The £7 million (?) (US$12m) swindle, engineeredby surveyors and lawyers, and implementedwith the assistance of tribunal, courts,accountant and police |
I view Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Robert Martin, FRICS, as evil, corrupt and morally depraved individuals - conduct endorsed by the Royal Insitution of Chartered Surveyors
|
Martin RUssell Jones (MRJ)
(NOTE: This section is c.80 pages in length) (NB: Martin Russell Jones is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points) Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), previously known as Spyer Johnston Evans, has been 'managing' agents for Jefferson House since 24 June 1989 when it was appointed by Langhaven Holdings (see Directorships).(Prior to this, Langhaven assumed the day-to-day management of Jefferson House for one year (e.g. service charge demand of 15 June 1988), taking over from Stanley Professional in June 1988). (Stanley Professional held the position for only a few months, having taken over from Paul C Bennis (PCB) e.g. Stanley's 28 March 1988 Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 S.48 notification that it acted for Acrepost (Langhaven); PCB's service charge demand of 24 June 1987 ) Until April 2005, 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". Since April 2005, MRJ's 'management' activities are located at Premier Suite 115, Premier House, 112 Station Road, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 7BJ Its website (m-r-j.co.uk) at September 2005, which promotes its sales and lettings services, gives the address as 3 Vivian Avenue, Hendon Central , NW4 3UT
The home page of Martin Russell Jones website (at 14 November 2005) reads: "We offer a unique and personalised approach, individually tailored to our clients, whose needs and expectations are of paramount importance to us Martin Russell Jones provide property owners, prospective purchasers and tenants an honest, reliable and professional service" In reading this section (as well as references to Martin Russell Jones in other parts of the site), please keep in mind the claims "honest, reliable and professional" (in relation to "tenants" ) As very amply evidenced in this section, in relation to the statement ".our clients, whose needs and expectations are of paramount importance to us", Martin Russell Jones could justifiably add: "regardless of legal obligations / requirements. We will lie to absolutely anybody, including courts and tribunals to achieve this objective" (See below for justification of my claims) Leading me to state that a word that has frequently come to my mind in relation to Martin Russell Jones is:
The main contact for Jefferson House has been Ms Joan Doreen Hathaway , MRICS (Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors). Mr Barrie Robert Martin , FRICS (Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) is the other part of the 'double act' that has tended to 'surface' from time to time at times coinciding with pressure on Ms Hathaway. From the beginning, my experience with this firm has been one of absolutely appalling performance. As captured in the summary of my 2 February 2005 complaint to the RICS, "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" I appreciate that it is a very damning statement to make about two individuals. Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, in reading this (long) section and my supporting (100 page) complaint (1MB) to the RICS, (as well as references to Martin Russell Jones in other sections), I believe you will have no problem understanding why I hold this view. I most definitely stand by it... ...and to this, I am subsequently adding: corrupt, evil scums from the same cesspit as Mr Ladsky and his other puppets. I have endured - and continue to endure - THE MOST UNBELIEVABLE HELL from Ms Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS ever since they took over the 'management' of Jefferson House.In spite of my experience since 1989, in particular with the main contact, Ms Hathaway, but also with Mr Martin, I had not filed a complaint with the RICS, its 'professional' body - best described as its 'trade association' - as many people had told me that (as with other professions' 'so called' regulatory bodies in the U.K.) it would be a complete waste of time. What changed my mind were the unjustified invoices for £14,500 (US$25,600) and £15,500 (US$27,300) in late 2004, combined with the fact that Martin Russell Jones actively supports its client in its tactic of (to borrow a leaseholder's comment about his own landlord) "turning intimidatory litigation into an industry" . (See below for detail) My 2 February 2005 (1MB) complaint turned out to be the longest of all my complaints. It is comprised of a 19 page summary supported by a 99 page document (with which I included a detailed contents page ), as