Email this site to a contact

 

Another 'trade association' that perceives its role as "putting its members' interests ahead of consumer interests"

Pridie Brewster & institute of chartered accountants in england and wales (ICAEW) - re. Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX

 

This page is under review

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Sections list (below)

 

In reading this page on Pridie Brewster and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) remember that the ROOT CAUSE for their actions is a thoroughly evil, greed-ridden, vampiric, multi-criminal Rachman crook, Andrew David Ladsky...

...- deciding, with his gang of racketeers (1) that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:

and related works - for which we are NOT liable...

(1) Since 2011, Martyn Gerrard has been in the driving seat

(2) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Gerrard # 30.

...so that Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot...

... - that includes a penthouse apartment (Planning application; Land Registry title)...

...that was: "categorically NOT going to be built" (Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal - # 7.1),

because it was not a viable proposition" (Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - 04.03.03 letter) (Overview # 3)...

...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6.5m (US$11.5m)

For more detail, see this Feb 06 diagram.

For whom Pridie Brewster and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)...

joined the other assassins - in saying:

Yes! Of course! O' Great One!

Because...

 

...to do what Ladsky did - to gain £500k - isn't 'Mr Big' - is it?

So: why the across-the-board unfailing support?

Firstly, because this island-Kingdom is controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime - resulting in its being "fantastically corrupt".

I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.

Secondly, because he is 'Jewish' and / or because he is a Freemason who – as a result of his own actions – has exposed other Freemasons who, cowardly, take it out on me instead of him.

 

Sections

 

  C O M M E N T S

 

Introduction

Pridie Brewster was the firm of accountants that signed-off the so-called 'accounts' for the Jefferson House 'concentration camp' - at least, those I have up to 2004.

The main contact was Roger Clement.

(It appears to have been replaced by another 'ICAEW-endorsed' accountants, Errington Langer Pinner).

'Apparently', Brewster obtained the information from the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for Jefferson House - replaced, in 2011, by Martyn Gerrard, another bunch of racketeers in the Andrew David Ladsky stable.

(NB: Pridie Brewster and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales are covered in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement).

Pridie Brewster is a member of the ICAEW, for which the website stated, at 1 Sep 06:

"Protecting the public

The Institute is responsible for protecting the public and safe-guarding the reputation of the accountancy profession by ensuring that members maintain the highest standards of professional conduct and competence.

The ICAEW aims to achieve this by:

  • setting standards
  • monitoring and enforcing standards

We handle complaints against members and member firms and discipline members and firms whose work or behaviour fall below the standards expected.

Complaints

The Institute receives around 1700 complaints each year about members and firms.

If the professional and ethical standards of our members and firms do not meet the reasonable expectations of the public and other members, the Institute is responsible for disciplining them.

However, a simple mistake, an error of judgement or a minor example of negligence may not make a member or firm liable to disciplinary action

We assess all complaints to see whether the facts brought to our attention suggest that there is a case to answer.

If they don’t, we are not able to proceed further. We close about 40% of all cases at this stage"

How do these claims translate in practice?

This page provides the answer: the ICAEW does NOT live up to its claims... unless it considers events with its member, Pridie Brewster as "a simple mistake" - which they definitely are not.

Other examples providing further evidence against the ICAEW's above claims :

(1)- See the 'Letters to the Editor' section in C.A.R.L.'s newsletter, 'The Leaseholder' - Spring 2008, Issue 23:

"As a chartered accountant I personally am horrified at the abject disregard by my Institute for its responsibilities in respect of leasehold trust accounts.

I have submitted complaints about two accounting firms...and discovered that the procedures of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) made it as difficult as possible to obtain any form of satisfaction...

...the ICAEW appears to wholly disregard the outrageous misbehaviour of landlords and their managing agents, failing entirely to bring professional parties associated with or supportive of such miscreants to account.

In conclusion, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement: The time is long overdue when accountants can no longer regulate themselves"

(2)- See also, on C.A.R.L.: The Leaseholder,

  • (1)- Summer 2009 - Issue 27 "Bogus auditor let off" - Relates to:

"John Vincent Leach, a Bromley accountant who signed audit certificates on 85 company and service charge accounts over a period of more than 10 years even though he was not an auditor...

In spite of the severity of the offence, the ICAEW has allowed Leach to continue to practice... All he suffered was a reprimand...

The case demonstrates once again the complete inadequacy of self-regulation , and the desire of the Institute of Chartered Accountants to protect unprofessional members of its organisation against the consequences of their actions, rather than protect the public against the consequences of misconduct by their unprofessional members"

  • (2)- Autumn 2007 - Issue 22 "Accountants cover up malpractice"
  • (3)- Winter 2005-Issue 16 "The accounts still don't add up"
 

In March 2010 the media report that, Ernst & Young, accountants, and Linklaters, solicitors,

"provided window dressing for Lehman's risky financial structure" that "allowed the defunct investment bank to hide $50 billion in bad loans from its balance sheet" e..g

"London at centre of Lehman Brother 'accounting gimmick'", The Daily Telegraph, 12 Mar 10

"Ernst & Young, Linklaters and Lehman Brothers' London operations played key roles in the investment bank's attempts to mask $50bn (£33bn) of assets on its balance sheet in the run-up to its eventual implosion in September 2008.

The two advisers are under fire for their knowledge of a series of complex transactions known officially within the bank as "Repo 105", but referred to by senior staff as "window dressing" and an "accounting gimmick""

"Auditors' role in Lehmans collapse unites opposition in calls for reform", The Guardian, 15 Mar 10 - The article quotes

"Robert Hodgkinson, an executive director of the ICAEW" as saying that "he was concerned that auditors had largely followed the approach agreed with investors and regulators [NB: Proven?] but still failed to signal problems at companies that collapsed"

= behaviour modeled on their trade association, the ICAEW, that turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to malpractice - as evidenced by my experience (detailed on this page), and that of others.

(NB: At March 2010: Both, Ernst & Young and Linklaters deny wrongdoing)

Back to list

 

(A)- Snapshot of events in relation to my 19.07.05 'cry for help' to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) that turned into a complaint against Pridie Brewster.

(Draft version; see Doc library # 6.1 instead)

Typically, I had a drawn-out battle with the ICAEW in relation to the so-called "year-end accounts" produced by Pridie Brewster for Jefferson House.

Pridie Brewster had signed-off the "2002 accounts" and "2003 accounts" for Jefferson House, stating:

"...the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents".

It was clearly not true - given the then London Leasehold Valuation tribunal (LVT) findings (Overview # 2), and the terms of my Lease (extracts under Definitions). (See also my identical Comments attached to the 'accounts' e.g. 2002)

There was another issue: non-compliance with consultation procedures that had the effect of reducing the amount that could be demanded from each leasholder down to £250 (US$441) (Overview # 5)

I copied Pridie Brewster on my 30.03.05 letter to Joan Hathaway, then MRICS, of the then MRJ, (pt # 3), in which I raised the issues - in the process referring to my Lease, as well as to legislation.

It led Roger Clement, Pridie Brewster, to reply in his 15.04.05 letter:

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

"Since receiving your letter I have requested a copy of this determination and this was provided to me yesterday"

Aiming to help as best as I could, with my 17.04.05 letter I supplied Clement with copy of 48 documents. I then provided him with additional information in my 09.05.05 letter (pt # 3).

The lack of response led me, after 3 months, to contact the ICAEW by letter of 19.07.05, requesting its assistance "in getting Pridie Brewster to re-state the year-end accounts for Jefferson House" (pt # 4).

It was the start of - yet again - another battle with an English so-called 'self-regulatory' body - and a carbon copy repeat of my experience with ALL the others: 'fortress ICAEW' immediately embarked on an adversarial tone, ignoring all the evidence I supplied, and threw everything back at me (pt # 4 and pt # 5).

Having wasted a lot of my time, as well as money (pt # 6 to pt # 9), a 99.01.12 letter from the ICAEW, to Mr Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L., led me to 'have another go' on 07.03.06 (pt # 10), as the letter states :

"... in the event that a Court (or a relevant tribunal) decided that expenditure was not sufficiently supported, and an Institute member firm had reported otherwise, that would give rise to disciplinary considerations"

Outcome: this was totally ignored by the ICAEW (pt # 11and pt # 20)

As can be seen from the evidence contained under e.g. Overview # 3 - the majority of leaseholders at Jefferson House ended-up paying an amount that was NOT due and payable.

It led me to write what was, by then, my 5th letter to the ICAEW - intending it to be the last one.

After repeating what I had said several times previously, I also highlighted that, given the covenants in My Lease, Pridie Brewster had 'evidently' issued "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " - which was fraudulent, as Steel Services no longer had control of the last floor of Jefferson House.

Of course, the outcome is that invoices based on this were fraudulent (pt # 11 and pt # 12).

On the face of it, the reply of 24.05.06 looked 'promising' (pt # 13). However, by then, my comprehensive experience with the 'self-regulatory' bodies, had led me to conclude that should not 'hold my breath' (pt # 15). I was right!

I view the concocted 29.08.06 'reply' I received more than 3 months later, as absolutely appalling - as well as an insult to me (and fellow leaseholders) (pt # 18) - as it states:

"the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs"

If the leaseholders were so "willing", how come they ended-up having a claim filed against them?

How do you answer that one ICAEW [ ] ?

On the upside: thank you ICAEW for confirming that the Jefferson House's leaseholders were made to pay "extra costs" i.e. monies that were NOT due and payable.

In fact, the leaseholders were defrauded to the tune of £500,000+ (US$882,000) - so that 'Dear Mr Ladsky' could make his multi-million £ jackpot (e.g. Overview # 2 and # 3).

Among the several other points of note: the ICAEW placed the onus on 'ME' to perform the role of Pridie Brewster! (pt # 19).

In other words: a reply in the 'same vein' as those from the Law Society, and Her Majesty's Courts 'Customer Service' which, evidently, expected 'ME' to police the conduct of solicitors and, it seemed, run the courts (see WLCC (D) How the 'clan' sends people like me from 'pillar to post' ; (E) Conclusions)

In my 17.05.06 letter to the ICAEW, I asked:

Is it your Office's policy to encourage your members to disregard:

1.legislation?

2.the determination of an independent tribunal that is part of the English legal system?

3.legally binding contracts i.e. leases?

Very clearly, in light of the replies, the answer to each of the above is : Yes, Yes and Yes.

No wonder leaseholders are getting ripped-off by crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides on a massive scale (see Media reports, Overview Note 9).

