Email this site to a contact

 

I view Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Robert Martin, FRICS, as evil, corrupt, amoral, racketeering individuals - conduct endorsed by the Royal Insitution of Chartered Surveyors

Martin RUssell Jones (MRJ) - and Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

(Snapshots under: Advisors to Jefferson House ; EXTORTION ; threats of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)

 

Sections

  • OVERALL OUTCOME

AN ENDLESS CATALOGUE OF LIES, DECEIT AND TOTAL DISREGARD OF LEGISLATION

In addition to making false claims to the tribunal, Ms Hathaway also made false claims to the courts

In the same way that Martin Russell Jones pays scant regard to Landlord-Tenant legislation, in the process of acting as Steel Services' agent, it disregards contractual obligations vis-à-vis leaseholders - and associated statutes

In Martin Russell Jones' book - and of course that of its client - anything and everything is an opportunity to 'rip-off' the leaseholders

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction, including the (TYPICAL) 'GET LOST' to my 2 Feb 05 complaint to the RICS against Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ.

MARTIN RUSSELL JONES (MRJ), a "Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)-regulated firm", previously known as SPYER JOHNSTON EVANS, was 'managing' agents for Jefferson House from 24 Jun 89, when it was appointed by Langhaven Holdings (Directorships # 4) - until early 2011, when it was replaced by Martyn Gerrard.

= 21.5 YEARS OF SHEER UTTER HELL...

...then picked-up by Martyn Gerrard, another "RICS Regulated firm", as well as "award-winning agency...where integrity counts"

= Another one from the SAME MOULD to ensure 'a good fit' with the rest of the Andrew David Ladsky's stable of racketeers.

Prior to MRJ's appointment in 1989, Langhaven assumed the day-to-day management of Jefferson House for one year (e.g. service charge demand of 15.06.88), taking over from Stanley Professional in Jun 88). (Stanley Professional held the position for only a few months, having taken over from Paul C Bennis (PCB) e.g. Stanley's 28.03.88 Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 S.48 notification that it acted for Acrepost (Langhaven); PCB's service charge demand of 24.06.87.

From 1996, MRJ's client became 'Steel Services' - part of the same Langhaven gang (Headlessor # 1) - and, with it, brought MRJ's puppet master, pyscho Rachman Andrew David Ladsky.

Up to Apr 05, MRJ was located at 5 Watford Way , Hendon Central, London NW4 3JN - where the shop frontage (ironically) stated: "Office of the Hendon Christian Housing Association".  

From Apr 05, MRJ's 'management' activities were located at Premier Suite 115, Premier House, 112 Station Road, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 7BJ.

At Sep 05, its website (m-r-j.co.uk), promoting its sales and lettings services, gave the address as 3 Vivian Avenue, Hendon Central , NW4 3UT.

On checking the internet, in Jan 14, I found the following under Martin Russell Jones:

"In May 2013, Fifield Glyn acquired Martin Russell Jones, Chartered Surveyors and Managing Agents of Edgware, established in 1990 with roots going back to Stanley Johnston Evans of Hendon in 1912. MRJ also is involved with the provision of social housing both by Housing Associations and Almshouses in and around North West London."

 

The main Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) contacts were:

  • BARRIE ROBERT MARTIN, FRICS (Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) - the other part of the 'double act' that tended to 'surface' from time to time at times when the heat was on Hathaway.

At Jan 14, I could not find Hathaway on the RICS members database, but found Martin.

(PDF of above graphic)

At Nov 05, the home page of MRJ's website read:

"We offer a unique and personalised approach, individually tailored to our clients, whose needs and expectations are of paramount importance to us" (1)

Martin Russell Jones provide property owners, prospective purchasers and tenants an honest, reliable and professional service" (2)

(1) As very amply demonstrated on this page = "Regardless of legal obligations / requirements: We will lie to absolutely anybody, including courts and tribunals to achieve this objective"

(2) = CUE TO LAUGH OUT VERY, VERY LOUD - as 1 of the many damning words that stood out about MRJ's Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, was:

(TYPICALLY), IN SPITE of the UNBELIEVABLY DAMNING EVIDENCE in my 02.02.05 complaint against Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ - the RICS returned a verdict of "NO MISCONDUCT" (below).

In spite of my horrendous experience from 1989 onwards, with the 2 crooks, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, and in particular, Hathaway (# 1, below), I had not filed a complaint with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, their 'professional' body - as many people had told me that (as with the other so-called English 'regulators') - it would be a complete waste of time and money. They turned out to be right.

What changed my mind were the fraudulent invoices in 2004 (Overview # 6), in spite of the fact that agreement had been reached on the fraudulent 2002 demand (Overview # 1 , # 3).

I supplied my complaint with my 02.02.05 covering letter. My 02.02.05 complaint (snapshot- RICS # A) turned out to be the longest of all my complaints. It comprised of a 19 page summary of a 99-page document (with which I included a detailed contents page), as well as 220 supporting documents - to prove that I was not 'making it up'.

The supporting documents included many documents issued in the context of the tribunal (Overview # 2) and court proceedings (Overview # 3) - including e.g. my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (reproduction) (although it never made it to the courts - see My 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat. # 1, for reasons).

In the summary of my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS - I wrote:

"I view Joan Hathaway in particular, but also Barrie Martin as evil, corrupt and morally depraved individuals who will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve their dishonest objectives"

To this I add: corrupt, evil scum from the same cesspit as Andrew David Ladsky and the others in his gang of racketeers.

It is a long summary as I reproduced, as appropriate, from the RICS 'Service Charge Residential Management Code' , detailing a summary of my complaint under each.

I took the same approach with the 'RICS Rules of Conduct, Conduct Regulations 2004'. I did this to avoid any potential confusion as to what I was referring to. IN VAIN.

The 01.03.05 initial 'reply' to my above complaint, from Simon Love, Conduct Manager (Complaints), RICS:

"...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" (1)

"...whilst RICS can discipline chartered surveyors in respect of breaches of the Rules of Conduct , we have no power to assess or award any compensation [2] and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid."

"...at page 1 you place reliance on 7 points [3]. I think it would be advantageous to make clear at this stage that points 3 through 7 are not within our remit to investigate. The RICS will not usurp the powers of justice and as such the appropriate forum for these would be through civil or criminal proceedings." (4)

"As regards point 2 the Service Charge Residential Management Code is not mandatatory, but should be used a guide by members who act as managing agents. Members who do depart from it however, should be able to justify their reasons for doing so." (5)

"That said, we will be approaching the members named in your complaint for their comments on three specific matters and one general one..." (6)

= Overall message: a (TYPICAL) 'GET LOST!' warning - which is exactly what it turned out to be.

(1) - "we are able to investigate breaches of the code of conduct" = but WE DON'T do it.

(2) - "no power to assess or award any compensation" = no fear of sanction = carte blanche to surveyors to do whatever they want - which is exactly what is happening in the worse than Wild West environment.

(3) - On pg 1 of the summary of my 02.05.05 complaint, I wrote that "my complaint places reliance on:

(NB: I could have added others - see Breaches of the law, below)

(4) - "[RICS not] appropriate forum [for dealing with breaches of the above legislation]" - Is that the answer of a real regulator? Note that, in fact, the RICS ISSUED e.g. "Additional guidance" to its members on Money Laundering Regulations.

(5) - "the Service Charge Code is not mandatatory, but members who do depart from it should be able to justify their reasons for doing so". As a result of my challenging it, Simon Love repeated this in his 10.06.05 = total lack of regulation.

(6) - "we will be approaching the members for their comments on three specific matters and one general one". WHICH ONES? Out of ALL of my 100-page 02.02.05 complaint, the RICS identified ONLY 4 (unspecified) items!

 

In my 05.03.05 reply, I challenged Simon Love's 'response' by repeating numerous parts of my complaint and, in each instance, highlighted the Core Values and Principles comprised in the RICS Rules 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".

And I continued to battle.

(TYPICALLY) in his 10.06.05 letter, Simon Love, RICS, threw back at me various parts of my complaint by making some ridiculous claims - as well as stating:

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

 

And I continued to battle - and (TYPICALLY) Simon Love, RICS, CONTINUED TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE VERY DAMNING EVIDENCE - resulting in the following, ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS 04.11. 05 'reply':

"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"

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

HOORAY FOR 'SELF-REGULATION' - in the worse than Wild West environment of VERY SICK "BENT BRITAIN", in which 'the Establishment' ACTS ONE with 'certain criminals'.

 

Of course, in 2010-11 (RICS 2010-11), 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 it was continuing to send me fraudulent upon fraudulent demands, while ignoring ALL my correspondence (Martyn Gerrard -Background).

(NB: Martin Russell Jones is covered in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement - in relation to the 27 Feb 07 (other) fraudulent claim filed against me: Overview # 11).

(See the Comments section for other people's experience with Martin Russell Jones: comments # 11 , # 14 , # 15 , # 20 , # 22 , # 30).

(See, below, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by MRJ and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

SUMMARY OF EVENTS - MARTIN RUSSELL JONES (MRJ) - 1989 - 2011:

(See, below, Breaches of the law)

(See also: Advisors to Jefferson House - MRJ ; Extortion)

(1) [ ] (Home page-Overview)

(2) [ ]

(3) [ ]

(4) [ ]

(5) [ ]

(6) [ ]

(7) [ ]

(8) [ ]

(9) [ ]

(10) [ ]

(11) [ ]

(12) [ ]

(13) [ ]

(14) In the 6 June 2008 Notice of Discontinuance, Andrew Ladsky et.al. dropped "ALL" of the 27 February 2007 claim against me - WITHOUT giving any explanation (Portner # 31)

(15) As a result of my starting an action to get my costs back, in their 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute, Portner and its client gave the preposterous, laughable excuse for dropping the claim that "the managing agent had given the incorrect identity for the landlord" - considering that I raised this issue, and therefore the ISSUE AS TO THE LEGALITY of the claim against me - a TOTAL OF 11 TIMES OVER A 16-MONTH PERIOD - with BOTH, Portner AND WLCC. I replied on 26 August 2008 in the context of my Application to WLCC for an assessment hearing (Portner # 33)

(17) This provides further UNDENIABLE evidence (summarised in My Diary 22 Nov 08) that...

...the threat of "forfeiture, bankruptcy proceedings and costs", as well as court claims - by Ladsky et.al. and their mob = FRAUD TOOLS

Back to list

BREACHES OF THE LAW - MARTIN RUSSELL JONES (MRJ) - 1989 - 2011:

(See, above, Summary of events)

In - my NON-LAWYER opinion (*) - Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS, and Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, and their client, Andrew David Ladsky, have (like CKFT, Portner and Jaskel and XXXXXX) committed BREACHES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, OF STATUTES - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as BREACHES OF MY LEASE:

"under instructions from their client"

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

Note that Andrew Ladsky's 'brothers' in Her Majesty's West London County Court not only turned a blind eye and deaf ear to ALL their breaches - they actively helped them in committing them - summaries: Events; Breaches of the law.

 

•  Civil Procedure Rules

•  Civil Procedures Rules 1 1.1 "enabling the court to deal with the case justly"; 1.3 "The parties are required to help the court further the overriding objective"

•  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Chp. 41 s.17 which requires "the proper and efficient administration of justice"

•  Theft Act

  • They KNEW that the documents which, in the case of the 06.08.03 application for Summary Judgment, Ayesha Salim endorsed with a statement of truth - were FALSE.

[ ] MRJ's 17 July 2002 invoice included in the 29 November 2002 Particulars of claim [ ]

(1) MRJ's 13 February 2007 invoice included in the 27 February 2007 Particulars of claim (my easier to understand version) (Portner points # 6 , # 7 , # 31) (highlighted umpteen times in my documents to Portner - and WLCC)

(2) accounts supplied by Pridie Brewster, accountant for Jefferson House, who said to rely on MRJ to supply the necessary information (e.g. Pridie Brewster # 3) - as evidenced, among others, by the 29 August 2006 letter from the ICAEW to me (highlighted umpteen times in my documents to Portner - and WLCC - including providing copy of letter

Pridie Brewster # 18 )

(3) the outcome UNDENIABLY proving false accounting in 2002: (1) [ ] ; (2) in 2007 (points # 31 , # 33 , # 35) (See also my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement for numerous other instances of false accounting by Martin Russell Jones, and by extension Pridie Brewster)

  • (1) - ILLEGAL threat of - demanding monies that were NOT due and payable;
  • (2) The salvo of malicious letters over .

(8) Fraud Act 2006 (see extracts) (= criminal offences) - given, among others: [ ]

•  Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s.19(2) ; s.20(4) (link to extracts):

  • (1) - xxxx ILLEGAL threat of - demanding monies that were NOT due and payable.

•  Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - "Know your client" (see extracts) (Guidance to surveyors from the RICS XXXXXXXXX) (= criminal offence)

  • letter making threats and demands on behalf of a company that did NOT exist.

Ahmet Jaffer claiming, under 1.4 of its 11 August 2008 Points of Dispute that "...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 Lease

(3) Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 - s.10A(1) (see extracts) - as evidenced by, among others:

  • (2) the 8 January 2007 transfer of the Airspace of Jefferson House "from Steel Services to Rootstock" (Headlessors # 4 , # 5)  

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

  • (1) - demanding monies that were NOT due and payable;
  • (3) - The salvo of malicious letters over a period of several weeks.

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

(1) - DELIBERATELY IGNORING statutes and my Lease - as detailed in this section.

  • (2) - The salvo of malicious letters over a period of several weeks, and other letters - preceded by the XXXXX ILLEGAL threat xxxxx in the process, deliberately ignoring my evidence / dismissing my counterclaims
  • (3) -
  • (4) -
  • (5) - ALL in the context of the FRAUDULENT 29.11.02 claim.

•  Defamation Act (see extracts):

  • (2) - .
  • (3) - xxxx letter to xxx in which portrayed me as liar .

•  Data Protection Act 1998

•  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 4A (see extracts) (= criminal offence):

  • Prior to the 24 Jun 03 WLCC case management hearing, in front of members of the public, Silverstone handed me documents - FALSELY portraying me as a dishonest individual.

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

As a result of the conniving and collusion between this satanic, vampiric Andrew David Ladsky mafia, and the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court, as well as with 'my advisors', Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Stan Gallagher,...

...OVER A PERIOD OF 20 MONTHS - I suffered unbelievably traumatic treatment, torment, anguish, distress, bullying, intimidation, harassment - with serious consequences on my physical and emotional health.

Loss, from my very-hard-earned life savings, of £40,000 (US$70,000) spent on 'professional' fees, as well as many other costs - that FAILED to provide me with a fair and just remedy - including £30,000 (US$53,000) for a deliberatively near-useless report from the tribunal (Overview # 2).

Over 450 hours of my life.

FOR WHAT? A FRAUDULENT DEMAND OF £14,400 (US$25,400)...

ALL because 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot through theft and extortion at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders)...

...And ALL, in his army of henchmen, said:

Yes, of course! O' Great One!

 

In addition, over 200 hours of my life, and significant costs - in relation to my complaint against MRJ to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) - resulting in the all-too-familiar: 'GET LOST! (Overview Note 5).

Back to list

 

(1) Shortly after being appointed as 'managing' agents for Jefferson House in summer 1989, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, revealed her - ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS (RICS)-ENDORSED method of opearating: blatant LYING; reliance on the THREAT OF PROSECUTION; DELAYING TACTICS; TOTAL DISREGARD OF HER LEGAL OBLIGATIONS = PERCEIVING LEASEHOLDERS AS NON-ENTITIES WHO DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE RIGHTS - thereby also reflecting the British State's perception of 'the little people'.

(NB: Includes previous section # 2)

Shortly after being appointed 'managing' agents for Jefferson House in summer 1989 (Intro, above), Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, revealed her true colours: blatant lying and reliance on the threat of prosecution e.g.

Hathaway's 30.10.89 letter:

"We would inform you that unless the outstanding sums now due from you are settled, we will have no alternative than to inform our client who will no doubt take legal action against you"

 

2 DAYS LATER - in her 01.11.89 letter:

"Unfortunately there was a typing error in our letter. The amount of £8,000 should have read £9,500 as VAT etc. was omitted"

= Hathaway described "omitting VAT" as a "typing error"!

2 months later was the start of my endless, VERY LONG, DRAWN-OUT BATTLES with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, to get her, as the lessor's agent, to fulfil her contractual obligations - and to receive the service I was entitled to as contributor to the £10,000+ (US$17,600) management fee she was charging leaseholders for 'managing' Jefferson House.

My relating the main events took up the last 10 pages of my (already very long) 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS (Intro, above). They demonstrate years of on-going 'battles' with Hathaway, entailing an unbelievable amount of letter writing (thereby using up a lot of my time) fighting-off her excuses, delaying tactics, her lies, as well as gross mismanagement. Examples - in the 1990s:

•  A 15-year battle between MRJ and its predecessor to get the damp problem addressed in my kitchen - leading me to contact the then freeholder, BP Petroleum Pension Fund e.g. my 06.10.91 letter to Hathaway.

•  A 4-year 'battle' to get remedial work done to the external wall in front of my window - because it had been badly done (paras 274 - 286 of my complaint) - leading me to employ a surveyor, that nonetheless entailed more battling - as I reported in e.g. my 06.05.01 letter to Hathaway.

•  Waiting 26 days to deal with a leak in my bathroom ceiling: my 19.01.92 letter...

...- to which Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, replied on 21.02.92:

"When you called in the caretaker to see the water stains that had appeared it was not considered by him serious at that time and he told us so."

"It was not known of course that there was any build-up of water above the ceiling..."

YEP! That's the reply from a 'Fellow of the Institution of Chartered Surveyors' to reporting a leak!

Needless to say that the leak caused significant damage, and left me without electricity in my windowless bathroom over the Christmas break. It took 6 months for the damage to be addressed.

As detailed - and supported by evidence - under paras 286-287 of my 02.02.05 complaint, these events led to my being forced to employ professional advisers e.g. 27.03.00 fax from my surveyor to Hathaway, solicitor, as well as involve other parties.

Other parties included, among others: the Head of the then Residents Association for Jefferson House e.g. 11.02.04 letter to Hathaway; Debenham Tewson & Chinnocks (now known as DTZ), British Petroleum Pension Fund's surveyors e.g. their letter of 17.10.91 to Hathaway and of 19.03.92 to me.

Legally, the BP Pension Fund was under no obligation to help me. (As I wrote in my 17.05.05 letter to the RICS) I was very grateful for its generous assistance over a period of one year, at no cost to me but, no doubt, at considerable cost to them. I praise the professionalism and efficiency with which DTZ assisted me at the time.

Understandably, as a means of putting pressure to deal with the issues, I withheld payment of 'service charges' (as I reported under para.255 of my 02.02.05 complaint).

OUTCOME: (TYPICALLY) THE RICS IGNORED EVERYTHING. So much for its (above) claims!

True to form for the Andrew David Ladsky mafia, at the time of its fraudulent 2002 demand (Overview # 1), entailing a fraudulent application to the tribunal (Overview # 2) and a fraudulent claim (Overview # 3) - with the objective of bullying me and scaring me into paying monies that were NOT due and payable - it threatened to "bring to the attention of the tribunal and the court [my] non-payments of the service charges" - of course, very conveniently omitting the reasons I had repeated endlessly in my letters to Hathaway e.g.:

In the context of Rule 11.5 of the RICS Code of Conduct, "Withholding payment of service charges in protest", in the summary of my 02.02.05 complaint, under para.1.1.1.19, I captured the above events, and concluded under para.1.1.1.20:

"Given the evidence supplied in this document...I consider Joan Hathaway (and CKFT) threats as blackmail and coercion tactics in order to extort monies from me not due and payable" (which I supported with irrebutable evidence).

OUTCOME: (TYPICALLY) THE RICS ALSO IGNORED THESE EVENTS. So much for its (above) claims!

(See, above, summaries: (1) Events ; (2) Breaches of the law by MRJ and its client, Andrew Ladsky)

Back to list

(2) (Moved to # 1, above)

 

(3) THE SETTING-UP OF THE FRAUD - demonstrated by 3 letters from

Martin Russell Jones let the building deteriorate over a period of many years, thereby breaching the repair and maintenance covenant in my lease

(NB: Includes previous section # 36,

25.01.01 letter from ANDREW DAVID LADSKY sent to the Jefferson House leaseholders - with the objective of dissuading us from pursuing the (bogus) 'offer' of buying the headlease (Notices # 2)

"1. If you choose to vote to acquire the head lease...[you will] take on a series of complex and costly obligations..."

"2. In their letter of the 11th January the residents association have discussed a figure which is confusing. [1] It is unclear how they could have arrived at a sum for works [2] without having undertaken a formal costing exercise [3] but it should be made clear that the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents (4) which the association are suggesting...

... and no surchage will be made in relation thereto. (In fact, a new floor by virtue of additional (sic) area will reduce every flats service charges). (5)

"Any general works required to the building will be carried out in co-operation with all the tenants [6] and following a proper report, if necessary." (7)

"All tenants are, of course, protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably and at the best possible price." (7)

"Furthermore, as I own flats 34+35 [8] I pay 17% of the building charges [9] and I should assure you it is in my best interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible." (10)

(1) - "discussed a figure which is confusing" - In her letter, the Head of the Residents Association stated: "estimated to be at least £300,000" (see extracts). Typically, Ladsky was twisting what she wrote as: she did NOT "discuss it", and was, in fact, merely quoting what she had been told BY LADSKY - as she reported in her 31.01.01 letter to the leaseholders (extracts) - which was a follow-up to Ladsky's letter.

Actually, in her 18 Dec 00 letter (extracts), she had reported Ladsky telling her that the cost of the works could "possibly be as much as £1million."

(2) - "unclear how the residents association could arrive at a sum for the works" - I repeat: BY QUOTING LADSKY.

(3) - "without a formal costing exercise" - Rachman vermin Ladsky sure knows how to undertake "a formal costing exercise"! ADD XXXX GALE + LVT

(4) - "the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents"

ADD XXXX

(5) - "no surchage will be made in relation thereto....by virtue of additional (sic) area will reduce every flats service charges"

ADD XXXXXMG background + pridie brewster acs do not reflect LVT findings

(6) - "Any general works required to the building will be carried out in co-operation with all the tenants"

ADD XXXXXactual translation - sue, persecute

(7) - "following a proper report, if necessary" - Note the "if necessary", and contrast with the next sentence: "All tenants are, of course, protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts" - which makes it a requirement to supply proper documentation - thereby signalling Ladsky's intention to ignore them.

Ladsky could then have added: 'which neither I, nor my totally corrupt aides + courts + tribunal could give a damn about

ADD XXXX 7 Oct 02 forfeiture; 7 requests for costings - My Witness Statement; s. 192B ; requests from leaseholders; lies LVT

"Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably and at the best possible price.".

 

(8) - "as I own flats 34+35" - Apartment 34 and apartment 35 = some of Andrew David Ladsky's apartments (Owners identity # 4) - USED by the Ladsky mafia to stress "the urgency of undertaking works on the roof" (that was entirely demolished in order to build a penthouse ADDXXXXXX) e.g.

(9) - "I pay 17% of the building charges"

ADD XXXXXpridie

(10) - "I should assure you it is in my best interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible."

 

 

In her 07.06 01 letter to "All Lessees", Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - wrote:

"Pursuant to the terms of the Head Lease and Underleases held on the property, there is an obligation to carry out works to the property at the relevant time." (1)

"These works are now overdue [1] and it is planned to carry out a programme of refurbishment in accordance with the Terms of the Leases [2] on the building in the near future."

"It has been arranged that an independent Building Surveyor [3} will prepare a Report and Cost Estimate in relation to the works required."

"At present, there is approximately £125,000 in the Reserve Fund, but in view of the scope of works required to be carried out it is anticipated that this sum will be inadequate to meet the costs [4].

"This means that once the Specifications have been prepared and estimates obtained, a Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Notice will be served on you giving details of additional payment required from you..." (5)

"As soon as the Report is completed, it will be made available for inspection and comment." (6)

"It is planned to commence the internal refurbishment in the Autumn, with the external refurbishment to follow on next Spring." (7)

(1) "obligation to carry out works to the property at the relevant time" ; "These works are now overdue"

In the Lease, the lessor's obligations are defined under Clause 5. They include, among others: "to maintain repair redecorate renew amend clean repaint..."

In fact, there had been prolonged breach of the Lease 's repair covenant by MRJ = Andrew David Ladsky - because he was planning on making a multi-million £ jackpot at the expense of the leaseholders.

(In Ladsky's world, for the purpose of satisfying his greed, any legal, contractual requirements are there to be ignored. Another example: the Court of Appeal case, TSB Bank plc v. Arthur Ladsky 1996, in which TSB Bank successfully claimed repayment of £3m (US$5.3m) advances made to Combined Mercantile Securities under a facility letter, together with expenses and interest for "breach of the covenant.to keep the property in good repair and condition". Companies House record indicate that, in addition to Arthur Ladsky , Andrew David Ladsky was also a director of Combined Mercantile Securities).

By the time the works finally started in Sep 04 (photo gallery), the last 'major repairs' had taken place more than 12 years previously - obviously leading to considerable deterioration of the block - and therefore much greater costs of repairs.

(2) - "it is planned to carry out a programme of refurbishment in accordance with the Terms of the Leases"

IN REALITY: On planet Ladsky mafia - and that of its supporters in the courts - "terms of the Lease" that state that leaseholders are liable ONLY for "MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT WHERE NECESSARY" (Works # 1) - translate into making them pay for the addition of 4 apartments and related works.

(3) - "arranged for an independent Building Surveyor to prepare a Report and Cost Estimate"

"Arranged" = for Andrew Ladsky's so-called 'surveyor', Brian Gale, MRICS, to do a mockery of this - see below the 21.12.01 'Notice'.

(4) - "approximately £125,000 in the Reserve Fund...it is anticipated that this sum will be inadequate to meet the costs" - which 6 months later, changed to having "sufficient funds" - see below the 21.12.01 'Notice'.

(5) - "a Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Notice will be served on you giving details of additional payment required from you"

As explained under the previous comment, it was followed by having "sufficient funds" i..e. NOT requiring "additional payment".

BUT: as Ladsky needed ADDXXXX 15 July 02

(6) - "Report will be made available for inspection and comment."

