing that it offers an avenue for redress.
= A pointless scheme as those likely to be found at fault are obviously not going to join. As with everything else, you only discover it when you start 'scratching the surface'.
(1) The RICS false claims became immediately evident following my 2 February 2005 complaint against Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)
In December 2004, I started to compile a complaint against Martin Russell Jones to the RICS (snapshot on MRJ under 'Advisors to Jefferson House'). 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 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 (See Kensington & Chelsea housing and Local Government Ombudsman)
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 'diktat' (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 ) (NB: = typical FEAR tactics)
Indeed, the 28 February 2005 'diktat' refers to an intention to enforce, yet again, a breach of my lease with, of course!, 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)."
(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.
(3) The 10 June 2005 '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"
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" .
RICS will consider whether such criticism
constitutes a breach of RICS regulations" .
So, while the code is 'apparently'
not mandatory, (1) the then Leasehold Valuation Tribunal could 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?
As to the point in my complaint that Martin Russell Jones has not implemented the LVT so-called '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 s.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"
(4) The follow-up letters to my challenging the reply is blatant proof that the RICS opted to totally ignore my complaint - and concluded with the arrogant, condescending, patronising final 'Get lost!' of 4 November 2005
While the above reply of 10 June 2005 from the RICS 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 me 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 Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, 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 (22.214.171.124 (ii) and 272) that even the address on the 'so called' insurance document is wrong. (See also MRJ # 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.
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 arrogant, condescending, patronising 'reply' of 4 November 2005 from the RICS 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)
(5) 'The RICS' concluded in its final 'Get lost!' of 4 November 2005 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"
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 c.250 hours
of my life to compile the complaint (including the bundle of 220 supporting documents, as well as initial desk research) against Martin Russell Jones.
Based on a 35-hour week, it has cost me 7+ weeks - which
included using up 15% of my annual
leave. My production and postage costs were c.£290 (see Doc library # 6.1)
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?
(6) 'Weighty' voices, both externally and internally, are highly critical of the RICS - and deplore the appalling state of the sector
At the time of my complaint to the RICS, the failures of its 'self-regulatory processes' were exposed in a 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"
...by the following in one of the sector's main publications, the Estates Gazette , 7 Jan 06 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"
The Independent, 11 Jul 10: "Minister says all is well with leaseholders. He'd better think again..."
"Here at the Independent on Sunday we are getting complaints from across the country about management companies, their disproportionate service charges and overcharging for maintenance work"
"In any other part of daily life, the freeholder and his brother would more than likely be had up for fraud - but not in the arcane world of freeholders, leaseholders and management companies"
Julian Knight, The Independent on Sunday, 13 Feb 11: "Big society? Big rip-off"
"Do I need to remind Mr Shapps that he is the minister who decided to tear up a cross-party consensus on improving the rights of leasehold property owners...from being exploited by unscrupulous management companies appointed by the freeholder?
The legislation - before it was killed off by Ms Shapps - would have finally brought transparency to the whole managing agent industry".
Giving an example of the racketeering that takes place in relation to the insurance of leasehold blocks of flats, Mr Knight concludes with: "Mr Big society Mr Shapps? Big rip-off more like"
For example, the MD of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 Jun 06 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"
(7) What I am now compelled to add to the above is that the Office of the RICS itself brings its industry into disrepute - by acting as a fertiliser for malpractice - with the obvious endorsement of successive administrations
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 (As the saying goes 'Who pays the piper calls the tune').
(Hence, like the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales - and following the example set by the State sector e.g. courts, police, ombudsmen who rally round the 'regulators' et.al.).
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 06 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.
Four years after I wrote the above, I am, not surprisingly proven right: in spite of its claim, the RICS - continues to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear: e.g. Independent article, and other media reports.
It is clear from the lack of action by successive administrations - in spite of the damning evidence - that the RICS has approval of its blind eye and deaf ear attitude at the highest level. (= same as the other so-called 'regulators').
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: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS - as well as media reports, see the cases reported by C.A.R.L. in its newsletters, as well as the cases on the tribunal's database which, by the way... surprise, surprise...includes another damning case against Martin Russell Jones (see point 8 below).
