Email this site to a contact

 

The (then) FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY: another government department from which to take the claims with a 'huge' pinch of salt (written in 2005). Two years later, the financial crisis proved me right: (e.g. Northern Rock). The FSA has since been reincarnated into the FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY.

Trust Fund - Financial Services Authority re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1aX

 

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

 

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

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

Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').

 

Sections

(NOTE, above, browser set-up)

 

Introduction

 

On 1 Apr 13, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) (I had approached) was 'replaced' by the FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY (FCA) (or 'Financial Cock-Up Authority', as Private Eye calls it)...

 

...as stated e.g. in the FCA's 2013-2014 annual report:

"On 1 April 2013 we were established as the conduct regulator for the UK financial markets, taking over responsibility from the Financial Services Authority for the conduct regulation of all authorised firms, and the prudential regulation of the vast majority of these"

 

'Replaced' = probably more accurately described as 'reincarnated into' - as:

  • the method of operating bears a strong resemblance of that of its predecessor,..

...as can be seen from the following articles, and my experience with the then FSA - as reported on this page...

...thereby leading me to NOT believe the claims on its website (at 17 Jul 14):

 

"We want consumers to use financial services with confidence and have products that meet their needs, from firms and individuals they can trust.

To achieve this, we regulate firms and financial advisers so that markets and financial systems remain sound, stable and resilient. We also encourage transparent pricing that’s easy for everyone to understand.

Our aim is to help firms put the interests of their customers and the integrity of the market at the core of what they do."

 

"Financial Conduct Authority chair and board members face pressure to quit", The Guardian, 17 Jul 14

"City regulator chair John Griffith-Jones and three other directors urged to resign due to 'conflict of interest over HBOS collapse'" (1)

"The FCA chair, John Griffith-Jones, recused himself from board meetings to discuss the eventual report into the circumstances surrounding the rescue of HBOS by Lloyds TSB in September 2008 [1], because his previous employer, KPMG [2], had acted as auditor to the troubled bank".

"The other directors also caught in a conflict of interest are the head of enforcement, Tracey McDermott, the head of supervision, Clive Adamson, and the chief operating officer, Lesley Titcomb. They worked for the FCA's predecessor, the Financial Services Authority".

"Philip Meadowcroft, a member of the public and long-time campaigner over such issues, said...The investigation report was long overdue [3], because the regulator had said a year ago that Maxwellisation - the process that allows individuals mentioned in a report to see extracts relating to them in advance - was due to begin, but had yet to happen" (3)

"Last week the FCA was forced to reopen its investigation [4], which has examined following pressure from the Treasury select committee whether former HBOS management team members should be banned from working in the City."

(1) - Finally!

The "conflict of interest" was reported the previous year, by Private Eye, issue 1355, 13-20 Dec 13, pg 9:

"None of the Big accountancy firms comes out of recent financial scandals well, but KPMG seems to have turned a blind eye most often"

"...As auditor KPMG also raised no red flag as HBOS hurtled to oblivion before the taxpayer bailout" (see whistleblower Paul Moore, Head of Regulatory Risk at HBOS)

"The accountants’ regulator, the Financial Reporting Council [see, below, Private Eye articles], is waiting for a report on HBOS from the banking regulator, the Prudential Regulatory Authority, before deciding whether to look at the firm’s role in the HBOS affair."

"Despite KPMG’s time asleep at the wheel, its snoozer-in-chief John Griffiths-Jones, in charge of the firm in the UK from 2006 to 2012 and chairman across Europe from 2007, is now chairman of… the Financial Conduct Authority!"

(2) - KPMG was my last employer, from which I resigned.

(3) - "report long overdue"; "Maxwellisation"

This was reported by Private Eye, # 1357 - 10-23 Jan 14, pg 32 - "Report about 2008 rescue of HBOS still unpublished"

"..a former FD of Bradford & Bingley...is only the 6th banker to be fined for their role in the banking crisis."

"These depressing facts encapsulate everything that is wrong with the much too little, far too late British financial regulatory regime and explain why men in suits have no fear of the penalties for bad behaviour." (*)

"Delay on HBOS report is understood to be due to the “Maxwellisation” process, whereby those who are to be criticised in an official report get the chance to have their lawyers neuter the findings as far as possible."