Needless to say that the ICAEW returned a 'no malpractice' verdict - in its 29.08.06 'reply':

"The ICAEW does not believe that there is grounds for disciplinary action against Pridie Brewster"

Another one I most definitely disagree with.

Of course, the ICAEW has continued to protect its members at the expense of the public e.g. C.A.R.L.'s article, above in the introduction: "Bogus auditor let off"

This battle cost me c.240 hours of my life, and c.£200 in costs (Doc library # 6.1).

Hooray for 'self-regulation' - in this worse than Wild West environment of "fantastically corrupt" Britain, in which 'the Establishment' acts as one with 'certain criminals'.

Back to list

 

(1) As Martin Russell Jones was ignoring my repeated requests for a copy of the year-end accounts for Jefferson House, I approached Kensington & Chelsea Housing for assistance

Over a period of one and a half year, spanning from 9 Oct 03 to 18 Jul 04, I sent four requests to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, 'managing' agents for Jefferson House / Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor (CKFT), for a copy of the 2002 year-end accounts

•  9 October 2003 - To Hathaway (NB: Two weeks later, CKFT sent me 'Steel Services' 'offer ' i.e. the 'offer' from its client, Andrew David Ladsky)

•  19 December 2003 - In my Notice of Acceptance to CKFT

•  19 May 2004 - To Hathaway - on which I copied CKFT

•  18 July 2004 - To Hathaway

Non-compliance with my requests led me to contact the Tenancy Relations Officer (TRO) at the Kensington & Chelsea housing department on 6 June 2004 to request its assistance in obtaining (as per my rights) a copy of the 2002 accounts for Jefferson House - to which I subsequently added the 2003 accounts as, under statutory requirements, they had become due. (Housing departments are 'meant' to be the " prosecuting authority for contraventions of Landlord - Tenant legislation" )

It led the TRO to send a 25 June 2004 'Section 21(1) request' (Landlord & Tenant Act 1985) to Hathaway - on which he copied Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor. In this letter, he also highlights Section 25 of the Act that non-performance results in committing a criminal offence.

From then on followed an unbelievable battle spanning from June 2004 to May 2005 with the housing department and, subsequently, with the Local Government Ombudsman, in order to get a copy of the accounts.

Even then, I only obtained part of the accounts - as the schedule detailing the service charge paid by individual leaseholders was not supplied (see Local Government Ombudsman # 7 and John Prescott # 2.3 )

Back to list

 

(2) The reason I had not been supplied with the accounts - amounting to a breach of my statutory rights, and of covenant in my lease - is that fraud had taken place

After this drawn-out battle with Kensington & Chelsea housing department and the LGO (which cost me over 250 hours of my life), I finally obtained a copy of the 2002 accounts in February 2005 i.e. three years later - amounting to a breach of my statutory rights under Section 21(4) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and, under Section 25(1) of the same Act, to committing a criminal offence (point made by the Kensington & Chelsea Housing department in its 25 June 2004 letter to Hathaway (K&CH # 2 ).

It also amounted to a breach of covenant in my lease Clause 2(2)(g)(i)

I also obtained a copy of the 2003 accounts.

As I suspected, Martin Russell Jones-its client, Andrew David Ladsky, had something to hide in not sending me the 2002 and 2003 accounts.

(See my analysis - also included in this pack with supporting documents - which demonstrates that the majority of leaseholders ended-up paying an extortionate amount relative to the terms of the lease - and of their statutory rights). (Please note that I had raised this, for example, in my 9 August 2003 letter to West London County Court)

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.

Likewise, the 2003 accounts, which Pridie Brewster certified stating

" at 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 tribunal findings of 17 June 2003, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database).

Consequently, they are also in breach of the terms of the lease.

Back to list

 

(3) Pridie Brewster said to be unaware of the tribunal's report"at the time we were preparing our certificate" - prompting me, on 17 April 2005, to assist it by supplying 48 key evidential documents

I copied Pridie Brewster on my 30 March 2005 letter to Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, I detailed the issues about the accounts and related them to the clauses in my lease . This included highlighting:

"The accounts do not reflect the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) determination of 17 June 2003 which had the effect of reducing the global sum you demanded on 17 July 2002 from £736,206 to £235,946 i.e. a difference of £500,000 - (and consequently my 1.956% share of it from £14,400 to £4,615).

"The contingency fund has not been used as contribution towards the cost of the major works"

"Because I had a letter from you dated 7 June 2001 specifically stating that the fund would be used as contribution, your client, Mr Andrew Ladsky, through his solicitor, Ms Ayesha Salim, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT), London NW3 1QA, 'eventually' took full account of it in the 'offer' to me of 21 October 2003 - from which I quote:   ".our client is also prepared notionally to utilise the reserve fund to reduce the total figure and, accordingly, your client's apportioned liability".

"You-your client cannot charge residents differentially other than on the basis of their fixed percentage share - of a global sum which must be the same for all"

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage for each of the 35 flats - as you supplied e.g. with your 7 August 2002 application to the LVT - and the global sum on which this is calculated must be the same for all.

"In addition to my lease , this point has also been made abundantly clear by the LVT when:

"In a letter dated 17 July 2003 , Mr Silverstone, CKFT, wrote to the LVT: "Our client's Council has advised us that the LVT was asked to make a determination of the specific amount of the service charge payable by the tenant of flat 3, Ms Dit-Rawé."

"To which the LVT replied in its letter dated 21 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"

"The accounts do not provide detail of "future costs, expenses and outgoings"

"What you have sent me does not show the amount of service charge payable by each lessee"

"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"

I then wrote:

"I intend to report the aforementioned major failings in the certified accounts to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales . However, I will only do this on Monday 18 April 2005 to give Pridie Brewster the opportunity to reply "

It led Roger Clement, Pridie Brewster to reply in his 15 April 2005 letter

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

Since receiving your letter [my 30 March 2005 letter to Martin Russell Jones on which I had copied Pridie Brewster] I have requested a copy of this determination and this was provided to me yesterday"

I replied on 17 April 2005

"You say that you were not aware of the LVT determination of 17 June 2003. I assumed this was the most probable explanation - hence my approach.

Given that you were not provided with this highly material information, I am opting to enclose the following (in chronological order) in case these prove useful to you. (You may wish to start with my 2 February 2005 complaint to the RICS against Martin Russell Jones as it provides comprehensive detail of events)"

As can be seen from my letter, I identified - and supplied - copy of 48 documents as supporting evidence. Many of these documents comprised of numerous pages. Among others: my 2 February 2005 complaint against Martin Russell Jones to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors : c. 120 pages; my lease, which is over 30 pages long; the 17 June 2003 LVT report, ref LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database), 14 pages.

It took me many hours to compile this correspondence to Pridie Brewster. (I sent this weighty, 250+ page pack by 'Special delivery', thereby further adding to my already high costs).

As I had forgotten to mention to Pridie Brewster that I had a Consent Order from 'Steel Services' exempting me from Steel Services' Leasehold Valuation Tribunal costs, I sent another letter, dated 9 May 2005 , starting with:

"It has occurred to me that, in my last correspondence to you dated 17 April 2005, I omitted to bring to your attention the fact that I had exchanged a Consent Order with Steel Services-Martin Russell Jones exempting me from being charged any of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal costs incurred by Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones following their 7 August 2002 application to the tribunal"

As can be seen in my letter, I enclosed a copy of the consent order, as well as copy of five other evidential documents - and sent this correspondence by 'recorded delivery'.

Back to list

 

(4) As Pridie Brewster's initial response of 15 April 2005 was followed by a three-months silence, on 19 July 2005, I contacted the ICAEW

As I did not receive an acknowledgement from Pridie Brewster to my letters of 17 April 2005 and 9 May 2005, on 19 July 2005 I wrote to the ICAEW requesting its assistance in getting Pridie Brewster to "re-state the year-end accounts for Jefferson House" .

In this letter:

•  I captured a summary of the outcome of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal's report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database)

•  Highlighted the fact that the LVT findings had not been taken into consideration in the 2003 accounts

•  Emphasised this by quoting from Pridie Brewster's letter of 15 April 2005 i.e. ".we were not made aware of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination of 17 June 2003 at the time that we were preparing our certificate"

•  Followed this by stating "Clearly, the 2003 accounts need to be re-stated. I wish to know, What steps Pridie Brewster has taken to this effect? When will the re-stated accounts be issued?"

•  Captured extracts from my lease in relation to the production of service charge accounts, their nature, and the role of the accountant.

As can be seen from this letter, as part of the explanations, I also supplied a copy of 12 documents as supporting evidence. These included, among others: a copy of the 2002 and 2003 accounts ; the 30 March 2005 letter I had sent to Hathaway explaining the issues about the accounts and the service charge demand , and on which I had copied Pridie Brewster ; the 15 April 2005 letter from Pridie Brewster ; the invoices of 21 October 2004 and 16 November 2004.

(Among the 48 enclosures supplied to Pridie Brewster with my 17 April 2005, I had included a full copy of the 17 June 2003 report)

Although Pridie Brewster had not even had the courtesy to acknowledge my two letters, considering Martin Russell Jones and its client method of operating, I was concerned about Pridie Brewster's position with its professional body. Hence, on 2 August 2005 , I sent another letter to the ICAEW stating:

"One point I wish to stress:   I do believe Mr Clement's reply of 15 April 2005 that he had not been informed of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination of 17 June 2003 at the time he certified the accounts for Jefferson House.

"Clearly, [Pridie Brewster] cannot be faulted for not taking this highly material information into consideration at the time he certified the accounts"

"However, the implications and ensuing issues are as detailed in my 19 July correspondence to your Office"

As things turned out, my 'good samaritan' action proved to have been a waste of time as, like the rest of the English so-called 'self-regulatory bodies', the ICAEW revealed itself to be a trade association that was not going 'to bite the hand that feeds it'. (Leaseholders within my network of contacts had warned me of this)

Indeed, I view this as the reason for Clement not replying to my correspondence of 17 April 2005 , opting instead to go and hide behind 'fortress ICAEW' - perhaps biting his nails while being told-off for sending the 'inconvenient' reply to me of 15 April 2005 - something along the line of...

..."Naughty boy! Next time , before you do anything silly like that , come to mummy - because that's going to be a tricky one to wipe off"

Back to list

 

(5) In typical, English 'self-regulatory body' style, in its 4 August 2005 reply, the ICAEW took on an adversarial tone, ignored the content of my correspondence, and threw everything back at me

With Pridie Brewster hiding behind 'fortress ICAEW', the cavalry was set loose to fight off the 'barbarian consumer' who had dared to challenge one of its members.