well as 220 supporting documents . All are material evidence in support of my complaint. Among others, they include legal documents / documents for use in court such as, for example: • My Witness Statement (although it never made it to the courts (see My Witness Statement and Piper Smith Basham for reasons) - I totally stand by what I wrote ) • My defence to the (false) 29 November 2002 West London County Court claim filed by Ms Hathaway - under a Statement of Truth i.e. I supplied the RICS with a copy of the 'Particulars of claim' • My surveyor's 24 February 2003 assessment of Mr Brian Gale's specification • The 17 June 2003 LVT determination • My surveyor's 31 July 2003 assessment of the 17 June 2003 LVT determination • Steel Services' 'offer' of 21 October 2003 v. the original 17 July 2003 demand • Ms Ayesha Salim, (CKFT), 28 May 2004 letter to me stating 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 . • The 1 July 2004 Consent Order endorsed by Wandsworth County Court and, in spite of this, the unsupported £14,500 (US$25,600) invoice I received three months later and was followed one month after that with another unsupported invoice, this time for £15,500 (US$27,300) • Copy of court orders e.g. West London County Court 24 June 2003 hearing ; Wandsworth County Court 2 August 2004 hearing against the 5th Defendant It is a long summary as I reproduced the sections, 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 1 March 2005 initial reply from the RICS stated, "...we are able to investigate allegations of professional misconduct to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" . It also stated that the "appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint is "through civil or criminal proceedings" . In addition, that the RICS has no "power to award any compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid" . In my 5 March 2005 reply, I challenged the RICS response to parts of my complaint, every time highlighting the Core Values and Principles comprised in the RICS 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" . (See also RICS ) As explained, in the summary of complaint, I also reproduced section headings from the ' RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code' under which I summarised the relevant parts of my complaints. The RICS dismissed ALL THE BREACHES of this Code by Martin Russell Jones, claiming in its 10 June 2005 reply that "the Service Charge Residential Management Code is not mandatory .is classified as a Guidance Note.an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations" . Yet, in its 1 March 2005 letter the RICS wrote: "Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so" (See RICS for detail) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: as you read through this section on Martin Russell Jones, keep in mind the 4 November 2005 reply from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors: "I am of the opinion that there is an insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee currently" .Yet again, I believe that you will see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island' Sections
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
(1) Ms Hathaway revealed her 'true colours' from the very beginningWithin weeks of being appointed as 'managing' agents for the block in summer 1989, Ms Hathaway had revealed her true colours: liberal use of the threat of prosecution; dishonesty and highly incompetent management. This is evidenced by her 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" Having used the threat of prosecution, two days later, in a letter dated 1 November 1989 , Ms Hathaway communicated that an "error" had been made: "Unfortunately there was a typing error in our letter. The amount of £8,000 should have read £9,500 as VAT etc. was omitted" In the space of two sentences, Ms Hathaway highlighted her dishonesty as she stated: "a typing error", then said: "VAT etc was omitted" (2) During the 1990'sIn the 90s, I had long drawn-out battles with Ms Hathaway to get her, as the lessor's agent, to fulfil her contractual obligations - and to receive the service I am entitled to as contributor to the £10,000+ (US$17,600) management fee she is charging leaseholders for 'managing' the block. I captured these 'battles' in my 2 February 2005 (1MB) complaint to the RICS as Ms Hathaway - and Mr Lanny Silverstone, CKFT - threatened to bring to the attention of the court and of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) my withholding payment of service charges in the past. In particular: • ' Mr Ladsky style ' (*) letter sent under Ms Hathaway's name, dated 16 December 2002 (in reply to my 25 November 2002 letter to the LVT): "We should like to observe and point out to the LVT that during the entire period of our management of the building, which has been