(*) Proven yet again by the below outcome re. HBOS.

It's across the board - as evidenced by the outcomes of my 50+ legitimate 'cries for help' and complaints.

in its 1393 issue, 29 May-11 Jun 15, Private Eye concluded, on pg 41 (under 'Repeat offender'):

"Consider the fact that the FCA report on the collapse of HBOS into the arms of Lloyds and the taxpayer in 2008 has been delayed again from next month.

Why? Because those responsible must be given even more unjustifiable legal opportunities to water down criticism and avoid accountability - no "justice delayed is justice denied" policy at the FCA, even if unconscionable delay makes any regulatory action probably as impossible as it is pointless."

Private Eye was spot on: the publication of the HBOS report was delayed to ensure the statutory deadline for misconduct proceedings had passed.

And more delaying tactics by claiming that (after issuing the £7 million report), "another investigation is required."

It is sickening to read the articles - including how the Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority excuses the conduct: "HBOS and the FSA as "creatures of the time"."

Outcome of the Establishment closing rank: everybody is (and will continue) to get away scot-free (leaving only the 'little people' to suffer ( below)):

  • HBOS management walked away with large pensions, and other payments - and into other City jobs; (while poor Mr Moore, the HBOS whistleblower, must have gone through hell, and is probably still suffering the consequences);
  • 'regulators' who put the blame on others; use one of the favourite excuses: breakdown in communication; have mysteriously 'misled' evidence of their decision to take action against only only HBOS executive - and then used another favourite excuse: "not in the public interest to take action".

As to the auditors, KPMG, they are not mentioned.

Assessment by Private Eye, issue 1406, 27Nov-10Dec15, pg 5:

"Will the government take action against the useless auditors who gave clean bills of health to HBOS’ accounts as the bank was sliding towards oblivion?

It seems highly unlikely. Despite last week’s damning report…KPMG is still dodging the flak and continues to have friends in high places."

"The firm had already been let off the hook by the accountancy regulator, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), which a couple of years ago “advised that the criteria for commencing an investigation were not met. However, aware that this now doesn’t sound too good, the FRC has said it “will reconsider any new information. (*)

"Whether the accountant-dominated regulator does any better this time is far from certain."

The Eye then repeats from the below articles.

(*) If "the information is new", it cannot be "reconsidered". Translation: reconsider its decision to protect its member by turning a blind eye. (A typical outcome from a British so-called 'regulator').

'The need' to provide new information' is another standard British Establisment's 'Frustrate and discourage tactic (Header 2) - hell-bent on turning a blind eye to the evidence e.g.

In its issue 1338, 19Apr-2 May 13, Private Eye reported, on pg 5:

"The Financial Reporting Council is at last considering examining KPMG's role in the HBOS affair. But don't hold your breath."

"Chaired by the underwhelming Baroness (Sarah) Hogg,... the FRC is stuffed with beancounters from the Big 4 who still claim they were blameless in the financial crisis."

"Any investigation of KPMG’s HBOS work will be run by the FRC’s “financial reporting review panel” (FRRP). The deputy chair of this is Joanna Osborne, who until 2009 was a partner for 20 years at…KPMG."

"Other beancounters on the FRRP board include two more KPMG partners, plus James Coyle, Lloyds’ financial controller, who until it acquired HBOS had worked for 18 years and been group chief accountant of…HBOS!"

 

To this can be added Private Eye's # 1346, 9-22 Aug 13, pg 5 - that discusses "KPMG's role auditing BAE Systems" - stating, in the article:

"The Financial Reporting Council’s decision to drop its investigation into KPMG’s role auditing BAE Systems during the bribing heyday – because the scandal began so long time ago – sets a worrying precedent for a major case exposed by the Eye:

the multi-million-pound offshore commissions for non-existent services on a Saudi military contract held by defence company EAD’s British subsidiary, GPT."

"Curiously the man heading the FRC’s “conduct” division, which dropped the BAE case, is Paul George – a partner at KPMG from 1995 to 2000 as the firm signed off BAE’s accounts (a good chunk of the period covered by the investigation)."