And of course, the RICS's 'protégé', Martin Russell Jones, which, in 2008, the RICS considered to have the right to sue me for libel - continues to send me fraudulent 'service charge' demands: Martyn Gerrard- Background.
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.
In light of my experience with the RICS and the police - up to the highest level - and with its so-called 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (staffed by police officers on secondment)...
...- I laughed when I saw The Times article of 19 Mar 09, "Property fraud: now the Metropolitan Police get in on the act"
"Last week the Metropolitan Police announced the launch of its property industry counter-fraud forum — PFAST (Property Forum Acting for Safe Transactions — Property Fraud Forum) in conjunction with a number of partners including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics)"
The police "head of the economic and specialist crime command at the Met" is quoted as saying
"...we will continue to work with our partners to strengthen the fight against economic crime".
Is this going to be the same way they "fight" against the 'Rachman' criminal landlords and their aides, including members of the RICS = help the criminals in their racketeering activites?
I very strongly believe that I have a legitimate complaint against Joan Hathaway, MRICS and 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'? In this country, 'dare' to challenge fraud and corruption, and you end-up being treated as the criminal - while the criminals are treated as the victims.
(8) Not surprisingly, Martin Russell Jones is repeating its 'winning formula' in other blocks - while continuing to send me 'its' fraudulent demands
Of course, as MRJ 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 London 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 London tribunal as "manager for the block of flats" in question during previous proceedings, in 2000. On page 30 of the tribunal report, Barrie Martin, FRICS, 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 point # 12 below, for comments I have received from leaseholders in other blocks. (Some of these are also included under MRJ # 18 , # 42 ; 19 May 08. All are in the Comments section)
And, of course, MRJ continues with its fraudulent activities e.g. see My Diary 13 Jul 10 for the 3rd major fraudulent demand 'from' MRJ since 2002.
Why should Martin Russell Jones stop behaving as it does? (snapshot on MRJ under 'Advisors to Jefferson House') In addition to having the obvious blessings of the RICS:
(In 2005) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which covers local councils does not care and does not want to know
In 2010, under the May 2010 Coalition Government, the new Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, is quoted as saying:
"With the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders happy with the service they receive, I am satisfied that the current system strikes the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords."
As the journalist from the Independent replied in his 10 July 10 article "I'm afraid, Mr Shapps, you are either deluded or simply don't give a damn"
At the time that MRJ needed to be registered with the then Financial Services Authority it, likewise, could not give a damn!
Pridie Brewster the 'accountant' for Jefferson House took 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, as well as extracts from the RICS's guidance re. Money Laundering Regulations - and consider: court claims = fraud tools.
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 - Subsequent note - and continued to do this in 2007-2008 see West London County Court - Post 2004
And the same attitude prevails in relation to the ' back-up enforcers ' (MRJ # 25 , # 26 ) - see Legal Services Ombudsman. (Subsequent note: and, of course, it continued: see Portner and Jaskel # 4 for the Law Society's 2007 'reply' to my complaint against this firm)
What this amounts to is that what Martin Russell Jones is doing is regarded as 'good practice' - rather than 'malpractice'. (Subsequent note - See point # 12 below for further proof of this, thereby vindicating my conclusion at the time I wrote this section)
(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 (See a summary of the outcomes of my complaints).
These sectors are unregulated; 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'
(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) Pre-Action 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"
(NB: see the requirements for 'defamation'; also 'Fair comment, and Qualified privilege - Public interest defence' in operation at the time).
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”
Absolutely unbelievable! See snapshot on MRJ under 'Advisors to Jefferson House' ; Extortion ; in addition to the (long) section on Martin Russell Jones:
- point # 1 above for the 2 February 2005 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" (point # 5, above)
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 Feb 06 and 29 Apr 06 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 Andrew Ladsky (My Diary - 3 October 2006 threat of libel action against my then ISP)
(2) that over a period of 14 months, starting with my 25 February 2007 letter, I questioned the identity of my 'landlord' 11 times in various documents (Portner # 33),
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 fraudulent information - supplied by Martin Russell Jones - Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) had likewise threatened me with forfeiture unless I immediately paid the fraudulent sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) (CKFT # 6.2 ; LVT # 4 ; Major works-Home ; Brian Gale, MRICS ; Photo gallery ; Block sale of flats)...