over many years, you have frequently not fulfilled your service charge obligations under the terms of your lease. We do feel this is a matter of some relevance to the LVT." (*) 'Mr Ladsky's style' letter - Comparing this letter with: (1) the 25 January 2001 letter sent to me (and other residents) by Mr Andrew Ladsky; (2) the 14 November 2001 threatening letter sent by 'Steel Services' to Nucleus, the local Citizen Advice Bureau (some residents had approached for assistance in relation to service charges); (3) the 2 January 2002 letter sent by 'Steel Services' to Resident A (who had filed an application to appoint an arbitrator in relation to the service charges - as per the clause in the lease) - they all display the most amazing similarity in style, layout and format suggesting that they are all from the same originator: Mr Andrew Ladsky • Mr Lanny Silverstone's letter to me dated 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 stated in my complaint (1MB) under point 255, "It is indeed true that I have withheld payment of service charges over the years (initially, increasingly larger parts of my contribution to the management fees and eventually escalating this to the half yearly service charges). However.they conveniently ignored the reasons for my doing this" . I followed this by "As Ms Hathaway is obviously the originator of this claim, it leads me to have to include in this document evidence in my defence against her claim. And what a defence! I literally have several files full of evidence" Indeed, my relating the main events took up the last 10 pages of my (already very long) complaint. They demonstrate years of on-going 'battles' with Ms Hathaway, entailing an unbelievable amount of letter writing (thereby using up a lot of my time) fighting-off her excuses, delaying tactics, as well as gross mismanagement. Examples include: • A four year 'battle' to get remedial work done to the external wall in front of my window (detailed under points 274 - 286 of my complaint (1MB)) (Examples of letters: 17 July 1991 ; 23 July 1991 ; 6 August 1991 ; 3 September 1991 ; 6 October 1991 ). • In total, I have had a 15 year battle between Martin Russell Jones and its predecessor to get the damp problem addressed in my kitchen e.g. my letter of 27 June 1987 to its predecessor and my 17 July 1991 letter to Ms Hathaway. • A c. three-year delay and then badly carried out works to a window leading to a second battle of c. two years to get the works redone • Waiting 26 days to deal with a leak in my bathroom ceiling (my letter of 19 January 1992 to which Mr Barrie Martin replied on 21 February 1992 that the ".porter (NB!!!) did not consider the problem as serious" ), leading to significant damage and leaving me without electricity in my windowless bathroom over the Christmas break. It took six months for the damage to be addressed. As detailed - and supported by evidence - under points 286 - 287 of my complaint (1MB), these events led to the need to employ professional advisers e.g. 27 March 2000 fax from my surveyor to Ms Hathaway, solicitor, as well as involve other parties. These other parties have included, among others, the Head of the then Residents Association for Jefferson House (letter of 11 February 2004 to Ms Hathaway), the British Petroleum Pension Fund who (mercifully!) was the freeholder at the time of some of my disputes with Martin Russell Jones, as well as their surveyors Debenham Tewson & Chinnocks (now known as DTZ) (e.g. their letter of 17 October 1991 to Ms Hathaway and of 19 March 1992 to me). Legally, the BP Pension Fund was under no obligation to help me. I am 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. OUTCOME: EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE RICS Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? However, a lot worse was yet to come. (3) Events leading to the £736,000 (US$1.3 million) demandAlthough Ms Hathaway announced the intention to have a condition survey carried out in her 21 December 2001 letter, the scam (swindle) had been in the making for already some time. Steel Services had filed a planning application on 13 November 2001 (Ref PP/01/2523) for the "erection of a new residential penthouse apartment at main roof level" . (A previous application had been made on 18 September 1998 (TP98-1773). (The Land Registry recorded Steel Services ownership at 22 November 1996 ) In my view, this planning application was a key milestone in the game plan, as it was used as a threat in the 13 December 2000 Notice by Landlord "The property is also sold subject to the burden of ongoing litigation. The landlord has been served with an application for an injunction seeking to restrain the landlord from implementing the current planning" See also Notices by Landlord for the appalling harassment and intimidation the Head of the Residents