REALITY: The "Cost Estimate" part of the report will NOT be made available to you.

ADDXXXX LVT + WS

(7) - "planned to commence the internal refurbishment in the Autumn, with the external refurbishment to follow on next Spring."

REALITY: The works will only start once we have managed to rip you off of as much money as we can, and we will do exactly as always intended - by totally ignoring the tribunal's findings

ADDXXXX martin letter

 

 

6 MONTHS LATER, in her 21.12.01 (1) letter to the Jefferson House leaseholders, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:

"On the instructions of Steele (sic) Services Limited prices have been obtained from surveyors and service consultants for an inspection of the block and the preparation of a Schedule of Works for the redecoration of the exterior... together with the associated repairs to the building and grounds." (2)

"..you have the right to make observations...must reach us by 28th January 2002." (3)

"Subject to any observations which we may receive, it is the intention of Steele (sic) Services to instruct Brian Gale Associates and Michael Jones & Associates to carry out the work." (4)

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature. Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund." (5)

(1) - The first thing to note about the letter is THE DATE: 21 December i.e. just before Christmas, a time when people go away for a 10-day / 2-week break.

It is the favoured time used by the criminals who operate in the residential leasehold sector, like the Ladsky mafia, to minimise opposition. (Other examples from the Ladsky mafia: 22 Dec 99 "Notice" ; 13 Dec 2000 "Notice"). A notice sent around this time of year is a telltale sign of an intention to breach leaseholders' rights = rip them off.

This letter was a cosmetic exercise - in which Joan Hathaway, MRICS, was very clearly complicit.

THE PROCESS WAS DRIVEN BY ANDREW DAVID LADSKY who had already decided to use Brian Gale, MRICS:

  • Gale's 20.12.01 proposal (and the dummy one from Knight Frank, an estate agents e.g. its 12.10.07 prospectus advertising the penthouse) were addressed to "Steel Services Limited, The Office, Jefferson House". (Note that the Lease does not allow use of the property for commercial purposes).

(2) - "for preparation of a Schedule of Works for the redecoration of the exterior... together with the associated repairs to the building and grounds"

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS given subsequent events.

(3) - "observations...must reach us by 28th January 2002"

In my 26.01.02 and 02.02.02 e-mails to Hathaway, I raised the following:

(1) - That while her correspondence stated the appointment was for "the preparation of a schedule of works for the redecoration of the exterior of the block" - the focus of the tender letters was on the lift, boiler and roof...

...leading to the conclusion that the works were in fact connected with the planning application (PPO12523) filed on 13.11.01 for the "erection of a new residential penthouse apartment at main roof level", and that a previous application had been made on 18.09.98 (TP98-1773) (Planning applications).

(NB: In my view, this planning application was a key milestone in the game plan, as it was used as a threat in the 13.12.00 so-called 'Notice by Landlord' (Notices # 2). (The Land Registry recorded Steel Services ownership at 22 Nov 96 - Owners identity # 1)).

Consequently, that any costs associated with building of the penthouse were not the responsibility of leaseholders (reference to the Lease: Major works # 1).

It became immediately evident that I had exposed an intended scam as, within days of sending this correspondence to Hathaway, I started to suffer on-going harassment and intimidation, as well as assault from Andrew David Ladsky (Kensington police - # 1 - Background).

I CERTAINLY PROVED TO BE RIGHT ON THE SCAM! ADD XXXXXXXX

(2) - That "As many of the residents were on holiday for the two-week period covering Christmas and New Year, your Monday 28 January deadline is, in effect, only giving us three weeks to respond - which is proving insufficient."

Following some sarcastic comments, in 'her' = Ladsky's 30.01.02 e-mail, Hathaway claimed to have:

"allowed an extra 7 days over what is required under the Landlord and Tenant Act to take this into account."

"In the circumstances we are informed by Steel Services that the report will be completed pursuant to the Notice given, particularly bearing in mind the urgency of some of the required works" (*)

(*) IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS given subsequent events

(3) - I signed my e-mails as "Jefferson House Residents Association".

In 'her' = Ladsky's 30.01.02 e-mail, Hathaway wrote:

"...we are not aware of the existence of a Residents Association having not received any communications since Mrs [X] left." (1)

"We do understand that our clients [2] Steel Services Ltd [3] do not recognise any Association [4] and have no details of any officers. They [2] also do not regard any Association as properly constituted as a number of tenants have never been consulted." (5)

(1) "Residents Association having not received any communications since Mrs [X] left"

A KEY STEP taken by Rachman vermin Andrew Ladsky to minimise opposition to his massive scam was to get rid of the Residents Association, by subjecting the person who headed it to a prolonged campaign of horrendous harassment and intimidation for 'daring' to interfere with his plans - by organising the residents for a response to the bogus 13 Dec 00 (Notices # 2) (see also her 18 Dec 00 letter). She left in the summer of 2001.

Ladsky's henchmen in Kensington & Chelsea police also assisted him in doing this by failing to take action, and instead telling her that she'd best "fold her tent and go".

(Harasssment and persecution of leaseholders who 'dare' stand up to him is Ladsky's automatic response, and assisting him in his criminal activities, as well as protecting him from the legal consequences of his actions is the automatic response of his henchmen in the police e.g. police # 4 - and others in the English 'Establishment' = 'the Brotherhood' - as in my case: Overview # 19).

(2) - "our clients". Note the plurial! (3) - "Steel Services" = Ladsky.

(4) - "do not recognise any Association" Quelle surprise!

(5) - "a number of tenants have never been consulted" = Ladsky (Owners identity # 4).

It took the Ladsky mafia 2 MONTHS to 'reply' to my 02.02.02 e-mail - see below, 26 Mar 02 letter.

(4) - "intention of Steele (sic) Services to instruct Brian Gale Associates and Michael Jones & Associates" - which is what Ladsky did, as discussed under Comment # 1, above.

(5) - "Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS given subsequent events

 

 

WITH THE ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF RIPPING-OFF LEASEHOLDERS - ON A GRAND SCALE - so that Andrew David Ladsky could realise his multi-million £ jackpot - Jefferson House was then described by Ladsky's so-called 'surveyor' BRIAN GALE, MRICS, as being 'on the verge of collapsing into a heap' - and provided Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Ladsky with opportunity to quote a £1m cost, while concurrently denying most vehemently any intention of building a penthouse.

Comments made 'by' Ladsky's so-called 'surveyor', BRIAN GALE, MRICS = LADSKY, in 'his':

(1) - Feb 02 so-called "condition survey" 'by' Andrew David Ladsky's so-called surveyor, Brian Gale, MRICS - supported by numerous photographs.

"The property was constructed approximately 120 years ago and the average life span of a building of this age would be approximately 100 years."

"The main structure and fabric of the building has exceeded its average life span and more modern components such as the asphalt roof have also exceeded their modern life span - 30 years." (1)

"Some of the properties in the block are suffering from significant water ingress which needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency." (2)

"It is therefore not surprising that many parts of the fabric have come to their end of their average life span especially some of the brickwork, plant and the roof covering and will need to be replaced [1] and provision made for p.c sums to cover any additional works which may become apparent once opening up begins."

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

"In view of the state of the building it is advisable to fully address the defects and general works as soon as possible to prevent any further deterioration, which would considerably increase the costs of renovation in the future."

"Only the external fabric and common areas were inspected together with the interior of 2 flats."

(1) - "the asphalt roof have exceeded their life span" ; "the roof covering will need to be replaced"

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS given subsequent events

(2) - "significant water ingress needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency."

The apartments 'suffering' from "significant water ingress" were, by amazing coincidence Ladsky's e.g. letters 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ: below, of 26.03.02 ;

 

 

 

(XX) In its Feb 02 condition survey of the lift, the contractor reported serious issues in the maintenance of the lift - thereby contradicting the claims made by the Ladsky mafia

(NB: Was previous section # 34)

 

Feb 02 report from J Bashford Associates, sub-contrator to Michael Jones Asssociates, re. Brian Gale, MRICS, 'condition survey' (above, 21.12.01 letter)

(The then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) captured the issues under page 11, paras 16.25 and 16.26 of its 17.06.03 report - extracts under Brian Gale, MRICS, # XXXXXXXXXXXX):

"We are given to understand that the current lift maintenance agreement includes 12 visits per annum. The last recorded maintenance detailed within the on-site log card was 11 October 2001, consequently the routine visits on November, December 2001 and January 2002 appear to have been missed. The incumbent maintenance contractor should be approached to explain this oversight and advise on an any financial recompense due to the client."

"There was no documentation for tests and examinations."

"No copy of the current insurance company reports were available"

"No copies of the lift maintenance contractors service reports were available"

Following my raising this with Ms Hathaway in my 11 August 2003 letter, she replied on 30 August 2002

"the lift is maintained on a regular basis"   (NB!!!)

This is referred to in the summary of my complaint under points 1.1.1.34 and 1.2.2.6 (d) in the context of the RICS Core Value # "To always be honest" , while in the main body it is under point 289 (under which I captured extracts from the contractor's report)

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

 

Comments made 'by' JOAN HATHAWAY, MRICS, MRJ = LADSKY, in 'her':

 

(1) - 26.03.02 letter to me 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Ladsky - 'in response' to my (above) 02.02.02 e-mail following her above 21.12.01 letter - i.e. 2 MONTHS LATER!:

"Jefferson House - Specialist reports"

"Your suggestion that the appointment of professional advisors is in any way connected with any planning application is incorrect." (1)

" It is and has been clear to all the tenants in the building as well as to this firm that some considerable work needs to be undertaken to put the property into a substantial state of repair. "

"...buildings as old as Jefferson House require refurbishment and we and the head lessees are simply complying with our duty of care and safety to all occupants of the property and the obligations under the leasehold interest" (2)

"...the building requires a new roof. The roof has reached the end of its life and is leaking." (2)

"...flats 34 and 35 [X], which are on the top floor immediately below the roof have leaks and damage in many of their rooms. The roof must be attended to as soon as possible as the occupiers of these flats are being forced to live with quite unacceptable conditions as a result of these leaks."

"Some of the structure, fabric and services will inevitably be reaching the end of their life...Steel Services and we have a responsibility to undertake such works as are necessary at the appropriate time and are merely seeking to fulfil those duties."

(1) - "the appointment of advisors is not connected with any planning application"

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS given subsequent events

(2) - "we are simply complying with... the obligations under the leasehold interest"

 

 

Apartment 34 and apartment 35 = some of Andrew David Ladsky's apartments (Owners identity # 4)

(2) - 26.03.02 letter to "All Lessees" 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Ladsky

Re: Schedule of condition / refurbishment Jefferson House (1)

"...pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act notice forwarded to you in December of last year we would inform you that there were no comments from any tenants within the prescribed time limit". (2)

"Consequently we passed on the instructions of our clients to the chosen surveyors...to prepare a schedule of condition in order to ascertain the exact extent of the works required to the building pursuant to our clients' head lease and the underleases held on the property so that a specification of works could be prepared for tendering purposes."

"That schedule is now complete and available for inspection during business hours at our offices...we are arranging for a copy to be made available for inspection at the porter's office in the lobby of Jefferson House."

"...the report, specification and associated photographs have created a 400 pages document...surveyors have indicated that the cost of a copy will be £90 +VAT"

"The schedule of condition has now formed part of the specification of works which has been forwarded to five chosen contractors to obtain a formal price for carrying out the various recommendations contained in the reports for the works required to the building."

"The surveyors have indicated that the costs of works is likely to be in excess of £1million + VAT and fees... this is a very rough indicative estimate and should in no way be relied upon as an exact figure." (x)

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

"The point of giving you an indication at this stage is to give you as much notice as possible to make arrangements to provide the necessary funds which will be required in the near future." (Sufficient funds)

"...some of the works required to the building are urgent. It is, therefore, intended once tenders have been returned to commence work in the summer so that the external refurbishment can be dealt with during the warmer months."

"As soon as the chosen tenders have been returned we shall be writing to you again to invite your observations and to update you in respect of our client company's intention relating to an appropriate appointment."

 

(1) - "refurbishment "

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THIS given subsequent events

(2) -

 

(x) - "surveyors have indicated that the costs of works is likely to be in excess of £1million + VAT and fees" - bringing the total price to £1.5million+ [US$2.7m +].

This was c.10 times the previous cost. Bearing in mind that the works that ought to be taking place were "MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT WHERE NECESSARY" (Works # 1) this statement added to my alarm bells.

"tendering contractors may produce a price which is signficantly more or less"

A 'surveyor' who had completed 'a condition survey' incapable

= the criminal Ladsky mafia vermin scaring people into leaving, allowing Ladsky to get their apartment at below market price.

Either Brian Gale was exceptionally inexperienced, or Hathaway was preparing the ground in order to refer back to this letter at a later stage, along the lines of: "But we did warn you in March 2002.".

 

 

(4) The TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED 15.07.02 £736,202 (US$1.3m) 'service charge' demand "for the works", 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Andrew David Ladsky - that was portrayed FALSELY and FRAUDULENTLY as being "a Notice compliant with Landlord legistlation", as well as "with the Lease".

The 15.07.02 'service charge' demand "for the works", 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Andrew David Ladsky - stating:

"Further to the inspection carried out by Brian Gale Associates and the specification produced from the report..."

"In accordance with the requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 [1], we list below the tenders received for the works involved:

Killby and Gayford: £564,467.00 plus VAT

MJ Geeson Group Plc: £680,346.70 plus VAT

C.L.C Contractors Ltd: £769,894.60 plus VAT

"The Act provides that you have the right to make observations on these proposals, and they should be sent, in writing, to this office and must reach us by Monday 19th August 2002." (2)

"Subject to any observations which we may receive, it is the opinion of Steele (sic) Services [3] to instruct Killby and Gayford to carry out the work."

"Photocopies of the estimates are enclosed with this notice." (1)

"A copy of the Specification is available for inspection in the porter's room or in our office." (1)

"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification [4] or to problems encountered while the works are in progress. Should any of these changes prove substantial you will be advised accordingly."

"It is intended to maintain the existing Reserve Fund [5] in part, to cover any additional costs."

"It is anticipated that the work will commence at the beginning of October, but we will confirm this nearer the time."

"The total cost of the works is as follows:

 

Killby and Gayford

£564,467.00

 
 

VAT @ 17.5%

£98,781.73

 
 

Professional fees @ 11%

£62,091.37

 
 

VAT @ 17.5%

£10,865.99

 
 

 

£736,206.09

 

"In accordance with the terms of your lease you are obliged to pay the amount attributable to your flat as detailed in the enclosed demand." (6)

ATTACHMENTS:

2 Jul 02 - KILLBY & GAYFORD - "...we now confirm that our services for carrying the works as your specification is £564,467.00 excluding VAT." (7)

"We bring to your attention that if the works are delayed by 3 months, then the increased cost will be 3% on the Tender Sum and if delayed by 6 months, an increase of 6% will apply." (8)

26 Apr 02 - M.J. GLEESON GROUP PLC - "We the undersigned hereby undertake to carry out all works described and detailed in Brian Gale & Associates Specification of Works dated March 2002...for the sum of £680,346.70 [including all PC, provisional and contingency sums specified (exclusive of VAT)". This is followed by additional costs "for any additional works."

19 Apr 02 - CLC CONTRACTORS - Using the same above sentence as Glesson, including giving the SAME date of March 2002 for Gale's specification, it quoted "£769,864.60"

Unllike the other 2, it provided a summarised breakdown of costs. re. the item "Services" it had the sum of £160,307 crossed out, and replaced with £406,537.

(1) - "In accordance with the requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985"

At the time, the requirement of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, under s.20(3)(b) - were:

"A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of those tenants or shall be displayed in one or more places where it is likely to come to the notice of all those tenants"

What was supplied from Killby & Gayford MOST DEFINITELY COULD NOT be described as being compliant with the requirement of the Act.

Further, no duly priced specification was "displayed in one or more places likely to come to the notice of the tenants" - as demonstrated during the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing', when Hathaway's LIE WAS EXPOSED: LVT # ADDXXXXXX

(2) - "you have the right to make observations on these proposals" ; "they must reach us by Monday 19th August 2002."

(3) - "it is the opinion of Steele (sic) Services" - At the time 'Steel Services' DID NOT EXIST - as it had been "STRUCK OFF the [British Virgin Islands] register for non-payment of licence fee" (Owners identity # 1 , # 2).

(4) - "the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification" On top of the fraudulent amount that was being asked!

In the light of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This amounted to the second warning since 26 March 2002 that the costs "may be exceeded" .   This, combined with the fact that the only costings we had been provided with were contained in Ms Hathaway's letter of 15 July 2002 , reinforced my view that the ultimate intention was to charge leaseholders for works we should not be paying for. I was right!

 

(5) - "It is intended to maintain the existing Reserve Fund" - It amounted to a change of plan relative to the above 07.06 01 letter, as well as above 21.12.01 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, that very clearly stated that the reserve fund would be used - LVT .

(6) - "In accordance with the terms of your lease you are obliged to pay the amount attributable to your flat as detailed in the enclosed demand"

The nerve of that hitlerian Ladsky mafia. LIE - only liable for - and even that amount was FRAUDULENT XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The "enclosed demand" was for me this 17.07.02 invoice: "Major works contribution: £14,400" (US$25,400). ('My' 1.96% share of the £736,200)

Contrast with the above 21.12.01 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS: "Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"

I repeat the fact that Hathaway was making monetary demands 'on behaf' of a company that did NOT exist.

(7) - That was the sum total of "the estimates" issued from Killby & Gayford.

(8) - "if the works are delayed by 3 months, then the increased cost will be 3% on the Tender Sum and if delayed by 6 months, an increase of 6% will apply."

How can a bona fide contractor make this kind of threats i.e. expect that leaseholders will just pull their cheque book out on the presentation of this note, and write a cheque?

It was concocted by criminal Rachman Ladsky to deter the leaseholders from challenging the demand. XXXXXXX during hearing + report

 

(FROM # 14 AND # 32)

Following the above 15.07.02 demand, in my 11.08.02 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS - I wrote:

"I require the following before I can agree to your demand:"

"1. A schedule of the amounts demanded from all the lesees."

"2. A detailed explanation of how the amount of £14,400.19 you demand from me has been calculated".   

"3. A copy - without charge - of the Schedule of Building Works as duly priced by the firm of Killby & Gayford - as the copy left with the porter had not been duly priced".

"4. Written confirmation that there is no connection of any sort between the freeholder and headlessor for Jefferson House, and the firm of Killby & Gayford".

"5. A note of any of the proposed works which, under the terms of the lease, are not strictly necessary for the maintenance of the building."

"6. How you propose to address the cost of deterioration to the lift as a result of lack of proper management of the contractor."

"7. An explanation as to why works are being carried out to the roof given that a planning application to build an extra floor for a penthouse flat was granted on 6 February 2002".

"8. A summary of the maintenance works carried out at Jefferson House in each of the last ten years, with costs."

"9. Details of the contribution charged to the lessees to the Reserve Fund - for each of the last 10 years".

"...in your 15 July 2002 letter: "the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes...". If "subsequent changes" are made to the specifications, I will expect a Section 20 Notice to be issued ahead of any demand for contribution to costs."

 

(FROM # 9 + # 12 + 19)

The 30.08.02 response from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, to my above 11.08.02 letter was:

"1. The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease [1] There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts.

"2. The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%"  

"3. We are informed by our client that you may have a copy of the specification on payment of the sum of £20 to cover the cost of photocopying the document." (2) NOT WHAT ASKED FOR

"4. Killby and Gayford is a totally independent company from either the freeholder or the head lessee" (3) NOT IT WAS NOT - ABOVE COMMENT

"5. There are no works which are not strictly maintenance" (4)

"6. The lift is maintained on a regular basis [5] and there is no deterioration due to lack of maintenance. The lift is 38 years old and has deteriorated due to its age..."

 "7. We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time. [6] The application to the local authority was a renewal of the existing permission."

"...re. changes to the specification, obviously any major changes would be advised to lessees" (7)

"The works are planned to start in October..." (8)

(7) - "obviously any major changes would be advised to lessees"

Deciding a build a penthouse, as well as add 3 others apartments was clearly NOT viewed as "a major change to the specification" by the Ladsky mafia!

(8) - "works are planned to start in October" -

 

(FROM # 14 ,

My 16.09.02 reply to the above 30.08.02 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS:

"1. Please confirm that all 35 lessees have been asked to pay the proper amount according to their allocated percentage." (1) ICAEW

"2. Point noted."

"3. In your letter of 15 July 2002...you state that "Photocopies of the estimates are enclosed with this notice". This is not the case. Therefore, other than a lump sum, you have not provided me with any cost information justifying your demand for £14,400.19 [US$25,400]"

"Please inform your client of the following legal requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, (4)(b): A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of these tenants or shall be displayed in one or more places where it is likely to come to the notice of all those tenants."

"When your client has complied with this legal requirement, thereby giving me the opportunity to have a look at the detailed specification of the works - duly priced - I will let you know whether I require my own copy"

6. I quoted from the J Bashford report, stating: "It contradicts your statement that "the lift is maintained on a regular basis".

"6.1. I would like confirmation that the new lift will be a replacement of like-for-like in terms of floor served."

"other than a lump I have not been provided with any cost information justifying the £14,400 demand" .

I also ask,

"Why is the contingency fund not used as contribution towards the proposed building works?

 

 

 

 

(2) - 13.12.02 "Expert Witness report" to the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT):

Para.2.01 - "...[the] detailed Schedule of Condition depicts delapidations and wants of repair..."

Para.2.03 - "Earlier e-mail copies had been sent to MRJ by BGA as early as 27th January 2002 in order that MRJ and their landlord clients could appreciate the extent and serious nature of the delapidations and disrepair noted"

Para.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"

Para. 3.04 - "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"

 

(3) - 24.02.03 "Expert Witness report" to the then London LVT:

Para.5.09 - " Jefferson House.has had very little or significant upgrading or refurbishment for many years."

"It is clear, upon its face that the building is in dire need of significant works to bring it up to a more modern standard and a proper, fit and substantial state of repair"

 

 

 

 

(2) - 16.12.02 letter to me 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ = Ladsky (following my 25.11.02 letter to the then London LVT that it was impossible for me to identify points of dispute, as I had NOT been supplied with information on the nature of the works: LVT # 2.1):

"We have, on a number of occasions, provided you with the information that you have required [1]. ...we cannot, therefore, understand why you should be asserting that you cannot ascertain what the works consist of."

 

"...the building has to some extent come to the end of its useful life."

 

(3) - 20.01.03 letter to the then London LVT:

"The work is becoming more urgent as there are continuing problems with the roof, lift and boiler."

"Due to the delay in implementing them the problem with the roof is now deteriorating and causing substantial damage to the top flats."

 

(4) - 04.03.03 letter to Brian Gale, MRICS - that was included in the disclosure for the then London LVT hearings:

"19. With regard to the asphalt roof, you will obviously be able to comment in respect of the proposal to repair rather than renew the existing asphalt roof."

"...there are problems with water penetration into both the bedroom and the bathroom of flat 34 and...there had been a number of leaks in various places over over a number of years. Flat 35 is now also suffering significant water ingress."

"27. There is a continual problem of reliability with the lift...The general consensus of both the mechanical report and also that of the lift engineers who maintain the lift on a daily basis [X] is that the lift has reached the end of its useful life."

"Repair v. improvement"

"The list as detailed in the attached letter from Amalgamated Lift requires substantial work and it is not financially viable to repair a lift where, as in this case, the components are obsolete and no longer obtainable" [HOW CAN REPAIR IF NOT AVAILABLE]

 

In the summary of my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS (Intro, above), I captured the issue and evidence under para.1.1.1.38 in the context of the RICS Code Rule 14 "Repairs". In the main body of my complaint, I captured them under paras 248 - 250.

 

OUTCOME: (TYPICALLY) THE RICS IGNORED THESE EVENTS. So much for its (above) claims!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I wrote in my complaint (point 250), the reason for the delay of more than three years - despite the numerous claims of "urgency" - is that Martin Russell Jones' client evidently wanted to make sure it had closure with all the residents listed on the West London County Court claim , filed by Ms Hathaway on 29 November 2002, before announcing the start of the works (and had cashed in as much as possible - regardless of the terms of the lease).

This is evidenced by the fact that, on the same day that the last leaseholder 'capitulated' in Wandsworth County Court i.e. on 2 August 2004 (WLCC # 14), Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, sent a letter announcing the appointment of Mansell and the start of the works.

It is also evidenced by the following:

•  The 5 August 2003 letter from Ms Hathaway to 'All Lessees': "The vast majority of leaseholders have paid their contribution in respect of the works but there is a small minority who have no paid and this is delaying the implementation of the works.we will be able to advise you of a starting date in the near future"

•  The 26 March 2004 letter from Ms Hathaway i.e. eight months after the 5 August 2003 letter ".the intention being that the proposed works can be started as soon as possible " .

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

I again draw your attention to the 1 March 2005 letter from the RICS:

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

In other words, in the same way that the RICS does not 'give a damn' about its members breaching the laws of the land it, likewise, does not 'give a damn' that its members breach their contractual obligations towards leaseholders.

(As agents acting on behalf of landlords, by definition, managing agents must fulfil the contractual obligations imposed on landlords under the terms of the lease - as I captured, among others, under point 1.2.1.4 in the summary of my complaint)

 

 

(5) The demand was NOT an "interim demand"

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

Martin Russell Jones positioned the demand as an "interim demand". Of course, CKFT supported this position throughout, as can be seen in Mr Lanny Silverstone's letter of 21 October 2002 , the Particulars of Claim endorsed by a 'Statement of Truth' signed by Ms Hathaway - filed in West London County Court on 29 November 2002.

And, as can also be seen in subsequent documents to the court e.g. those produced by Mr Lanny Silverstone , CKFT, for the 24 June 2003 hearing;   those issued to the court by Ms Ayesha Salim , CKFT - under a 'Statement of Truth' - for the 26 August 2003 hearing (WLCC # 11).

I have consistently argued that the demand was NOT an interim demand as it amounted to a full demand. Consequently, it was also in breach of the terms of my lease.

 

This is a point I battled over with Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher .

I hold the view that their, Martin Russell Jones and CKFT 's insistence that it was an 'interim demand' can only be interpreted as...