...and proceeded to file the 22 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537, against me and 10 of my fellow leaseholders, also in West London County Court (CKFT # 6.1 , # 6.3 , # 6.6 ; LVT # 02) - for which Joan Hathaway, MRICS, signed the statement of truth on the Particulars of claim (NB: the fact that WLCC proceeded with the claim amounts to a very serious breach of CPR)
Against that, please note that, on 21 October 2003, on the day which WLCC had ordered that the witness statements had to be "served / exchanged by 4.00 pm on 21 October 2003", 'Steel Services', aka Andrew David Ladsky, did NOT supply a witness statement - opting instead to send 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))
= The threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, the 2002 and 2007 court claims for which Martin Russell Jones supplied the information = fraud tools...
... And this is what the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors approves of!
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 very key part in this.
Consider also the comments I received about Martin Russell Jones from leaseholders in other blocks (they are also included under the Comments section):
(1)- "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 .
(2)- "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!"
(3)- "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..."
(4)- "Martin Russell Jones 'run'  Court, Kilburn, in a similar fashion"
(5)- "I am so glad I stumbled across your website after spending  battling with MRJ (Martin Russell Jones) .
I admire your persistence since I've spent less time dealing with these people and already my blood pressure and mind are going insane.
I am glad I am not alone since I live in the same block as you, and look forward to any communications we may have in the future".
(6) "Our block is also managed by MRJ
The service charges have doubled and the block has deteriorated such that it has become difficult to sell the flats.
We have received estimates for roof repairs of £106K plus. We, the tenants, got three estimates that varied from £20k to £36k.
They never return telephone calls, nor respond to letters. Nothing seems to frighten MRJ
Would it be possible if all the Lessees wanted to change the managing agents?
We know they are dishonest in the large demands being sent us and the money the freeholder and MRJ must be making and would appreciate any advice or information you could give us"
See also point # 8, above, for the London tribunal findings in relation to another block of flats.
Am I on the wrong planet, or is the RICS living in a parallel world? YES: that the British Establishment.
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?
I believe the trigger to be the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance of the 27 February 2007 claim, ref. 7WL00675 - preceded by my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement - (the RICS's initial letter is dated 14 August 2008 letter), as its member, Martin Russell Jones, supplied the details for the claim.
This outcome demonstrates that the claim was fraudulent (further evidenced by the preposterous reason for dropping it: Portner # 33) - as was the 29 November 2002 claim, ref. WL203537 - for which Martin Russell Jones also supplied the Particulars of claim - see My Diary 22 Nov 08 for a summary: threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as court claims = fraud tools
By implication, it demonstrates that the RICS endorses fraudulent activities by its members as it dismissed my 2 February 2005 complaint against Martin Russell Jones - in which, I think you will agree, I very comprehensively demonstrated - and supported with a large number of evidential documents - its fraudulent method of operating.
Further evidence that the RICS 'endorses' fraudulent activities is the fact that - UNBELIEVABLY - in its 21 August 2008 letter it states "No doubt Martin Russell Jones will also be taking similar legal action against you"
Another reason for the RICS' threat may be because 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 24 May 2004 for £13,430 (US$23,682), 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 Jun 08 ; 11 Mar 07 ; 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 complaint to the RICS against MRJ, I refer to these invoices in the summary under points 126.96.36.199 , 188.8.131.52 , 1.5.11 and 1.8 and, in the main body of my complaint, under point 260.
In addition to filing the complaint against MRJ with the RICS, these invoices were also the trigger to my filing a complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor e.g. Doc library # 2 ; CKFT # 4
And from these bogus invoices followed the domino effect (e.g. Home-Overview)
However, the more I think about it, the less I view this as a potential explanation: who would be pointing the finger at the RICS? They are 'ALL' as 'thick as thieves!' in their symbiotic network of relationships. In addition, they have ALL joined forces in 'lynching' me for 'daring' to stand-up for my so-called 'rights'.