Of note in the caseworker's 4 August 2005 letter :

•  Considering that I had highlighted - and supplied - a copy of the 15 April 2005 letter from Pridie Brewster stating

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

the caseworker replied

"Is there any evidence that they were made aware of the LVT hearing or the decision?" (Unbelievable!!!)

(Even when 'nailed to the wall', the cavalry still keeps on kicking!)

•  Other comment from the caseworker

"I do not see anywhere in the accountants' report an opinion provided that the costs have been checked for reasonableness or completeness."

Consider that in my 19 July 2005 letter to the ICAEW the extracts I quoted from my lease state

".as the accountant may in his reasonable discretion consider it reasonable to include."

Hence, THAT IS THE ISSUE : Pridie Brewster signed year-end accounts in total disregard of the terms of my lease - breaching its obligation

(See below point # 8 for further detail on this )

•  Having totally ignored the content of my letter, the caseworker goes on to say

"I am of the belief that the Investigation Committee would not consider that Pridie Brewster's actions warrant disciplinary action"

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'?

Yet again I was with another battle on my hands with a so-called 'regulatory body' (see Document library)

Back to list

 

(6) The 'little dictator' chased an answer from me less than three weeks later - threatening to close the file for my not-replying

The next letter from the caseworker was dated 23 August 2005 .

While the 4 August 2005 reply had conjured up to me an image of the caseworker as a 'little dictator', this letter served to reinforce this image.

He was chasing me for a reply, stating

"Please note that if I do not receive a reply within the next 7 days I will be recommending the file for closure"

 

Evidently, the ICAEW is unaware that August is the holiday period.

I replied on 1 September 2005

•  emphasising "Pridie & Brewster's opinion is incorrect given the LVT determination" which I followed by capturing comprehensive extracts from the 17 June 2003 LVT report

•  highlighting that "Steel Services cannot charge residents differentially other than on the basis of their fixed percentage share - of a global sum which must be the same for all" and, in support of this, quoted from the LVT report and correspondence. (See Brian Gale for extracts from the 17 June 2003 report)

I concluded this by stating

"Given the Tribunal's determination and [Pridie Brewster]'s admission in his 15 April 2005 letter, "...we were not made aware of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determination of 17 June 2003.", it suggests that Pridie & Brewster have simply taken the documentation given to them without question"

In reply to the caseworker's question "Is there any evidence that [Pridie Brewster] were made aware of the LVT hearing or decision?" I wrote

"Can Pridie & Brewster provide evidence to support their assertion that they did not see the LVT determination?"

I also re-emphasised

"the issue of my consent order for exemption from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal related costs in the service charges for Jefferson House - as I pointed out in my 9 May 2005 letter to [Pridie Brewster].   Where is this reflected in the accounts?"

As to the caseworker's seven-day ultimatum for a response, I replied

"I consider this wholly unreasonable in the middle of August. I am a member of the public, not a firm"

The dictatorial style continued in the 6 September 2005 reply...

...now confirming to me that I was dealing with a 'little dictator' with a grossly inflated sense of self-importance...

....as well as an inability to count.

 

In particular, it is worth noting that:

•  The ICAEW will be the judge of whether or not consumers' reasons for not responding evidently -   immediately - to its correspondence, are "reasonable"

•  Hence, concurrently, the ICAEW expects consumers to ask for 'permission' to not respond within what it perceives as a "reasonable" time period.

•  Furthermore, the ICAEW expects consumers to be psychic i.e. know that the ICAEW has written them a letter - while they are not around to take delivery.

Also, according to the ICAEW, the time period between 4 August and 23 August amounts to 26 days. Yes, this is the professional association for 'Chartered Accountants'!

It has to be said that the rest of the letter only serves to further undermine the confidence in accountants (e.g. Enron)

(Subsequent note: "outrage" at its conduct is even found among its membership - among others) (Introduction, above)

(Mercifully - in spite of their association - there are many highly competent accountants with the utmost level of professionalism and integrity)

Back to list

 

(7) The ICAEW has in effect confirmed that 'SOME' of its members are merely 'typesetters' - and that it endorses this activity

In relation to my comment that

"Pridie & Brewster have simply taken the documentation given to them without question"

the caseworker replied in the affirmative in his 6 September 2005 letter:

"The accountant's report is not that of an audit but merely states that they have examined the records provided to them by the managing agents.

Therefore the accountant's report is saying exactly what you are saying, in that Pridie Brewster only reviewed information provided to them (and no audit was conducted)"

The conclusion from this is that 'SOME' members of the ICAEW are merely 'typesetters' - and that this activity is endorsed by the ICAEW.

(Considering that Pridie Brewster charges £1,000 (US$1,760) for its four-page 'typesetting' service, maybe I should report it to the Office of Fair Trading)

The caseworker goes on to state that if I

"wish to have a higher level of assurance." I should

"direct this request at the managing agents"

Back to list

 

(8) The ICAEW confirmed that Pridie Brewster breached covenants in my lease - while Pridie Brewster had admitted - in writing - that it has an obligation to consider my lease in drawing-up the accounts

In his 4 August 2005 letter, the caseworker wrote:

"I do not see anywhere in the accountants' report an opinion provided that the costs have been checked for reasonableness or completeness."

In his 6 September 2005 letter, the caseworker reconfirmed that "Pridie Brewster has not considered the reasonableness of the costs" in drawing up the accounts.

Consequently the ICAEW - twice - confirmed that Pridie Brewster has BREACHED, among others, the covenant in my lease comprised under Clause 2(2)(e)

...as the accountant may in his reasonable discretion consider it reasonable to include...by way...of costs expenses and outgoings already incurred or by way of provision for expected future costs expenses and outgoings..."

Pridie Brewster knew full well that it had to consider my lease in drawing-up the accounts - as evidenced in its 15 April 2005 letter :

"I will be unable to consider all the matters raised by you in relation to the determination and to the provisions of your lease ..."

 

Quite clearly, the cavalry's mission from 'fortress ICAEW'' was to wipe out the 'damage' caused by the 'inconvenient' letter of 15 April 2005 letter from Pridie Brewster.

Back to list

 

(9) The ICAEW reaffirmed its view that I had "not highlighted anything that warranted taking disciplinary action" against Pridie Brewster

Finally, in his 6 September 2006 letter, the caseworker concludes by restating his previous assessment of 4 August 2005:

"I have not identified any heads of complaint that would, in my personal opinion, lead to a potential disciplinary action"

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I know I have a valid complaint against Pridie Brewster but, as you can imagine, I saw myself as doing the equivalent of hitting my head against a brick wall.

I WANTED TO SCREAM MY HEAD OFF, AND SCREAM, AND SCREAM, AND SCREAM

As with all the other English so-called 'self-regulatory bodies' I approached, the ICAEW's objective was to make me abandon my complaint (i.e. repeat of my experience with other parties - see below point 10 and point 15 )

In light of this attitude, I opted to not reply, deciding that my time would be more usefully spent on developing the site to expose my experience.

Hence, I also ignored the caseworker's chasing letter of 2 November 2005 - which I read as ' stuff you woman!' I refer to the following:

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the time you have taken in drawing this matter to our attention"

"The time I have taken". Oh yes, by then it had cost me in excess of 50 hours of my life = over 50 hours of my life down the drain.

As to "...thank you for...drawing this matter to our attention": (aside from leading to the perception of two fingers sticking out of the letter), it is damning evidence that the claims made on the ICAEW's website are just a front .

(The caseworker states that he sent me a letter dated 22 September: I did not receive it. If had, I would, likewise, have ignored it.)

From being in contact with a significant number of leaseholders who, like me, have filed complaints with the ICAEW, I know that my experience is not the exception to the rule.

Indeed, indications are that IT IS THE RULE: complaints against its members appear to be rejected outright by the ICAEW - regardless of the severity of the misconduct reported.

Subsequent note: See Introduction, above for one of its own members who shares this view

Back to list

 

(10) New evidence led me to have 'another go' in March 2006, in the process aiming to gain as much knowledge as I could in order to 'pin down' the ICAEW

In February 2006, as a result of sharing my experience with Mr Nigel Wilkins , Chair of C.A.R.L. (Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold) who has written numerous letters to the ICAEW "exposing the failure of ICAEW members" (see copies of the Leaseholder on the C.A.R.L. website) he identified a letter he had received from the ICAEW, dated 12 January 1999 , in which the caseworker wrote:

"... in the event that a Court (or a relevant tribunal) decided that expenditure was not sufficiently supported, and an Institute member firm had reported otherwise, that would give rise to disciplinary considerations "

I 'sat' on this letter for a while debating whether I should, yet again, write to the ICAEW and hence add to the 50+ hours of my life it, and its member, had already cost me.

I needed to 'pin down' the ICAEW. It meant that, as with all the other English so-called 'self-regulatory bodies', I had to very clearly, given the experience so far, 'suffocate' the ICAEW with evidence such that it would not be able to wriggle out of my complaint.

It led me to, among others, conduct extensive desk research on the definition of certified and audited accounts, code and guidance to accountants, etc. I needed 'to bury' the ICAEW with iron-tight proof in support of my complaint (although I considered that I had already provided more than ample evidence in support of my complaint )

This amounted to a carbon copy repeat of my experience with the Law Society (Legal Services Ombudsman # 2 and # 3 ) (see also My Diary 2004 - Complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor ) , the Bar Council , the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (see also Martin Russell Jones )

(To which can be added the 'get lost' from the Financial Services Authority , the Court Service , the police and its 'head office', the Home Office, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and its 'head office', etc.)

One thing for sure is that, on this island, as a consumer / taxpayer, you are left in no doubt that you are there to be used and abused... but you only discover this once you start scratching the surface.

After working on a draft for several days which, again, required going back to previous documents, as well as going though my numerous files, I finalised my letter on 7 March 2006, addressing it to the 'little dictator'.

I started my letter by relating my conversation with Mr Wilkins, stating that he had

"confirmed my opinion that, contrary to your statement, your Office does not conduct "investigations", never venturing beyond the content of complaints raised and that your focus is on representing the interests of your members"

I restated what I had captured in my previous correspondence and his replies.

•  In the context of his comment that Pridie Brewster "did not have to check the reasonableness or completeness" of items on the accounts, I highlighted a clause in my lease (Fourth Schedule, Clause 8) that makes it clear that an 'audit' is expected to be carried out for the purpose of drawing-up the accounts.