"Meanwhile FRC non-executive director, Sir Steve Robson, former senior Treasury mandarin behind New Labour's light touch regulation until 2001 who went to sleep through RBS board meetings remains, comically, chairman of the "public interest committee" at KPMG"

And another that should prove 'interesting': Private Eye, # 1394, 12-25 Jun 15, pg 37 - "Fifa scandal - Swilling the beans":

"Accountancy firm KPMG is to be found close to the heart of many scandals, but the endemic corruption of Fifa could yet prove its most damaging."

"KPMG's Swiss arm has audited world football's governing body and its multi-billion pound annual business throughout decades of rampant corruption."

"Yet annually it has vouched not just that the accounts are correct but also that they are free from "fraud or error"".

"Even when it is clear KPMG did see a dodgy payment...[it] simply recommend[ed] procedural improvements."

"Since 2007, KPMG's Swiss arm has been part of the UK-based KPMG Europe LLP, which brings another scandal to the door of...John Griffith-Jones [above article]... [who wrote] "that the core values of integrity...". (*)

"Whether the small matter of ignoring corruption in football dislodges Britain's top financial watchdog remains to be seen."

(*) "Above all, we act with integrity" was how KPMG summarised its 'Values' when I was there (until Jan 08). The page on KPMG demonstrates how it translated in practice in my case.

 

As Liam Halligan of the Telegraph stated in his 21 Nov 15 article, "HBOS report will do little to quell discontent":

"...taxpayers remain tens of billions of pounds out of pocket.

Then there’s the cataclysmic impact on our economy...This crisis significantly undermined the wealth and happiness of millions of British people....no one has been properly sanctioned or punished."

(4) - "the FCA was forced to reopen its investigation"

At the time, I wrote: 'But: in the light of the above: an outcome of the type of the MANY I received over the years, looks predictable: No wrongdoing! Clean slate!'.

 

Private Eye, # 1389 – 3-16 Apr 15, pg 33 – "Tricks of the trade – Bank of New York Mellon paid $714m two weeks ago to settle civil fraud claims brought against it by US regulators and customers for overcharging on foreign exchange deals...

BNY Mellon is also UK-regulated. But when retiring Labour MP Austin Mitchell raised the US action with the Fundamentally Supine Authority in 2012 he was assured all was well as there had been no UK complaints!

Perhaps after the $714m settlement its successor, the Financial Cock-Up Authority (a title justified by the recent Treasury committee report), should look a little closer? (*)

Meanwhile, the FCA has remained silent on the similar regular abuse of retail FX customers by high street banks."

(*) In its 1391, 1-14 May 15 edition, pg 33, Private Eye reported - "Oars traders – Bank of New York Mellon was fined a record £126m by the Financial Cock-Up Authority for failing to keep customers accounts and money ringfenced from its own."

 

It seems to me that, in this "fantastically corrupt", worse than Wild West environment, sanctions for malpractice and downright criminality by the financial sector have been outsourced to the US e.g.

 

"British banker pleads guilty to Libor rigging", The Guardian, 7 Oct 14.

"Trillions of dollars of loans and credit derivatives are priced with reference to benchmark interest rates, published every day in London and known as Libor, or the London Interbank Offer Rate."

"Suggestions that this rate – which purports to represent the price banks would be prepared to lend to one another – had been manipulated by some of the world’s biggest lenders was a major blow to the reputation of London as a leading financial centre." (*)

(*) - What reputation? It was already perceived as "the biggest money laundering centre in the world" (BVI # 3)

"Deutsche Bank hit by record $2.5bn Libor-rigging fine", The Guardian, 23 Apr 15

"For the first time in a Libor-rigging settlement, New York state’s Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) was involved and it ordered the bank to sack seven employeesone managing director, four directors and one vice-president, all based in London,..." (1)

"Georgina Philippou, the acting director of enforcement and market oversight at the Financial Conduct Authority, said the UK’s portion of the fine – £227m – was a record for Libor..." (2)

"Libor-rigging fines: a timeline", The Guardian, 23 Apr 15

"Icap, the City dealer run by former Conservative party treasurer Michael Spencer, was fined £55m in September 2013 and three of its former employees charged with criminal offences in the United States." (3)

"In May 2014 the broker RP Martin had its fine of £3.6m reduced to £630,000 to stop it collapsing." (4)

(1)- "Based in London...and ordered to be sacked by the US". WHY?

And: "sacked", but NOT prosecuted? Why not? This is theft.