If Martin Russell Jones has been complaining to its 'trade union', the RICS, that it is now finding it difficult to replicate its approach in other blocks as a result of other leaseholders being aware of my website: 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-Overview ; Protection from Harassment Act 1997; My Diary 18 Feb 08), it gives me great comfort to know that my ongoing suffering from the ever growing 'firing line' facing me is not in vain (Overview of the outcomes of my complaints).
And THAT will be part of my defence: Public interest defence ; Fair comment [in operation until 2013] - 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 London tribunal: "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" (NB: the power of the FEAR tactics!)
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 end of 2008: no communication from the RICS since my reply of 4 September 2008 = the RICS is another bully who resorts to fear tactics in an attempt to cover-up its deceit. No wonder Martin Russell Jones acts as it does!
In - my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that, in sending me its 14 August 2008 and 21 August 2008 letters, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has committed an offence against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (as I wrote in my 4 September 2008 letter to the RICS).
In light of the 3rd major fraudulent demand 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Andrew David Ladsky (see snapshot on MRJ under 'Advisors to Jefferson House'), this time for £24,000 (US$42,000) - (see My Diary 13 Jul 10) - with my 16 December 2010 letter to the RICS, I copied it on the 'invoices' (9 July 10; 1 Nov 10) and my replies (15 Jul 10; 17 Nov 10; 16 Dec 10) to Joan Hathaway, and wrote:
"...in light of your 'regulatory performance' (*), I am sure you will agree [these documents] justify considering Joan Hathaway, MRICS, for an 'RICS Surveyor of the Year Award'"
(*) As evidenced by what is captured on this page
It led to a 6 January 2011 response that the RICS was treating my letter as "a complaint" and stating "If we decide further investigation is required, we will contact the firm..."
This was followed by a 20 January 2011 letter stating:
"The RICS only has powers to deal with breaches of our Bye-laws, Rules, Practice Statements and other compulsory regulations that apply to our Members and Regulated Firms. RICS cannot become involved in disputes"
"RICS are unable to assist you in resolving your dispute concerning the MRJ invoice you allege to be fraudulent"
1. YES, I DO maintain - with 'black on white' evidence in support - that this demand of £24,000, sent to me 3 times (9 Jul 10; 1 Nov 10; 18 Jan 11) by Joan Hathaway, MRICS is fraudulent. Evidence:
- ALL the charges, service charge, reserve fund and ground rent were to year-end 2006. The electricity was to October 2006.
Hence, according to 'Martin Russell Jones''s 9 July 2010 'invoice' my service charges - for 3.5 years (2007 to July 2010) - are £21,902 (£24,002 - £2,100 ground rent) - or an average of £6,257 per year!
Contrast that with the fact that:
- As can be seen from the 2004 accounts, “my share” of the ‘service charges’ in 2004 was £1,750 – and they were a rip-off! (In blatant breach of my lease, I have NOT been supplied with accounts since 2004).
(For other evidence of fraud connected with this demand, see Martyn Gerrard # 2 – who claimed to be using information “supplied by Martin Russell Jones”) (and, in the process, added amounts from OUTRAGEOUS "estimates of expenditure for year 2011")
2. As to the RICS stating that it is "unable to assist", contrast that with pg 2 of its 'How to complain - Help sheet': "Matters RICS investigates... Allegation... of a criminal offence". 'Obviously - as it did before - the RICS does NOT consider offences under the Fraud Act 2006, the Malicious Communications Act 1998, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Theft Act 1968, s.17 False accounting - as criminal) (I also remind you about its "role" - as stated on its website in 2005)
The 20 Jan 11 letter goes on to state:
"I note that you have previously referred your complaints to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal"
(Wrong! I did NOT. MRJ - 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky - filed a 7 August 2002 application to the London tribunal)
"I would suggest you contact them again"
(= So that you can get seriously shafted again (London tribunal ; My Diary 2011-Intro) - and we finally get rid of you bloody Bitch. Remember: the housing minister, Grant Shapps, is 'our mate') (My Diary 4 Feb 11)
"If you choose to go to the LVT and during the tribunal, Martin Russell Jones are criticised, then RICS maybe able to investigate this criticism further provided a transcript of the LVT decision is available"
I assume that "transcript" means a copy of the report.