This is in addition to Clause (2)(2)(e) in my lease which states "...as the accountant may in his reasonable discretion consider it reasonable to include."

•  As to the requirement under Clause (2)(2)(f) of my lease

"...the accountant shall prepare a written statement (hereinafter called the "accountant's certificate..."  

"...in the accountant's certificate the accountant shall certify."

I drew attention to the position of the Association of Certified Accountants when, in reply to a consultation paper issued by the government it stated

"...certification is only appropriate to a matter capable of determination with certainty"

And concluded on this: "Certification implies certainty"

Maybe I should have also added the 'Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition :

"Certify - v. (certifies, certifying, certified ) formally attest or confirm"

"Attest - (1) Provide or serve as clear evidence (2) Declare that something exists or is the case"

"Confirm - (1) Establish the truth or correctness of. > state with assurance that something is true "

•  In relation to Pridie Brewster being under an obligation to draw-up the accounts while having regards to the covenants in my lease, I drew attention to an article in Audit News, October 1998, from which I included extracts. These state that an accountant must:

"Have a copy of the lease."

"Have understood the lease requirements. and the level of comfort expected in the report"

In addition, I highlighted the comment in Pridie Brewster's reply of 15 April 2005 :

"I will be unable to consider all the matters raised by you in relation to the determination and to the provisions of your lease in time to provide a full reply before the deadline referred to in page 3 of your letter"

I concluded on this section by stating

"What evidence can Pridie Brewster provide that it has complied with this guidance?"

•  As the caseworker had (of course!) ignored my reporting the findings in the 17 June 2003 LVT report, having - yet again - captured some of the main findings, I stated

"Who should I believe - an accountant appointed by, and who owes a duty of care to the landlord, or an independent tribunal, which is part of the English legal system?"

I followed this by highlighting - and supplying - a copy of the ICAEW's letter of January 1999 to Mr Wilkins, from which I extracted

"...in the event that a Court (or a relevant tribunal) decided that expenditure was not sufficiently supported, and an Institute member firm had reported otherwise, that would give rise to disciplinary considerations."

And stated

"This is that very situation with the Jefferson House accounts"

I followed by using three words I quoted from the 17 June 2003 LVT report, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database )

"The service charge demands were based on a "wish list" and "duplication" , according to an independent tribunal - which is part of the English legal system"

"Therefore the costs were not sufficiently supported "

(See the section on Brian Gale for more comprehensive extracts from the 17 June 2003 report )

I concluded my letter by saying

"Perhaps you would now like to deal with my complaint in a professional manner"

IT WAS LIKE WISHING TO WIN THE LOTTERY... although the odds are better.

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'.

Back to list

(11) A new caseworker....but wearing the same, thick blindfold as the previous one

I received a reply from the ICAEW, dated 16 March 2006, from another caseworker. (It would appear that the 'little dictator' has left the ICAEW)

This reply made my blood boil. However, as it was defined as an initial response, I opted to wait for the next 'installment'. Given the content of the letter, I was definitely not holding my breath.

When the next 'installment' arrived, dated 13 April 2006...

....I wanted to scream in the loudest voice possible

Instead, I opted to put on the 'punching gloves' in my reply of 17 May 2006

Given the content of the reply, I first started by addressing the initial response of 16 March 2006. Firstly, in relation to the comment that

"I can assure you that the opinion expressed by Mr Wilkins is incorrect. The Institute takes its obligations as a Regulatory Body very seriously and does carry out investigations into potential cases of misconduct."

I replied

"Considering the rest of your 16 March 2006 reply, as well as your 13 April 2006 response, I view your statement about Mr Wilkins, and by implication myself - as I share his view - as defamatory" (My 'non-lawyer' opinion: under the Defamation Act)

The reason for my stating this is that the caseworker had blatantly ignored the content of my correspondence and its supporting evidence. Hence: repeat of my experience with the previous caseworker. (Leading me to the conclusion that the ICAEW's complaint handling guidelines fit on a postage stamp, stating: 'ignore or dismiss' - as they do with the other so-called 'self-regulatory bodies' I have approached with a complaint )

 

As can be seen, my reply is eight pages in length. All, but the last page, is a repeat - for up to the third time - of what I previously communicated to the ICAEW, leading me to write at several points in my letter

"Yet again, this demonstrates that you have totally ignored the content of my correspondence / amounts to a blatant rejection of the evidence supplied... "

To do this required that I go through all of the previous correspondence capturing, point by point, what I had written and the reply I had received - and yet again, re-emphasising the glaringly obvious.

Within this, I highlighted the fact that, in my 9 May 2005 letter to Pridie Brewster, I had drawn attention - and provided evidence - that I had obtained a consent order from Steel Services exempting me from its Leasehold Valuation Tribunal related costs.   Also, that I had already communicated this to the ICAEW "in my 1 September 2005 (on page 4)"

And added:

"Likewise, this was not taken into consideration. I certainly have no evidence that it was"

Some of the 'punches' included asking

Is it your Office's policy to encourage your members to disregard:

1.legislation?

2.the determination of an independent tribunal that is part of the English legal system?

3.legally binding contracts i.e. leases?

Asking whether Pridie Brewster's lack of acknowledgement of my letters of 17 April 2005 and 9 May 2005 was

"on the advice from your Office following the 'inconvenient' letter of 15 April 2005 ?"

Related to this, given the caseworker's comment

"If no response has been received please provide copies of any further chasing letters that you have sent"

I replied

"As evidenced above, I did a lot more than send "chasing letters" to your Member."

it suggests that your Office holds the view that your members need only reply after a given number of "chasing letters" .

"If so, precisely how many "chasing letters" must a consumer such as I send to one of your members? Such policy needs to be clearly stated in your documentation to consumers / end users"

I also remarked that the caseworker had "not made any comment" in relation to the ICAEW's letter of 12 January 1999 to Mr Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L.

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'.

Back to list

(12) Having repeated, now for the third time what I had previously stated, in my 17 May 2006 letter to the ICAEW, I highlighted that the estimated expenditure for 2006 was fraudulent

About the last page in my letter of 17 May 2006 to the ICAEW

Considering that Clause 2(2)(f) of my lease states

"...the accountant shall prepare a written statement containing together with any future sums indicated by the accountant pursuant to Clause 2 (2) (e)...

...specifying the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee.."

In my first letter to the ICAEW, dated 19 July 2005, I highlighted that, with my 17 April 2005 letter to Pridie Brewster, I had enclosed, among others, a copy of the 21 October 2004 invoice from Martin Russell Jones stating a "Brought forward balance"of £14,452 "   (US$25,600) - with no explanation whatsoever i.e. there was no supporting documentation of any kind.

I followed this by stating to the ICAEW that I had received another invoice three weeks later, dated 16 November 2004, this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447 " (US$27,300) - likewise, with no explanation whatsoever. (I attached a copy of this invoice to my letter to the ICAEW)

I did not acknowledge these invoices, and therefore did not pay as I do NOT owe these sums because:

•  in my 19 December 2003 correspondence to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor 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 . (For reasons, see West London County Court, and My Diary from 16 June 2003 to 26 August 2003 )

Evidence of this is that Ayesha Salim, CKFT, had stated, in her 28 May 2004 letter to me, acceptance of the Consent Order I had drafted while, 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

Consequently, with the previous payment I had made following the 26 August 2003 hearing, I paid a total of £6,350 (US$11,200) (which I did NOT owe). Wandsworth County Court endorsed the document sealing the agreement on 1 July 2004 .

•  In my letter of 31 December 2003 i.e. nearly one year previously , I wrote to Hathaway, Martin Russell Jones informing her of this payment.

Fourteen months later, these invoices were followed by an invoice, dated 9 January 2006, this time stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900). Yet again, no explanation provided. (I again stress that I did NOT pay the two previous invoices)

The other points of note about this 9 January 2006 invoice are:

•  It includes a "half yearly service charge in advance - to 23 June 2006" of £815 (US$1,435).

•  With the invoice, Martin Russell Jones enclosed a document headed "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " from which I conclude that it was 'somehow' used to arrive at the sum of £814 (US$1,435) (I do not understand how this sum was arrived at)

•  This document claims that the £76,167 (US$134,300) of estimated expenditure is attributable to "All flats"

•  This is FRAUDULENT given that Steel Services no longer has control of the last floor of Jefferson House . (See Headlessors and Owners identity ) ( summary )

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$5,300) 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 apartments, including a penthouse that spans the whole length and width of the top floor, and BEFORE the complete overhaul of Jefferson House was £680 (US$1,200).

Hence, what is the amount 'deemed' by 'Steel Services' i.e. Andrew Ladsky to be currently hanging over my head? £15,500 (US$27,300)(?), £14,500 (US$25,600)(?), £5,625 (US$9,900)(?), £8,621 (US$15,200)(?) or all four combined i.e. £44,246   (US$78,000)?

What else is going to be dropped on me 'with the compliments of Ladsky et. al. and their aides'? What will they think of tomorrow? Sending me an invoice for £20,000 (US$35,000)? And what about the day after tomorrow? Will they wake up thinking that it would 'be fun' to send me an invoice for £30,000 (US$53,000)? £40,000 (US$70,500)? £50,000 (US$88,000)?   More?  

Back to list

In my 7 March 2006 letter to the ICAEW, I opted to not refer to the 9 January 2006 invoice because I did not want to have a repeat of my experience with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).

(What took place is that, following my complaint against Martin Russell Jones, in my 14 October 2005 letter to the RICS I provided more recent evidence against Martin Russell Jones - on matters I had raised in my complaint. It led the RICS to reply on 4 November 2005 "I will not entertain any correspondence that brings new matters into the frame" )

However, in her 13 April 2006 letter, the ICAEW caseworker provided me with the opportunity to bring this up as she asked me to supply her with a copy of the 2004 accounts - and Martin Russell Jones had sent these to me with " Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 "

I stated that,

"considering the requirements under Clause 2(2)(e) and (f) of my lease"

"I conclude that this document was the outcome of Pridie Brewster's work.

On this basis, I view it as providing other overwhelming evidence against Pridie Brewster"

I followed this by highlighting that

"This is fraudulent given that Steel Services sold the last floor of the building - the penthouse flat - to Lavagna Enterprises Ltd"

"Steel Services is a lessee of Lavagna Enterprises"

In addition to the penthouse flat, three new flats were added ( #18A , # 33A and # 35A )

The "estimated expenditure"   "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 "

I also asked

"Considering that:

i) There are now four new flats in Jefferson House - one of which, the penthouse flat is not under the control of Steel Services i.e. Steel Services no longer has control of the whole block.

ii) The block has been totally overhauled

How can it be that I end-up being demanded a "half-yearly service charge in advance" of £815 (US$1,435) - when prior to the above events - the half-yearly service charge was nearly £200 (US$350) less?