...a shared understanding that another demand for the "major works" would be sent to leaseholders - which is exactly what happened in my case.

(See below for detail: Mr Barrie Martin's letter of 2 August 2004 , as well as the 21 October 2004 , 16 November 2004 and 9 January 2006 invoices I received from Martin Russell Jones - in spite of having accepted Steel Services 'offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200), dated 21 October 2003 , leading to a consent order endorsed by West London County Court on 1 July 2004 ).

I have argued my position as follows (captured under points 114 - 117 and 122 of my complaint (as well as, for example, under points 89 - 92 of my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT to the Law Society)

The sum demanded was for the full amount of the works

•  It was a demand for full payment, not an interim payment (which, for one leaseholder amounted to £64,500 ) (US$113,700).   (NB: At the time I also wrote under this point: "Although, it is my absolute belief that there is an intention to ask residents for more money at a later stage in connection with 'these works' " )

•  The sum quoted by Killby and Gayford referred to all the works. This contractor responded to the specification produced by Mr Brian Gale.

•  The works / nature of the works detailed in Mr Brian Gale's specification are so comprehensive that they amount to a total overhaul of the block: new roof; new lift; new boiler plant; new carpet throughout; new doors; new entrance;   new lighting; new area for the porter;   total repainting internal and external;   installation of mechanical ventilation; replacement of some windows;   re-pointing, etc. (Some of the works required stem from lack of proper maintenance and upkeep of the block - see later on in this section)

•  Steel Services 7 August 2002 application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal is for all the works .

(1) The application form states for "determination of the reasonableness of the global sum demanded for the works " .  

(2) Point 2 of the LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination, (ref. #992 on the LVT database) states: "The application concerns major works set out in a specification prepared by Brian Gale Associates and priced by Killby & Gayford" .

(3) The 16 December 2002 letter to me, sent under the name of Ms Hathaway (but I believe to have been written by Mr Andrew Ladsky ) is also quite clear on this point:

". the Chairman of the tribunal's instructions where he indicated that the tribunal was concerned with the reasonableness of service charges as set out in Section 19 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985"

(4) In the letter that Mr Andrew Ladsky wrote to the tribunal, which is captured under point 50 of the LVT report : "Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works. "

•  In her 20 August 2002 letter Ms Hathaway asks that: "[I] make payment. by 16 September so that the funds are in hand to cover the cost of the work."   .   This "payment" is the sum of £14,400 (US$25,400) - which is 1.956% of £736,206 (US$1.3 million)

I have also argued that, at the earliest, works would have only been completed well into the following year - beyond June 2003

•  The works would have been taking place beyond June 2003, time by which, under the terms of my lease and of Section 21(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, Steel Services had to issue the year-end accounts given that the year-end for Jefferson House is December.   These accounts had to reflect the demand.

•  In her 15 July 2002 letter Ms Hathaway wrote: "the work will commence at the beginning October, but we will confirm this nearer the time"

•  She again repeated a start date of October in her 20 August 2002 letter to "All Lessees":   "Instructions need to be passed to the contractors as soon as possible so that works can start in early October"  

•  And Ms Hathaway did again in her letter to me dated 30 August 2002

In her 20 September 2002 letter:  "...it is intended to start work during October..."

•  In her 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" Ms Hathaway had written:   "It is planned to commence the internal refurbishment in the autumn (i.e. of 2001) with the external refurbishment to follow on next spring" . (Due to winter weather, leading to external works starting late March / beginning of April)  

•  Both, Gleeson and CLC quoted a time of 22 weeks to complete the works (see Martin Russell Jones's letter of 15 July 2002 ).

•  Killby and Gayford had quoted a time that was less than that estimated by Gleeson, CLC, as well as Martin Russell Jones - about which my surveyor made the following comment under Point 33 of his February 2003 report: "Killby & Gayford have not been queried over their contract period, which in my opinion is not sufficient for the works to be completed. There is a risk that Killby & Gayford apply for an extension if this timescale is not achievable which is likely to add further additional costs"

•  Hence, even if the application to the LVT is not factored in, by June 2003 - the works would still be taking place.

(NB: Please note that my position has been more than amply vindicated: the works were started in August 2004. Nearly two years later , in May 2006, they were still taking place - as can be seen from the photos of the corridor taken on 1 May 2006 . See also Photo gallery for other evidence on the duration of the works, including broken step (1.6MB), filth around my flat , floor of the entrance corridor

However, Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones did file an application to the LVT on 7 August 2002 (Hence, barely three weeks after sending the demand, which many leaseholders would probably have not received by then due to living overseas / the holiday period.)

•  I understand that, in spite of having filed an application to the LVT, Steel Services could nonetheless have started the works.   It did not.  

•  In filing the application, Steel Services was, in my opinion, evidently relying on being able to 'steamroll' the application through the LVT with little opposition (in part because many leaseholders live overseas) - and thereby get the 'official' seal of approval. (As evidenced also by the claim filed in West London County Court - in spite of the LVT telling the leaseholders to NOT PAY (pg 5) the service charge until the tribunal had issued its determination and it had been implemented)

•  As can be seen from the attached directions set by the LVT, the earliest date at which Steel Services could have obtained its 'official' seal of approval would have been January 2003 (maybe even later).   (Of course, as it happened, the LVT issued its determination on 17 June 2003 ).

•  Even if Steel Services had been able to 'steam-roll' its application - taking into account 'getting the seal of approval', implementation, availability of contractors, etc, it would at least be April - if not later - before the works could be started.

Furthermore, as I captured in my complaint under points 119 and 120, including supplying a copy of the relevant pages to the RICS, my lease states

Clause 2

•  (2) (d) "As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. the lessor shall cause the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee for such financial year to be determined by an accountant."

•  (2) (e) ". the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the lessor during the relevant financial year of the lessor shall be deemed to include not only the costs expenses and outgoings which have been actually disbursed incurred or made by the lessor during the relevant year. but also the sum or sums   (hereinafter called the 'contingency payment) on account of any other costs expenses and outgoings (not being of an annually recurring nature) which the lessor shall have incurred at any time prior to the commencement of the relevant financial year or shall expect to incur at any time after the end of the relevant financial year . as the accountant may in his reasonable discretion consider it reasonable to include (whether by way of amortization of costs expenses and outgoings already incurred or by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings) in the amount of the service charge for the relevant financial year"

•  (2) (f) "As soon as the accountant shall have determined the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee for the relevant financial year. the accountant shall prepare a written statement containing a summary of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the lessor during the relevant financial year together with any future sums indicated by the accountant pursuant to Clause 2 (2) (e).. and specifying the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee.and in the accountant's certificate, shall certify. that the sum specified as aforesaid represents the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee.."

•  The demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) was dated 17 July 2002 . As can be seen from the 2001 year-end accounts for Jefferson House, they do not include costs the lessor "shall expect to incur at any time after the end of the relevant financial year. by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings."

In addition (as I captured under point 123 of my complaint against Martin Russell Jones, and under point 98 of my 20 December 2004 complaint against CKFT):

•  ' Even if' lawyers want to argue that the sum demanded was an "interim payment" (although I simply cannot see how this could be demonstrated in view of the facts), Ms Hathaway filed a claim against me in West London County Court for £14,400 (US$25,400) . The impact of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination reduced the sum to £4,615 (US$8,150) . (see LVT determination below)

•  Hence, in filing the claim under a ' Statement of Truth ' Ms Hathaway - and CKFT who produced the claim - breached Clause 2 (2) (j) of my lease:

" . nothing shall disable the Lessor from maintaining an action against the Lessee in respect of non-payment of any such interim payment. subject nevertheless to the Lessor establishing in such action that the interim payment demanded and unpaid was of a fair and reasonable amount having regard to the amount of the Service Charge ultimately payable by the Lessee"

Consider this in the context of the fact that the original demand I received was £14,400 (US$25,400) while the impact of the LVT determination meant that it should be reduced by nearly 70% to £4,615 (US$8,200) (see LVT determination below)

And that Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states

"Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable... "

(Subsequent note - And consider the above in the context of subsequent events, among others, the blatant lies ; the threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)

In the summary of my complaint I referred to the above under point 1.1.1.8, and under points 123 and 160 in the main body of my complaint.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

"amount to a breach of contract.not our jurisdiction"

As agents acting on behalf of landlords, by definition, managing agents must fulfil the contractual obligations imposed on landlords under the terms of the lease. Consider that in the summary of my complaint, I specifically referred to Martin Russell Jones' breach of contractual obligations in the context of the RICS Core Value # 1 "Acting with integrity" , by stating:

"MRJ has acted as a 'puppet' of its client, colluding with its client's 'other puppets' (CKFT and Mr Brian Gale), blindly implementing its client's dictates in total disregard of statutory requirements and of its obligations, as agent for the landlord, under the terms of the lease"

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

In light of the above, I will therefore repeat that Martin Russell Jones, CKFT , Piper Smith Basham and Mr Stan Gallagher insistence that the demand was an "interim demand" can only be interpreted as a shared understanding between them that another demand for the "major works" would be sent to leaseholders - which is exactly what happened in my case.

(See below for detail: Mr Barrie Martin's letter of 2 August 2004 , as well as the 21 October 2004 , 16 November 2004 and 9 January 2006 invoices I received from Martin Russell Jones - in spite of having accepted Steel Services 'offer' of £6,350 (US$11,200), dated 21 October 2003 , leading to a consent order endorsed by West London County Court on 1 July 2004 ).

Consider as well - as can be seen in the transcript of the 28 May 2004 hearing - Ms Ayesha Salim 's comment about me that

"The consent order that she submitted has included works that may possibly take place in the future to the property and not just the amount that is claimed within this claim " .

'Helpfully', the judge then offered to have the action against me 'stayed' (open to further proceedings) - as can be seen in the court order of that date. (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton for detail)

(NB: I also captured the above in my 30 November 2004 reply to the Law Society and Piper Smith Basham under points 14 -20, as well as under points 23 - 26 and 49 - 52 of my 29 August 2004 reply to Mr Gallagher following the 5 April 2004 complaint I filed against him with the Bar Council )

 

(6) Barely three weeks after sending the demand, Ms Hathaway filed an application in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to determine the "reasonableness" of the £736,000 (US$1.3 million) demanded

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

Barely three weeks after sending the 15 and 17 July demand which many leaseholders would not have had a chance to receive, on 7 August 2002 , Ms Hathaway filed an application in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (tribunal for service charge disputes) to "determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded" i.e. £736,000 (US$1.3 million).

As captured under point 1 of the 17 June 2003 report:

"The Tribunal was dealing with an application to determine the reasonableness of a service charge to be incurred under Section 19 (2B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended"

Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states

"Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable... "

Amendments to this section were made through statutory instrument No 1853 which came into effect on 1 September 1997 - Section 19(2B) " Content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge" (See Abbreviations - Definitions)

These amendments which cover, among others, the provision of various documents are discussed, as relevant in the reminder of this section.

The 7 August 2002 application to the LVT led to a pre-trial hearing on 29 October 2002 attended by several leaseholders including myself. At this pre-trial hearing we (i.e. I and other leaseholders) were asked by the Chair, whether we had already paid the service charge demanded in July 2002.

We all replied that we had not for the reason that we had not been supplied with details of costings - at the time of the demand, nor since. At this point, the Chair specifically told us that if we paid the service charge demand, the Tribunal would not be able to help us.

To reinforce this point, we were handed a leaflet 'Applying to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - service charges, insurance, management' which, on page 5   states the following:

". a recent Court of Appeal case ruling (Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) determined that LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid except under certain circumstances"   (NB: bold type face as per the leaflet)

Mr Andrew Ladsky, Ms Joan Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin of Martin Russell Jones, as well as Messrs Brian Gale and Patrick Moyle of Brian Gale & Associates were in attendance at the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing - as can be seen from the directions issued by the LVT.

It is important to note this given that precisely 'one' month later i.e. on 29 November 2002, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor filed a claim against 11 leaseholders , representing 14 flats, in West London County Court - for the full amount demanded - with a Statement of Truth signed by Ms Hathaway. (This reinforces my view that Steel Services anticipated being able to 'steamroll' its application through the LVT with no opposition whatsoever - and thereby get the 'official seal of approval')

In the summary of my complaint, I captured the above under points 1.1.1.17, 1.4.2.2 and 1.2.1.4, under which I wrote:

"MRJ has acted as a 'puppet' of its client, colluding with its client's 'other puppets' (CKFT and Mr Brian Gale), blindly implementing its client's dictates in total disregard of statutory requirements and of its obligations, as agent for the landlord, under the terms of the lease"

I stand by what I wrote and I believe that any reasonable, fair minded person will, in light of the overwhelming evidence, consider this as fair comment.

In the main body of my complaint, it is covered under points 106, 108, 117, 122, 160, 172, 175, 184, 191, 239 and 247. As can be seen in the list of enclosures in support of my complaint, I supplied the RICS with a copy of the pages from the LVT service charge booklet, including a copy of page 5 which includes the reference to the Court of Appeal case, Daejan Properties v. LVT.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Consider that I captured point 1.2.1.4. in the context of the RICS Core Value #1 - "Acting with integrity" and that I referred to the filing of the claim in court under point 1.2.2.2 in the context of the RICS Core Value # 2 - "To always be honest"

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

 

Please, note also that when it drew up the claim, CKFT was aware that its client had applied to the LVT. Indeed, in reply to my 17 October 2002 letter in which I ask the question, Mr Lanny Silverstone replied on 21 October 2002   "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the LVT." (For further detail, see CKFT section)

 

The above action: pursuing the same action under two separate jurisdictions amounts to an 'abuse of legal process' (WLCC # 2)   I have referred to this in my complaint against Martin Russell Jones under points 101 and 102, and point 1.2.2.2. in the summary.

A number of directions were captured as a result of the LVT pre-trial hearing. Most critically, they included :

"The Applicants [to] send a Response to the Respondents and a copy to the Tribunal by 17 December 2002 . the Respondents to send the Report or Proof of Evidence of any Expert Witness. by 7 January 2003"

so that leaseholders could have their own advisers review the specification.

It resulted in Mr Brian Gale issuing an "Expert Witness" report, dated 13 December 2002 . This report was delivered to me post 18 December 2002 and, therefore, after the deadline set by the LVT which was 17 December. The stamp was not franked.  

Contrast this with the fact that Ms Hathaway had sent a fax to the LVT, dated 1 December 2002 , stating:

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

What a team!   (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for other examples of its 'assistance' to Steel Services i.e. Mr Ladsky et. al.)  

In my 18 December 2002 letter to the LVT, I communicated Martin Russell Jones' breach of the directions set by the tribunal and consequently my inability to comply with the 7 January 2003 deadline for instruction of an expert.

Because of this breach in the LVT directions, I sent another letter, dated 12 January 2003 , to the LVT requesting a postponement of the 5 February 2003 hearing. I gave as reason the fact that I

"still have not been supplied with the priced specification and cannot therefore instruct an expert witness to determine the reasonableness of the cost of specific remedies and thus determine specific items of dispute for the trial" (i.e. as per the directions set by the LVT).

The LVT refused my request. (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)

I copied Ms Hathaway on my letter to the LVT.   On the same date, i.e. 12 January 2003 , I also wrote her a letter, on which I copied the LVT, in which I emphasised that she still had not provided me with a sufficiently detailed breakdown of the costs.

In her 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT Ms Hathaway wrote, among others, that the documents I

"requested have been available in the porter's room since the original notice was served and she has in fact inspected them" .

She also states

"The work is becoming more urgent as there are continuing problems with the roof, lift and boiler. Due to the delay in implementing them the problem with the roof is now deteriorating and causing substantial damage to the top flat" .  

(The works were only started one year and eight months later and the minute they started, so did the construction of the penthouse flat (2.4MB) - see also Photo gallery - as per the Planning applications that had been filed initially on 18 September 1998 and again on 13 November 2001 . That was the urgency! )

In the same letter, Ms Hathaway (or, in all likelihood given the style of the letter, Mr Andrew Ladsky), also had the gall to say:  

"The deadline for the residents to submit their experts' reports was 7 January 2003 but this letter [i.e. my letter] was not sent until 12 January 2003. Our clients feel that Miss Dit-Rawé has had ample time to instruct experts and we would obviously have assisted them (NB!!!) in order to bring this matter to a close"

(NB: At the 5 February 2003 hearing, as Ms Hathaway was in the process of continuing to 'spin her story', she was informed that I had sent a letter to the LVT on 18 December 2002 . "Oh!" she replied.   She has ended up in a dead end.)

During the 5th February hearing (LVT # 3 ), Ms Hathaway vehemently asserted, yet again, that a copy of the priced specification was available at the porter's lodge and that

" the porter has confirmed that Ms Rawé has looked at them" .  

She then contradicted herself in reply to a question by my counsel, by saying:   "Oh!, there are so many reports in the porter's lodge, he would not know which is which! " (My Diary 5 February 2003)

This is captured under point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination (ref. #992 on the LVT database):

"Ms Hathaway (of Martin Russell Jones), on behalf of the Applicant, resisted the application for an adjournment. She maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification in the porter's room, but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version " .

In my complaint against Martin Russell Jones, the above is captured under points 1.1.1.17, 1.2.2.6(a) and 1.2.7 in the summary and under points 79 - 81 in the main body. (In relation to CKFT, it is captured under point 102 of my complaint )

Consider that I captured point 1.2.2.6(a) in the context of a section I headed with the RICS Core Value # 2 - "To always be honest" , and point 1.2.7 I headed with the RICS Core Value #7 "To treat others with respect"

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

 

The same damning evidence is found in Mr Brian Gale 's 24 February 2003 report, under point 2.04:   ". the un-priced or priced Specification.has been. freely available for all lessees to view"

Please, note also that under 5.04 of his report Mr Gale stated:   "The vast majority of the tenants in this block have been fully and completely consulted throughout all stages of the procedure."

In actual fact, the priced specification was hand-delivered to me ONLY 36 hours before the 5th February hearing - and hence SEVEN months after the original demand of 15-17 July 2002 .

The outcome was a postponement of the first day of the substantive hearing to 13 March 2003 , giving the reason stated under point 16 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report:

"In the interest of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment."   (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for further detail)

In my complaint, I highlighted the fact that the priced specification was delivered to me only 36 hours before the hearing under point 1.1.1.17.2 in the summary and under point 124 - 126 in the main body.

Please note that, in addition to the LVT 17 June 2003 report and my Witness Statement , I had also supplied the RICS with a copy of my defence to the 29 November 2002 West London County Court - false - claim filed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth .

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

 

 

(7) The impact of the LVT determination of 17 June 2003 was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) in the sum demanded

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

As detailed, among others, under point 1 of its 17 June 2003 report, its 17 July 2003 letter, in its 21 July 2003 letter to Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, and in the 9 April 2003 letter from Piper Smith Basham, the legal remit of the LVT, defined under s.19 of the Landlord & Tenant 1985 is to determine the

" reasonableness, or otherwise, of the global sum demanded" .

The LVT failed to perform its legal remit, as its report does not include a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded.

Based on my surveyor's assessment (*) , the outcome of the LVT determination on the original global sum demanded of £736,206.08 (US$1.3 million) (£564,467 (US$995,300) excl. VAT and 11% management fees) was:

•  Amount disallowed because improvements: £169,498 (US$299,000) (£129,958 excl. VAT and fees) = 23% of the global sum demanded

•  Amount for which the LVT could not make a determination due to lack of specification = £188,784 (US$333,000) (£144,745 (US$255,200) excl. VAT and fees) = 25.6% of the global sum demanded

•  A view supported by the LVT, considering the terms of the lease ( point 59 ), as well as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors best practice ( point 62 ), that the reserve fund should be used as contribution: £141,977 (US$250,400) - or 19.3% of the global sum demanded. (NB: The LVT does not have the jurisdiction to enforce the use of the contingency fund)

Leaving an amount that can be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded . In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the global sum demanded was not considered reasonable .

( * ) NB:

(1) It is based on my surveyor's assessment of the LVT determination - given that the LVT failed to perform its legal remit by not including a summary of the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded. (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal , including the Head of the LVTs' subsequent refusals to have a summary included)

(2) In the £500,000 (US$882,000) I have included £141,000 (US$250,400) of contingency fund. M y Counsel raised it as an issue during the hearing as Steel Services / Martin Russell Jones had not used it as contribution towards the costs - and were refusing to do so. (This is captured under point 34 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination, ref. #992 on the LVT database)

In the summary of my complaint, I captured the above under point 1.1.1.7 in the context of the RICS Code Rule 11.1 'Managing agents should comply with the provisions of the lease for recovery of service charges', point 1.1.1.32   and 1.1.1.33,

In the main body of my complaint, it is comprised under point 135, 137, 154 and 206. As can be seen from the list of enclosures , I supplied as supporting evidence: a copy of the 17 June 2003 determination, as well as a copy of my surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the LVT determination.

Please note that my surveyor, Mr Brock, LSM Partners, is a Chartered Surveyor, member of the RICS. (To which I will add: in this instance, an individual with the utmost level of integrity and professionalism)

In addition, the impact of the LVT determination is also covered in my Witness Statement - which I supplied to the RICS.

(Subsequent note - And consider the above in the context of subsequent events, among others, the blatant lies ; the threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

 

Given the 17 June 2003 LVT determination, consider also the following points:

•  In the 7 August 2002 application - signed - and filed by Ms Hathaway in the LVT, the service charge demand has been described as "reasonable"

•  Section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states

"Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable. "

 

In its 17 June 2003 determination, the LVT was highly critical of Mr Brian Gale's specification

 

(8) The following are brief extracts. See Brian Gale section for further detail

In the summary of my complaint, I captured the above under points 1.1.1.32 - 1.1.1.34 and in the main body of my complaint under points 78, 136, 137 and 206 - under which I captured extracts, including from my surveyor's report of 24 February 2003 and supported with other evidence.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS as, aside from the convoluted and off-the-mark reply, in its 10 June 2005 letter, it ignores non-compliance by Martin Russell Jones of Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

Yet, in the same letter, it wrote: " .the action of failing to follow the LVT determination is one that the RICS will look at"

 

AN ENDLESS CATALOGUE OF LIES, DECEIT AND TOTAL DISREGARD OF LEGISLATION

 

(9) What had Ms Hathaway and Mr Barrie Martin said about the sum demanded for the major works?

In the 7 August 2002 application to the LVT filed by Ms Hathaway on behalf of Steel Services, Ms Hathaway positioned the £736,206.08 (US$1.3 million) sum demanded for the works as "reasonable"

In her letter to me of 30 August 2002 Ms Hathaway stated:  

"5. There are no works which are not strictly maintenance"

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

"The works are planned to start in October..."

 

In the 29 November 2002 claim she filed on behalf of Steel Services in West London County Court - for the initial sum demanded in her 15 July 2002 letter - and accompanying 17 July 2002 invoice - she stated, under a ' Statement of Truth ' (see My Diary 9 March 2007 about the serious breach of CPR in relation to a 'managing agent' signing a statement of truth)

"The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Claim Form are true"

In the 'Mr Ladsky's style' letter, dated 16 December 2002 , sent to me under Ms Hathaway's name (in reply to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT), there are the following statements:

"The price obtained from Killby & Gayford, we believe to be extremely competitive and advantageous to the tenants in the block. There is no intent to charge residents twice, nor have any documents been tampered with"

Under point 19 of 'her' 4 March 2003 letter (given the style, more likely to be from Mr Andrew Ladsky) to Brian Gale (which he 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"

In his 14 July 2004 letter to me, Mr Barrie Martin headed the letter with:

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

 

(10) What had Mr Andrew Ladsky said about the cost of the major works?

In his letter to me (and other leaseholders), dated 25 January 2001 , Mr Ladsky wrote:

".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."

Isn't this an amasing statement to make by somebody who, during the 29 October 2002 LVT pre-trial hearing, claimed that he was "just a resident "(My Diary; Advisors to Jefferson House; Directorships; CKFT)

 

(11) What had Mr Brian Gale said about the sum demanded for the major works?

In his 13 December 2002 "Proof of Evidence of Landlord's Expert Witness (Surveyor) Brian Gale" report addressed to the LVT, under:

•  3.02 - "I confirm that the specification prepared by Brian Gale Associates.did not contain any known enhancement or improvement works."

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

•  3.05 - "I confirm that, in my opinion, the extent of the works required is reasonable."  

•  3.05 - "I confirm that. the cost of works detailed by Killby & Gayford on 8 July 2002 and totaling£564,467 represents a reasonable assessment of the cost of carrying out all necessary works" . (£736,206 (US$1.3 million) with management fee and VAT)

In relation to this last point that the sum of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) "represents a reasonable assessment", please note the contradiction with the 26 March 2002 letter from Ms Hathaway, i.e. written after Mr Gale had completed his 'Condition survey' (in February 2002), as she wrote:  

"The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million + VAT and fees."   (NB: Bringing the total to £1.5 million+ (US$2.7 million))

Please note that at the time that Mr Brian Gale was writing his 13 December 2002 Expert Report, a second Planning Application , (Ref PP/02/2692), for

"Infill of lightwell on 4 No floors to create additional bedroom and bathroom space to each flat"

had just been made days earlier on 25 November 2002 . It was communicated by the council in a notice dated 28 February 2003 .

Applications for amendments to this second Planning Application (for which the reference changed to PP/03/00429, and the description to "Amendments to existing planning consent for proposed infill of third, fourth and fifth floor lightwell" ) have likewise, also been made :   (i) Notification dated 7 January 2004 ;   (ii) Notification dated 19 April 2004 .

While, in his 24 February 2003 "Expert report/Proof of evidence" , Mr Brian Gale wrote:

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

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

It is worth noting that it is not the first time that Mr Brian Gale's competence has been under the spotlight - as evidenced by the High Court case, Wallace vs. Brian Gale Associates, 1994-1997

Under point 157 in the main body of my complaint I headed the point with "What had Ms Hathaway and Mr Brian Gale said about the specification (drawn-up by Mr Gale)?" which I then followed by capturing the above extracts.

In the summary of my complaint, I also captured the main points under points 1.1.1.31 and 1.1.1.46.