What his letter amounts to, is as per the visual - because:
- As can be seen from sections 6 and 7 (points 130-173) of my 2 February 2005 complaint to the RICS against MRJ, I devoted 13 pages of my complaint to the then London LVT events and outcome of the hearings - including very clearly detailing the £500,000 (US$882,000) overcharge (inc. the £144k contingency fund).
- Furthermore, as can also be seen from the list of 220 documents I supplied as supporting documents to my complaint, I provided the RICS with a copy of the tribunal's report of 17 June 2003 (# 156 in the list).
(The outcome of my 2005 complaint was: "Insufficient evidence. No misconduct" = 'Get lost!')
Hence: this is A LIE! The "maybe" = we won't do it.
To the 'do it yourself' message can be added: as 'Our Most Revered Lord and Master - Andrew Ladsky' has switched managing agents to Martyn Gerrard, "The award-winning agency...where integrity counts" (another one of our protégés), if you want to pursue it, you, bloody Bitch, are going to have two battles on your hands - and our mates are sure as hell going to give you the run around!)
- "In your letter dated 17 November 2010 addressed to Ms Hathaway, you reported that the LVT determined that the firm's previous demand was "most definitely unreasonable". At this stage, it is not clear whether this statement requires further investigation. Therefore, I will be writing to the firm enclosing a copy of your complaint"
(= As per above re. the one finger sign)
- "I appreciate that you may be disappointed with this letter..."
(NOP! Based on past experience, as detailed on this page, it is 'more than I expected' as, in fact, I was surprised to get a reply to my 16 December 2010 letter. But heh! Why miss on an opportunity to have fun!)
- "...particularly as I am unable to assist you in resolving your dispute with the firm. I would like to assure you that your complaint has been thoroughly considered and thank you for bringing this matter to RICS's attention"
(Written as they are laughing their head off)
- "Once I have received the firm's comments, I will write to you again and advise whether I can investigate matters further"
Then silence - but Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Andrew Ladsky, sent me, for the third time, a copy of the fraudulent invoice, this time, dated 18 January 2011 (My Diary 13 Jul 10; Martyn Gerrard)
As I anticipated, in its 12 April 2011 letter, the RICS dismissed "my complaint"- using the same excuse as in 2005 "insufficient evidence". It states:
"...you failed to provide the RICS with a copy of the decision which supports this claim"
Contrast that with the fact that
- (3) In any case this report is accessible by the public on the tribunal's online database - which the RICS, of course, knows. (Note what e.g. the ICAEW caseworker wrote in his 6 September 2005 letter to me: "I note that the full LVT decision is available and I can confirm that as is standard in cases such as these I have already obtained a copy of the decision") (Pridie Brewster # 17)
Also in the 12 April 2011 letter:
"[Martin Russell Jones]...have advised me that they do not agree with the above comment [that the demand was most definitely unreasonable] and do not believe that LVT have addressed criticism at their firm"
Gee! What a surprise!
Contrast that with the London tribunal's findings under point # 4: a £500,000 reduction (incl. the contingency fund) v. the 15 July 2002 demand of £736,200 sent by Joan Hathaway, MRICS (and her lie exposed during the 5 Feb 03 hearing - LVT # 3) - and of course, my very comprehensive complaint to the RICS in 2005.
And if it did not access it: I KNOW that the RICS looked at my website in great detail.
In this context, and the below rest of the letter, add to that as well the content of my 17 November 2010 letter to Hathaway, on which I copied the RICS.
"There does not appear to be independent evidence to verify the accuracy of either person's interpretation of the facts. It is in effect one person's word against another's and is not suitable to take forward"
|"In the absence of any independent documentation to support your claim, I must inform you that there is insufficient evidence of a breach in the Rules of Conduct and will therefore be closing my file"
UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT?
THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS WAS A PARTY THAT CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.
THIS OUTCOME IS OF ITS OWN DOING.
Back to top