Association suffered as a result of pursuing the offer of first refusal, or 'Notice by landlord', dated 13 December 2001, as well as breach of leaseholders' statutory rights. The decision to appoint Mr Brian Gale, as captured in Ms Hathaway's letter 21 December 2001 , had been made quite some time previously. (During the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal hearings, Mr Gale admitted that Mr Ladsky was a prior client) Hence, the December 2001 tendering for the condition survey was just a cosmetic exercise. And, this exercise was driven by Mr Ladsky - rather than Martin Russell Jones. Among others, as can be seen on the attachments to Ms Hathaway's letter of 21 December 2001 , the 'potential' contractors - including Mr Brian Gale - sent their tender to the "The Office" at Jefferson House. Martin Russell Jones does not have an office there, and the lease does not allow use of the property for commercial purposes. I replied to Ms Hathaway's 21 December 2001 letter on 26 January and 2 February 2002 saying 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, on the lift, boiler and roof, lead to the conclusion that the works are in fact connected with the planning application (PPO12523) filed on 13 November 2001 for the " erection of a new residential penthouse apartment at main roof level ". Consequently, any costs associated with building of the penthouse flat are not the responsibility of leaseholders. It became immediately evident that I had exposed an intended scam as, within days of sending this correspondence to Ms Hathaway, I started to suffer on-going harassment and intimidation, as well as assault from Mr Andrew Ladsky . (Note that I cannot prove these - aside from having a witness on three occasions (see My Diary 26 October 2003 ; 1st June 2005 and 25 October 2007), as well as supporting evidence from comparing the event that took place on 19 April 2005 and on 16 May 2006. However, I believe it to be fair comment for me to say that there is enough of a case against Mr Ladsky to add credibility to my accusations - See sections Police, Head Residents Association , Notices by landlord , Nucleus , Elderly Resident , Other Residents , My Diary 15 May 2008 ) Mr Gale completed the condition survey in February 2002. In her 26 March 2002 letter, Ms Hathaway, wrote: "The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million (US$1.8 million) + VAT and fees. (NB: This would bring the total to £1.5 million + (US$2.7 million +). We would stress that this is a very rough indicative estimate and should in no way be relied upon as an exact figure. The tendering contractors may produce a price which is significantly more or less than the price indicated above depending on numerous factors which contractors take into account when tendering" Bearing in mind that the works that ought to be taking place were repairs and maintenance works (as per the Fourth Schedule of my lease ), these comments added to my alarm bells. Either Mr Gale was exceptionally inexperienced, or Ms 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 15 July 2002 £736,202 (US$1.3 million) service charge demandThe first shock came in the shape of the 15 July 2002 letter from Ms Hathaway in which she informed lessees that the cost of the works would be £736,206 (US$1.3 million). It includes an 11% management fee. (In his tender document of 20 December 2001 Mr Gale stated "We would undertake the full range of post contract administration services from supervision .our fee would be 10% of the contract sum...happy to undertake role of planning surpervisor.our fee would be 1% of contract sum." (As can be seen from Mr Barrie Martin's letter of 2 May 2006 (2.3MB) he has since - on the basis of the evidence - falsely argued that Mr Brian Gale "did not supervise" the works) Ms Hathaway states that estimates are attached. In fact, as can be seen from what she sent, only the total amount is given for Killby & Gayford - and very little else for the others. Hence, contrary to Ms Hathaway's claim, this letter cannot be considered a Section 20 Notice, as a duly priced specification had not been made available to leaseholders. Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Section 20 - (4) (b) "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" She also wrote "We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification." 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! With her correspondence of 15 July 2002 , Ms Hathaway had enclosed an invoice, dated 17 July 2002 for "Major works contribution: £14,400 " (US$25,400) (My 1.96% share of the £736,000 stated in her 15 July 2002 letter) (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 filed by Ms Hathaway - under a 'Statement of Truth' - 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. 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.