And of course, as can be seen from the enclosures I supplied the above evidential documents.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

 

(12) Ms Hathaway and Mr Brian Gale falsely claimed to leaseholders, as well as to the tribunal, that there was no intention to build a penthouse flat

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

Ms Hathaway lied about the intention to build a penthouse flat:

•  Her letter to me of 26 March 2002 :  

"survey is not in connection with any planning application."

•  In her 30 August 2002 reply to my 11 August 2002 letter, Ms Hathaway wrote:  

"We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time .obviously any major changes would be advised to lessees"

 

•  Under point 19 of her 4 March 2003 letter to Brian Gale (which was 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 "

•  In his 14 July 2004 letter to me, Mr Barrie Martin headed the letter with:

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

In my complaint I highlighted Ms Hathaway's lies in relation to the construction of the penthouse flat under points 1.1.46 (iii), 61, 65 and 209. I once again emphasised these points to the RICS in my 5 March 2005 reply by attaching two photographs.

Yet again, and therefore, for the third time, I highlighted this in my 14 October 2005 letter to the RICS - and provided more recent photographs as evidence.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS which, very clearly did not like my supplying, among others, photographic evidence.   As the saying goes: "a picture speaks a thousand words"

As to another part of the 'supporting act' in the web of deceit, Mr Brian Gale , in his "Expert Witness report" - to the tribunal -dated 13 December 2002 , he 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 "

A 4 March 2003 letter, sent under Ms Hathaway's name (but with Mr Andrew Ladsky's 'trademark') was included among the evidence supplied by Mr Brian Gale during the LVT hearings. It states, under point 19:

".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 point 35 of the same letter:

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

In his 14 July 2004 letter to me, Mr Barrie Martin headed the letter with:

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

Of course, the minute the works started at the end of August 2004, so did the construction of the penthouse flat, with the following outcome:

Jefferson House July 2002

 

Jefferson House September 2005

As can be seen in the Photo gallery , substantial work had taken place by February 2005.

See also the February 2002 photographs taken by Mr Gale of the back of Jefferson House at the time he undertook the condition survey, as well as extracts from his "condition survey" , in which he wrote that:

"...the roof coverings will need to be replaced and provisions made.to cover any additional works may become apparent."  

Evidently such as the 'incidental' cost of building a penthouse flat and significant works to the flat below. Of course, as ".the roof had exceeded [its] modern life span" and there was ".water ingress" to "some of the properties" , "replacing the asphalt roof" "needed to be dealt with as a matter of urgency" .  

It was so urgent , that the works were started 2.5 years later in September 2004.

And this how the contractors, Mansell Construction Services / Mr Brian Gale, described what they were doing to the roof (from the " description of the works " , headed with: "Principal Contract: Mansells Construction" )

"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 - Mr Gale have a very unique interpretation of "replacing asphalt roof"   Maybe it is a question of economy with words as they headed this "Brief description of work".

Evidently, they also assumed that people are blind, or did they expect that it would go unnoticed?

Please bear in mind that, in the context of the evidence against Mr Brian Gale that he is ALSO a member of the RICS.

 

(13) Ms Hathaway - and Mr Gale - made false claims to the tribunal and to leaseholders for the purpose of assisting their client in proceeding with its plan to build the penthouse flat and undertake related, as well as other works - with the aim of charging the costs to leaseholders

To assist their client in proceeding with the construction of the penthouse flat, Ms Hathaway and Mr Gale made false claims to leaseholders - and to the tribunal - about the roof requiring "urgent repair" , as well as the boiler and lift i.e. items that would be affected by the construction of the penthouse flat

•  Brian Gale, under point 2.03 of his 13 December 2002 "Expert report to the LVT" "... serious nature of the dilapidations and disrepair noted"

•  Under the "Property description" of his February 2002 (2.4MB) "Condition survey", Mr Gale wrote: "The main structure and fabric of the building has exceeded its average life span."

"the asphalt roof has exceeded its modern life span.Some of the properties.are suffering from significant water ingress which needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.the roof covering will need to be replaced."

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

"In view of the state of the building it is advisable to fully address the defects and general works as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration, which would considerably increase the costs of renovation in the future"

•  Ms Hathaway 30 January 2002 email to me:   "particularly bearing in mind the urgency of some of the required works"

•  Ms Hathaway 26 March 2002 letter to me: ". the roof has reached the end of its useful life and is leaking.The building requires a new roof. The roof must be attended to as soon as possible ."

•  Ms Hathaway 16 December 2002 (Mr Ladsky style) letter to me (in reply to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT): ". the building you occupy.to some extent has come to the end of its useful life ..." (NB!!! )

•  Ms Hathaway 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT : "The work is becoming more urgent as there are continuing problems with the roof, lift and boiler . Due to the delay in implementing them the problem with the roof is now deteriorating and causing substantial damage to the top flats"

•  Ms Hathaway, under point 19 of 'her' 4 March 2003 letter to Brian Gale (which he supplied as part of the evidence during the LVT 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 "

Under the same point, she also states: "As you are aware there are problems with water penetration. in flat 34..flat 35 is now suffering significant water ingress"

Under point 35 of the same letter:

" When it was obvious that the penthouse was not going to be built the deteriorating condition of the roof, lift and boiler together with the external redecoration caused us to start the procedure which resulted in the specification and tenders that are now before the Tribunal"

Under point 27:

"There is a continual problem of reliability with the lift and we enclose herewith a copy of a letter from the Lift Engineer detailing the call outs to the property over the last six months. This list only deals with the emergency call outs and obviously there have been other visits in respect of normal maintenance when other matters have been dealt with"

"The general consensus of both the mechanical report and also that of the lift engineers who maintain the lift on the daily basis is that the lift-has reached the end of its useful life"

Contrast this with the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 assessment (ref. #992 on the LVT database) under Page 11 - 16.25 and 16.26

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

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

To add further weight to her claim, Ms Hathaway i.e. Mr Ladsky, also wrote under point 27 of the 4 March 2003 letter:

"There are a large number of elderly residents in the property (NB: that's news to me!) who rely on the lift and the recent unreliability has caused a number of problems for them. They are entitled to expect a reliable lift and although we appreciate Ms Dit-Rawe resides in the basement area   and does not use the lift, this however does not release her from the obligations under the terms of the lease to pay for its refurbishment"

(NB: portraying me as the selfish individual who does not care about the "large number of elderly residents" . And this was motivated by the intention of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides to make leaseholders pay for changing the lift - in order to service an additional floor i.e. the penthouse flat.)

Of course, by comparison, Ms Hathaway's client is 'so considerate' towards elderly people (see Elderly Resident )

The scaffolding started to be put in place at the end of August 2004 and the works were started in September 2004. Hence, two years and nine months after Ms Hathaway's first claim of "urgency" in January 2002, and one year and nine months after she made the claim to the tribunal.

And of course, the construction of the penthouse flat entailed the demolition of the roof - as can be seen from the photographs (2.4MB) captured in this pack - and photo gallery.

Although not a lawyer, I conclude that lying to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - which is part of the English legal system - amounts to a breach of Ch. 41, s.17 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which requires "the proper and efficient administration of justice"

Likewise, Martin Russell Jones and Mr Brian Gale have committed offences against me under the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 s.4A and the Defamation Act

As I wrote in my complaint (point 250), the reason for the delay of more than three years is that Martin Russell Jones' client evidently wanted to make sure it had closure with all the residents listed on the West London County Court claim , filed by Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 29 November 2002, before announcing the start of the works (and had cashed in as much as possible - regardless of the determination by the tribunal and of the terms of the lease).

This is evidenced by the fact that, on the same day that the last leaseholder 'capitulated' in Wandsworth County Court i.e. on 2 August 2004 (WLCC # 14), Mr Barrie Martin sent a letter announcing the appointment of Mansell and the start of the works.

It is also evidenced by the following:

•  The 5 August 2003 letter from Ms Hathaway to 'All Lessees': "The vast majority of leaseholders have paid their contribution in respect of the works but there is a small minority who have not paid and this is delaying the implementation of the works.we will be able to advise you of a starting date in the near future"

•  The 26 March 2004 letter from Ms Hathaway i.e. eight months after the 5 August 2003 letter ".the intention being that the proposed works can be started as soon as possible " .

In addition to the points contained in my complaint in relation to the construction of a penthouse flat (points 1.1.1.46, 61, 65 and 209), I again emphasised this to the RICS in my 5 March 2005 reply by attaching two photographs of the rear view of the roof. One taken in July 2002 and one taken on 6 February 2005.

OUTCOME:   IGNORED by the RICS

Consider also, among others, that in the summary of my complaint, I also captured under point 1.2.1, I headed with the RICS Core Value # 1 - "Acting with integrity"

1.2.1.3     MRJ sought improperly to recover monies allegedly by way of service charge which were not due and payable"

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

 

(14) Ms Joan Hathaway, Mr Andrew Ladsky and Mr Brian Gale made libellous, scurrilous and defamatory statements about me to the tribunal - and later on by implication to the courts - by falsely claiming that I had been supplied with the priced specification and that I was essentially the only leaseholder objecting to the service charge demand

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

As I captured under point 1.2.7.2 of the summary of my 2 February 2005 complaint against Martin Russell Jones:

"With the aim of obtaining monies from me that were not due and payable, MRJ has, in collusion with its client, CKFT and Mr Brian Gale, portrayed me to the LVT and to West London County Court as a dishonest and deceitful person - as well as doing this in correspondence"

Consider events in light of the letters Ms Hathaway had written over the previous six months in which she categorically affirmed that I (and other leaseholders) had been provided with the priced specification - and that she had therefore acted in line with the statutory requirements imposed under the Landlord and Tenant 1985 legislation.

For example, her letter of 16 December 2002 (of which the style suggests it was written by Mr Ladsky) (this letter was in reply to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT):

"You have indicated that it is impossible for you to answer the question of whether or not you dispute any item.

We have, on a number of occasions, provided you with the information that you have required.

we cannot, therefore, understand why you should be asserting that you cannot ascertain what the works consist of.

we and our clients cannot help but draw the inevitable conclusion that the correspondence in which you are consistently latterly engaging is for the purposes of avoiding the perfectly reasonable demand (NB!!!) for payment of the sum due to refurbish the building" .

In her 20 January 2003 letter to the LVT, that the documents I

"requested have been available in the porter's room since the original notice was served and she has in fact inspected them" .

As captured previously, her lie was exposed during the 5 February 2003 hearing (point 14 of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination)

Hence, Ms Hathaway was falsely accusing me to the LVT of being a liar.

In fact, six times between 11 August 2002 and 12 January 2003, I requested from Martin Russell Jones/CKFT a copy of the priced specifications. These included, four letters to Martin Russell Jones / CKFT, and two letters to the LVT on which Martin Russell Jones / CKFT were copied.

In my 11 August 2002 letter to Ms Hathaway I requested:  

"A detailed explanation of how the amount of £14,400.19 you demand from has been calculated".   

"A copy - without charge - of the Schedule of Building Works as duly priced by the firm of Killby & Gayford - as the copy left with the porter had not been duly priced".   

"An explanation as to why works are being carried out to the roof given that a planning application to build an extra floor for a penthouse flat was granted on 6 February 2002" .

I also state that, if changes are made to the specifications, I expect a new Section 20 Notice to be issued - as Ms Hathaway had written in her 15 July 2002 letter ".the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification."

 

 

In my 16 September 2002 letter, I wrote

"Please inform your client of the following legal requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, (4)(b) A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of these tenants or shall be displayed in one or more places where it is likely to come to the notice of all those tenants.

When your client has complied with this legal requirement, thereby giving me the opportunity to have a look at the detailed specification of the works - duly priced - I will let you know whether I require my own copy"

I also emphasise that

"other than a lump I have not been provided with any cost information justifying the £14,400 demand" (US$25,400) .

I also ask,

"Why is the contingency fund not used as contribution towards the proposed building works?

 

 

In her 20 September 2002 letter, Ms Hathaway totally ignores my letter of 16 September and states,

". if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services. will instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings".

In my 17 October 2002 reply to Mr Lanny Silverstone , CKFT 's 7 October 2002 threatening to forfeit my lease and contact my mortgage lender unless I pay the sum demanded by 10 a.m. on 14 October 2002, I stress:  

"As stated in my (recorded delivery) letters of 11 August 2002 and 16 September 2002 to Martin Russell Jones (attached) I require additional information before I can agree to the demand.   I have not received a reply to my letter of 16 September" .

I point out that "the copy of the specification left with the porter is not priced" and that, "contrary to Martin Russell Jones' statement in the 15 July 2002 letter - no copy of the estimates from Killby and Gayford was attached to their letter" .  

I then emphasise,

"In other words, as I explained, other than a lump sum, I have not been provided with any details whatsoever on the composition of the costs" .

I also state

"As I assume you are aware, Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (4)(c) states: "The notice shall describe the works to be carried out and invite observations on them and on the estimates."

In his 21 October 2002 reply, Mr Silverstone , ignores my reasons for not agreeing to payment, stating: "We are sure that Martin Russell Jones will provide you with copies of such as you are entitled to receive pursuant to Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act" and reiterates the threat of issuing proceedings against me .

In my 12 January 2003 letter to Ms Hathaway (on which I copied the LVT), I emphasise that she still has not provided me with a sufficiently detailed breakdown of the costs.

To these, are added my two letters to the LVT on which Martin Russell Jones / CKFT were copied.

•  My 22 October 2002 asking the LVT for its " assistance in obtaining a copy of the priced specification"

•  My 25 November 2002 letter in which I wrote: "it is impossible for me to form a view as to the reasonableness of the costs as, other than a lump sum, I have not been provided with any information on the composition of the costs" .   For the second time now, I ask the tribunal for its assistance in helping me get a copy of the priced specification

Evidence from other leaseholders

•  Leaseholder G 's letter of 3 August 2002 to Ms Hathaway "Before I can agree to the demand that you have made I need. (1) a detailed breakdown of the figure of £564,467 (US$995,300) against the specification"

•  The 3 September 2002 letter from Leaseholder K's solicitors to Ms Hathaway: "Please provide a breakdown of the apportionment of the total amount claimed."

•  Leaseholder D who wrote to Ms Hathaway on 24 September 2002 ".your letter of 20 September in which you threaten legal proceedings in the event of not receiving payment from us. as of this date. have (not) received the complete data you undertook to provide at our meeting in your offices on 30 July 2002 and confirmed in our letter of 31 July. This situation has prevailed despite two further letters of remind dated 27 August and 9 September"

•  Leaseholder M wrote to the LVT on 19 October 2002 (i.e. three months after Ms Hathaway sent the original demand) "I have had several phone conversations with MRJ requesting an executive summary of the   planned work such as 'description of work item', 'cost", 'priority'.   I never received such summary"

•  Leaseholder K wrote to the LVT on 28 October 2002 "Additionally no responses have been received by neither my solicitor nor myself to any query (see attached letter)"

•  There is also the 20 October 2002 email from Leaseholder C to the LVT "I paid a portion, approximately £17,000 (US$30,000) , 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. Living outside the UK makes it virtually impossible to allow oneself to become involved in a lawsuit."

•  The 1 November 2002 letter I received from Leaseholder F stating her opposition to the demand ".I am urging my solicitor to forward objections to Steel Services demands to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal within the next week"

Against the above, consider Ms Hathaway's 20 August 2002 letter to leaseholders

". we have not received any significant comments from tenants in relation thereto within the prescribed time limit consequently Steel Services are instructing Killby & Gayford;   request payment of the full amount by 16 September " .

Of course, with Mr Ladsky succeeding in the demise of the Residents Association (see Head Residents Association and Notices by Landlord), it was a lot easier to feed different stories to the individual leaseholders - as I captured under   point 1.1.1.46 in the summary of my complaint and under 241 in the main body.

In 'her' i.e. Mr Ladsky's letter of 4 March 2003 (supplied as part of the documents to the LVT), page 4:

".there are 5 people who have not paid and the vast majority are in agreement with the specification, tender and cost of the works involved."

"They are concerned that one lessee is delaying the implementation of the works and also possibly increasing the costs to those lessees that have already paid their contributions due to the time delay and increase costs required by Killby and Gayford"

In the same letter, Ms Hathaway also made what appear to me to be libellous, scurrilous comments in relation to the person who was running the Residents Association, as she wrote:

"The Residents association did not want to go ahead with the external redecorations pending the outcome of the original planning application submitted in 1998 despite our informing them that works were required"

Easy to blame this person as, by then, Mr Ladsky had succeeded in making her leave the block due to making her endure appalling harassment and intimation (See Head Residents Association and Notices by landlord)

In the case of Mr Andrew Ladsky , his lies against me are captured under point 50 of the LVT report :

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

"31 or 32 of the 35 tenants have paid their contribution towards the major works . They are, therefore, in agreement with both the scope and cost of the proposed refurbishment. Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works, it must surely follow that if the overwhelming majority of lessees in the building are ad idem, some considerable weight must be given to their collective view.

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

In tandem with Martin Russell Jones and its client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, Mr Brian Gale played a key part in supplying false and therefore defamatory information against me to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal

Mr Brian Gale also played an active part in feeding false information to the tribunal with the intention of discrediting me. Among others, in his 24 February 2003 " Expert report" to the tribunal, under point 2.03, he wrote:

"At this stage [at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing], of the 35 flats within the block, 11 Lessees had already paid the relevant service charge, a further 10 had partly paid and had promised to pay the balance and were not in disagreement.

Of the remaining tenants, only the 5 attending as Respondents had indicated any objection to payment of the service charge, reasonableness of the works or their cost" (See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal section for the reason on the relatively low attendance by leaseholders)

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

Point 5.02 - "It would therefore appear. that only one lone tenant continues to make any representation or objection of the 35 tenants"

5.04 - "The vast majority of the tenants in this block have been fully and completely consulted throughout all stages of the procedure, are in full and complete agreement and have paid substantially, or entirely, for the works and improvements (NB: !!!) to take place" .

Mr Gale also lied under point 2.10 as he wrote that

".A copy of my Expert Report to the LVT.was sent, by first class post direct to Ms Dit-Rawé. "

In actual fact it was hand-delivered post 18 December 2002. As can be seen at the back of the report , the stamp on the envelop was not franked.

(I wrote a reply to Mr Gale, dated 13 March 2003 , which was handed to the LVT Panel by my Counsel on 28 April 2003)

The above were lies - as evidenced by the glaringly obvious :

•  Exactly one month after the pre-trial hearing, i.e. on 29 November 2002 , CKFT filed a claim against 11 leaseholders , representing 14 flats , in West London County Court for the full amount demanded. (The claim includes some the leaseholders who had attended the 14 November 2002 meeting).

•  Five days before Mr Ladsky's letter of 28 April 2003 to the tribunal (referred to under point 50 of the LVT report ) Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, had, in his 23 May 2003 application to West London County Court for a Case Management Conference stated ongoing action against four leaseholders. This is captured under point 1.1.1.47 in the summary of my complaint and under points 168, 182 and 183 in the main body.

•  In addition, as stated in the last part of point 50 of the LVT report : "On the last day of the hearing a legal representative for another lessee in the subject property attended to say that her client was also unhappy about the service charges demanded of the proposed works"

The "legal representative" was Ms McLean, Piper Smith Basham , who had written in a letter dated 9 April 2003 to my then solicitors

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

•  Indications are that another leaseholder, Defendant number 9 is not mentioned on the 23 May 2003 application filed by Mr Silverstone as, when I went to West London County Court on 31 March 2004, initially I was told that a judgement had been entered against me on 18 March 2004. Eventually I was told "No, the judgement is not against you, it's against Defendant number 9" (See Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

In the context of the above, consider the 26 March 2004 letter from Ms Hathaway to "All Lessees" i.e.NINE MONTHS AFTER the tribunal had issued its determination:

"Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees..."

While, I again stress that I am not a lawyer, I conclude that lying to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal - which is part of the English legal system - amounts to a breach of:

•  Ch. 41, s.17 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 which requires "the proper and efficient administration of justice"

•  Civil Procedures Rules, Overriding Objective "enabling the court to deal with the case justly"

The latter is also relevant in relation to the fact that, by filing the - FALSE - claim against me - which she signed under a Statement of Truth (*) - Ms Hathaway played a critical part in placing me in a situation of double jeopardy - as I captured under point 1.1.1.8.2 in the summary of my complaint and under points 101 and 102 in the main body. (*) (see My Diary 9 March 2007 about the serious breach of CPR in relation to a 'managing agent' signing a statement of truth)

I also conclude, as captured under point 1.4 in the summary of my complaint and points 88 and 200   in the main body that Ms Hathaway's threat of proceedings (her 20 September 2002 letter) and filing of the claim against me in court - which she signed - when, in fact, I had been told by a tribunal to not pay , amount to her committing a breach of :

•  Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail 

OUTCOME FROM THE RICS: NOTHING TO DO WITH US

Consider that in the summary of my complaint, I specifically referred to Ms Hathaway filing the false claim against me in court, her threat of litigation, and her false claims about supplying me with the priced specification in the context of the RICS Core Values. In particular, under point 1.2.1 I headed with the RICS Core Value #1 - "Acting with integrity" , and under point 1.2.2 Core Value # 2 - "To always be honest"

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

 

(15) In addition to making the false claims to the tribunal, as a means of putting pressure on me (and other objectors to the service charge demand), Ms Hathaway was also falsely claiming that other leaseholders had paid the service charge

In her 20 September 2002 letter to me, Ms Hathaway stated, " As other lessees have paid their contribution."

It was, yet again, a lie as, two months later, she filed a claim in West London County Court against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats. (Indications are that, at the time, these represented a major proportion of the flats not connected with the ownership of the block).

While she had filed the claim two weeks previously against 11 leaseholders representing 14 flats, in the 'Mr Ladsky style' letter of 16 December 2002 (in response to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT) Ms Hathaway 'wrote'

".the tenants in the block, the vast majority of whom have paid ." .

This is pathological lying to the extreme , or as I captured under point 1.2.2.6 in the summary of my complaint "mythomaniacs, in a state of permanent denial" .

Perhaps Ms Hathaway believes that I am blind or illiterate and therefore unable to see the list of names on the 29 November 2002 court claim - which, she, herself, filed in court. (I received the claim on 4 December i.e. before her 16 December letter)

Of course, she was feeding the same story to other leaseholders , as evidenced for example in the 1 November 2002 letter Leaseholder F sent me.

"I have received numerous written demands for payment and had also been told on the phone that all other leaseholders had paid the service charge demands, which was obviously not the case"

She continued to make this claim three months after she had filed the claim, as evidenced in 'her' i.e. Mr Ladsky's letter of 4 March 2003 (supplied as part of the documents to the LVT):

(page 4) ".there are 5 people who have not paid and the vast majority are in agreement with the specification, tender and cost of the works involved."

"They are concerned that one lessee is delaying the implementation of the works and also possibly increasing the costs to those lessees that have already paid their contributions due to the time delay and increase costs required by Killby and Gayford"

Against the above, consider that ONE YEAR AFTER this letter, in her 26 March 2004 letter to "All Lessees", Ms Hathaway wrote:

"Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all (NB!!!) lessees..."

My assessment of principally Ms Hathaway, but also Mr Martin as "mythomaniacs" is captured in the context of the RICS Core Value # 2 - "To always be honest"

I also referred to the "double dealing" under point 1.2.3, Core value # 3 - "To be open and transparent in all dealings"

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

 

 

(16) With the support of Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor, Martin Russell Jones falsely claimed to the courts that the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination, ref. #992 on the LVT database, had been implemented

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

The LVT's failure to perform its legal remit by not including the impact of its determination on the global sum demanded proved of great assistance to 'Steel Services' aka Andrew Ladsky as my battle raged on with CKFT.

At the West London County Court hearing on 24 June 2003 , 10 minutes before seeing the judge, Mr Silverstone , CKFT, handed me three documents I had not seen previously (My Diary 24 June 2003). They included a " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 Revised " produced by Martin Russell Jones for which, in my case (and that of the other five leaseholders listed on the document), the original sum demanded was reduced by just 24.19% - in my case, amounting to £10,917 (US$19,250) .

He did not provide me with any supporting document as to how this reduction had been achieved.

The remaining two documents are a " Draft Order and Case Summary " which, among others, state: "Majority of s/c expenditure approved. Where not approved, LVT said that because lack of sufficient detail in specification rather than because outside scope or not reasonable" .   This is definitely not true (as demonstrated earlier)

On 15 July 2003 I wrote to West London County Court

"Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones are not complying with the decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" ,

and detailed the main points of my surveyor's assessment of the LVT's determination.

It led Mr Silverstone to write to the judge

"For current purposes we wish to record the fact that figures quoted in Ms Rawé's letter are wrong".

With his correspondence of 17 July 2003 Mr Silverstone enclosed "Part III" of the specifications for the works with "Revised price" written as heading. My surveyor determined that there had been a small reduction relative to the document handed to me at the 24 June 2003 hearing.

Hence, it still fell very far short of the LVT determination . In addition, there was no supporting evidence as to how the sums had been arrived at (consequently amounting to a breach of my statutory rights, as well as breach of covenant).

Yet again, in my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County Court (copied to CKFT), I pointed out that the LVT determination had not been implemented (and supplied copy of documents in support of my claim). (WLCC # 10, CKFT # 3 )

In her 6 August 2003 application for a hearing (signed under a Statement of Truth) Ms Ayesha Salim stated (CKFT # 6.6 ),

"We CKFT intend to apply for an Order that (1) There be Judgement for the Claimant against the Second Defendant and Fifth Defendant under CPR Part 24.2 (2) The Defendants do pay the Claimant's costs of those proceedings. Because the Claimant believes that the Defendants have no real prospects of successfully defending the Claim and the Claimant knows of no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at Trial"

It also states, "Following the decision on 24th June 2003, MRJ issued a revised Major Work Apportionment setting out the revised estimate for the works and calculation of the percentages due from each of the tenants" .

The document attached to the 6 August 2003 application, " Major works apportionment 24th June 2002 revised ", demonstrates that the sum demanded of me has been revised down by 24.19% to £10,917 (US$19,250) i.e. the same amount as for the 24 June 2003 hearing. (The only difference is that in this instance the document covers the 35 flats (apartments), which was the total number at the time).

