Email this site to a contact


We do whatever our client wants - regardless of legislation and contracts such as leases - because we know that NOBODY will stop us.

major Works, Surveyors and accountants - re Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX - Home


(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:


If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:

In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.

Under 'Add this website' enter: '' and click 'Add').



(NOTE, above, browser set-up)


(NB: In addition to the Home page Overview - documents providing an overview of events include:


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


The ROOT CAUSE of ALL the events that have taken place SINCE 2002 stems from the fact that Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers decided that leaseholders at Jefferson House were going to pay for works to the block for which we are not legally liable:

Under the terms of my Lease, what I am only liable for in terms of costs are:

"Maintenance and repairs and replacement where necessary"

- as stated under the 'Fourth Schedule, on pages 31 and 32 of my Lease.

(In addition to other covenants in my Lease) to this are added legislative requirements e.g.

  • leaseholders must be consulted prior to the start of major works: Overview Note 2...

... and many others.

Hence, I am most definitely NOT liable for the cost of constructing a penthouse, addition of 3 other apartments, and related costs - as detailed below.

Construction of a penthouse on top of Jefferson House:

13.11.01 planning application ; photo gallery ;

sale of penthouse in Dec 05 for £3.9m (US$6.9m);

put on the market in Oct 07 for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

Addition of 3 other apartments:

Land Registry records:

Related works:

New lift, new boiler (2), etc. - see:

(1)- Amazingly, these 3 apartments had, by 2016, 'disappeared'...or perhaps are excluded from paying "service charges"?...

whilst 'a new one' was added: Martyn Gerrard # 30.

(2)- It appears that "the boiler" was replaced in May-Jun 14 (Notices # 5).

This was 12 years after the 2002 claim by Brian Gale, MRICS, that "[it had] reached the end of its useful life" (Gale # 7)...

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

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

As can be seen under Planning applications, planning applications/amendments to planning applications were filed for the construction of a penthouse, as well as for the enlargement of apartments on 4 floors through "in-fill of lightwell" .

The outcome of the above works is that there are now 39 apartments v. 35 at the start of "the major works" in Sep 04 [update to be added]. For evidence of 35 apartments at the start of the works see e.g.

(1)- 'Steel Services' = Ladsky's 07.08.02 application to the then London LVT;

(2)- para.7 of the tribunal's 17.06.03 report ;

(3)- Land Registry records for title NGL373333, Steel Services:

  • when it took over the headlease for the block in Nov 96: 35 apartments;

To be more precise:

(PDF of above diagram - at Feb 06)

I also draw your attention to the following points in Her Majesty's tribunal's 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' (see London tribunal points # 4)

•  Point 64 - ".the Respondent and other tenants (NB !!!) could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and / or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal"

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

Back to list


(2)- The 'before' and 'after' photograph - and the LIES from: Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ); Brian Gale, MRICS; Mansell Construction; Andrew David Ladsky.


Spot the difference...


Back Jefferson House in July 2002...


...and in September 2005

...and note the following:

Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ):

•  'Her' letter to me of 26.03.02 (= Andrew Ladsky's letter):  

" Your suggestion that the appointment of professional advisors is in any way connected with any planning application is incorrect"

•  'Her' 30.08.02 letter to me (Ditto: Ladsky's letter):  

"We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time"


•  Under para.19 of a 04.03.03 letter sent to Brian Gale, MRICS, under the name of Hathaway (but with Ladsky's 'trademark') (and which Brian Gale supplied as part of the evidence for the tribunal hearings in March-April 2003):

"...regarding the proposed penthouse...although the planning permission was granted it was subsequently found that the scheme was not a viable proposition..."

"...there are no plans to build the penthouse at the property"

And under para.35 of the same letter:

" When it was obvious that the penthouse was not going to be built"


(NB: Verdict of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors - in relation to my 02.02.05 complaint against MRJ? "No misconduct" - see snapshot under RICS # A).


Brian Gale, MRICS, Brian Gale Associates - Andrew Ladsky's surveyor:

•  In his 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to Her Majesty's London tribunal, Gale wrote, under Section 4 - 1.4:

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

While under point 3.04 of the same report, he wrote:

"I confirm that there were no inclusions within the specification or tender documentation intended to improve or enhance any future potential development of the site by either the freeholder or headlessee"


•  In the summary of his February 2002 'condition survey' of Jefferson House, Brian Gale wrote:

"...the roof coverings will need to be replaced and provisions made to cover any additional works may become apparent." [NB: Like the ' incidental' cost of building a penthouse?]