(2)- " £227m...out of £1.7bn". Call that "a record"?

(The article reports: "The total of $2.5bn (£1.7bn) includes $600m to the New York state's Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), $800m to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and $775m to the US Department of Justice.")

By the way: should 30%, or 20% be deducted from the £227m?

e.g. "Barclays handed biggest bank fine in UK history over 'brazen' currency rigging", The Telegraph, 20 May 15 - "Barclays...had not settled with the FCA and CFTC in November...This meant it only qualified for a 20pc settlement discount with the watchdog, compared with the 30pc the other banks received".

(3)- Same question: WHY "by the US"?

(4)- 'Of course', mustn't let it "collapse"...that's only for 'the little people' (e.g. individuals and small businesses re. taxation). However, if it was for the sake of sparing losses to bona fide investors with RP Martin, then, I agree.

 

(1) - My experience with the then Financial Services Authority (FSA)

At the time I first contacted the then Financial Services Authority (FSA), in 2005, managing agents needed to be registered with the FSA in order to conduct insurance business.

The impression the FSA conveyed to me through its website, as well as advertising, was that, as a consumer, I could have confidence in a company that was authorised by the FSA to conduct financial business. Indeed, among others, it stated:

"Always check a firm is authorised by the FSA, or is the agent of an authorised firm - before you do business with them"

As the then Martin Russell Jones was registered with the FSA, listing: (1)- Joan Hathaway, MRICS ; (2)- Barrie Martin, FRICS ; (3)- Roger Child...

...- in light of events with the first two, in my 23.04.05 letter to the FSA, I asked it to:

"explain the factors that determined your decision to approve their authorisation"

And to:

"confirm that Martin Russell Jones are also authorised by the FSA to hold statutory trust funds"

With this letter, I enclosed:

The 12.05.05 'reply' from the FSA amounted to a 'GET LOST!' - in the form of 'Big Brother knows best' - when dealing with 'a Prole':

"It is not our practice to comment on the specific issues which have led to a firm being authorised"

"Once authorised, a firm is required to comply with the FSA rulebook."

To which I replied on 04.06 05:

"I am not asking for personal details. I am asking for the "factors", if you prefer the "selection criteria", if you prefer - taking from the subsequent sentence in the letter from your Office: "the basic requirements" - which lead to a firm being authorised by your Office.

As a member of the public, encouraged to believe that an FSA registered business is an endorsement of reliability / sound business practice, I believe that I am entitled to ask this question.

I am aware of other examples where the FSA has authorised firms and individuals, without regard to their previous misconduct, and subsequently had cause to regret its decision"

The 'reply' also communicated a 'not interested' attitude - stating:

"...only the firm's insurance mediation activities are subject to regulation"

To which I replied, in my 04.06 05 letter:

"However, I understand the firms your Office regulates are required to meet certain high level principles, which might be compromised by their behaviour in other areas"

Referring to the points in my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS, against the then Martin Russell Jones, I then highlighted, among others:

•  The 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' by the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, reference LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref # 992 on the LVT database)...

- which (based on my surveyor's assessment) had the effect of reducing the sum demanded for "the major works" by £500,000 (US$882,000) (This includes £141,977 (US$250,000) 'said' to be in the reserve fund) (LVT # 4)

•  The fraudulent 29.11.02 claim filed against me and 10 my fellow leaseholders (representing 14 apartments in total), by Cawdery Kaye Fireman and Taylor (CKFT), in West London County Court...

...- for which the statement of truth was endorsed by Joan Hathaway, MRICS (Overview # 3 ; WLCC # 2.2). (See My Diary 22 Nov 08: 'court claims = FRAUD TOOLS')

•  The fraudulent 21.10.04 invoice I received from Martin Russell Jones, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,500 (US$25,600) - without any explanation whatsoever (Overview # 6)

Against this, I highlighted the fact that a settlement had been agreed between myself and Martin Russell Jones' client 'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky (through Ladsky's solicitors, CKFT) for the sum of £6,350,...

and that a Consent Order sealing the agreement had been endorsed by Wandsworth County court on 01.07.04 (Overview # 3 ; CKFT # 6.3 , # 6.4 ; WLCC # 13 , # 14)

(In relation to all the above, see Extortion)

I followed this by drawing attention to Martin Russell Jones' then website

"We provide property owners, prospective purchasers and tenants an honest, reliable and professional service"

For the second time, I asked the FSA to

"confirm that MRJ has the authority to hold statutory trust funds under the permissions that the FSA has granted to the firm"

As to the FSA's last comment in its 12.05.05 'reply':

"...could I ask you to inform the FSA of the final outcome of your complaint filed with the RICS"

(NB: No doubt they had communicated with each other, and the FSA knew that, at May 05, I had yet to get the final 'Get lost!' from the RICS - counting on this to send me back on the treadmill).