(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 (1MB)) (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 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 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 (1MB) 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 (1MB) 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) In the summary of my complaint (1MB) 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. In its 10 June 2005 reply it threw back at me breaches of my lease by Martin Russell Jones stating that they "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. 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. Just as well that the RICS stated in its 10 June 2005 letter "would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously" . Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? 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, Ms Hathaway filed - under a Statement of Truth - a claim against 11 leaseholders , representing 14 flats, in West London County Court for the full amount demanded. (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. 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. Just as well that the RICS stated in its 10 June 2005 letter "would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously" . Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? 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) Subsequent note: In -my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from their client" Mr Ladsky - have, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail, the Defamation Act 1996, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.19(2), the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 The above action: pursuing the same action under two separate jurisdictions amounts to an 'abuse of legal process' . I have referred to this in my complaint (1MB) against Martin Russell Jones under points 101 and 102, and point 1.2.2.2. in the summary. (In relation to my 20 December 2004 complaint to the Law Society against CKFT, it is captured under points 1.1.3.8 and 1.1.4.1 in the summary and points 77 and 78 in the main body of my complaint. In relation to my complaint against Mr Gallagher, it is captured under point 9 of my 31 October 2004 reply) 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, 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! " 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 (1MB) 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. 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. Just as well that the RICS stated in its 10 June 2005 letter "would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously" . Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? 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 (1MB), 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. Just as well that the RICS stated in its 10 June 2005 letter "would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously" . Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? Subsequent note: In -my non-lawyer opinion - I hold the view that Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor -"under instructions from their client" Mr Ladsky - have, in addition to breaching my lease, committed offences against me under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Theft Act 1968 s.21 Blackmail, the Defamation Act 1996, the Court and Legal Services Act 1990 - Chapter 41 - s.17 and CPR 1 1.3 (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 and in the letter from Piper Smith Basham, the remit of the LVT is to determine the " reasonableness, or otherwise, of the global sum demanded" . The LVT failed to perform its 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:
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 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 (1MB), 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. OUTCOME: IGNORED BY THE RICS. Consider that the RICS wrote in its 1 March 2005 letter: "Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so" Just as well that in its 10 June 2005 letter it wrote "would dispute most vehemently any suggestion that the RICS is not taking the matter seriously" . 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. " Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? 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• 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" • Point 47 - "The tenders could not be compared where there was no detailed specification and it followed that the Tribunal could not determine that costs were reasonable" • Point 16.07 - "In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that it has sufficient information to make a proper judgement and therefore makes no determination in respect of the boilers. This is an area which, in the Tribunal's view, alternatives and costings should have been explored" Please note that the sum demanded for the boiler was £89,824 (US$158,400). Therefore, with the addition of VAT and management fees the total amount is £117,153 (US$207,000). • Point 16.07 - "The recommendation of [ ] and Associates. to prepare a specification and drawings appeared to have been ignored by Mr Gale in his own specification. The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work, and he conceded during the hearing that there may have been an element of duplication. 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" "The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work." "Further, no proper explanation has been given for the increase from £27,300 (US$48,300) to £60,000 (US$106,000) [for the lift] over a matter of months." "the Tribunal is unable to make a determination on the specification, since it is considered inadequate" This ended-up being excluded due to my being conciliatory - as captured by the tribunal "However, the Respondent has agreed £27,300 (US$48,200) and this sum is therefore allowed" • Point 42 - "Mr Gale was questioned on the provision of £20,000 (US$35,300) in the specification in respect of the porter's desk. He also accepted that there could have been a fixed, rather than a provisional sum for this within the specification and said "it was a time factor really". He acknowledged "there is no specification yet" • Point 41 - "Mr Gale accepted that he had been "upping the specification" for the fire doors" . • Point 54 - "Assuming that, on a proper construction of the lease, the services in issue are covered by the charging clause, this does not mean that the landlord enjoys carte blanche to incur costs." 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 ) The addition of other items for which the LVT said to be unable to make a determination brought the total to £190,000 (US$335,000). In the summary of my complaint (1MB), 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" Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: do you see why I stated in my introduction to the site that there is 'no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'? 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: "There are no works which are not strictly maintenance" 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 born |