"...the roof has exceeded [its] modern life span"


See also the Feb 02 photographs taken by Brian Gale of the back of Jefferson House at the time he undertook the 'condition survey' - and compare with the above photograph, I took in Sep 05.

Note in particular, his identified "defects" and his recommended "remedies" v. the actual outcome. (The pack also contains extracts from his "condition survey" , as well as other evidential documents).


Barrie Martin, FRICS, of the then MRJ:

•  In 'his' 14.07.04 letter to me (hence, sent 2 years after the original demand of 15.07.02 - and one year after the tribunal had issued its 17.06.03 report):

"External repair and redecoration work plus internal refurbishment of common parts"

•  'He' again repeated this claim in 'his' 02.08 04 letter to "All Lessees":

"...the proposed works to the exterior and internal common parts of the building..."


(NB: In this letter, in breach of legislative consultation requirements, he also announced the appointment of a new contractor, Mansell Construction Services,...

...because the tribunal's 17.06.03 findings (LVT # 4) 'did not suit' the needs of 'Dear Mr Ladsky': financing his multi-million £ jackpot, and were, therefore, totally ignored: snapshot under Overview # 5).


Mansell Construction Services - Brian Gale, MRICS:

How did they describe, in their Nov 04"Brief description of work", what they were doing to the roof?

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


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


Andrew David Ladsky (= 'Steel Services'; see also Headlessors):

•  In his 25.01.01 letter to me (and fellow leaseholders):

"...the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents"

"All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably."  


  • West London County Court # 6 , # 8 and # 9;

- for how Andrew David Ladsky's claims translated in practice)

Unbelievable! Isn't it?

They do it because they know that, in this island-Kingdom, that has sold to crime, and is consequently controlled by crime - they do not need to fear sanction of any kind e.g. summaries of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints - in vain.

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Indeed, instead of being in prison, they are all currently laughing their head off at me.

Back to list


NOTE - Snapshot of some of then MRJ's correspondence, and of concurrent correspondence / documents from others in its gang, including from its puppet master, Andrew David Ladsky (many of which were supplied with, as well as discussed in my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS (RICS # A).

(Concurrently see also Overview: # 1 , # 2 , # 3 , # 5 , # 6 , # 10 , # 11 - and EXTORTION for more detail).



Letter from Andrew Ladsky to the leaseholders:

"...the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents"; "All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably.";

 " I own flats 34+35 I pay 17% of the building charges and I should assure you it is in my interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible".


"Will use reserve fund, but you will need to make additional payment"


"Sufficient funds in reserve fund to cover the cost of the major works"


"Some of the works are urgent"

(So "urgent" that they were started in Sep 04: 'Major works'; Photo gallery)


"Cost of works could up to £1.5m [US$2.65m]"; "some works urgent"


"Works are in no way connected with any planning application;

the roof must be attended to as soon as possible"

(= demolish the whole roof to build a penthouse: above ; Photo gallery)


Demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m); £14,400 (US$25,400) from me

(v. the 21.12.01 letter: "sufficient funds are available")


MRJ-Ladsky application to Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - re. the then 35 apartments (with Ladsky as lessee for some) -

"to determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded"

(e.g. para.1 of the 17.06.03 LVT report ; 21.07.03 LVT's response to 17.07.03 letter, from Lanny Silverstone, CKFT)


"Not received any significant comments from tenants"


"There is no intention to build a penthouse" (Ditto re. Photo gallery; above)


"Other lessees have paid. Pay by return, or we sue"


CKFT claim in West London County Court.

Hathaway endorsed the Witness Statement on the Particulars of claim, against 11 leaseholders, representing 14 apartments - claiming we ALL owed the July 02 demand (v. e.g. LVT # 4 , 17.06.03 LVT report; Brian Gale).


Brian Gale's "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, section 4 - 1.4 (above)


"We have provided you with all the information" (v. LVT # 3);

"the vast majority have paid"; "the existing fund is to be kept in reserve for potential future expenditure" (v. 07.06.01 letter...and 21.12.01 letter);

"the July 02 demand is perfectly reasonable" (v. e.g. LVT # 4 , 17.06.03 LVT report; Brian Gale)


To then London LVT:

"Object to [my] 12.01.03 request for postponement of 5 Feb 03 hearing, as [I] have been provided with the information" (v. LVT # 3)


Brian Gale's "Expert Witness" report to then London LVT: para.5.01:

"...I am advised by the managing agents that now some 31 of 35 tenants have paid, either in full or substantial contributions toward the cost of the proposed works";

para.5.02: "It would therefore appear that only one lone tenant continues to make any representation or objection of the 35 tenants" (referring to me - and clearly dictated by Ladsky (see , below, his 28.04.03 letter to the tribunal);

my 13.03.03 reply to Gale's comments, handed to the tribunal by my counsel, and my 19.10.03 Witness Statement)


To Brian Gale, copied LVT:

"The penthouse is not a viable proposition"

"the sinking fund has not been utilised to contribute to the cost for the works because insufficient"; "5 people have not paid"


Letter from Andrew Ladsky to the then London LVT, captured under para.50 of its 17.06.03 report:

"A letter from Mr Ladsky, the lessee of flats 34 and 35 dated 28 April 2003 stated:

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

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

(They "desired it" 'so much', that, like me ("the lone tenant"), 13 of them ended-up on the 29.11.02 claim, and others paid, also, out of fear)


"The vast majority of leaseholders have paid their contribution"


"Due to extensive delays in collecting the contribution from all lessees, it is necessary to commence renegotiations with the original contractor"


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £13,430" (US$23,660) (this demand was totally unsupported)

(v. my 31.12.03 letter to MRJ that I had paid CKFT with my 19.12.03 letter) (I obviously did not pay this demand)


"External repair and redecoration will be undertaken shortly"


"Our client intends to appoint Mansells";

"at this stage we will not require further monies from you" (In fact, asking for £670,000 v. LVT # 4)


"[I] refused to pay my contribution and this resulted in the proceedings before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the works"

(my 11.08.04 reply ; see Summary for conniving with LVT)


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £14,452" (US$25,483) (= addition of nearly £1,000, also without explanation - and bringing the totally unsupported demand to £14,405 (US$25,401)

i.e. the same amount as the 17.07.02 demand) (I still did not pay)

(3 months earlier, with her 14.07.04 letter, Salim, CKFT, had sent me the 01.07.04 court-endorsed Consent Order sealing my 19.12.03 final payment for "the major works"; as stated above, I had informed Hathaway of my payment in my 31.12.03 letter)


Invoice"Brought forward balance: £15,450" (= repeat of the unsupported demand of £14,405 (US$25,401))

(I still did not pay, knowing that these invoices were bogus - stemming from 'retribution' for 'my daring' to stand-up to the mafia for my rights)


Brian Gale-Mansell's "Brief description of work":

"...replacing asphalt roofs..." (Ditto re. Photo gallery; above)


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £5,625" (v. the £15,878.71 in the previous demand of 16.11.04.

What led to the £10,254 (US$18,080) reduction? NO explanation). (I still had not made any payment - and still, did not) "Total £7,330"


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £7,330" (includes fraudulent 'half yearly service charge' -

and still no explanation about the £10,254 reduction) "Total £8,620"


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £8,620" (still no explanation) "Total £8,665"


Claim filed against me in West London County Court by Jeremy Hershkorn, Portner and Jaskel, using MRJ data for the "Particulars of claim: £8,993" (US$15,760)

(my version, (sent with my 22.05.08 letter to Portner) - as they were deliberately incomprehensible).

(The claim was followed (16 months later) by a 06.06.08 Notice of Discontinuance of "ALL the claims" against me - I believe, triggered by my 03.06.08 Witness Statement)


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £8,688. Total £8,712"

(i.e. £225.06 less than the the 27 Feb 07 claim, 48 hours previously)


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £24,002" (US$42,320)

(no explanation) "Total £24,034" (= a continuation of fraud, and false accounting - see my Comments attached to the invoice)


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £24,034"

(still no explanation, and ignoring my 15.07.10 letter asking for supporting evidence) "Total £24,067"


Invoice "Brought forward balance: £26,067"

(still no explanation, and also ignoring my 17.11.10 and 16.12.10 letters) (Martyn Gerrard # 1 - Background. .

Martyn Gerrard is another bunch of thoroughly evil crooks, criminally placed in front of unwary leaseholders by the "RICS, ARMA, ALEP ".

It has continued with the fraudulent demand, as well as adding to it greatly since taking over from MRJ in Jan 11 - while concurrently adopting the same tactics of: (1)- not providing information; (2)- ignoring my correspondence e.g. MG # 19 and (3)- charging me "penalties for non-payment" of its fraudulent demands (!!!).

Summaries: "service charges"; "penalties" ; "electricity"; Overall.




  C O M M E N T S

Back to top