My 04.06 05 response was:

"I would remind you that the RICS is a self-regulatory body whose primary function is to protect the interests of its members, like MRJ. (NB: I was further vindicated three years later - see RICS # 12)

By contrast, the FSA is an independent body - established by statute"

"I await the outcome of your independent investigation into this firm, uninfluenced by the views of its own trade union"

The lack of transparency from the then FSA, combined with what I perceived as a very casual, 'don't care' attitude, led me to the conclusion that firms of the size of the then Martin Russell Jones did not come under the radar of the FSA...

...added to the fact that their clients are sacrosanct landlords - given the divine right to rip-off leaseholders i.e. 'Proles', to their heart's content.

Its 'response' of 20.06.05 further reinforced my perceptions. I replied on 04.07.05.

The FSA still refused to provide me with information regarding its authorisation process.

Likewise, it also refused to tell me whether or not Martin Russell Jones was authorised to hold trust fund monies...

...- stating in its 20.06.05 letter:

"This is due to confidentiality restrictions placed upon us by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000"

(= Yet another typical "Administrative manipulation tactic" - Header # 2)

To which I replied in my 04.07.05 letter:

"Given that MRJ's authorisation to undertake insurance business can be seen on the FSA's website, I assume that if it had authorisation to hold trust fund monies, it would, likewise, be displayed on the FSA's website.

Indeed, given the purpose of the information which is to assist the public in the selection of a 'reliable' advisor, why should the public be able to see one authorisation and not the other?

Why should the authorisation to hold trust fund monies be kept under a veil of secrecy?"

My suspicion was that this question had NOT been asked by the FSA as part of the authorisation process - which led me to write:

"In light of this - and on the assumption that the application form MRJ had to complete in order to get its FSA authorisations included a question asking whether or not it handled trust fund monies (a question that should certainly be on the form) - I conclude that MRJ replied that it did not. Which, of course, is a false answer"

I followed this by highlighting the fact that, in 'her' 15.07.02 letter, Hathaway was asking from leaseholders the sum of £735,000 (US$1.3m) (Overview # 1).

In addition, Martin Russell Jones also held a contingency fund 'said' to amount to c. £140,000 (US$250,000).

"In other words, a total of nearly £1million"

In this letter, I also drew attention to (and provided copy) of the 15.04.05 reply from Pridie Brewster, 'accountants', who certified the accounts for Jefferson House:  

"...we were not made aware of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination of 17 June 2003 at the time that we were preparing our certificate"

(YES! - and once it was made aware of it: it did NOTHING!

In fact, its so-called 'regulator', the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), sided with Pridie Brewster - and consequently with Andrew David Ladsky - in the fraud, by claiming that "the tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs". If they were that "willing": how come they ended up on the 29.11.02 claim? (snapshot- Pridie Brewster-ICAEW # A).

Having remarked on the fact that, evidently, my complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones had not been forwarded to the "supervisor for Martin Russell Jones",...

... I commented on the last comment by the FSA in its 20.06.05 letter:

"We realise this can be frustrating but would reassure you that all information is carefully considered before we decide what action, if any, we take"

(that amounted to yet more typical "Administrative manipulation tactics" - Header # 2)

By stating, in my 04.07.05 letter:

"I must say that the responses I have received from your Office to date have led me to lose the confidence I had in the FSA. Namely, that if a business is FSA authorised, as a member of the public, I could trust it.  

On the basis of my above analysis (further reinforced by recent media reports e.g. the case of the individual with a criminal conviction for stealing client's money who had been granted an authorisation by the FSA - and proceeded to defraud his clients of the sum of £2.8 million [US$4.9m] (*), I have now come to the conclusion that the FSA's processing of applications is seriously flawed.