Consequently, given the glaringly obvious - supported by my surveyor's assessment of 31 July 2003 that the LVT determination had not been reflected in the document produced for the 24 June 2003 hearing (and, in any case, a Section 20 Notice had not been issued following the determination), it follows that the information supplied to the court on Martin Russell Jones headed paper, by Ms Salim - under a Statement of Truth - was not true (CKFT # 6.6 )

In the summary of my complaint , I referred to this under points 1.2.2.6 (a), 1.2.7.2.2 and in the main body of my complaint - with I supported with evidence - under points 188, 199 and 239.

My 'non-lawyer' assessment, captured under point 1.4.1 in the summary of my complaint is that it amounts to a breach of:

•  Section 16(1) of the Theft Act 1968 : ". by any deception dishonestly obtaining for. another any pecuniary advantage."

Under which I captured (point 1.4.1.1): " MRJ-its client has obtained from me (and other residents) monies that were not due and payable under the terms of my lease and as per the 17 June 2003 LVT determination by denying the true legal position and by supporting its client's false claims as the LVT determination was not implemented"

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

This is in spite of stating in its 10 June 2005 reply

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

Consider that in the summary of my complaint I specifically referred to the false information supplied by Martin Russell Jones to the courts under point 1.2.2. I headed with the RICS Core Value # 1 - "To always be honest"

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

 

(17) Further proof that Martin Russell Jones-its client opted to ignore the 17 June 2003 LVT determination

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

Supporting evidence that, in fact, the LVT determination was, in effect, ignored can be seen in the letter sent by Mr Barrie Martin, Martin Russell Jones, dated 2 August 2004 i.e. on the same day that the last leaseholder (5th Defendant) 'capitulated' in Wandsworth County Court (WLCC # 14).

•  Deceptively, Mr Barrie Martin omitted to do the calculations, including not mentioning the 11% management fee: the total sum demanded is in fact £669,937 (US$1.181 million) making a difference of only £66,269 (US$113,732) relative to the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3 million) - or nine percent less (when in fact it should be less 68%).

•  He also states, " At this stage we will not require further monies from you." In other words, the intention is to come back and ask for further monies - which is exactly what happened in my case (see below).

I referred to the above in the summary of my complaint under points 1.1.1.27.3,   1.1.1.29.1,   1.1.1.35.3, 1.1.1.41.2 and 1.1.1.41.3.

In the main body of my complaint, I specifically discussed it under point 250 and supplied Mr Martin's letter as supporting evidence. In addition, under this point, as well as under points 230, 231 and 234 I discussed events in relation to the 5th Defendant, as well as supplied correspondence from the courts, including the 2 August 2004 court order against this Defendant.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

This is in spite of stating in its 10 June 2005 reply

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

Further evidence that the 17 June 2003 LVT determination was not implemented:

•  One of the major items on which the LVT said to be unable to make a determination due to lack of specification was the boiler ( points 38, 46 and 16.07 ).   The sum demanded for the boiler was £117,153 (US$207,000) (£89,824 (US$158,000) excluding VAT and management fees). Furthermore, the need to replace the boilers had actually been questioned by the tribunal during the hearing ( points 23 and 16.07 )

•  Evidence of significant 'messing around' with the water system is also suggested by Ms Hathaway's letter of 16 December 2004 , in which she stated that ".the property needs to have a storage tank for water in the basement. following reduction in the water pressure by Thames Water" (NB: !!!)

It seems to me that the more likely explanation is that the water tank on the roof was removed in order to build the penthouse flat. Placing the tank in the basement has led to a significant drop in pressure. In addition, the four new flats that have been added during the course of the works are placing extra demand on the water supply.

OUTCOME: In its 4 November 2005 reply the RICS stated that it "will not entertain any correspondence that brings new matters into the frame"

So much for saying in its 10 June 2005 reply

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

 

(18) Martin Russell Jones ignored the £6,350 (US$11,200) payment I had made, through the courts, for the major works, following its client's 'offer' and subsequently sent me unsupported service charge demands which, by June 2006, totalled £44,246 (US$78,000)

(Subsequent note: see Portner and Jaskel for update: claim filed against me in 2007 - and the outcome in June 2008)

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

While I fully accepted the LVT determination, Steel Services did not as it kept challenging it - while not taking the step defined under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - as can be seen below.

From liaising with my then solicitors, Piper Smith Basham/Watton, CKFT and its client realised that I was prepared to go to trial over this action: I had written a Witness Statement and was appointing a barrister.   It is my belief that this triggered the 21 October 2003 'offer' from Mr Ladsky (CKFT # 6.8 ; My Diary 22 October 2003)

The 'offer' , written by Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, was for £6,350 (US$11,200) vs. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400).   In 'typical style', there is also a demand for £143 (US$250) of interest ( !!! ).

In spite of my repeatedly saying, including to the courts, that the LVT determination had very clearly not been implemented, Ms Ayesha Salim, still made the same false claim (as she had done in her 6 August 2003 application for a hearing) in the 21 October 2003 ' offer ', as the 'offer' starts with

"Our client maintains that as a result of the LVT decision dated 17 June 2003, it is entitled to payment from your client of the sum of £10,917.27"

In other words, the same amount claimed at the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearings. This is not true .

What must also be noted in this letter is the comment that

".our client has, once again (NB:!!!) , reviewed the revised apportionment."

i.e. evidence that it is its client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, who kept on challenging the LVT determination.

In light of events with CKFT , Piper Smith Basham and Mr Gallagher at the time of the offer (I went through sheer, utter hell with them), in addition to prior events with West London County Court (see the sections for detail), in December 2003, I took back control of my case.

In my 19 December 2003 correspondence to CKFT I accepted Steel Services' ' offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the major works (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - except the demand for £143 (US$250) of interest - and included full payment with my reply .

Consequently, with the previous payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing, I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200).

Although, legally, I did not even owe this sum, by then, I was - literally near collapse (My Diary from 28 October 2003 to November 2003, November 2003, December 2003 and Christmas 2003). Hence, my priority was to put an end to this horrendous nightmare, as well as protect myself from further demands.

In my 19 December 2003 letter I stated that I was accepting the 'offer' "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end" In my 31 December 2003 letter to Ms Hathaway I informed her that I had made the payment.

I should have known better that what I was hoping to achieve is like trying to take a bone away from a dog - and an extremely vicious one at that.  

As I captured in my complaint under point 1.1.1.27.1:

"As a result of blackmail and intimidation tactics the 'colluding tripartite' comprising of MRJ, Mr Brian Gale and CKFT has obtained for its client payment from me - over a year ago - of the sum of £6,350 in payment for the 'major works' (for which the Consent Order was endorsed by West London County Court on 1 July 2004).

"This amount includes the sum of £1,735.74 which is not justified, based on the 17June 2003 LVT determination - which MRJ has not implemented.   As to the reminder of the sum, payment could not be asked as the demand was not supported by certified year-end accounts"

I stand by this in the same way that I stand by everything else I stated in my complaint - as well as in all my other complaints covered on this site.

Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004 .

Ms Ayesha Salim, (CKFT), stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted. It is also evidenced by Ms Salim's comment at the 28 May 2004 hearing. In addition, in her 15 June 2004 letter, she stated having sent it to the court for approval and sent me a copy with her correspondence of 14 July 2004 .

Due to what can only be described as an act of vengeance , three months later I received an invoice from Martin Russell Jones, dated 21 October 2004, with a "Brought forward balance" of £14,500 (US$25,600) - without any explanation whatsoever. I did not respond.

Another invoice followed one month later, dated 16 November 2004, from Martin Russell Jones, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,500 (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever . I did not acknowledge them and, consequently, did not pay anything.

Please note that, in my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously , I wrote to Ms Hathaway:

"I have submitted to CKFT full and final payment of my share of the costs for carrying out all the major works at Jefferson House (£6,350.85) (US$11,200)"

I also hold the view that Martin Russell Jones and Mr Andrew Ladsky - who is clearly the instigator - have, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, you would think that somebody with two brain cells, facing somebody like me - who had nonetheless paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) that was not due and payable - would have backed-off (My Diary 11 March 2007)

Such is the profile of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides, the extent of their arrogance and greed - and their justified belief in the supporting infrastructure to the barbaric, feudal residential leaseahold system e.g. My Diary 6 May 2008.

While I ignored the invoices, they triggered my decision to file a complaint against CKFT and Martin Russell Jones.

In January 2006 , I received another invoice from Martin Russell Jones, dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided .

It also includes a sum of £814 (US$1,435) advanced payment for the first half of 2006. Among others, this "estimated expenditure" is FRAUDULENT as, since 31 January 2006, a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises Limited has been added, and controls the last floor. (See Owners identity and Pridie Brewster for detail)

It has been followed in June 2006 with an invoice stating a " Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200).   As with the prior invoices: no explanation as to the composition of the sum.

The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase £2,995 (US$5,281) over the 9 January 2006 invoice, which states a half-yearly service charge in advance of £815 (US$1,435). As can be seen from the 30 June pack , my half-yearly service charge BEFORE the addition of four new flats , including a penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of the top floor, and before the complete overhaul of Jefferson House was £680 (US$1,200).

What else is going to be dropped on me 'with the compliments of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides, Martin Russell Jones'?

(Subsequent note: see Portner and Jaskel for update: claim filed against me in 2007 - and the outcome in June 2008... which provides the absolute seal to the evidence that the threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)

 

What will happen in relation to these unjustified demands?

One potential scenario was supplied by a reader of the Winter 2005 issue of the Leaseholder in which my case was reported (in relation to events with the accountants, Pridie Brewster ) and mentioned Martin Russell Jones. As can be seen from the reader's email to C.A.R.L., the person used to live in Princess Court , a block 'managed' by Martin Russell Jones. The person wrote

"This firm 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"

In the summary of my complaint, I refer to my £6,350 (US$11,200) payment and the subsequent invoices under points 1.1.1.28 in the context of the RICS Code Rule 11.28 '.deduction from subsequent charges', 1.1.1.48 in relation to Rule 14.25 'If S.20 requirements have not been complied with, any amounts cannot be taken into account in determining the amount of service charges', 1.1.1.49,   1.4.1.2. and 1.5.1.2, as well as in the conclusions.

In the main body of my complaint, I referred to these - and supplied supporting evidence - under points 207, 209, 212, 223, 227, 251, 252, 259 and 260.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

 

 

(19) With the assistance of West London County Court, SEVEN leaseholders were made to pay the service charge one month BEFORE the tribunal issued its determination

One thing for sure is that, with the assistance of West London County Court seven leaseholders were made to pay BEFORE the LVT issued its 17 June 2003 LVT/007/120/02 determination, ref. #992 on the LVT database.

This is evidenced by the 23 May 2003 application for a Case Management Conference, by Mr Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT # 6.3 ) to West London County Court # 6:

"As you are aware we are solicitors for the Claimant. The Claimant has obtained judgment or settled proceedings against all Defendants, except the following".

The list states the 1st , 2nd , 5th and 7th Defendant. (WLCC # 6 ; # 14 )

As there were 11 leaseholders listed on the 29 November 2002 claim, it provides incontrovertible evidence ( "has obtained judgement") that West London County Court was instrumental in making seven leaseholders pay before the LVT issued its determination. (The LVT dated its report 17 June 2003).

Hence, West London County Court totally ignored the fact that leaseholders had very specifically been told by the Tribunal on 29 October 2002, to NOT PAY (pg 5) - until it had issued its determination - and it had therefore been implemented.

Consider also the case of the last, valiant leaseholder (5th Defendant) who 'caved in' the following year in another court, Wandsworth County Court . However, as suggested by the evidence, on entirely different terms from those determined by the LVT (WLCC # 14).

Indeed, the 2 August 2004 Order from Wandsworth County Court states: payment of the sum of " £4,538 (US$8,000) being the balance of the sums claimed, plus " the Claimant's costs of these proceedings.", plus "the sum of £548 (US$970) to the Claimant being the interest due on the sums claimed"

As, on 26 August 2003 the 5th Defendant had agreed to pay the sum of £8,839 (US$15,600), it suggests that, in total, the 5th Defendant was made to pay practically as much - if not more - than the original sum demanded of £15,637 (US$27,600). (WLCC # 6 ; WCC # 2)

As detailed previously in the context of Mr Martin's letter of 2 August 2004, I captured events in relation to the 5th Defendant under points 230, 231, 234 and 250 in the main body of my complaint.

In the context of the above, consider the following:

•  During the 24 June 2003 hearing, the judge told Mr Silverstone, CKFT, that he was "wasting my time and the court's time. The LVT report has just been issued. You need to give the Defendants time to review it" (leading the judge to award costs to me (and the other leaseholders present))

•  Point 64, page 15 of the 17 June 2003 determination ".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..."

•  The LVT's 21 July 2003 reply to Mr Silverstone's letter of 17 July 2003 ,

"It is not the duty of the Tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness , or otherwise of the service charges as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant "

In other words, while I ended-up being the only leaseholder challenging the application (and none of the other leaseholders have contributed to my £30,000 (US$53,000) LVT costs), it does not alter the fact that the determination applies to the whole block.

Hence, Steel Services cannot charge differentially, other than on the basis of individual leaseholders' fixed percentage share of the service charge (West London County Court # 9 )

In my complaint, under point 141, I specifically drew attention to point 64 in the LVT report and, under point 193, I drew attention to the 21 July 2003 reply from the LVT - of which I enclosed a copy.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

 

Further evidence that the calculation of the service charges payable by individual leaseholders is based on a fixed global sum to which the relevant fixed percentage share is applied, is also found in:

•  Ms Hathaway's 30 August 2002 letter "The amount demanded is as the terms of the lease. There is no separate list. Details of the percentages are included in the schedules to previous accounts.   The sum demanded is based on the percentage of your lease, which is 1.956%..."

 

 

•  Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones supplied these percentages with the application to the LVT. They are also clearly evidenced, among others by the documents supplied to West London County Court by CKFT, for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearing.

In relation to Martin Russell Jones-its client not having the right to charge leaseholders differentially, I captured this in the summary of my complaint under point 1.2.2.5. I did this in the context of a section I headed with the RICS Core Value #2 - "To always be honest"

In the main body of my complaint, I captured it under points 111, 184 and 234 under which I drew attention to the fact that the amount payable by each leaseholder is based on a fixed percentage share - and supplied the RICS with a copy of the 7 August 2002 application to the LVT, of Ms Hathaway's 30 August 2002 letter and of the "Major works apportionments" calculations supplied on Martin Russell Jones headed paper to the courts for the 24 June 2003 and 26 August 2003 hearings,

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

 

 

(20) In breach of the lease, the contingency fund was not taken into consideration in the service charge demand to other leaseholders

Although the LVT said to not have the jurisdiction to force Steel Services to use the contingency fund, considering Clause 2(2)(e) of the lease (captured under point 59 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report), under point 62 the LVT quotes from the RICS Code.

While, under point 63, it argues that

" The wording of the clause relating to the contingency fund or reserve fund in the lease is unambiguous.   It refers to costs expenses and outgoings "not being of an annually recurring nature", and as such surely envisages the type of works proposed at the subject property.

. the Tribunal considers it inequitable that this fund should not be used in part to fund the works, and cannot accept Mr Warwick's (Steel Services) contention that to divest or reduce the contingency fund would be "wrong"

The refusal to use the contingency fund amounted to a change of position relative to Ms Hathaway's 7 June 2001 letter to "All Lessees" in which she wrote

" At present, there is approximately £125,000.00 (US$220,400) in the Reserve Fund, but in view of the scope of works required to be carried out it is anticipated that the sum will be inadequate to meet the costs.  

This means that once the Specifications have been prepared and estimates obtained, a Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Notice will be served on you giving details of the additional payment required from you. "

The 16 December 2002 'Mr Ladsky's style' letter sent under Ms Hathaway's name (in reply to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT) stated: "The existing sinking fund is to be kept in reserve for potential future expenditure which can arise. We believe it to be prudent housekeeping to have a sum available to carry out emergency works and ongoing maintenance"

While in his 7 August 2003 letter (to my solicitor of a few hours) Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, argued against the tribunal's view that his client was under no obligation to use the contingency fund, Ms Ayesha Salim nonetheless opted to take it into consideration in the 21 October 2003 'offer' to me from Steel Services, as she wrote:

" . our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund to reduce the total figure and." (CKFT # 6.3 )

I believe the reason CKFT's client opted to take it into consideration was because I had highlighted to Piper Smith Basham in September 2003 the 7 June 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway.

It can be safe to assume, considering, among others, the word "notionally" , that the contingency fund was not taken into consideration in relation to, at least, some of the other leaseholders. This is WRONG .

NOTE at end August 2006 - YES! I WAS RIGHT! 9 out of the 14 flats on the claim ended-up paying the full amount demanded + a further 16 flats also paid the full amount - Pridie Brewster # 18

Nowhere does the lease state that usage of the fund as contribution towards the service charge is dependent on leaseholders' amount of backbone and courage to fight for it.

In my complaint, I captured the issue in relation to the contingency fund under point 1.1.1.1 in the summary of my complaint, in the context of the RICS Code Rule 10 'Reserve Funds', and under points 143 - 150 in the main body of my complaint - while providing supporting evidence.

In relation to not being able to charge leaseholders differentially, I captured this, among others under point 1.2.2.5 for which I headed the section with the RICS Core Value # 2 "To always be honest"

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

 

 

In addition to making false claims to the tribunal, Ms Hathaway also made false claims to the courts

 

(21) Ms Hathaway claimed - under a Statement of Truth - that I owed monies that were not due and payable

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

In relation to the 29 November 2002 Particulars of Claim signed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth - in the summary of my complaint under point 1.2.2.2, I wrote:

"Joan Hathaway knowingly made statements that were untrue - as she claimed that I owed the sum of £14,400 - and accompanied these by signing a 'Statement of Truth' all with the objective of obtaining monies that were not due and payable"

As explained above, not only had the tribunal specifically told me (and other leaseholders) to NOT PAY (pg 5) the service charge until it had issued its report and it had therefore been implemented, when it did issue it - SEVEN MONTHS after the claim was filed in West London County Court , the impact of its determination was to reduce the global sum demanded by nearly 70%.

Under the next point (1.2.2.4), I highlighted

"Also under the same 'Statement of Truth' JH claimed that I owed various electricity charges. The sum allegedly owed was false as (i) the claim was full of errors (ii) despite numerous requests, JH had not provided me with details of some of the components of the claim"

In the main body of my complaint, under points 107, 154, 157, 209 and 241 I extracted the text from the Particulars of Claim signed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth.

And of course, I also supplied the RICS with, among others, my defence to the claim.

My 'non-lawyer' assessment led me to conclude that in filing the false claim in court, which she had signed - in addition to this claim being an abuse of process of court (as the same action was being pursued, concurrently under the LVT, which is another part of the legal system) amounts to Ms Hathaway and CKFT committing - "under instructions from their client" Mr Ladsky - breaches of :

•  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Chp. 41 s.17 which requires "the proper and efficient administration of justice"

•  Civil Procedures Rules 1 1.1 "enabling the court to deal with the case justly"; 1.3 "The parties are required to help the court further the overriding objective"

Furthermore, as the motive in filing this false claim was very clearly to bully and intimidate me (and other leaseholders) into paying monies not due and payable, it also amounts to a breach by Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor of:

•  the Malicious Communications Act 1988

•  the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

•  the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail

Also a breach of the Defamation Act

 

Among others, I captured this in my complaint under point 1.6 which I headed: "Having committed criminal offences (punishable under UK law), MRJ also committed offences under the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 " - under which I included:

1.6.1.4     "Knowing receipt" - Dishonest assistance to a trustee by assisting, with knowledge, in a fraudulent and dishonest design on the part of the trustees".   MRJ committed this offence on the basis that, as defined under Section 42 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, a landlord is the trustee of the account(s) in which tenants' service charge contributions are paid - and on the basis of the aforementioned offences"

 

I referred to the abuse of process of court under point 101 - 102 of my complaint, yet again drawing attention to the fact that I (and other leaseholders) had specifically been told by the tribunal to not pay the service charge demanded until it had reached a decision - and it had been implemented.

Under points 104 - 108 I explained the detail of the claim filed by Ms Hathaway, stating:

"Hence, Ms Hathaway filed a totally false claim against me"

Consider that, in the summary of my complaint I also captured Ms Hathaway's action in the context of the RICS Core Values, namely, under point 1.2.1, I headed with the RICS Core Value # 1 - "Acting with integrity" , and under point 1.2.2., under which I captured the RICS Core Value #2 - "To always be honest"

OUTCOME FROM THE RICS: NOTHING TO DO WITH US

 

 

 

(22) Ms Hathaway falsely claimed - under a Statement of Truth - that the lease supplied with the West London County Court claim was the same as my lease. Consequently, she falsely represented to the court my contractual obligations

The 29 November 2002 Particulars of Claim drawn-up by CKFT against me and 10 other leaseholders and filed in West London County Court - under a 'Statement of Truth' (*) - states:

"The Claimant attaches to these Particulars of Claim (i) a copy of the lease of flat 23 which contains covenants in the same terms as all the leases ."

(Subsequent note: In 2007 I discovered that under Civil Procedure Rules, the fact that West London County Court proceeded with the claim for which the statement of truth was signed by Ms Hathaway, MRICS, "who manages the property", amounts to a very serious breach of the rules ( See My Diary 9 March 2007 )

This is NOT TRUE , as I highlighted in my 17 December 2002 defence to the claim "Part of my lease is different from that supplied to the County Court" .   Indeed, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) 'apparently' for flat 23 , is materially different from mine in relation to this clause , as it reads:

" The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor) of the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the Lessor during such financial year in respect of the heads of expenditure particulars whereof are set out in the Fourth Schedule" .

Whereas Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) in my lease reads:

"The amount of the Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the Lessor during such financial year in respect of the heads of expenditure particulars whereof are set out in the Fourth Schedule hereto by the aggregate of the rateable value (in force at the end of such year) of all the flats in the Building (excluding the Porter's flat) the repair maintenance renewal insurance or servicing whereof is charged in such calculation as aforesaid and then multiplying the resultant amount by the rateable value (in force at the same date) of the Flat"

The Clause in the lease (apparently) for flat 23 is, in my view, equivalent to saying:   "Give your cheque book to the landlord who will write himself a cheque for an amount of his choice" I find it extremely difficult to believe that a leaseholder would agree to such outrageously unfair contract terms .

(NB: My highlighting in my defence that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine led Mr Silverstone, CKFT to request, in his 23 January 2003 letter, a copy of my lease. (As can be seen from the attached, I complied with this request). Hence, CKFT only obtained a copy of my lease two months after it had drawn-up the claim against me stating that the lease supplied with the claim "contains covenants in the same terms as all the leases " ) (CKFT # 6.7 )

I referred to this in the summary of my complaint under point 1.2.2.3 in the context of the RICS Core Value #2 "To always be honest" .

In the main body of my complaint, under points 107, 154, 157, 209 and 241 I extracted the text from the Particulars of Claim signed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth. While under points 109 and 110 I captured the above extracts from my lease and that 'apparently' for flat 23.

OUTCOME FROM THE RICS: NOTHING TO DO WITH US

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values. This is in spite of stating in its 1 March 2005 letter:

"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" .

Evidently, this excludes Martin Russell Jones.

 

 

(23) Ms Hathaway did the same thing with the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal by falsely claiming that the lease supplied with 7 August 2002 application was the same as my lease

I captured this under point 110 of my complaint to the RICS by stating:

"Subsequent to writing my defence to the County Court claim, I discovered that the lease provided to the LVT by Ms Hathaway - which is apparently for flat 22 - also contains, under Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) the same terms as detailed above for flat 23 (LVT # 8.1.4 )

(NB. "Same terms" i.e. " The amount of Service Charge payable by the Lessee for each financial year of the Lessor shall be a fair proportion (to be determined by and at the sole discretion of the Lessor) ." - which is most definitely not what my lease states under the same Clause)

In my complaint, I followed this by highlighting:

The LVT application form requires ". a specimen lease together with a statement specifying any relevant differences between respective flats, or confirming that they are all the same".  

No statement was entered on the form (see Ms Hathaway's 7 August 2002 application to the LVT)

This requirement, entered on the LVT form, comes from Section 19(B) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 "Content of landlord's application for determination of reasonableness of service charge" (It is the result of Statutory Instrument number 1853 which came into force on 1 September 1997). It states:

6. (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), a copy of the lease or leases.

6. (2) Where the application relates to more than one dwelling and the leases or other documents and the demands for payment of the service charge for each such dwelling are in the same or substantially the same terms, the applicant need not provide such documents for each dwelling providing that the applicant does provide a specimen lease or other document and demand for payment accompanied by a statement -

(a) specifying those respects in which such documents differ from the corresponding documents for all the other dwellings concerned in the application , and

(b) confirming that in all other respects such documents are the same.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of statutory requirements, as well as its Core Values. This is in spite of stating in its 1 March 2005 letter:

"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" .

Evidently, this excludes Martin Russell Jones.

 

(24) Martin Russell Jones (like CKFT) will not even stop at demanding monies and threatening prosecution on behalf of a company which, the evidence suggests, did not exist at the time

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

Sections 1 and 2 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 refer to tenants statutory rights to be provided with the identity of the landlord, as well as the name and address of every director and secretary of the landlord.

As leaseholders requests to Ms Hathaway were being ignored, in mid-2001, some leaseholders approached Nucleus, our local Citizen Advice Bureau, in order to help us enforce our statutory rights.

Detail of events are included under the section Owners identity. As explained under the section, by August 2002, the outcome of the various searches undertaken by myself, the Tenancy Relations Officer at the Kensington & Chelsea Council housing department, and previously by Nucleus, our local Citizen Advice Bureau, had led to a 'nil' return: there was no record of Steel Services in the UK .

Indeed, (among others), as the Land Registry had replied to Nucleus on 10 October 2001 "Steel Services Limited is in fact an overseas company and therefore does not have a companies registration number"

Based on events and findings which, among others, resulted in Ms Hathaway stating to the Tenancy Relations Officer that Steel Services was registered in the British Virgin Islands, I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that the evidence suggests that Martin Russell Jones (and CKFT) were, at least for a while, claiming to be acting on behalf of a company that did not exist .

Ms Hathaway:

•  Was demanding and receiving money 'on behalf of 'Steel Services' ' e.g. the 17 July 2002 service charge demand.