How was this sum arrived at?"

I concluded my letter with:

"In my 1 September 2005 letter to your Office, I wrote:

"...it suggests that Pridie & Brewster have simply taken the documentation given to them without question"

The above provides further overwhelming evidence of this.   This document is not worth the piece of paper it is written on"

This made it MY FIFTH LETTER to the ICAEW ( 19 July 2005 , 2 August 2005 , 1 September 2005 , 7 March 2005 ) - and I saw it as my last one, thinking that my time would be more usefully spent on continuing to develop my website to expose my experience.

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'.

Back to list

(13) Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: WARNING: you might be about to fall off your chair. Why?

The following are extracts from the caseworker's letter of 24 May 2006 to Pridie Brewster:

The matters arising from Ms K-Dit-Rawe complaint which appear to warrant further investigation (NB!!!) are:

" I. That Mr [ ] failed to provide a detailed response.to letters dated 30 March 2005 , 17 April 2005 and 9 May 2005 from Ms K-Dit-Rawe despite stating in a letter dated 15 April 2005 that he would "do so once he had reviewed the information obtained"

"2. That on 5 November 2004 Pridie Brewster signed an Accountant's Report in the service charge accounts of Steel Services Limited for the year ended 3I December 2003 when the financial statements failed to reflect the findings of a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) held on 17 June 2003 ."

The caseworker goes on to state:

"A. Please explain why your firm has failed to provide a substantive response to Ms K-Dit-Rawé's letters of 30 March 2005 , 17 April 2005 and 9 May 2005 "

"B. Please provide copies of your firm's working papers relating to the service charge accounts for the years ended 31 December 2002 to 31 December 2004 "

"C. I would also be grateful for your responses to the following questions:

(i) I cannot find a trace of Steel Services Limited being a registered company with Companies House. Your comments on this are invited

(ii) Please explain how the LVT decision has been incorporated into the 2004 accounts. Why has the contingency fund not been utilised and what actions have been taken to refund monies to tenant's who appear to have overpaid as a result of the LVT decision?

(iii) Please explain why the major works fund income and expenditure is not shown in detail"

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, as you can see, given the content of my first correspondence to the ICAEW, this letter to Pridie Brewster could have been actioned from the very beginning i.e. five letters ago.

Why was it necessary for me to write a total of FIVE letters to the ICAEW to get to this point?

Is it because the ICAEW finally came to the realisation that it was not going to get rid me by ignoring / dismissing the evidence I supplied - and opted to go into plan B : 'handling of persistent complainants'?

Back to list

(14) I supplied the ICAEW with information that, at least for a while, Pridie Brewster claimed to be acting on behalf of Steel Services when the evidence suggests that it did not exist

Although the ICAEW and its Member had, by then, cost me in excess of 150 hours of my life, I nonetheless opted to share my first-hand experience with the caseworker following her question C(i) to Pridie Brewster in relation to her inability to find Steel Services on Companies House' register.

It relates to the battle I had (IN VAIN) over a period of one year (October 2001 - October 2002) (See Nucleus and this 30 August 2004 letter to Mrs Shireen Ritchie, my Ward Councillor, Kensington & Chelsea housing , which summarises events ) in an attempt to enforce my statutory rights under Sections 1 and 2 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 "to be provided with the identity of the landlord, as well as the name and address of every director and secretary of the landlord" .

I sent the information to the ICAEW caseworker on 6 June 2006 which I summarised in a five-page document. Bearing in mind that the immediate reaction would, no doubt, be to dismiss my claims, I supplied 54 documents as supporting evidence. (Yes, many more hours went into compiling this pack).

Among others, my intention was to demonstrate to the ICAEW the evidence that I and other parties (from government departments) uncovered which suggests that, at least for a while, Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor's ( # 1 , # 6.9 and # 7 ) claims that they were acting on behalf of Steel Services were false as the evidence suggests that the company did not exist. (See Owners identity, Headlessors and Freehold ownership) - including this 8 August 2002 reply from the British Virgin Islands authorities that Steel Services had been:

"Struck-off the register for non-payment of licence fee"

(I supplied a copy of this document to Pridie Brewster with my 17 April 2005 correspondence )

As Pridie Brewster was the accountant at the time, it suggests that it was, likewise, at least for a while, claiming to be acting on behalf of a non-existent company.

I received a thank you note from the caseworker, dated 8 June 2006.

Back to list

(15) While the ICAEW's reply of 24 May 2006 looked more 'promising' I was not 'holding my breath'

(As I wrote prior to launching my site on 19 September 2006 ) (which was then closed down ), although the 24 May 2006 reply from the ICAEW is certainly an improvement over the previous responses, I am opting to launch the website with this section on it - for the following reasons:

•  The attitude of the ICAEW until this last letter which, I believe is 'fair comment' (in operation until 2013) for me to say has so far demonstrated that its agenda is "to put its members' interests ahead of consumer interests" (I am using Sir David Clementi's conclusions following his review of another sector, the legal profession - as reported in the Financial Times of 16 December 2004)

As the saying goes: 'A leopard does not change its spots'

•  Hence, as with the other English so-called 'self-regulatory bodies', 'the game' will be to engage me in many more hours of endless, pointless letter writing over a period which, according to the caseworker's letter of 24 May 2006

"...may take in excess of a year where the case is complex and strongly contested"

I view this as an attempt to dissuade me from pursuing my complaint.

The thinking behind this is that the greater the number of letters I am made to write, the greater the likelihood of my giving up on my complaint.

 

 

And, as already demonstrated, I will be bullied into responding by using the threat of "closing down the file" if I do not reply within a timescale determined as 'acceptable' by the ICAEW.

If I cannot reply immediately, this will require yet, more letter writing as, evidently, the ICAEW expects me to ask 'cap in hand' for its permission' to take longer to reply than it expects...and hope that the 'almighty' considers my reason for requesting a delay as 'reasonable'

 

These letters will be in addition to needing to write letters relating to other matters. For example, in my letters of 17 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 , I requested that correspondence be sent to my PO Box.   The caseworker nonetheless addressed her two subsequent letters of 24 May 2006 and 8 June 2006 to my home address.

In addition, in her 8 June 2006 letter, she states that she enclosed "...a copy of a letter sent to the firm requesting further information." She did not enclose the letter. Outcome: I now need to write her a letter pointing this out. However, I am not going to bother.

•  During this one year+ I will be sent from 'pillar to post' as the 'end game' is to return a verdict of 'no malpractice' - in the process, throwing everything back at me and ignoring critical evidence (as already demonstrated)

(In other words: a repeat of my experience with (1) the Law Society ( # 2 and # 3 ) in relation to my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor and my 16 March 2004 complaint against Piper Smith Basham ; (2) the Bar Council in relation to my 5 April 2004 complaint against Stan Gallagher ; (3) the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in relation to my 2 February 2005 complaint against Martin Russell Jones)

•  Hence, after 1 year+ the outcome will be: I will still be left with accounts for Jefferson House that are bogus and, consequently, on which the service charges demanded of me are fraudulent.

It is worth noting that in her 24 May 2006 letter to Pridie Brewster the caseworker wrote:

"I am also enclosing a list of support members."

How about support to the complainants?

Note also in the caseworker's letter that support members .

"...are not subject to the duty to report misconduct" (!!!)

To have to engage in such battles to get redress is an unbelievably draining and demoralising experience.

With the ICAEW, (as with all the other English so-called 'self-regulatory bodies'), as a complainant, you require a superhuman amount of resilience and determination to pursue your complaint.

(Consider that, in my case, since 2002, I have gone through this experience a total of more than 40 times i.e. more than 40 BATTLES - as can be seen from the list in the Document library )

So, if the ICAEW requires communication from me in the short period that remains before I unlock the site: it will be very brief as I consider that my time will be more usefully spent on completing the site.

Back to list

(16) Ahead of the caseworker's meeting with Pridie Brewster, I provided the ICAEW with yet more background information

In her 6 July 2006 letter, the caseworker informed me that she was due to go to Pridie Brewster's office on 19 July.

Not wanting to have any regrets later on, saying "maybe I should have" , I took this opportunity to provide the caseworker with yet, more background information in my 12 July 2006 letter. This included, among others

•  A copy of an invoice from Martin Russell Jones, dated 30 June 2006, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200) - yet again, with no breakdown of the sum

•  Evidence that I had paid the sum of £6,350 (US$11,200) (which I did NOT owe), including supplying the 1 July 2004 Consent Order endorsed by Wandsworth County Court sealing the agreement

•  Copy of documents - supported by photographic evidence - proving that Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, as well as Andrew Ladsky's surveyor, Brian Gale , had lied about the intended construction of a penthouse, not only to leaseholders , but also to a tribunal (part of the English legal system) and to a court.

These were the 26 March 2002 , 30 August 2002 and 4 March 2003 letters from Hathaway, and Brian Gale's "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, dated 13 December 2002.