And worse still, when unacceptable methods of operating are reported, the FSA cannot even be bothered to investigate. I refer to your Office's reply of 12 May 2005: "...could I ask you to inform the FSA of the final outcome of your complaint filed with the RICS"

(*) I was referring to the 2004/05 article in the Daily Mail / Sunday Mail

The 26.07.05 'reply' from the FSA was so nonsensical and irrelevant that I did not bother to reply.

= Another victory for the British public sector from its typical use of the 'Frustrate and Discourage Tactics' (header 2), and

= yet again - many more hours of my time wasted writing letters - added to the costs (Doc library # 5.6).

The God of Money forbids that there should even be a hint of regulation of anybody in this island-Kingdom (of course, other than for 'the Proles') - and any criminal activity by 'the protected ones' are ignored / denied / covered up / classified as "secret" e.g. the then Serious Organised Crime Agency.

In fact, the so-called 'regulators' perceive themselves as the servants of those they are meant e.g. to regulate e.g.

 

"Exposed: the banks' coy ties to watchdog" (The Sunday Times, 8 Mar 09)

"The FSA, which presided over the banking collapse, gave financial institutions a formal role in determining the pay of the very regulators tasked with overseeing them".

 

The situation 8+ years later?

From Hubert Hughes, Chief minister of Anguilla, (Guardian, 15 Jun 13) (NB: In the context of offshore jurisdictions - BVI # 2 and # 3)

"he resented being lectured by Britain on tax transparency in light of the City of London's role".

"The City of London is one of the biggest tax havens in the world – it is the biggest money laundering centre in the world."

And 10 years later?

"Let’s not fool ourselves. We may not bribe [*], but corruption is rife in Britain", George Monbiot, The Guardian, 18 Mar 15 (In the context of the launch of a book: 'How corrupt is Britain?') (see media page)

"Would there still be a commercial banking sector in this country if it weren’t for corruption?"

"The City of London, operating with the help of British overseas territories and crown dependencies, is the world’s leading tax haven, controlling 24% of all offshore financial services.

It offers global capital an elaborate secrecy regime, assisting not just tax evaders but also smugglers, sanctions- busters and money-launderers."

(*) Actually, YES: ADD "bribing" (BVI # 3)

 

In Feb 06 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors was granted 'designated professional body' (DPB) status.

It means that RICS member firms can now / could (?) conduct insurance mediation activities without the need for FSA authorisation and instead be 'regulated' by the RICS. (I do not know the position at Jul 14. I assume that this is still the case).

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

More than one year prior to writing to the FSA, I remarked in my 22.11.04 letter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (using some comments from Mr Nigel Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L.)

"On becoming a landlord, an individual - regardless of his track record - is automatically granted the right to control anything from several hundred thousand pounds to several million pounds of lessees' money. (Some landlords control several thousand properties).

Whereas a one person business offering financial advice automatically comes under the control of the Financial Services Authorities, a landlord is not bound by any regulation whatsoever on the management of the funds.

Oh yes, there is legislation: Section 42 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 "Service charge contributions to be held in trust" - but, as I experienced, there is no mechanism to ensure it is implemented"

Surprise! Surprise! 10 years later: this is still the case! (CLRA 2002 - my comments on s.156)

Meanwhile, the then Martin Russell Jones continued on its merry way, implementing its standard formula:

  • in relation to me: Overview # 11 , # 15;

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

(2)- failing to produce year-end accounts;

(3)- failing to issue a section 20 notice;

(4)- use of solicitors and proceedings to enforce payment of fraudulent 'service charges'.

= A blueprint of some of what Martin Russell Jones did at Jefferson House.

(See also Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors # 12 for other examples)

Yep! All of that sounds very much like 'Déjà vu'... and why should Martin Russell Jones have stopped doing it?

The built-in reaction of ALL the so-called 'regulators' is to turn a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to malpractice, gross misconduct, including criminal activities (see Summaries of my 'cries for help' and complaints - including # 6.2, re. my complaint to the RICS against MRJ)...

... - leading to the conclusion that what the then Martin Russell Jones did was regarded as 'good practice'.

(NB: 3 years later, in 2008, I was vindicated further on my conclusion - see RICS # 12, and My Diary # 2.5, under which I discuss how low this institution with 'Royal endorsement' has sunk).

 

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top