•  She filed the 7 August 2002 application in the LVT in the name of 'Steel Services' - the DAY BEFORE the 8 August 2002 reply from the BVI that Steel Services had "been struck-off the register" .

•  She threatened me with prosecution in her 20 September 2002 letter in the name of "our client, Steel Services Limited" (while Mr Lanny Silverstone was, among others, threatening me with forfeiture and prosecution " on behalf of Steel Services" in his 7 October 2002 letter - CKFT # 6.9 ).

Events are captured in my complaint under points 19 - 29, as well as in the summary under point 1.6, I headed

"Having committed criminal offences (punishable under UK law), MRJ also committed offences under the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002"

Which I defined under point 1.6.1.3:

"Failing to check the identity of its client, resulting in its claims, over a period of at least three months that it was acting on behalf of Steel Services when, in fact, the evidence suggests that the company did not exist"

OUTCOME FROM THE RICS: NOTHING TO DO WITH US

In relation to Ms Hathaway repeatedly ignoring my requests (and that of other leaseholders) for the name and address of every director - as per my statutory rights under Section 2 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - in the summary of my complaint, it is captured under point 1.1.1.53. In the main body of my complaint the issue and evidence are discussed under point 20.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

 

 

(25) Both Ms Hathaway and Mr Martin also resort to the extensive use of blackmail and have absolutely no concern about making defamatory and libellous, scurrilous comments - on which, yet again, the CKFT 'enforcers', Mr Silverstone and Ms Salim, are quick to follow

(NB: Some events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

In the 'Mr Ladsky style' letter of 16 December 2002 (in reply to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT), Ms Hathaway threatened to bring to the attention of the court and of the LVT my withholding payment of service charges in the past. She wrote:

 

 

 

Under point 1.7 in the summary of my complaint, I wrote:

"MRJ has committed offences under the Defamation Act 1996 by originating and filing documents in court with my name on them that were disseminated to other residents at Jefferson House and, hence, the public at large which, it knew, contained defamatory statements about me"

In the main body of my complaint, I covered this in detail and supplied evidence under points 105, 162 - 164 and 200.

OUTCOME FROM THE RICS: NOTHING TO DO WITH US

 

Of course, Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, was at the ready to immediately backup the threat, as he stated, in his letter of 21 October 2002  

"If it becomes necessary for it to do so our client will also refer to your substantial delays in making payment of service charges and other sums during the past several years.  

Your consistent failure to pay such sums is a matter that could be taken into account by the court in considering the weight to be given to your complaints now"

As I captured under point 75 of my complaint against CKFT :

"By stating that my previous delays in paying service charges will be held against me in Court, it is abusing its position as solicitors to frighten me into paying.   In using these blackmail tactics, it has evidently not bothered to look at the evidence, opting instead to just regurgitate what its client is saying"

Under point 98 I also captured that the source of the false information to CKFT had evidently been Ms Hathaway, and stated: "In communicating this information, Ms Hathaway has failed to explain why I delayed payment of service charges in the past (or is this further evidence of collusion?)"

In the case Mr Barrie Martin , in his 4 August 2004 letter, he made false accusations against me by stating that

" [I] refused to pay [my] contribution [for the works] and this resulted in the proceedings before the LVT which of course resulted in the considerable delay in the commencement of the work" .

Given the LVT findings related earlier on in this section (see also Brian Gale and Leasehold Valuation Tribunal ), this claim is quite clearly highly defamatory, libellous and scurrilous. I suspect that this 'story' has been fed to other leaseholders.

In the summary of my complaint, under point 1.5.1.3 I specifically referred to this letter (and provided a copy to the RICS). I also referred to it under point 163 in the main body of my complaint.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

It seems that the excuse was because in the summary I captured the point under a section headed Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 and the RICS stated that criminal offences were matters for the police.

Amasing how the RICS puts the blinkers as, in this instance as in many others, it also amounts to a breach of several of the RICS' Core values: Core value # 1 - "Acting with integrity" ; Core value # 2 - "To always be honest"; Core value # 6 - "To be objective at all times" , etc.

Same conclusion again: the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

I replied to Mr Barrie Martin's letter on 8 August 2004 taking the opportunity to quote extensively from the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report, ref. #992 on the LVT database.

Mr Martin's letter was preceded by a letter from Mr Silverstone , dated 25 June 2003 :

".the costly LVT process has now resulted in a percentage uplift in the contract figure and a significant delay in the project"

Of course, not wanting to be left out, Ms Ayesha Salim also jumped on the bandwagon by stating in the 21 October 2003 'offer':

"Your client's decision to challenge the LVT decision.has caused inconvenience and expense to all the lessees of the building"

Under point 200, in the main body of my complaint, I wrote:

"Both, Ms Hathaway and CKFT continued committing criminal offences against me"

"In spite of having full knowledge of the situation - CKFT continues making false claims against me in court - with the active collaboration of Ms Hathaway - thereby leading to both continuing to commit criminal offences against me under the Theft Act 1968 / Theft (Amendment) Act 1996, the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994 [NB:I have changed my mind about this one; see my notes under the extracts from the Act], the Money Laundering Regulations / Proceeds of Crime Act 2002"

Although, as already emphasised, this is my 'non-lawyer' assessment, no doubt that if my conclusions were not correct, I would have heard from 'proceedings-happy' Martin Russell Jones (and CKFT) within days of filing the complaint against them.

In fact, like the other parts of the 'triple act' (CKFT and Mr Brian Gale ), Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS will do whatever Mr Ladsky dictates, regardless of the glaringly obvious - and very damning - evidence and facts.

In the process, they demonstrate an endless capacity for amoral conduct, matched by an equally endless amount of gall .

A more recent correspondence from Mr Barrie Martin is a perfect example of this.

I consider that the 19 October 2005 letter from Mr Brian Gale amounts to an admission of lack of proper supervision of the contractors :

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

Mr Gale sent a follow-up letter dated 16 March 2006, starting with

"The standard of workmanship undertaken by Mansells has not been acceptable."

On 29 March 2006 I captured my reply on the letter, stating, among others:

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

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

"He has once again, demonstrated his incompetence (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination of 17 June 2003 , as well as the High Court case, Wallace vs. Brian Gale Associates, 1994-1997 )

"It also means that Martin Russell Jones has breached Rule 13.1 of the 'RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code' - "Dealing with contractors with attention to questions of economy, efficiency and quality of service"

Of course, Mr Gale replied, in a letter dated 3 April 2004 , arguing ".we have been administering the contract and checking the work undertaken by Mansells"

The 2 May 2006 (2.3MB) reply I received from 'Mr Barrie Martin' (i.e. Mr Andrew Ladsky ) - is hilarious . You need to look at it to believe it.

Among others, considering the very damning, overwhelming body of evidence, note the gall in the last sentence

"Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it" (ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!)

Consider this reply in the context of the evidence contained in the above 2 May 2006 pack - as well as in the context of this pack (2.4MB) containing, among others, a compilation of documents issued by Mr Brian Gale, Martin Russell and their client.  

(I assume there is a link with my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) reply to Portner and Jaskel and Mr Martin's letter of 2 May 2006. and that this is the best that Mr Ladsky can do... for the time being) (See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 for detail)

 

(26) If leaseholders protest against the breach of covenants and / or their statutory rights, Martin Russell Jones, in particular Ms Hathaway, readily threaten leaseholders with prosecution - and the 'enforcers', Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim are quick to follow with the bullying, intimidation and coercion tactics

(NB: Some events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

A leaseholder, living in a block of flats in London , was reported in the Evening Standard of 23 November 2005 as saying that his landlord

" . seem to have turned intimidatory litigation into an industry" .

The same can definitely be said about Martin Russell Jones, its client - and CKFT.

No, I will not say 'allegedly' because, any fair minded, reasonable person will agree that it is a fair comment for me to make considering the overwhelming body of evidence.

The first such instance was within weeks of Martin Russell Jones being appointed as 'managing' agents in 1989. it is evidenced by Ms Hathaway's letter of 30 October 1989

"We would inform you that unless the outstanding sums now due from you are settled, we will have no alternative than to inform our client who will no doubt take legal action against you "

Before dealing with the more recent evidence, please note that , as stated in my Witness Statement (point 6) "I have consistently agreed that repair and redecoration works are required at Jefferson House" - a fact recognised by Mr Lanny Silverstone in his letter of 24 June 2003 .

In reply to my 16 September 2002 letter pointing out that: "other than a lump I have not been provided with any cost information justifying the £14,400.19 demand" , Ms Hathaway wrote in her 20 September 2002 letter

". we have to require payment by return. if payment is not made now our client, Steel Services. will instruct solicitors to commence legal proceedings " .

She did the same thing with other residents, as evidenced by the letter from Leaseholder D who wrote to Ms Hathaway on 24 September 2002

".your letter of 20 September in which you threaten legal proceedings in the event of not receiving payment from us.

In her 28 February 2005 letter, Ms Hathaway threatened to enforce - yet again through proceedings - another breach of my lease by issuing the dictate that "from 31 March there will no longer be any rubbish collection.

"Your landlord Steele (sic) Services Ltd have told us that they will strictly enforce with legal proceedings and associated costs, if necessary, the terms of your lease without any further notice." .

(Point 5 of the Fifth Schedule of my lease does state:   "The Lessee shall not place. any refuse or rubbish. or other common part of the building." .

However, there is an 'absolute' term in my lease under Clause 5(5)(b) which states: "(The lessor) to remove each day (excepting Sundays) from the flat all domestic refuse and rubbish." - as has been done in the 25+ years I have lived in the block)

(NB: Contrast Ms Hathaway's dictate with the state of the areas by my flat (which are the responsibility of the landlord) - captured in the photos contained in these packs: broken step, filth around my flat)

Not surprisingly, Martin Russell Jones and its client's bullying and intimidation tactics usually yield the desired effect.

An example of this is the 20 October 2002 email from Leaseholder C to the LVT

"I paid a portion, approximately £17,000 (US$30,000) , 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. Living outside the UK makes it virtually impossible to allow oneself to become involved in a lawsuit."

My 'non-lawyer' assessment led me to write in the summary of my complaint, under point 1.5:

"MRJ has committed a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1994"

"Section 4A of the Act makes it a ".criminal offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress with intent by using threatening words" (NB: Subsequent note - I have changed my mind about this one. See my comments under the extracts from the Act)

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that - based on the evidence - it is a fair conclusion to arrive at.

If I were not correct in this assessment, no doubt I would have heard from 'proceedings-happy' Martin Russell Jones within days of filing the complaint.

OUTCOME FROM THE RICS: NOTHING TO DO WITH US

This includes what I captured in the summary of my complaint under point 1.2.1., quoting the RICS "Core Value#1 - "Acting with integrity" , under which I wrote, among others:

"1.2.1.1   MRJ has acted in breach of its duty as member of the RICS by acting in a way that was fraudulent and deceitful and used its position as managing agents to take unfair advantage for its client"

"1.2.1.4   MRJ has acted as a 'puppet' of its client, colluding with its client's 'other puppets' (CKFT and Mr Brian Gale), blindly implementing its client's dictates in total disregard of statutory requirements and of its obligations, as agent for the landlord, under the terms of the lease"

Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values.

The other important parties to the 'double act' have been Mr Lanny Silverstone and Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT - the 'enforcers' . For example:

•  Barely three weeks after Ms Hathaway's letter of 16 September 2002 , I received a letter, dated 7 October 2002 , from Mr Silverstone, threatening legal proceedings, including forfeiture of my lease and of contacting my mortgage lender unless Martin Russell Jones received full payment from me of the sum demanded by 10:00 a.m. on 14 October 2002. (A similar letter was sent to some of the other leaseholders)

As I wrote under point 178 of my complaint against CKFT "CKFT is very clearly a firm that will stop at nothing to assist its client in obtaining monies not due and payable...approach is preceded by the 'heavy blackmail and scare tactics' approach intended to cause alarm and distress by misrepresenting the correct legal position with the aim of frightening people into paying"

(NB: Ms McLean , Piper Smith Basham comes from the 'same mould' as, in relation to my highlighting Mr Silverstone's letter of 7 October 2002 to her in my 23 September 2003 email, in her letter to me of 25 September 2003 she wrote: "In respect of the forfeiture threat it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord or those advising the landlord to threaten forfeiture proceedings for non payment of service charges" .   Please note that, by then, she had full knowledge of my case)

•  Mr Silverstone 's 21 October 2002 letter to me "We note that you have made no proposals in respect of the major works contribution. Our client will therefore take such action as it considers appropriate to recover that sum from you."

•  Mr Silverstone 's 4 February 2003 letter to me:   ".will take injunctive steps prior to other proceedings."

•  Mr Silverstone 's 24 July 2003 letter to me: "Clearly substantial costs will be incurred if the court has to deal with the determination of this issue. We note your complete failure to respond to our repeated invitations in this regard.   In the circumstances, we reserve the right to refer to this and previous correspondence in relation to subsequent issue as to costs"

•  Mr Silverstone 's letter of 7 August 2003 to my then solicitors (of a few hours):   "You will see that we have made numerous offers to meet with your client in order to try and resolve this matter by negotiation. She has declined to accept those offers. We shall contend that this is a relevant matter in relation to the question of costs"

•  Ms Ayesha Salim 's letter of 28 May 2004 : ".we will be seeking an order for our client's costs." about which I stated under point 178 of my complaint against CKFT ".at times, abusing its position as solicitors by sending letters to frighten people at the whim of its client"

As evidenced by subsequent events, the hurry to collect the monies by resorting to blackmail, threat of litigation and forfeiture was because the amount demanded was not due and payable

(Subsequent note - I have since been further vindicated on this conclusion: the threat of forfeiture (and bankruptcy proceedings), as well as court claims = FRAUD TOOLS)

As I headed section 9.1 of my complaint against Martin Russell Jones (point 208)

"WHY DID STEEL SERVICES MAKE ME AN 'OFFER'? Why did not it instead: (1) revise the specification in light of the LVT determination;   (2) issue a Section 20 Notice: (3) provide me with the priced specification; and then (4) demand payment in a manner compliant with the terms of my lease?

As I also wrote below this point:

"I did not want an 'offer'. This is not the basis on which the service charges operate, doing a deal with one resident, another deal with another resident, and so on, and so on".  

Under the same point, I also captured extracts from my 9 August 2003 letter to the judge in West London County Court (which I copied to CKFT):  

"There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees.

Nowhere does the lease state that the share of the service charges payable by individual lessees is dependent on their amount of 'backbone' and courage to challenge a demand for money they do not owe. Their resistance to prolonged harassment and intimidation. Their determination to persist in the face of adversity and their ability to handle the resulting torment, anguish and distress"

 

(27) Like its client (and CKFT), Martin Russell Jones acts in complete disregard of statutory requirements under Landlord & Tenant legislation, as well as other legislation

In the summary of my complaint , point 1.2.7.1, a section I headed with the RICS Core Value #7 "To treat others with respect" , I wrote:

"MRJ has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does not respect residents' statutory and common law rights.

The key message is: residents you are there to feed our greed and that of our client.

And, if any of you dare to challenge us, you will dearly pay for it.

We guarantee that we and our 'associates' will make you go through utter, sheer hell. Nobody is going to stand in our way"

I more than ever stand by what I wrote

 

(28) The 'so called' "notice" of 15 July 2002 was in breach of Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 states:

"(a) At least two estimates for the works shall be obtained."

"(b) A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of the tenants or shall be displayed in the building so as to be likely to come to the notice of all the tenants..."

"(c)The notice shall describe the works to be carried out and invite observations on them and on the estimates."

As amply evidenced by the tribunal's 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 determination, ref #992 on the LVT database, the 15 July 2002 'so called' "notice" issued by Ms Hathaway did not comply with the above requirements - as can be seen by the following comment from the tribunal:

•  Point 14 - "Ms Hathaway (of Martin Russell Jones), on behalf of the Applicant, resisted the application for an adjournment. She maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification in the porter's room, but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version " .

•  Point 16 - "In the interest of justice, the Tribunal agreed to an adjournment."   (NB: As stated earlier on, the priced specification was only delivered to me 36 hours before the 5 February 2003 LVT hearing)

•  Point 44 - "The reports prepared on behalf of the Applicant and provided to the Tribunal were, in the words of [ ] , "a wish list" for refurbishment of the subject property to a high standard. They do not seem to have been prepared on behalf of the Applicant having regard to its rights and responsibilities under the lease. The Tribunal would normally expect alternative proposals to be costed and produced, in order to make a proper and considered judgement of the best way forward to meet the obligations of both the landlord and the tenants"

•  Point 46 - "In this case the Tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail in the specification and in Mr Gale's evidence. Works were not clearly identified, were not measured where they clearly could have been, and there was some element of duplication. Some items were not specified at all, e.g. the types and capacity of the boilers"

As only one - poor estimate - was obtained (or, at least supplied to the leaseholders with the 17 July 2002 demand), Martin Russell Jones breached, among others, the statutory requirement contained under Section 20(a) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 .

In the summary of my complaint I referred to the breach of statutory requirements under point 1.1.1.35 while, in the main body of my complaint , I discussed it - and provided supporting evidence - under points 67, 69, 73 - 87, 97, 108 and 206.

While under point 188 I drew attention to the fact that in the Case Summary given to me by Mr Silverstone, CKFT, at the 24 June 2003 court hearing, the comment in relation to Defendant # 7 reads: "(a) Denied s.20 notice served"

I also captured the above in the summary of my complaint in the context of the RICS' Core Values, highlighting breaches of:

•  1.2.1 Core value # 1 - "Acting with integrity" , under I wrote, among others:   1.2.1.2 "MRJ has repeatedly ignored/dismissed the fact that it acted in breach of statutory requirements"

•  1.2.2 Core value # 2 - "To always be honest" under which I wrote "JH persistently claimed over a 6 month period that I (and other residents) had been provided with a priced specification vs. what she said during the LVT hearing: "Ms Hathaway maintained that Ms Dit-Rawé had seen the specification. but was unsure as to whether this had been a priced version"

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

 

In addition to the comments captured by the LVT in its 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report, ref #992 on the LVT database, the following are comments from my surveyor (a Chartered surveyor, member of the RICS - to which I add: with a high level of integrity and professionalism) in his report to the LVT, dated 24 February 2003:

Points 6.14 and 6.15 - " In my opinion, the reason that only 3No contractors out of a possible 8No were able to provide prices.is that this specification is not clear on the extent of the work required and therefore submitting a tender would be considered a risk."

"I do not consider any judgment can be made on the priced submission by Gleesons.as a single total sum was provided with no breakdown.This should have been requested by Brian Gale Associates. A single error on CLC's tender (services section) amounted to a difference of over £250,000" (US$441,000)

"Brian Gale Associates tender report does not comment on any of the cost comparisons received by the tenderers. It is not possible.to compare the costs of the lowest two tenders. BGA did not ask for further breakdown prices to be submitted."

"None of the discussions with the contractors during the tender analysis stage have been recorded, particularly the clear reasons why Killby & Gayford increased their original submission by £112,501 " (US$198,400)

Point 6.3 - "The total value of provisional sums inserted by the contractor represents some 74% of the cost of those items where the contractor has inserted firm prices.

"The term "replace where necessary" has been used extensively in the document and is virtually unpriceable as the term is arbitrary "

In addition to which, as pointed out by my surveyor, under point 6.2 of his Expert Report, the contract form used for the invitation to tender was inappropriate for works of this size and nature. To which Mr Brian Gale replied: "I accept a JCT works contract was not acceptable here. It was an oversight on our behalf" (captured under point 32 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report)

I referred to the issue in the summary of my complaint under points 1.1.1.30 - 1.1.1.35 by stating that Martin Russell Jones had breached Rule 13.1 of the ' The RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code' - "Dealing with contractors with attention to questions of economy, efficiency and quality of service". Namely, that it had done this by allowing the very sub-standard specification produced by Mr Brian Gale to be used for the tendering process. Among others, this had the effect of severely limiting the number of tenders and of leading to disadvantageous pricing.

In the main body of my complaint, under points 138, 142, 192, 194, 198 and 199 I extracted / drew attention to the findings from my surveyors' report.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Again, I draw your attention to the RICS 1 March 2005 letter:

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

 

 

(29) Martin Russell Jones did not issue a Section 20 Notice when Mansell was appointed, and therefore can only spend £250 (US$440) of my £6,350 (US$11,200) payment on Mansell

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

In his letter dated 2 August 2004 , Mr Barrie Martin declared to leaseholders that Mansell had been appointed as the contractors to undertake the works. This firm did not tender against Killby & Gayford (for which the priced specification was the basis of the LVT proceedings).

Consequently, the 'so called' "notice" dated 15 July 2002 was invalidated and a Section 20 Notice should have been issued. This has not happened.  

I captured this in the summary of my complaint under point 1.1.1.51 in the context of the RICS Code Rule 15.2 'Consultation of leaseholders/tenants on the details of and programme for carrying out works',   as well as in the conclusions, referring to the breach of statutory requirements.

In the main body of my complaint I referred to this and the evidence under points 250 and 252. In relating events, I placed emphasis on the breach of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Once again, I draw your attention to the RICS 1 March 2005 letter:

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

Hence, I do not even know what works Mansell tendered for - although I can now see some of the outcome: the number of flats has grown from 35 to 39 flats , including the addition of a penthouse flat - across the full area of what used to be the roof of Jefferson House (For evidence of 35 flats at the start of the works see, for example, point 7 of the 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 report, ref. #992 on the LVT database). (Works home page ; photo gallery )

Consequently, under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Act, in particular the statutory instrument 2003 No 1897 (which came into force on 31 October 2003), of the £6,350 (US$11,200) I paid to Steel Services for more than two years, it can only spend £250 (US$440) on Mansell.

Martin Russell Jones-its client must therefore refund me the sum of £6,100 (US$10,760)

I communicated this in my letter to Ms Hathaway of 30 March 2005 (on which I copied the RICS)

".as you-your client opted to discard the 17 June 2003 LVT determination and have instead appointed a new contractor, Mansells - without issuing a Section 20 Notice - the 'so-called' Section 20 Notice of 2002 has been invalidated.

Because of this, under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, in particular the statutory instrument 2003 No 1897 which came into force on 31 October 2003, of the £6,350 you-your client have had from me (for over a year), you can only spend £250 on Mansells. The same applies to the other lessees"

I also included it in my complaint against Martin Russell Jones under points 1.1.1.27.3, 1.1.1.49, 252, and in the conclusions in the summary of my complaint, (as well as in my complaint against CKFT, in the summary and under point 210).

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

 

There was no follow-up by Martin Russell Jones on this - until nearly one year later: I received an invoice, dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900).

As in the case of the invoice from Martin Russell Jones, dated 21 October 2004 , with a "Brought forward balance" of £14,500 (US$25,600), and the invoice a month later, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,500 (US$27,300) - there was no with no explanation whatsoever .

It has been followed in June 2006 with an invoice stating a "Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200).   As with the prior invoices: no explanation as to the composition of the sum.

The 30 June 2006 invoice represents an increase £2,995 (US$5,281) over the 9 January 2006 invoice, which states a half-yearly service charge in advance of £815 (US$1,435). As can be seen from the 30 June pack , my half-yearly service charge BEFORE the addition of four new flats , including a penthouse flat that spans the whole length and width of the top floor, and before the complete overhaul of Jefferson House was £680 (US$1,200).

I have not responded to the four invoices and consequently have not paid anything because, among others, I know that I have a £6,100 (US$10,760) credit - and THESE DEMANDS ARE FRAUDULENT. (See Notices by landlord - 10 February 2006 and Pridie Brewster)

(Subsequent note: YES, DEFINITELY FRAUDULENT. See Portner / Portner and Jaskel LLP, including the 6 June 2008 outcome of the claim filed against me - yet again by Mr Andrew Ladsky

(As detailed earlier on, in my 19 December 2003 correspondence to CKFT I accepted Steel Services' 'offer ' of £6,350 (US$11,200) in settlement of my share of the major works (i.e. the original demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) - except the demand for £143 (US$250) of interest - and included full payment with my reply .

Consequently, with the previous payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing, I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200). Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004 .

In my 30 December 2003 letter, I informed Ms Hathaway that I had accepted her client's 'offer' of £6,350 and had paid the sum to CKFT (CKFT # 6.8 )

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, you would think that somebody with two brain cells between their ears, facing somebody like me - who had nonetheless paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) that was not due and payable - would have backed-off. Such is the profile of Mr Ladsky et. al. and their aides  - the extent of their arrogance and greed... and their justified belief in the supporting infrastructure

 

(30) In addition to acting in complete disregard of Landlord-Tenant legislation, with the aim of limiting opposition by leaseholders, Martin Russell Jones and its client take steps to ensure curtailment of leaseholders' ability to respond

They do this by issuing 'notices' at times of the year when people will be unable to take action / are likely to be away.

Their favourite 'trick' (like that of many other rogue landlords and their equally rogue managing agents, solicitors, etc.) is to send a 'notice' just before Christmas.

This is evidenced by the notices of 'first refusal' (under Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987), which claimed to offer leaseholders the opportunity to buy the headlease. (See Notices by landlord for detail)

•    22 December 1999 which gives a two-months deadline from the date of the notice (as per the legislation)

•  13 December 2001 which, likewise gives a two-months notice

As you can imagine, it takes time to mobilise leaseholders in a block to respond to this type of notice. When a notice is sent just before Christmas, you have already lost about three weeks of the response time.

(NB: I draw your attention to the fact that the above notices were just a pretence at compliance with statutory requirements. The one that 'tops it all' in terms of 'breaking every rule in the book' is the 10 February 2006 "notice" sent by Portner and Jaskel, as can be seen in my 30 April 2006 (1.1MB) reply - see Notices by landlord for further detail)

The following are 'meant' to be 'notices' under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. Section 20 (3) (d) of the Act (which was in force at the time of the original demand) states:

"The date stated in the notice shall not be earlier than one month after the date on which the notice is given or displayed as required by paragraph (b)

Section (b) states: "A notice accompanied by a copy of the estimates shall be given to each of the tenants or shall be displayed in the buildings so as to be likely to come to the notice of all those tenants"

Please, bear in mind when considering the following that one of the purposes of a Section 20 Notice is to allow leaseholders to find an alternative to the proposed contractor, supplier, etc.