Back to list

(17) Given the follow-on reply from the ICAEW, it is important to recap on the massive amount of 'black on white evidence' I had supplied to the ICAEW and Pridie Brewster which could leave them in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that criminal conduct had taken place

Consider that by then I had supplied :

(1) To Pridie Brewster (by then, more than one year previously )

•  48 key evidential documents - as can be seen from the list in my 17 April 2005 correspondence to Roger Clement ( and as discussed earlier on under points # 2 and # 3)

These documents make it crystal clear that leaseholders had been made to pay an extortionate amount of money and that, consequently, not only had there been a breach of covenants in the lease and of statutory rights, but also that criminal offences had been committed. Examples of documents I supplied to Roger Clement include :

•  A copy of my lease

•  The report from the tribunal, LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database) - which is very damning (see LVT # 4 , as well as Brian Gale ) (see also Martin Russell Jones # 7 , # 9 , # 10 , # 11, # 12 , # 13 )

Please note that, in his letter of 6 September 2005, the ICAEW caseworker wrote "I note that the full LVT decision is available and I can confirm that as is standard in cases such as these I have already obtained a copy of the decision "

•  My surveyor's assessment of the tribunal's report (see the reason why I had to ask my surveyor to do this - under Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 7 , # 8.1 )

•  The 7 June 2001 letter from Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to "All Lessees" stating that the contingency fund would be used as contribution towards the major works

•  The 7 August 2002 application filed by Hathaway to the tribunal, on behalf of 'Steel Services' , to "determine the reasonableness of the global sum demanded " (See LVT # 6 ) - to which is attached the list of percentages for the allocation of service charges to each apartment - which, obviously Pridie Brewster knows about

•  The 20 September 2002 letter from Hathaway threatening me with prosecution unless I paid immediately the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded (see Martin Russell Jones # 14 , # 15 )

•  The 7 October 2002 letter from Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor i.e. two weeks after Hathaway's letter, threatening to forfeit my lease, as well as contact my mortgage lender - unless I paid, by return, the £14,400 (US$25,400) demanded (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.2 )

•  My 17 October 2002 reply to Lanny Silverstone stating that, contrary to my statutory rights under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 - and repeated requests to Hathaway - I had not been supplied with the necessary information in support of the demand (see also LVT # 8.1.2 )

The 21 October 2002 reply from Lanny Silverstone, stating "We are aware that Steel Services has applied to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal" (See Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 )

•  The 29 October 2002 directions from the tribunal, as well as copy of the pages from a booklet handed to me and other leaseholders by the tribunal which, as I wrote in my 17 April 2005 letter to Roger Clement:

"On page 5 , it relates the outcome of the Daejan Properties v London Leasehold Tribunal court case, namely that "LVT's only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of dispute service charges that are still unpaid.." " (Emphasis as per the booklet )

•  The claim filed against me and 10 other leaseholders in West London County Court with a Statement of Truth endorsed by Hathaway - on 29 November 2002 i.e. exactly one month after we, the leaseholders, were told the above by the tribunal i.e. to NOT PAY until it had issued its report and it had been implemented. Pridie Brewster could see from the LVT/SC/007/120/02 report that it was issued SEVEN months AFTER the filing of the claim in West London County Court

•  The 23 May 2003 application by Lanny Silverstone to West London County i.e. three weeks BEFORE the tribunal issued its report, from which, in my 17 April 2005 correspondence to Roger Clement, I captured:

"The Claimant has obtained judgement or settled proceedings against all defendants except : 1st , 2nd , 5th , 7th Defendants"

•  Martin Russell Jones' "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002" covering six apartments, showing a consistent reduction of 24.19% in the sum demanded. This document was handed to me by Lanny Silverstone at the 24 June 2003 hearing (See Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.6 ; West London County Court # 8 ; Martin Russell Jones # 16 )

•  Another version of the "Major works apportionment 24th June 2002" , also on Martin Russell Jones headed paper, this time covering all 35 apartments - and for which the same reduction of 24.19% has been applied to all the apartments. This document was supplied to West London County Court - under a Statement of Truth - by Ayesha Salim with her 6 August 2003 application (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.6 ; West London County Court # 9 , # 10 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 6 )

•  The 21 July 2003 reply from the tribunal to Lanny Silverstone, from which I quoted in my 17 April 2005 letter to Roger Clement that the LVT's legal remit was to determine the reasonableness of the "...amount of service charge as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant" (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.3 )

•  The 21 October 2003 'offer' to me from 'Steel Services' and my Notice of Acceptance of 19 December 2003 to Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor

(NB: As you can see from, among others, my Witness Statement , what I wanted to pay was my just and fair share of the costs of the works. No more, no less. However, my wanting to do this went against the 'cosy' Business model in operation in the residential leasehold sector - in its widest sense. I was made to go through such horrendous, unbelievable hell that, for the sake of my health, I ended-up 'caving in'....

See My Diary year 2003 - for what I was made to go through during that time : 16 June ; 17 June , 22 June , 24 June , 9 August , 26 August , 4 September , September 2003 - My 20C application , 22 October , 28 October - and the reminder of that year

See also :

As detailed earlier on, under point 12 , one of the many acts of vengeance I have suffered as a consequence of behaving in a manner that challenged the 'cosy' Business model were the fraudulent service charge demands (see also Martin Russell Jones # 18 )

And West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court also made sure that they added in large quantities to the torment, anguish and distress (see Lord Falconer of Thoroton ) )

•  The 2 August 2004 letter from Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, addressed to "All Lessees" informing of the appointment of Mansell. I sent Roger Clement a copy as per that provided here i.e. with my hand-written calculations as Martin had deceptively not included the 11% management fee and VAT.

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%). (See: Martin Russell Jones # 13 , # 17 ; Photo gallery )

•  As referred to previously, I also supplied Clement with a copy of the 8 August 2002 reply from the British Virgin Islands that Steel Services had been "Struck-off the register for non-payment of licence fee"

Etc.

(2) To the ICAEW

•  12 key evidential documents in my 19 July 2005 correspondence (discussed under # 4 above ) , which included, among others, a copy of my 17 April 2005 letter to Roger Clement; the 16 November 2004, from Martin Russell Jones, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £15,500 (US$27,300) (It followed an invoice, three weeks previously for £14,500 (US$25,600) - likewise without any explanation whatsoever)

•  A further 14, equally damning documents with my letter of 12 July 2006 (as discussed under # 16 above)

(Not to mention the 54 documents I supplied with my 6 June 2006 summary of events ( as previously detailed under # 4 ) )

Hence, neither the ICAEW, nor its member, Pridie Brewster can claim lack of knowledge of the evidence - and therefore can be in any doubt whatsoever that criminal conduct has taken place

Back to list

(18) After more than three months, I received an appalling and unbelievably insulting reply from the ICAEW which, as expected, returned the verdict of "no malpractice"

From my main last letter, dated 17 May 2006 , it took more than three months to get a reply from the ICAEW as its reply was dated 29 August 2006

And... of course, my prediction was correct...

"The ICAEW does not believe that there is grounds for disciplinary action against Pridie Brewster"

Why?

"What is crucial in the decision is that the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs should they wish to do so"

Note what the London LVT ACTUALLY wrote under para.64 of its 17.06.03 report: "It should be made clear that there is nothing in this determination which will prevent all the proposed works being carried out. Even if they are deemed to be improvements by this Tribunal, there would be nothing to prevent the tenants deciding that they want them carried out... The only caveat is that the Respondent and other tenants could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal..."

CONTRAST THAT WITH WHAT IS CONTAINED under: Overview ; Advisors to Jefferson House ; Extortion ; Kangaroo court, etc.

The tenants could "WILLINGLY CONTRIBUTE" WHAT?????

How long did it take the ICAEW and Pridie Brewster to concoct this appalling 'get out clause' ?

Sure, very convenient for Pridie Brewster as it had been 'typesetting' the accounts (see pt 7, above ) showing that the majority of the apartments had been made to pay the FULL amount demanded - including 9 out of the 14 apartments listed on the West London County Court claim + a further 16 apartments also paid the full amount. This is a standalone version of my analysis (*)

NOTE ANDREW LADSKY's OWN ADMISSION - TO THE POLICE - “This charge was challenged at the leasehold valuation tribunal who reduced this amount quite significantly

Whatever length of time it took to concoct this excuse, it was not long enough as it has a HUGE HOLE in it :

IF THE LEASEHOLDERS WERE THAT "WILLING": HOW COME THEY ENDED-UP HAVING THE 29.11.02 CLAIM AND PARTICULARS FILED AGAINST THEM?

How do you answer that one Pridie Brewster and ICAEW?

Court claims = FRAUD TOOLS

On the upside: thank you ICAEW for confirming that the leaseholders were made to pay "extra costs" i.e. monies that were NOT due and payable

(*) I finally obtained the breakdown of the contributions paid by the leaseholders by the end of 2003 and 2004 through the ICAEW - with its letter of 29 August 2006. Needless to say that (in breach of covenant in my Lease (Clause 2(2)(f)) as well as my statutory rights under s.21 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985) Martin Russell Jones and its client, Andrew Ladsky, made sure that I was not provided with this information)

THIS REPLY FROM THE ICAEW IS SO INSULTING TO ME (and fellow leaseholders)

 

From the evidence I supplied, the ICAEW and Pridie Brewster could be in no doubt whatsoever that we, leaseholders:

had had the equivalent of 'a gun held to our head';

had not been provided with the necessary information to justify the 'service charge' demand;

had persistently been lied to ....

 

... as evidenced, among others, by the fact that :

(1) We, leaseholders DID NOT KNOW what we were being asked to pay for - as evidenced by:

(A) The 17 June 2003 LVT report (of which Pridie Brewster was supplied with a copy - at least by April 2005, and the ICAEW caseworker said to have obtained a copy by 6 September 2005 ), which, under point 14, states :

"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 "

This, in addition to the fact that the tribunal had, 'conveniently' for 'Steel Services' withheld part of the 7 August 2002 application from 'some' leaseholders (see LVT # 8.1.3 ), led the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to postpone 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."

(B) A letter from Leaseholder M to the LVT , dated 19 October 2002 , and one from Leaseholder C, also to the LVT , dated 20 October 2002 , which, when I supplied them to the ICAEW, in my letter of 19 July 2005, I wrote :

"...some residents paid the sum demanded out of fear of prosecution. (As it happens, some ended-up nonetheless being listed on the claim filed by Ms Hathaway in West London County Court on 29 November 2002). Others, such as myself, continued fighting the false claim"

This is in addition to my own letters, of which I supplied a copy to Pridie Brewster (e.g. 20 September 2002 , 17 October 2002 ), as well as the letters from Lanny Silverstone e.g. 7 October 2002 , 21 October 2002 )

(2)  We, leaseholders - as well as the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and the courts - were repeatedly lied to by Ladsky's et. al. and their aides as can be seen, among others, from:

(A) Letters from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, of which I supplied a copy of to the ICAEW with my correspondence of 12 July 2006 :

•  Her letter to me of 26 March 2002 :" Your suggestion that the appointment of professional advisors is in any way connected with any planning application is incorrect"

•  Her 30 August 2002 letter to me: "We are informed that there is no intention to build the penthouse at the current time"

•  'Her' 4 March 2003 letter sent to Brian Gale (sent under her name, but with Andrew Ladsky's 'trademark' - see My Diary 3 October 2006 ) (and which Gale supplied as part of the evidence for the tribunal hearings in March-April 2003) - 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"

On page three of my 12 July 2006 letter to the ICAEW I included a photograph of the roof

(B) Brian Gale, Brian Gale Associates:

•  In his "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, dated 13 December 2002, (of which I supplied a copy to the ICAEW with my 12 July 2006 correspondence ), Brian Gale, wrote under Section 4 -1.4

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

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

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

(C) Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) and Joan Hathaway

The - FALSE - claim (WL203537) drawn-up by CKFT, against 11 leaseholders representing 14 apartments - (of which I supplied a copy to Pridie Brewster with my 17 April 2005 correspondence, as well as a copy of my defence to the claim , dated 17 December 2002 , and supporting correspondence, also dated 17 December 2002 ) . This claim was filed, in West London County Court, by CKFT, on 29 November 2002 - with a Statement of Truth endorsed by Hathaway - stating

"The Defendants have failed to pay the service charges, details of which are set out in Schedule 1and there is now due and owing from the Defendants to the claimant the sums set-out in Schedule 1 payable by way of payment..."