The first example is the 21 December 2001 letter from Ms Hathaway announcing the appointment of Mr Brian Gale to undertake the condition survey. It gives 28 January 2002 as the deadline for reply. I took delivery of this notice in the second week of January.

The second example is the 'so called' "Notice of intention" dated 16 December 2004 , in which Ms Hathaway informs me of the plan to install a water tank because

"the property needs to have a storage tank for water in the basement area to ensure that the tank on the roof fills up following reduction in the water pressure by Thames Water"

(NB. Is there still a "tank on the roof" given that the penthouse flat has been built?

Might the TRUE cause of needing to install a new water tank be due to: (1) the removal of the tank from roof to give space for the penthouse flat? The fact that a bigger tank is required because FOUR NEW FLATS have now been added?)

I only received this "notice" three days before Christmas . It gives 17 January 2005 as the deadline for the reply i.e. to come back with an alternative supplier.

Look at this so-called "notice". What can I do with that?

In this "notice" Ms Hathaway states, "If you require a copy of the specification .will provide you with a copy free of charge"

Of course, in her deadline for reply by 17 January 2005, Ms Hathaway does not take into consideration the time required by a leaseholder to 'maybe' get the specification from her.

Changes in legislation have been made under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which, 'in my view', blatantly favour rogue landlords and their aides. (See Mr John Prescott)

As I understand it, unlike previously, there is evidently no longer an obligation to have the specification " displayed in one or more places where it is likely to come to the notice of all those tenants"

I opted to not reply as, based on my very comprehensive experience of Ms Hathaway's method of operating or, more accurately, her client's - I envisaged the following scenario:

•  Ms Hathaway would claim that, because of the Christmas mail, she did not receive the request for a copy of the specification until after Christmas.

•  She would say that Martin Russell Jones was closed for the Christmas break until 3 January.

•  She will not send the copy, but will nonetheless claim that she had done so. Hence, she will blame the post office for the copy not arriving. This is one of her favourite 'line of defence'.

•  By the time Ms Hathaway 'might' actually send a copy, it does not leave any time for the leaseholder to get another quote (assuming of course that the specification was (1) properly drawn-up (2) priced (As explained earlier on, neither of which were the case for the specification for the major works)  

OUTCOME: Yet again the leaseholders' statutory rights have been denied and they are used as an endless cash dispenser for costs for which they are not liable.

Needless to say that since this new section was introduced under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Martin Russell Jones and its client have had a field day, firing 'notices' left, right and centre ( 16 December 2004 for a water tank; 18 March 2005 for CCTV system; 6 April 2005 for plant boxes; 17 May 2005 for plants) - in the knowledge that they are on a guaranteed winning streak with this new legislation.

Look at the number of days I would have had to take off work (and therefore lose in earnings) 'just' to go and get a copy of the above mentioned at the office of Martin Russell Jones which is located outside of London.

 

(31) When leaseholders reply within the timeframe, Ms Hathaway will deny that this was the case

For example, in relation to the 21 December 2001 'notice' for which Ms Hathaway had given a 28 January 2002 deadline, I responded by email on 26 January 2002.

In her reply of 30 January 2002 , she stated that she read my email on 28 January i.e. date she had given as the deadline for reply. However, in her letter to me dated 26 March 2002 she wrote:

"Your representations were made after the expiry of the landlord and tenant notice period."

 

(32) When leaseholders reply, Ms Hathaway lies to all the other leaseholders by claiming that she has not received any comment

Evidence that Ms Hathaway 'feeds' false information to leaseholders can be seen in the following:

•  Her letter to 'All Lessees', dated 26 March 2002 : ".we would inform you that there were no comments from any tenants within the prescribed time limit"

•  On the same date that she wrote this letter, in her 26 March 2002 letter to me she wrote: ".you were incidentally the only objector out of 35 lessees to the appointments" .

•  In her 20 August 2002 letter to "All lessees" Ms Hathaway stated ". we have not received any significant comments from tenants in relation thereto within the prescribed time limit consequently Steel Services are instructing Killby & Gayford"

Consider that, by then, Ms Hathaway had - at least - received the following (no doubt, there is more correspondence from other leaseholders):

•  My 11 August 2002 letter : "A detailed explanation of how the amount of £14,400.19 you demand from has been calculated".    "A copy - without charge - of the Schedule of Building Works as duly priced by the firm of Killby & Gayford - as the copy left with the porter had not been duly priced"

  "An explanation as to why works are being carried out to the roof given that a planning application to build an extra floor for a penthouse flat was granted on 6 February 2002" .

 

 

•  Leaseholder G 's letter of 3 August 2002 to Ms Hathaway "Before I can agree to the demand that you have made I need. (1) a detailed breakdown of the figure of £564,467 against the specification"

•  The 3 September 2002 letter from Leaseholder K's solicitors to Ms Hathaway: "Please provide a breakdown of the apportionment of the total amount claimed."

•  Leaseholder D who wrote to Ms Hathaway on 24 September 2002 ".your letter of 20 September in which you threaten legal proceedings in the event of not receiving payment from us. as of this date. have (not) received the complete data you undertook to provide at our meeting in your offices on 30 July 2002 and confirmed in our letter of 31 July. This situation has prevailed despite two further letters of remind dated 27 August and 9 September"

•  Leaseholder M wrote to the LVT on 19 October 2002 "I have had several phone conversations with MRJ requesting an executive summary of the   planned work such as 'description of work item', 'cost", 'priority'.   I never received such summary"

•  Leaseholder K wrote to the LVT on 28 October 2002 "Additionally no responses have been received by neither my solicitor nor myself to any query (see attached letter)"

As I captured in the summary of my complaint (point 1.2.3.2, a sub-point of 1.2.2 I headed with the RICS Core value #2 - "To always be honest" ):

Martin Russell Jones's method of operating is one of constant 'double-dealing', telling different stories to individual leaseholder - such as saying to one leaseholder in October 2002 that everybody had paid the service charge demanded ( 1 November 2002 letter from Leaseholder F) when, in fact, Ms Hathaway had   filed the court claim a month later"

In my complaint, I referred to the correspondence from other leaseholders under points 79, 87, 91 - and supplied their letters in support. I re-emphasised the correspondence from other leaseholders in my 14 October 2005 reply to the RICS.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS. Hence, among others, the RICS totally ignores its members' breaches of its Core Values. This is in spite of stating in its 1 March 2005 letter:

"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"

 

 

(33) Ms Hathaway happily puts down leaseholders who reply as liars, devious and dishonest individuals

In reply to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT, Ms Hathaway 'wrote', in her 'Mr Ladsky style' letter to me of 16 December 2002 :

"We have on a number of occasions provided you with the information that you have required."

".we cannot therefore understand why you should be asserting that you cannot ascertain what the works consist of.we have been informed by the porter that you have.seen the appropriate tender documentation."

Whilst we would very much like to assist you in any way we can, we have become somewhat frustrated and are at a loss to understand what comments you are actually making in relation to the proposed works. Aside from value judgements which are wholly incorrect, we cannot ascertain what you are complaining of if, in fact, you are complaining at all"

".we and our clients cannot help but draw the inevitable conclusion that the correspondence in which you are consistently latterly engaging is for the purpose of avoiding the perfectly reasonable demand for payment of the sum due to refurbish the building"

I referred to this letter in the summary of my complaint under point 1.2.7 I headed with the RICS Core Value # 7 "To treat others with respect"

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS.

 

 

(34) (Moved to # ???, above)

 

(35) Evidently, Ms Hathaway assumes that leaseholders are blind

The following is another example of Ms Hathaway's lies in the face of the blatantly obvious.  

In her 16 June 2005 letter, Ms Hathaway wrote:

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

Consider this statement against the evidence contained in this pack at June 2005 and one year later - at 1 May 2006 . See the Photo gallery for additional evidence.

As with the rest of Mr Ladsky's 'colluding puppets', Hathaway obviously assumes that leaseholders are blind.

In the same way that Martin Russell Jones pays scant regard to Landlord-Tenant legislation, in the process of acting as Steel Services' agent, it disregards contractual obligations vis-à-vis leaseholders - and associated statutes

 

(36) (Moved to # 3, above)

 

(37) Breaching both, the covenants in my lease, as well as statute - thereby committing a criminal offence - Martin Russell Jones has withheld from me the release of year-end accounts for Jefferson House for three years - as well as withheld associated information

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

My lease states:

Clause 2(2)(b) ".financial year means the financial year of the lessor for which the amount of the service charge is being determined"   (the year-end for Jefferson House is 31 December)

Clause 2(2)(f) "As soon as the accountant shall have determined the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee for the relevant financial year . the accountant shall prepare a written statement containing a summary of the costs expenses and outgoings incurred by the lessor during the relevant financial year together with any future sums indicated by the accountant pursuant to Clause 2 (2) (e).. and specifying the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee .and in the accountant's certificate, shall certify:

"that in his opinion the said summary represents a fair summary of the said costs and outgoings set out in a way which shows how they are or will be reflected in the service charge"

Clause 2(2)(g)(i) "As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year the lessor shall furnish to the lessee an account of the service charge payable by the lessee for such financial year together with a copy of the accountant's certificate . "

Contrary to the terms of my lease, the 15 July 2002 - 17 July 2002 demand was not reflected in the 2001 accounts i.e. they do not include "costs the lessor shall expect to incur at any time after the end of the relevant financial year. by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings." .

(Nor indeed was the intended demand stated in Ms Hathaway's letter of 7 June 2001 to "All Lessees" "to start the works in the autumn" reflected as a "future expenditure" in the 2000 year-end accounts )

I requested a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts a total of four times over a period of one and a half year , spanning from 9 October 2003 to 18 July 2004:

•  9 October 2003 - To Ms Hathaway (NB: Two weeks later, CKFT sent me Steel Services' ' offer ')

•  19 December 2003 - In my Notice of Acceptance to CKFT

•  19 May 2004 - To Ms Hathaway - on which I copied CKFT

•  18 July 2004 - To Ms Hathaway

Non-compliance with my requests, led me to contact the Tenancy Relations Officer at the Kensington & Chelsea Town Hall on 6 June 2004 to request its assistance in obtaining a copy of the 2002 accounts for Jefferson House.

It led him to send a 25 June 2004 Section 21(1) request (L&T Act 1985) to Ms Hathaway - on which he copied CKFT. In this letter, he also highlights Section 25 of the Act that non-performance results in committing a criminal offence .

After a drawn-out battle with the housing department (see Council & LGO ) I finally obtained a copy of the 2002 accounts in February 2005 i.e. three years later.

As I suspected, Martin Russell Jones-its client had something to hide in not sending me the 2002 accounts.

The accountants, Pridie & Brewster, certified the 2002 accounts stating " that the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents".

This is incorrect considering the terms of my lease. (See Pridie Brewster for detail)

Likewise, the 2003 accounts , which Pridie Brewster certified stating " that the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents" are also incorrect as they do not reflect the LVT determination . Consequently, they are also in breach of my lease.

In my 30 March 2005 letter to Ms Hathaway I detailed the issues about the accounts and related them to the clauses in my lease . This included highlighting, among others, withholding information on:

".the amount of service charge payable by each lessee.

Page "1" i.e. the commentary page states: ".shows how they are reflected in the service charge demands and specifies the amount payable by each lessee".

This information was not provided.

To state "contributions received" under the "Major works fund" does not meet the terms of the lease.   A schedule detailing 'service charge payable by each lessee' and 'contribution received from each lessee' must be provided"

In my complaint, in the summary, I referred to the battle I had to get a copy of the year-end accounts under points 1.1.1.11,   1.1.1.13,   1.1.1.22 - 1.1.1.29 in the context of various rules from the RICS Code, which include: Rule 11.4 'Provision of audited accounts';   Rule 11.5 'Provision of service charges accounts';   Rule 11.16 - 'Obligation to comply with the request for a copy of the accounts' and Rule 11.27 'Obligation to comply with statutory requirements under S.21 of the L&T Act 1985'.

At the end of the latter, I wrote:

"As previously detailed, MRJ has breached and continues to breach this statutory requirement: accounts giving details of (1)   reserve fund;   (2) monies committed to but not yet spent - Section 21 (5) (a) - as my numerous requests have been ignored"

In the main body of my complaint, I covered the issue under points 120 and 121 which include highlighting the fact that I had to resort to approaching the Tenancy Relations Officer at the Kensington & Chelsea Town Hall to obtain a copy of the accounts.   I also referred to it under points 207, 212 and 261 - 263.

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Yet again, I draw your attention to the RICS 1 March 2005 letter:

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

In other words, in the same way that the RICS does not 'give a damn' about its members breaching the laws of the land it, likewise, does not 'give a damn' that its members breach their contractual obligations towards leaseholders.

 

 

(38) Martin Russell Jones, its client and accountants, Pridie Brewster , continue to produce accounts and service charge demands that can only be described as BOGUS and FRAUDULENT and not worth the piece of paper they are written on.

(NB: Some events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

Among others, this can be seen in the " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 "

The first thing to say is that only the 2004 accounts - not the 2005 accounts were supplied.

Hence, this amounts to a breach of covenant in my lease : Clause 2 (2)(e), (f) and (g)

In addition, the 2005 accounts are now overdue. This amounts to a criminal offence under Section 25 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (as defined in the 25 June 2004 letter from Kensington & Chelsea housing department to Ms Hathaway) .

Secondly, the 'so-called' "Apportionments" notes at the bottom of the document which state that "Schedule 1" refers to "All flats" , while "Schedule 2" states "Flats 1 to 35 only" amount to FRAUDULENT demands given that Steel Services sold the last floor of the building to Lavagna Enterprises Limited (title BGL 56 642 ). As can be seen on the title, it owns:

•  NGL 373 333 which is Steel Services Limited

•  BGL 51 266 which is the 'Air space abutting and above the level of the surface of the roof'

•  BGL 54458 , the penthouse flat which is a lessee of 'Air space of Jefferson House'

In addition, as a result of the 'major' works, three new flats were added: 18A, 33A and 35A. The proprietor of the lease on these three new flats is Lavagna Enterprises Limited.

The outcome is summarised in this document .   For detail see Headlessors and Owners identity

Consequently, (aside from the fact that estimates of future expenditure must be produced in conjunction with the previous year's accounts), these claims of "STEEL SERVICES estimated expenditure" - on which a demand for payment from me is based - are FRAUDULENT as they do not reflect the fact that a significant part of the expenditure must be assigned to the penthouse flat - over which Steel Services has NO CONTROL.

The document " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " does not provide any explanation as to the meaning of the "Apportionments" for "Schedule 1 and 2"

Nor does it contain any statement on the changes and additions to the block. Very clearly, these changes and additions have a major impact on the lessees' share of the costs.

See Pridie Brewster for further detail

 

(39) Likewise, Martin Russell Jones did not comply with my requests for a copy of the contingency fund account

Section 42 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 states: "Service charge contributions to be held in trust"

As a contributor and beneficiary to the trust fund which should include my £6,350 (US$11,200), plus other monies I have paid as contribution to the contingency fund, I asked Ms Hathaway on five occasions for a copy of the accounts. On two other occasions I also highlighted to West London County Court the fact that I had not been supplied with a copy - and copied CKFT on these letters:

•  15 May 2003 - To Ms Hathaway

•  1 June 2003 - To Ms Hathaway  

•  22 June 2003 - Stated in my letter to West London County Court - on which I copied CKFT

•  6 July 2003 - To Ms Hathaway - on which I copied CKFT   

•  9 August 2003 - To West London County Court - on which I copied CKFT

•  19 May 2004 - To Ms Hathaway - on which I copied CKFT   

•  18 July 2004 - To Ms Hathaway  

In the majority of these letters I stated:

"As per my rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and as a contributor and beneficiary to the trust fund in which contributions to service charges - including for major works - are held, can you please send me copy of the statements issued by the bank(s)/building society(ies) in which the trust fund is held for the period starting December 2002".

After several requests, Martin Russell Jones' account department stated in a letter to me dated 19 August 2003 :   "This is in the form of a Bradford and Bingley savings account and as such we do not receive statements except tax ones in due course" .   

I requested a copy of the pages of the passbook for this account offering to pay reasonable photocopying costs e.g. my 19 May 2004 letter.  

Ms Hathaway has never complied with my requests. As I stated under point 152 of my complaint:   "Why not? What do Ms Hathaway and Steel Services have to hide?"

Under the same point in my complaint, I also stated:

"In her letter dated 5 August 2003 to 'All Lessees' Ms Hathaway wrote: "The money that has been collected is currently held in a separate account which is earning interest to the benefit of those lessees who have contributed"

This is a fascinating statement I would like the RICS to pursue with Ms Hathaway - in the context of Section 10, Reserve Funds, RICS 'Service Charge Residential Management Code'

Is Ms Hathaway saying that some residents have made no contribution whatsoever to the fund? If so, it implies gross-mismanagement on her part.

If, on the other hand, Ms Hathaway is referring to those residents who were still fighting the claim and had thus not paid the sum demanded, how is she managing this "one account" in order to achieve this?   How is this reported?

Also under the same point in my complaint, I stated: "By not providing me with a copy of the trust fund accounts Ms Hathaway is committing a very serious breach of the RICS Code of Conduct: Bye-Law Bye -Law 19(7)(2). It may be that she is also in breach of the Trustee Investments Act 1961"

I also drew attention to Ms Hathaway's 5 August 2003 letter "The money that has been collected is currently held in a separate account which is earning interest to the benefit of those lessees who have contributed" - asking how Ms Hathaway was managing this?

I also captured the issue under point 1.1.1.5 and 1.1.21.5 in the summary of my complaint. In the case of the latter, in relation to Rule 11.15 of the RICS Code 'Trustee Investments Act 1961'

OUTCOME: AS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE, THIS WAS IGNORED BY THE RICS.  

 

And, yet again I will repeat that, in other words, in the same way that the RICS does not 'give a damn' about its members breaching the laws of the land it, likewise, does not 'give a damn' that its members breach their contractual obligations towards leaseholders.

 

Furthermore, as I explained in my 30 March 2005 letter to Ms Hathaway, the accounts state that the contingency fund is held in a total of four accounts

" Holding the funds for future expenditure in more than one account is in breach of the terms of my lease. Clause 5 (7) of my lease Page 1 of the commentary reports a total of 4 accounts"

 

(40) A dictate from Ms Hathaway i.e. Mr Ladsky in relation to the collection of domestic refuse amounts to another breach of covenant

In her 28 February 2005 letter Ms Hathaway wrote that ".from 31 March there will no longer be any rubbish collection. Rubbish must be taken down to the rubbish room" .

She continues, in a dictator like tone ".there is an absolute restriction in your lease against rubbish on the common parts of the building."

And follows this by: "Your landlord... have told us that they will strictly enforce with legal proceedings and associated costs."

Point 5 of the Fifth Schedule of my lease does state:   "The Lessee shall not place. any refuse or rubbish. or other common part of the building."

However, there is an 'absolute' term in my lease under Clause 5(5)(b) which states: "(The lessor) to remove each day (excepting Sundays) from the flat all domestic refuse and rubbish."

In fact, this covenant had been highlighted four years previously to Ms Hathaway by Nucleus, local Citizen Advice Bureau in its 8 October 2001 letter when, at the time, domestic refuse had not been collected from the flats for six weeks .

I highlighted the breach of my lease in my 30 March 2005 reply to Ms Hathaway, on which I copied the RICS.

  "Martin Russell Jones has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does not respect residents' statutory and common law rights."

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS as, in its 4 November 2005 reply it stated that it

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

 

Considering point 5 of the Fifth Schedule of my lease and the following comment in Ms Hathaway's dictatorial letter of 28 February 2005 ".the unsightly nature of bags left on the common parts of the building... It is only courteous to your fellow residents that you should strictly abide by this regulation." it is worth noting the following:

•  The photos I took of the areas around my flat during 2004-2006 (which are Steel Services' responsibility) and compiled in the following packs: broken step and filth around my flat (not to mention the lack of concern for Health & Safety - as can be seen from the photographs captured in the pack). (See Photo gallery for additional evidence)

•  Ms Hathaway's reaction to a previous event which refers to the time when a very large amount of rubbish was deposited alongside the area in front of flat 5 and flat 6 - as can be seen from the photograph taken on 8 October 2001 .

When leaseholders also raised this issue with Nucleus, Citizens Advice Bureau, Ms Hathaway replied on 1 November 2001 that it "relates to flat 5.the actual area where it is stored belongs to that particular flat and is not common part of the building" .

Considering (1) the profile of Mr Ladsky - and of his dictator in tow, Ms Hathaway (2) the state of the area in front of my windows (which is not part of the title for my flat), it can be concluded that the only reason why it was allowed to happen was because the owner of flat 5 was connected with the ownership of the block.

Flat 5 was the flat of the person running the Residents Association (who left due to suffering appalling ongoing harassment and intimidation) (See also Notices by landlord ).

Land Registry records show that another person became the proprietor of the lease for flat 5 on 22 August 2001 (when the Head of the Residents Association left). The price is recorded as £144,000 (US$254,00)

One year later, Mr Ladsky became the proprietor of flat 5, on 9 September 2002 .   The price is recorded as £144,000 (US$144,000). Hence, it is the same price as was recorded one year earlierwhen the previous owner became the proprietor on 22 August 2001 .

In addition, it seems that the external area in front of flat 5 would only belong to it if it owned the headlease or freehold.

This suggests a connection between Mr Ladsky and this owner.

•  The state of the common parts for a period of nearly two years as can be seen from the photographs captured in this pack , as well as in this pack (See Photo gallery for additional evidence).

•  In relation to Ms Hathaway's comment in her 28 February 2005 letter that leaseholders cannot pass by the main entrance for the purpose of "removals" because "the new hall must be kept in the best possible condition" - see this pack containing photos of the entrance at the time she wrote this letter - and five months later.   In fact, as can be seen in the photographs taken on 1 May 2006 , more than one year after Ms Hathaway wrote this letter works in the entrance were not completed. See also the Photo gallery for additional evidence.

 

(41) In actual fact, in spite of acting as agents for Steel Services, Martin Russell Jones does not appear to even bother finding out what the lease states

This is evidenced by the 5 October 2004 letter from Mr Barrie Martin:

"We have been informed by the solicitors acting for the freeholders, Steel Services Limited that although the ground rent on your flat increased in September 2002 the increase was not sufficient to comply with the terms of your lease . This was because, unfortunately, the information given to us was not correct. Consequently to put matters right we have to ask you for an additional payment as set out on the enclosed demand" .

 

(42) As Martin Russell Jones evidently has the full blessings of the RICS to behave as it does, it uses the same 'formula' in other blocks - as can be can be seen from another case in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, ref LON/00AQ/LSC/2005/0258

As evidenced by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal case, LON/00AQ/LSC/2005/0258, 12 August 2006 (printscreen of website), it uses the same 'formula' in other blocks:

(1) claiming large amounts of expenditure unsupported by invoices, as well as very substantially 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)

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, 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”

As related earlier on, in its Winter 2005 issue of the Leaseholder, in the process of reporting events with Pridie Brewster, C.A.R.L. also mentioned the name of Martin Russell Jones in the newsletter.

It led a reader, who used to live in Princess Court , a block of flats 'managed' by Martin Russell Jones, to send an email to C.A.R.L., in which he also wrote that Martin Russell Jones

".simply would not reply to any letters, emails or phone calls - they did not want to know"

As very amply demonstrated by the above, I know exactly what the reader means. I have files full of examples of this.

I am also aware of other blocks (e.g. Kenwood Court ), in which, not surprisingly, Martin Russell Jones displayed the same 'operating pattern'.

What else can be expected given that it evidently has the blessings of its 'so called' regulatory body, the RICS, to behave in this manner? Subsequent note: 'more of the same' - see My Diary 6 May 2008 ; 19 May 2008

 

 

(43) Events in relation to my 20C application demonstrate a concerted effort between Piper Smith Basham/Watton, Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor of misinformation, blackmail, intimidation, and harassment tactics

A Section 20C application, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, can, 'in theory' be made to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to seek an order to prevent a landlord from charging the costs of the LVT proceedings to leaseholders.

Events in relation to my 20C application are covered in detail under Piper Smith Basham/Watton # 7.18

They started with a letter dated 7 April 2003 from my then solicitors informing the LVT that "our Counsel will be making an Application for an Order under Section 20 (c) of the Act in relation to costs not being added to the service charge".   (The same letter, dated 7 April 2003 , was sent to Ms Hathaway)

Given the very damning report by the LVT of 17 June 2003 LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref. #992 on the LVT database) , combined with the fact that at the 28 April 2003 LVT hearing, Mr Warwick, Steel Services' counsel had said "My client will not charge Ms N K-Dit-Rawé, but intends to charge other residents" , I opted to pursue the application.

As requested by the LVT (in spite of my 30 July 2003 letter), I submitted an application dated 10 August 2003 with a letter, dated 12 August 2003 , concluding "The evidence is there. The facts speak for themselves. The Applicant cannot be allowed to put on the service charge for Jefferson House the costs it incurred as a result of the action it pursued through the LVT. The Tribunal has the power to get this decision implemented now and I trust that it will do so.

In 'typical landlord-friendly style', following the 22 August 2003 letter from Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT, requesting " a hearing", the LVT Clerk obliged - as can be seen in his 29 August 2003 reply, setting a hearing for 8 October 2003.

At the time, I had just appointed Piper Smith & Basham (in relation to the court action). Given this development with the LVT, I opted to ask for its involvement as well in this matter. The contact was Ms McLean.

Although Ms McLean had attended the 28 April 2003 LVT hearing, she claimed to not remember what Mr Warwick had said.   She took this as an excuse to draft a letter to Martin Russell Jones, dated 18 September 2003 , asking for clarification.

In spite of being at work, due to the timescale set by the LVT, I felt under pressure to reply immediately to the draft. Critically, I did not spot the last part of the sentence ".we shall withdraw the application in the LVT."

The main contributing factors to this were, in addition to the fact that I was at work: (1) this letter was for her benefit, not mine, as I remembered exactly what had been said by Mr Warwick; (2) I had explained to Ms McLean that I wanted to proceed with my application; (3) I had supplied her with all the relevant documents - including the 7 April 2003 from my then solicitors. Furthermore, I most definitely never discussed this with her. Indeed, if I only wanted to confirm what Mr Warwick had said, I would not have submitted the 20C application.

As explained under Piper Smith & Basham , this was the start of what I view as bullying and coercion tactics.

Every day after she had sent the 18 September 2003 letter to Martin Russell Jones, Ms McLean referred to the threat of litigation by two means: correspondence from Martin Russell Jones or from CKFT. If there was not anything she could send me, by adding to it herself.

The first to get on the bandwagon was Mr Barrie Martin, stating in his 19 September 2003 "no recollection of having heard our client's counsel saying what you report.On the basis that your client Miss Dit-Rawé withdraws permanently her section 20C application.our clients are prepared to not claim from your client any part of the costs they incurred as a result of the hearings before the LVT"

Being at work, I communicate that I am not going to respond until the weekend (19 September was a Friday). This led Ms McLean to send a fax to Mr Martin on 19 September 2003 explaining that there will be communication on the following Monday.

On 22 September 2003, Ms McLean sends me a fax from Mr Martin dated 20 September 2003 (i.e. a Saturday!) claiming " Our clients have asked me.to say that they consider that there is an agreement with Ms Dit-Rawé and that there is therefore nothing further that needs to be done other than receipt of a confirmation letter"

Ignoring the 19 September 2003 fax from Ms McLean explaining that she would not be able to discuss the matter with me until 22 September, on that day i.e. 22 September 2003 , Mr Martin sent a fax to the LVT claiming that an agreement had been reached.

The obvious conclusion from this is that Mr Barrie Martin was counting on Ms Lisa McLean stopping me from proceeding with the application.

Ms Lisa McLean most certainly put in all the energy she could muster into making this happen through a daily salvo of threats from herself, adding liberally with communication from Mr Barrie Martin, as well as the other part of the act: Ms Ayesha Salim, CKFT.

On 23 September 2003 , Ms McLean faxed me a consent order she had taken upon herself to draft for the purpose of sending it to the LVT . Likewise, without consulting me, she had also drafted a covering letter for Martin Russell Jones.

I had been battling with Ms McLean and Mr Richard Twyman who claimed that I could not make a 20C application for the whole block. Knowing that this was false information, on that day, I contacted LEASE.

It confirmed my view (and consequently that of my previous solicitors) that I, alone, could make a 20C application for the whole block. (LEASE referred me to the Lands Tribunal case' Langford Court v Doren Limited in support of this. I brought this case to the attention of Ms McLean in my 23 September 2003 email).

On 24 September 2003 , Ms McLean sent me an email in which, in the space of a three-line paragraph, she made two references to the threat of proceedings. The first one is "I received a telephone call from Barrie Martin.His client wants to take action."  

To make sure I get this message, in the following sentence, she wrote, "He is obviously thinking of taking action on the agreement (NB!!!) "

In my 24 September 2003 email reply, I argued that Martin Russell Jones had come back with a counter-offer by stating that I withdraw my application "permanently" .

At 10h10 on 25 September 2003 , Ms McLean sent me an email in which she wrote, "I have yet to receive (NB!!!) MRJ's letter giving us, in effect, an ultimatum, although I expect to receive that today also"

At 11h06 I sent an email to Ms McLean highlighting, among others, that if Steel Services wants to sue me, in my defence I would highlight the horrendous pressure I have been placed under as a result of its actions.

Some time during that day, Ms McLean sent me her 24 September 2003 attendance note relating to communication from CKFT, in which she made two references to the threat of proceedings. The first one, in relation to a voicemail message from Ms Ayesha Salim that

"she had been instructed that there was now an issue with the section 20C application.If that was the case she was instructed to commence proceedings (NB!!!) in the county court for specific performance" .

The second one, that Ms Salim "would then be proposing to issue proceedings if an agreement was not reached within 48 or 72 hours". (NB!!!)

Within seconds of sending me her 16h33 email to which she had attached her reply to my earlier email at 11h06, she sent me another email at 16h33 to which she attached a letter in which she claimed to have captured the main points of a letter she has received from CKFT stating she will fax this to me later on. (Why did not she send me the letter from CKFT?)

She reported CKFT as having written "If your client has failed to confirm the withdrawal of the application to the LVT by close of business on Monday 29 September 2003, we are instructed to issue proceedings (NB!!!) in the County Court for specific performance of the agreement against your client"

I viewed this as the bullying having gone 'into overdrive' and being a concerted effort between Ms Lisa McLean, Mr Barrie Martin and Ms Ayesha Salim . (As I captured under point 173 of my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham)

As I also captured under point 180 of my complaint against Piper Smith Basham, "By then it is abundantly clear to me that I simply do not have the right team to take this forward. Given the time pressure and the fact that I cannot take any more time off work, I resign myself to dropping my application" .

So, objective achieved, not only as a result of what I believe is fair comment for me to say, a concerted effort between Ms Lisa McLean, Mr Richard Twyman, Ms Ayesha Salim, Mr Barrie Martin and Ms Joan Hathaway, but also with the help of the LVT.

In her 'attendance note' of 8 October 2003 , Ms McLean wrote that she been in contact with the LVT to ask "when we would receive the sealed consent order" .

I have not been provided with evidence that the LVT endorsed the consent order that was faxed by Martin Russell Jones to Piper Smith Basham on 3 October 2003.

Given the LVTs limited jurisdiction, do they actually have the authority to endorse a consent order and thereby making it legally binding?

 

(44) I give the leaks in my flat as another example of Martin Russell Jones backing its client's harassment and intimidation tactics

As detailed in My Diary under 11 March 2002 , 8 August 2005 , 18 August 2005 and 6 February 2007 , I suffered leaks in my flat / by my flat which I consider to be malicious. I reported the 2005 leaks - which were 10 days apart - to Martin Russell Jones in a letter dated 18 August 2005, I sent by 'Special delivery'.

I received a reply dated 19 August 2005 . The points to note about this letter:

•  Although dated Friday 19 August 2005, as can be seen from the post mark at the bottom of the letter, it was only posted on Monday 22 August 2005 - and with a second class stamp

•  The reply to my reporting that there is a leak in my bathroom is "the matter will be investigated next week" .   Is this how the reporting of a water leak should be handled?

•  Regarding the leak in my bedroom area "...it emanated from flat 24...and hence down to your flat" . But I received no communication about this.

Regarding the 6 February 2007 leak : see My Diary 11 February 2007 re. the total lack of communication - and a repeat of this, five months later, in relation to, yet again, another malicious leak in my flat which caused extensvie damage in July 2007

Subsequent note - in my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Martin Russell Jones and its client Mr Ladsky - have committed offences against me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I think you will agree that these provide ample evidence to back-up my claim: BOTH LEAKS WERE CAUSED MALICIOUSLY  

Events with the entry system and the spy cameras provide further examples of Martin Russell Jones-and its client modus operandi, namely that leaseholders are there to be used and abused

 

(45) I have had no communication whatsoever on the new entry system. In addition I am still waiting for the two extra keys I requested on 26 July 2005

(As can be seen in My Diary - 22 July 2005) as I was about to leave the block to go to work, I noticed that the lock on the front door had been changed. After a battle (captured in My Diary) I managed to obtain a key.

I had not received any communication informing me of this. Bearing in mind that I have had to set-up a PO Box because my mail was intercepted, when I went to collect my mail on that day, I found a letter from Martin Russell Jones, dated 12 July 2005 , stating that the system was being upgraded on 18 July. It gave the porter's number to get a new key.

In other words, this gave a notice period of five working days . Just as well I was not on holiday at the time.   I could have come back late one evening to discover that I could not get in the block.

I have not been provided with any information whatsoever on this system, including measures in place in case of malfunction.

I determined the supplier from the name on the fob key.

The supplier's literature emphasises the benefit of the supporting software package to the fob key system by stating that it "gives a degree of control only previously dreamt about by housing managers. The ability to add and delete keys instantly from a remote location."

The literature also states ".a powerful reporting package which offers automatic reports. This is a valuable report as it could show that. the occupant of a flat has left never to return"

On 26 July 2005 I requested two extra keys from Martin Russell Jones. As can be seen, I enclosed a self-addressed, 'special delivery' envelop (to prevent the usual lies).

Over a year later, I have not received them. Hence, I only have one key (over which I had to battle). It means that I cannot give a spare key to a friend in case of emergency i.e. I cannot call anybody to come to my aid, unless the person is prepared to break down the door.

In my 14 October 2005 reply to the RICS' letter of 3 August 2005 , I gave this as "a more recent example against MRJ's 'favourite excuse'" . Reply from the RICS : "I will not entertain any correspondence that brings new matters into the frame" .

 

 

(46) Indications are that the spy cameras might be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998

In relation to the CCTV cameras, there might also be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998

The spy cameras were installed during the spring of 2005 (My Diary). While the bottom of the plaque for the entry system reads: "These premises are protected by CCTV" ), I have not been supplied with any communication whatsoever about the system - aside from being told of the intention to have this installed. (As previously discussed, doing it in such a way as to ensure that I would not be able to have a say: Ms Hathaway's letter of 16 December 2004 and subsequent, equally non-compliant, "notice" dated 18 March 2005 ).

At the back of the entrance, a camera is hidden behind a dark globe (as e.g. in shops) suggesting that it swivels. If so, for this reason alone, it is in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.  

Likewise, it breaches the Act if the camera can zoom / focus on people.

This CCTV system, combined with the entry system, means that all my movements in and out of the block are, in all likelihood, being monitored and captured on a 24 / 7 basis.

In other words, this is a complete invasion of my privacy, and amounts to living in conditions that are the same as if I were in prison. It also means that, likewise, any of my visitors are captured on camera.

Furthermore, every time I go back to the flat I wonder if I will be able to get in i.e. whether the number of my key for the main door has been changed - thereby preventing me access.

 

In Martin Russell Jones' book - and of course that of its client - anything and everything is an opportunity to 'rip-off' the leaseholders

 

(47) An on-going 'rip-off' with electricity charges

The 29.11.02 claim filed against me (and 10 of my fellow leaseholders - representing 14 apartments) in West London County Court, under a Statement of Truth signed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS, (amounting to a serious breach of Civil Procedure Rules) - includes 10 claims, from me, for 'electricity charges'.

As I highlighted in my 17.12.02 Defence to the claim , these charges are full of errors, as well as include charges for which I had not received an invoice. I also provided an explanation for my refusals to pay. In effect, the fact that it was abundantly clear that I was being defrauded.

I started to withhold payment of electricity as, in Q4 (from 13 Oct 99 to 17 Jan 00) the standing charge suddenly increased by 59% to £19.96 (US$35). It remained at this level for the next 17 months.

It then increased in the next quarter i.e. from 28 Mar 01 to £20.68 (US$36) - making it a 64% increase relative to Q3 1999 .

When I contacted London Electricity in 2000 they told me that, rather than going up, the standing charge had in fact gone down.

In her reply of 03.08.00, Hathaway, MRICS, stated that what MRJ is charging me "is the figure that is charged by London Electricity...the standing charge varies according to the period that the account covers".     

She again repeated this in her 16.12.02 letter (in response to my 25.11.02 letter to the London LVT): "The actual standing charge on your invoice is based on the standing charge that is received and billed from London Electricity. When a bill is received from them it is for so many days and this is why the standing charge varies"   

Having seen quite a number of London Electricity invoices from various people (not living at Jefferson House) - this is certainly the basis on which London Electricity invoices the standing charge.  

However, as supported by my analysis covering the period from 10 Jul 96 to 2 Apr 03 - it has clearly NOT been the basis on which Martin Russell Jones charged me for the standing electricity charge. For example, it consistently charged me £12.58 (US$22) per quarter for the period 2 Jul 997 to 12 Oct 99 i.e. nearly 2 years.

(While the period covered is from 1996, a similar pattern applies to the preceding period from 1989 when Martin Russell Jones was appointed as 'managing' agents).

In her 18.12.02 letter Hathaway, MRICS, wrote: "I would point out that the demand is not necessarily the date of the electricity standing charge". CONTRAST that with her above letters of 03.08.00 and 16.12.02!

The point is, it has to align with the period for which consumption of electricity is charged. And these periods have varied. Therefore, the amount of standing charge should, likewise, have varied.

10 TIMES OVER A 3-YEAR PERIOD I asked Hathaway, MRICS, for an explanation of the sudden 59% increase in the standing electricity charge.

In the light of her 03.08.00 and 18.12.02 replies, on 5 occasions I requested copy of the invoices from London Electricity for the periods referred to above

  • 15.04.03 - also stating that I still had not received an invoice for the periods: 21Oct 00-18Jan01, and 12Jul01-21Jan02;
  • 01.06.03 - stating that it was now the 4th time that I was asking for a copy of the London Electricity invoices, and the 8th time I was writing about the issue of the sudden 59% increase in the standing charge;
  • 06.07.03 - (on which I copied Lanny Silverstone, CKFT) stating: "To date, you still have not complied with my request. This is now the tenth time I am raising this issue? What have you got to hide? "

The other 5 occasions (raising the issue of the 'standing charge') were my letters of:

Of course, the 'enforcer', Silverstone, charged in, TOTALLY IGNORING the evidence, as he wrote in his 21.10.02 letter: "You have not paid the standing charge in respect of electricity charges and you are therefore in breach of your obligations under the terms of your lease"

As I captured this history (of course: IN VAIN) - in my letters to West London County Court of 22.06.03, 15.07.03 and 09.08.03 - given that the demand for payment was part of 29.11.02 claim - it finally led Martin Russell Jones to send me, with its 19.08.03 letter, a copy of a London Electricity invoice... ONLY for 1 quarter of year 2000.

They led me to discover that the electricity charge only applied to Steel Services' account with London Electricity - NOT to the meter for each apartment. Hence: the electricity meter for each apartment is under the control of the landlord.

Under para.33 of my 19.10.03 Witness Statement (my 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat.), I wrote: "Hence, while the explanation provided by MRJ is contradicted by the pattern of charging over the years, it seems that I have no choice: I have to resign myself to paying - once the Claimant has addressed the errors in its claim" . (As can be seen in my 31.12.03 letter to Hathaway, I then paid ALL the electricity charges claimed of me). (*)

(*) Under para.225 of my 03.06.08 Witness Statement (in the context of the 2nd FRAUDULENT court claim filed against me, of 27.02.07 (Overview # 11), I described the electricity demands as “a continuation of an ongoing ‘rip-off’”. I explained this under paras 226 to 229, and supplied my 02.06.06 analysis in which I compared the claimed usage between an identical period in 1998 v. 2006 - and explained my pattern of usage.

Under para.229, I also challenged the cost per unit of electricity – claimed to have jumped from 6.993 pence in Jan 06, to 10.38 pence, in Jun 06 i.e. an increase of 48% over a 6-month period.

Under para.231, I discussed my above long-drawn out battles with Hathaway, MRICS, “going back to the 1990’s”.

And, under para.231: “The difficulty in challenging the electricity charges is that London Electricity invoices ‘the Landlord’ ‘for the block’ instead of invoicing each flat – as the meters are under the control of ‘the Landlord’ - and under lock and key”.

 

In my 05.02.02 COMPLAINT to the RICS (hence Pre the above 27.02.07 claim), under paras 264 - 270, I captured events in relation to electricity charges - heading the section: "Comparing my electricity charges with that of friends has led me to conclude that I am being 'ripped-off' by Ms Hathaway and her client"

I ended the section with: "The evidence conclusively disproves Ms Hathaway's claim ". "Conclusion: Another 'rip-off' situation!"

I also captured the issues, in the summary of my 05.02.02 complaint, under:

  • para.1.1.1.9 - in the context of the RICS Code of Conduct, Rule 11.3 'Clear presentation of accounts';
  • para.1.1.1.18 - in the context of Rule 11.5 'Right to challenge charges';
  • para.1.2.2.4 - in the context of the RICS Core Value # 2 - To always be honest";
  • para.1.4.2.3 - in the context of the Theft Act 1968. In the main body of my complaint, it is also covered under para.104.

OUTCOME: TYPICALLY IGNORED BY THE RICS.

I, yet again, draw your attention to the 01.03.05 letter from the RICS:

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

Likewise, equally TYPICALLY, the RICS TOTALLY IGNORES its members' breaches of its so-called 'Core Values'.

This is IN SPITE of stating in its 01.03.05 letter:

"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".

Evidently, it excludes Martin Russell Jones.

Just as well that the RICS stated in its 10.06.05 letter:

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

Back to list

 

(48) The insurance for the block: evidence of an on-going other 'rip-off', as well as mismanagement

(NB: Some events covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

I and other residents first raised the issue of the insurance on the block through Nucleus, local Citizen Bureau. Nucleus first wrote to Ms Hathaway on 27 September 2001 and sent a chasing letter, dated 8 October 2001 .

It led Hathaway to reply to Nucleus in a letter dated 15 October 2001 : ".we would point out that there are two i.e. Building and Engineering and copies of both are enclosed" .

In fact, as can be seen from the reply from Nucleus dated 29 October 2001 , what Hathaway supplied as the second document was an engineering survey for "Pressure systems safety regulations, written scheme of examination" i.e. not an insurance policy  

In my letter of 25 November 2002 to the London LVT I wrote:   "The current sum demanded of £736,206.09 is nearly half the declared value of the building (document # 19 - Norwich Union insurance policy which gives a declared value of £1,785,000 (US$3.15 million) at December 2000 )"  

In her reply of 16 December 2002 to this letter, Hathaway stated:   "The insured value of the building is in excess of £3.5m and not as you state."

As the 1989-1990 Sun Alliance insurance document puts the value at £3.48 million (US$6.136 million), it indicates that the value of the block had NOT increased over a 12 year period.

Analysis of the insured value for the block over the 15 year period from 1989 to 2004 raises a very serious question about Martin Russell Jones' handling of this aspect of its duties.

(PDF of: graph 1 ; graph 2 )

As can be seen from my analysis, mapping out the declared value , as well as the percentage change contrasted with average UK property prices (sourced from statistics published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), over the period 1987-2004:

•  The insured value of Jefferson House had, by 2004, increased by 70% relative to 1989

•  By contrast, over the same period, the average UK property price rose by 328%

 

As can be seen from my analysis of the annual percentage change relative to the average UK property price, the insured value for Jefferson House has been highly erratic:

 

( PDF of above graph )

•  Between 1987 and 1989, it increased from £2.89 million (US$5.1 million) to £3.48 million (US$6.14 million) - or an increase of 21.6%

•  Between 1989 and 1991, it further increased to £4.87 million (US$8.6 million)- equivalent to a 39.9% increase over 1989

•  Eight years later, in 1999 (for which the insurance period indicates a calendar year) it had dropped by 52.4% relative to 1991, down to £2.32 million (US$4.1 million) (assuming that "Day one Inflation value" is the sum to be considered - as the "Declared value" is entered as £1.78 million) (US$3.15 million)

In my letter of 25 November 2002 to the LVT I wrote:   "The current sum demanded of £736,206.09 is nearly half the declared value of the building (document # 19 - Norwich Union insurance policy which gives a declared value of £1,785,000 at December 2000 )"  

•  In her reply of 16 December 2002 to this letter, Hathaway stated:   "The insured value of the building is in excess of £3.5m (US$6.17 million) and not as you state."

On this basis, and taking the sum of £2.32 million (US$4.1 million) as the base for 1999, the insured value increased by 50.9% over a two year period .

However, the £3.5 million quoted by Ms Hathaway means that the insured value of the block was back to what it was 12 years previously - as the 1989-1990 Sun Alliance insurance document puts the value at £3.48 million. In other words, over a 12 year period, a block of flats in Knightsbridge had NOT increased in value.

Visitor to the site, if you are familiar with London property prices over this period, at this point, you must be laughing at this. Indeed, according to my analysis of government statistics, over this period the average UK price of property increased by 134 % - as can be seen on the graph (I compiled).   And this is average UK prices; London prices went up by considerably more.

What must be noted about the ' Norwich Union Insurance Policy Wording' document is that the post code for Jefferson House is wrong as it states 'SW1' .   The post code for the block is 'SW3'.

Also, it is not a proper insurance document - not only as suggested by its title, but also by the fact that it is not on Norwich Union headed paper. In fact, the text at the bottom of the document indicates that this document was generated by Saxon Law .

In the summary of my complaint, I referred to the issue under point 1.1.1.52 in the context of RICS Code Rule 16.9 'Provision for written summary of insurance / copy of relevant policy', and points 271 and 272.  

With its 3 August 2005 reply, the RICS enclosed two insurance documents supplied by Martin Russell Jones: for 2004 and 2005.   In both instances the postcode also states 'SW1'.   In my complaint I had highlighted under points 1.1.1.52 (ii) and 272 that the postcode on the 2001 " Norwich Union Insurance Policy Wording" was wrong

Obviously, as with everything else in my complaint, the RICS did NOT query Martin Russell Jones on this.

•  In terms of the sum insured, by 2004 it had increased by 21.2% relative to Ms Hathaway's stating a value of £3.5 million (US$6.17 million) in her 16 December 2002 letter.

•  A year later it increased by 11.1% to £4.87 million (US$8.6 million) - which is the same sum insured in 1991 . Hence, the sum insured for the block has remained static over a 14 year period . According to government statistics, over this period average UK property prices increased by 176% - as can be seen on the graph (I compiled)

I wrote in my complaint (point 272):   "This leads me to have two very serious concerns: (1) Is the building actually insured? (2) Am I covered in case of damage to the parts of my flat not covered under my own home-contents insurance?"

Actually, since then I now have an even bigger concern as the last floor of the building is now under the control of a superior headlessor, Lavagna Enterprises Limited, and therefore no longer under the control of Steel Services - the party with which I have a contract (see Notices by landlord for detail).

Update since writing this : see Headlessor - and my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement (Related pages: Portner and Jaskel ; West London County Court)

In particular, Clause 5(2)(4) of my lease :

"To insure and keep insured the building.and in case of destruction of or damage to the building or any part thereof so as to make the same unfit for habitation and use. to lay out all monies received in respect of such insurance . in rebuilding and reinstating the same.."

Concurrently, the cost of the insurance captured in the year-end accounts leads to also question what is actually going on.

As can be seen from my attached analysis of the year-end accounts for the years 1992 to 2001 which, not only shows an erratic pattern for the insurance premium, but also missing years for the 'so called' 'engineering insurance', as well as for the 'terrorism' insurance. (And these are not the only items leading to raise questions).

While the erratic pattern for the cost of the insurance premium suggests over-charging, evidence of this can be seen in the 'Norwich Union Insurance Policy Wording' document, dated " 12 months @ 31 December 2000 " which states that the insurance premium is £1,893 (US$3,340), but the accounts for 2001 year-end accounts state £3,455 (US$6,000), while those for the 2000 year-end state £3,050 (US$5,400).

In my complaint, under section 13.9, I wrote "Another example of dishonesty is found in relation to the insurance for the block - as well as evidence of mis-management" .

OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, as a last point on the 'insurance' section, I draw your attention to The Mail on Sunday article of 30 May 2006, headed " Landlords' £1bn insurance sting" .   Among others, the article states

"Unscrupulous landlords are overcharging leasehold flat owners.by as much as £1 billion for buildings insurance, it has been alleged.

The swindle is a result of managing agents and landlords secretly adding inflated 'administration' fees to premiums.

".Government departments and the Financial Services Authority have told Selcha (leaseholder group) that no widespread illegal practice is taking place"

What a surprise! No doubt, the RICS had a voice in this denial.

In support of my claim, 10 days later Mr Graham Chase, vice-president of the RICS was 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"

I hold the view that to bring the RICS "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.

 

 

(49) Conclusion

In the summary of my complaint, I wrote

"Martin Russell Jones has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does not respect residents' statutory and common law rights. The key message is: residents you are there to feed our greed and that of our client.

And, if any of you dare to challenge us, you will dearly pay for it. We guarantee that we and our 'associates' will make you go through utter, sheer hell. Nobody is going to stand in our way"

I MORE THAN EVER STAND BY THAT...

....BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT I HAVE SUFFERED AND CONTINUE TO SUFFER (see e.g My Diary 13 Jul 10) FROM JOAN HATHAWAY, MRICS AND BARRIE MARTIN, FRICS

Because of their actions, over a period of several years, I have suffered - and continue to suffer- the most horrendous amount of sustained stress, anguish, torment and distress leading to serious consequences on my physical and emotional health requiring the need to seek medical treatment.

Among others, they have cost me several thousand hours of my life by needing to engage in constant battles with them.

From the latter part of 2001, THEY - in tandem with Andrew Ladsky et. al. other puppets - have ROBBED ME OF MY LIFE.

They have also ROBBED ME OF THE MAJORITY OF MY SAVINGS and cost me loss of earnings as a result of placing me in a situation of having to fight off their fraudulent claims, blackmail, harassment and extortion tactics.

There are many other costs such as causing me humiliation at work as I had to report that I was facing a court case.

At the end of the day, Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS (as well as, indeed, Brian Gale, MRICS), act in this manner because they know they have carte blanche to do exactly as they please - including, quite clearly, FULL ENDORSEMENT by their trade association - the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Indeed, in its 4 November 2005 reply the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors stated :

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

HOORAY FOR SELF-REGULATION!

Add to that the fact that, in 2008, the RICS encouraged MRJ to issue proceedings against me.... for libel. YEP! See RICS # 11 and # 12

 

 

(50) And finally, at the end of the day, what is the ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE EVENTS SINCE 2000?

Andrew Ladsky et. al. and their aides - among others, Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS - 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$6.9m) in December 2005, etc.

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

Jefferson House July 2002

 

Jefferson House September 2005

 

To be more precise:

( PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)

UNBELIEVABLE! ISN'T IT?

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I assume that this section on Martin Russell Jones,   in addition to the section on Mr Brian Gale , have seriously undermined your confidence employing a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Mercifully - in spite of their trade association - some surveyors do act in the utmost professional manner e.g. my surveyor, Mr Tim Brock, LSM Partners.

ANDREW LADSKY ET. AL., JOAN HATHAWAY, MRICS, BARRIE MARTIN, FRICS, BRIAN GALE, MRICS, THE ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS, LANNY SILVERSTONE, AYESHA SALIM, PIPER SMITH & BASHAM/WATTON AND STAN GALLAGHER CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING .

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top