This a FALSE claim as, among others, at the 29 October 2002 pre-trial LVT hearing, when the Chair asked me (and other leaseholders present) whether we had paid the 15 July 2002 service charge demand, 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. In other words, the tribunal told the leaseholders to NOT pay the service charge demand.

To reinforce this point, we were handed the leaflet (of which I supplied a copy to Pridie Brewster with my 17 April 2005 correspondence ) which, on page 5 states that:

"LVTs only have the jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid ..."   (NB: bold type face as per the leaflet)

Andrew Ladsky, Joan Hathaway, MRICS and Barrie Martin, FRICS of Martin Russell Jones, as well as Brian Gale, MRICS 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. (I supplied Pridie Brewster a copy of this document with my 17 April 2005 correspondence )

(Hence, filing of the claim while the same action was being pursued concurrently under another jurisdiction amounts to an abuse of process of court. See West London County Court # 2 for detail, as well as, Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 6 and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 2 and # 6.1 )

Furthermore, the 29 November 2002 claim, also states, among others, that

"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"

It amounts to, yet again, ANOTHER LIE

Indeed, Clause (2)(2)(c)(i) of the lease 'apparently' for apartment 23 , is very 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"

My highlighting in my Defence that the lease supplied with the claim was different from mine, led Lanny Silverstone, Cawdery Kaye Fireman Taylor, to request, in his 23 January 2003 letter, i.e. two months AFTER filing the claim , a copy of my lease. (As can be seen from the attached, I complied with this request).

With my 17 April 2005 correspondence to Pridie Brewster , I had also supplied a copy of my lease

(It should be noted that Hathaway also supplied a lease to the tribunal - FALSELY - claiming that it was representative of all the leases at Jefferson House - see LVT # 8.1.4 ) But, as with West London County Court : No problem ! Could not give a damn. After all, it's all for the benefit of a sacrosanct landlord ! Let's not upset the golden goose! And the same attitude was displayed by my so-called 'advisers' - See Stan Gallagher # 1 , # 2 and Piper Smith Basham # 7.8 )

(3) And the same lies continued to be made to the leaseholders

(A) Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones - A letter I do not appear to have supplied to the ICAEW / Pridie Brewster (which would clearly have made no difference) is that of 14 July 2004 from Martin to me (hence, sent two years after the original demand of 15 July 2002 - and one year after the tribunal had issued its 17 June 2003 report - which was NOT implemented) which he headed with :

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

(B) Mansell Construction Services - With my 12 July 2006 letter to the ICAEW, I supplied a copy of the " description of the works " , headed "Principal Contract : Mansells Construction" which was placed in the entrance to Jefferson House at the start of the works in September 2004. It reads :

"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"

(And Brian Gale continued to misrepresent the works undertaken as, more than one year later, in his 19 October 2005 letter, he wrote : "...Mansells, the contractors undertaking the works have now completed the external redecoration"

(4) Add to these, what I repeated times and times again to the ICAEW over a ONE YEAR period, such as:

 The accountant must take the covenants in the lease into consideration while drawing up the accounts. This point was immediately acknowledged by Pridie Brewster in its 15 April 2005 letter. (It was also emphasised in the October 1998 issue of Audit News)

 My lease, DOES state:

- Under Clause 2(2)(e) "...the sum or sums ... 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... in the amount of the service charge for the relevant financial year"

- Under 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 the sum specified as aforesaid represents the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee.. "

I do not think that it requires the brain of a genius to understand the above.

In addition, I repeatedly emphasised the findings from the LVT which led to a reduction in the service demand of 15 July 2002 of nearly 70% (including the contingency fund)

Indeed, the original sum demanded was £736,206 (US$1.3 million). The outcome of the LVT report was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (including the contingency fund) leaving a sum that can be demanded of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded.

Furthermore, in addition to the above Clause in my lease, Pridie Brewster knows perfectly well that the contribution by leaseholders to service charges is based on a fixed percentage of a global sum that has to be the SAME for all the leaseholders at Jefferson House - as confirmed by e.g.

•  The 7 August 2002 application filed by Hathaway to the tribunal to which is attached the list of percentages )

•  The 21 July 2003 reply from the tribunal to Lanny Silverstone, from which I quoted in my 17 April 2005 letter to Roger Clement that the LVT's remit was to determine the reasonableness of the "...amount of service charge as a whole to go on the service charge account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant" (see Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor # 6.3 )

To which must also be added the breach of my (and other leaseholders) statutory rights under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985:

Section 19(2) : "Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise"

Section 20(4) : “(3) the tenants concerned are all the landlord’s tenants of flats in the building by whom a service charge is payable to which the costs of the proposed works are relevant”

(1) The works were only started in September 2004. As detailed previously, among others, with my 17 April 2005 letter to Pridie Brewster, I supplied a copy of the 2 August 2004 letter from Barrie Martin announcing the appointment of Mansell and the start of the works (See: Martin Russell Jones # 13 , # 17 ; LVT # 3 , Photo gallery )

Yet, as recorded by Pridie Brewster during its 'typesetting process' (see point 7 above )...

... the majority of leaseholders ended-up paying the original sum demanded - BECAUSE THEY HAD THE EQUIVALENT OF A GUN HELD TO THEIR HEAD...

 

....and they were repeatedly lied to...

...as well as the tribunal and the courts...

 

COURT CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

 

...for fraudulent motives...

....and this pack provides overwhelming evidence of this. Note, among others, Brian Gale's identified "defects" and his recommended "remedies" v. the actual outcome...

...as well as this pack which includes evidence of some of the lies made by Martin Russell Jones and Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor to West London County Court - as they produced documents which, while they still fell far short of the LVT report, show that the service charge demand to leaseholders had been reduced by 24.19%.

In actual fact, leaseholders had been made to pay the full amount

This is why (in breach of my legal rights) they did not want me to have a copy of the contributions paid by the leaseholders.

As any reasonable person would ask: why is it that the courts have also turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to the evidence? see West London County Court # 8 , # 9 , # 11

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'.

Another point of note: contributions from (some) of Ladsky's apartments

According to the ICAEW’s letter of 29 August 2006, the sum of £46,242 (U$S81,600) in the 2004 year-end ‘accounts’ headed “Contributions received” (under “Major works fund”) is made up of the following:

...and the reminder relates to some of Ladsky's apartments:

  • £14,146 (US$24,950) for apartment 7 (v. the original share of £16,808) (US$29,650)
  • £21,000 (US$37,000 ) for apartment 34 (v. the original share of £68,120) (US$120,100)
  • £7,000 (US$12,350) for apartment 35 (v. the original share of £55,895) (US$98,600)

This brings the total ‘apparently’ paid by Ladsky to £42,146 (US$74,300) v. the total original share for these three apartments of £140,823 (US$248,350) (see original demand of 15 July 2002 and apportionment based on the apartments' individual percentage share)

Questions:

  • How come that these amounts are not detailed in the ‘accounts’?
  • What is the explanation for the shortfall of £98,677 (US$174,050) for the three apartments owned by Ladsky?

After all, in his identical letter of 25 January 2001 to all the leaseholders, Ladsky wrote:

“As I own flats 34+35 I pay 17% of the building charges…”

(He also wrote: “…and I should assure you it is in my best interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible” )

How about the other apartments e.g. apartment # 5 acquired in 2002 for which no contribution has been received? (see Owners identity # 3.1 )

Back to list

(19) In addition, the ICAEW has the gall to place the responsibility ON ME to perform Pridie Brewster's obligations

Indeed, on page two of her 29 August 2006 reply, the caseworker wrote:

"I believe that a number of questions are still outstanding and it is my opinion that the 2005 accounts will be key and should be able to provide answers to you. Such questions will need to be asked by the managing agent when preparing the 2005 accounts and the decisions should be reflected in the certified 2005 accounts. These are:

(i) What is the total cost of the major works?

(ii) What amount has the landlord paid for in respect of costs disallowed by the LVT and those that were considered to be improvements?

(iii) Which tenants have willingly agreed to contribute to the costs deemed to be improvements and unreasonable by the LVT? (NB !!!)

(iv) Which tenants have not willingly agreed to contribute to the costs deemed to be improvements and unreasonable by the LVT and what amount of credit note is due to them? (The amount should therefore be met by the landlord and should equal the answer to point (ii)

(v) What proportion of the contingency fund is to be used towards the major works costs?

(vi) What refund is due back to tenants in respect of funds used from the contingency fund?

(vii) What proportion of costs are to be met by the new flats?"

In the following paragraph, in the last sentence, the caseworker wrote:

"Therefore I suggest that you write to the managing agent and request a copy of the accounts and ask for the answers to the above questions"

And on the last page:

"I hope you manage to resolve this matter in the near future"

How about I also ask for the £1,000+ (US$1,700) fee charged by Pridie Brewster for its 'typesetting' service?

In fact, not only should I be paid this fee, but considerably more as well for the fact that I am asking questions.

What a joke!

(Subsequent note: "outrage" is (mercifully) also found within the ICAEW 's membership - see Introduction, above)

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'.

No wonder leaseholders are getting ripped-off by crooked landlords and their equally crooked aides on a massive scale.

(I wonder if there is another 'typesetting' member of the ICAEW acting for the block 'managed' by Martin Russell Jones, covered in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal case, LON/00AQ/LSC/2005/0258, 12 August 2006 (printscreen of website) which highlights :

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

(2) failing to produce year-end accounts;

(3) failing to issue a section 20 notice;

(4) the use of solicitors to enforce payment of service charges (point 12)

Yep! All of that sounds very much like 'Déjà vu'! (See RICS # 8 for detail )

Back to list

(20) And of course, the ICAEW has totally ignored many other key points in my correspondence - among others:

The ICAEW's own conclusion it captured in its 12 January 1999 letter to Mr Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L.:

"..in the event that a Court (or a relevant tribunal) decided that expenditure was not sufficiently supported, and an Institute member firm had reported otherwise, that would give rise to disciplinary considerations "

•  The fraudulent "Steel Services estimated expenditure for the year ended 2006 " (referred to in - and supplied with - my 17 May 2006 to the ICAEW) in which I wrote:

"considering the requirements under Clause 2(2)(e) and [Clause 2(2)] (f) of my lease"

"I conclude that this document was the outcome of Pridie Brewster's work.

On this basis, I view it as providing other overwhelming evidence against Pridie Brewster"

•  And concurrently - given the covenants in my lease i.e. under Clause 2(2)(f) "the accountant shall specify the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee" - the fraudulent service charge demands of 9 January 2006, stating a "Brought forward balance" of £5,625 (US$9,900), and that of 30 June 2006 stating a "Brought forward balance" of £8,621 (US$15,200).

•  (Still considering the covenants stated under Clause 2(2)(f) of my Lease), this is in addition to the fraudulent invoices of 21 October 2004 stating a "Brought forward balance" of £14,452  (US$25,600), and of 16 November 2004 (i.e. three weeks later), this time with a "Brought forward balance" of £15,447" (US$27,300)

(The three above points are discussed under point 12, above)

• The fact that "certification" implies "certainty" - the position communicated to a government department by the Association of Certified Accountants during a consultation process (which I captured in my 17 May 2006 letter to the ICAEW)

• The consent order exempting me from Steel Services' LVT related costs. (My letters of 9 May 2005 to Pridie Brewster and of 1 September 2005 and 17 May 2006 to the ICAEW)

This has not been reflected in the accounts. (The consent order had been preceded by, among others, the 22 September 2003 letter from Barrie Martin, to the LVT) (for detail of events see Piper Smith Basham from # 7.18 to # 7.18.6 , as well as Martin Russell Jones # 43 )

•  My providing ample evidence that, at least for a while, Steel Services did not exist - as I captured in my 6 June 2006 letter to the ICAEW - and with which I supplied the ICAEW with copy of 52 documents as supporting evidence

•  The fact that Pridie Brewster did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge my letters of 17 April 2005 and 9 May 2005

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'.

Back to list

(21) The overall conclusion from this is that the ICAEW endorses its members' breach of covenants in leases, breach of legislation, as well as disregard of legal decisions

As detailed under point 11 above , in my 17 May 2006 letter to the ICAEW, I asked:

Is it your Office's policy to encourage your members to disregard:

1.legislation?

2.the determination of an independent tribunal that is part of the English legal system?

3.legally binding contracts i.e. leases?

Very clearly, in light of the reply, the answer to each of the above is : Yes, Yes and Yes

(Subsequent note: "outrage" is (mercifully) also found within the ICAEW 's membership - see Introduction, above)

In my 'NON-LAWYER' opinion, the fact that Pridie Brewster has, in effect, turned a 'blind eye and a deaf ear' to criminal conduct amounts to breaches in legislation

Considering the ICAEW's reply of 29 August 2006 against its 24 May 2006 letter (detailed under point 7 above), as well as the massive amount of evidence that I supplied and the issues I have raised, I hold the view that the ICAEW has opted to let Pridie Brewster 'off the hook'

As an introduction to the rest of this sub-section - stressing that I am NOT a lawyer - in my 2 February 2005 complaint against Martin Russell Jones to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (of which I supplied a copy to Pridie Brewster with my 17 April 2005 correspondence ), as well as in my 20 December 2004 complaint against Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor to the Law Society, I put forward my 'non-lawyer' opinion that they had committed, among others, offences under:

The Theft Act 1968 : Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception ; Section 21- Blackmail

Criminal Justice Act & Public Order Act 1984, s.4A - which makes it a "...criminal offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress with intent by using threatening words”

Administration of Justice Act 1970 - Section 40 - “…illegal to make threats calculated to cause alarm, distress or humiliation” (Subsequent note: I have changed my mind about this - see my note under the extracts from the Act)

Subsequent note: I could have added others: under the Malicious Communications Act 1988

Being of the opinion that criminal offences have been committed against me (and, indeed, against other leaseholders at Jefferson House) by the above parties, leads me to conclude - in my NON-LAWYER opinion - that Pridie Brewster has committed offences under the Money Laundering Offences sections, comprised under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Among these offences, I draw your attention in particular to the following points contained in the ICAEW's guidance to its members - which the ICAEW has made a point of including on its website :

4.2 "Someone is engaged in money laundering under the Act where they:..."

"Enter into or become concerned in an arrangement which they know or suspect facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person..."

4.3 "Property is criminal property..."

4.5 "For the avoidance of doubt criminal property includes (but is by no means limited to):

• ...benefits (in the form of saved costs) arising from a failure to comply with a regulatory requirement, where that failure is a criminal offence"

6.6 "...Section 340(3)(b) of the Act specifies that “property is criminal property if it constitutes a person’s benefit from criminal conduct ... and the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit”

6. Knowledge and suspicion

V. "Accountants...must report knowledge or suspicions of money laundering (whether involving a client or other party) to NCIS...This includes circumstances where such accountants should have been suspicious (i.e., where they have reasonable grounds for suspicion) as well as where they are suspicious"

6.1 "Generally speaking, knowledge is likely to include:

• Actual knowledge.
• Shutting one’s mind to the obvious.
• Deliberately refraining from making inquiries, the results of which one might not care to have.
• Knowledge of circumstances which would indicate the facts to an honest and reasonable person.
• Knowledge of circumstances which would put an honest and reasonable person on inquiry and failing to make the reasonable inquiries which such a person would have made"

6.3 "...businesses, and individuals, would commit an offence even if they did not know or suspect that a money laundering offence was being committed, if they had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that it was. In other words, if another reasonable person in the same position would have been suspicious and made a report, a person who does not make a report may have committed an offence"

7.1 "Money laundering reports need to be made irrespective of the quantum of the benefits derived from, or the seriousness of the offence"

In addition, considering the evidence contained under point 12 and point 14 above , it suggests that Pridie Brewster has failed to meet the requirement to "Know your client" comprised under the Money Laundering Regulations. Indeed, under the regulations, professionals such as accountants, surveyors and lawyers must be able to confirm the identity of their client (which includes updating it, entailing, among others, understanding of the client's business) - a requirement that has been captured by the ICAEW in its guidance on the Act to its members

It 'may' also be that Pridie Brewster has committed an offence / offences under the Theft Act 1968. In particular:

Section 16 - Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception (1) “… by any deception dishonestly obtaining for… another any pecuniary advantage…”

Section 24 A - Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit - point (6)

Yet again, I stress that I am NOT a lawyer. Hence, I may not be correct in my 'legal assessment' .

Back to list

(22) Having 'spread on' a thick, fake layer of sympathy / empathy in the hope of making me swallow the can of worms, the ICAEW yet again gives me only 14 days to reply (having itself taken over three months to reply) and repeats what I view as a 'stuff you woman' message

The second and third sentence in the paragraph at the bottom of page two of the 29 August 2006 reply read:

"I do have sympathy with your position as I too have been a tenant of a flat having to deal with similar issues."

"I imagine that the last few years have been very stressful for you dealing with this matter has taken up an inordinate amount of time"

To use a colloquial expression: "Excuse me while I throw-up"

I view this as having been developed under the following scenario:

"How are we going to make her eat that can of worms?"

"Oh! I know, let's spread on a thick layer of words that convey empathy. Woman to woman, that should do the trick!"

 

 

Not wanting to push the 'sympathy boat' too far out, (as I had predicted) the ICAEW reverted back to its usual style by stating that it expected a reply from me "within the next 14 days" - including using what I view as bullying tactics:

"If I do not hear from you within fourteen days then the file will be closed"

 

 

Of course, by comparison, it's okay for the ICAEW to take more than three months to reply to my letter of 17 May 2006 - or should I say, more accurately, 'over a year' since my original letter of 19 July 2005

(= Same level of arrogance as the other so-called 'self-regulatory' bodies e.g. the Bar Council )

And finally, the 'stuff you woman' comment at the end:

"I would like to thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the institute and hope you manage to resolve this matter in the near future"

Yeah, a very worthwhile way of spending c.240 hours of my life!

As I did not reply to the letter, in her follow-up letter of 9 October 2006, the caseworker wrote :

"Under standard procedure, the papers have also been reviewed by a senior case manager who concurs with my recommendation that the file will be closed"

I wonder: did it include the note : "Another one stuffed!"

Just as well that the ICAEW's website states:

"Protecting the public

The Institute is responsible for protecting the public and safe-guarding the reputation of the accountancy profession by ensuring that members maintain the highest standards of professional conduct and competence.

AND, that in her letter of 16 March 2006, the caseworker wrote :

"I can assure you that the opinion expressed by Mr Wilkins is incorrect. The Institute takes its obligations as a Regulatory Body very seriously and does carry out investigations into potential cases of misconduct."

Although, as previously stated, I am NOT a lawyer, this looks to me like a breach under the Defamation Act.

Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site, I give my experience with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales as part of the overwhelming evidence that 'there is no avenue open to me for justice and redress on this island'

Like the other English so-called 'self-regulatory' bodies, I now view the ICAEW as a trade association concerned only with protecting the interests of its members...

...with the very traumatic consequence on me that I currently have hanging over my head...

....invoices for: £14,452 (US$25,600) + £15,447 (US$27,300) + £5,625 (US$9,900) + £8,621 (US$15,200) = £44,246 (US$78,000) (Subsequent note: see Portner and Jaskel and West London County Court - Post 2004 for update)

And I have so-called 'accounts' that are not worth the piece of paper they are written on (Subsequent note: captured in my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement).

What action can I take to get out of this horrendous nightmare that has brought me on the brink of committing suicide? (Fair minded, reasonable visitor to the site: given my situation, by how much would I need to reduce the price of my apartment to induce you to buy it? Add to that the fact that I have lost a large part of my life savings fighting the fraudulent service charge demand. Equal: I would be left with next to nothing) (See home - Overview)

Well, 'according to the ICAEW' it is up to me to ask all the questions (point # 19, above) - but my lease clearly states.

 Clause 2(2)(e) "...as the accountant may in his reasonable discretion consider it reasonable to include..."

• 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 ...in the accountant's certificate, shall certify that the sum specified as aforesaid represents the amount of the service charge payable by the lessee... "

...and Pridie Brewster knows this.

NOTE at 9 March 2007 - in My Diary : A 27 February 2007 West London County Court claim, ref. 7WL00675, filed against me by Portner and Jaskel, claims payment of the sum of £8,937 (US$15,760). (Details subsequently covered under Portner and Jaskel LLP # 6)

TWO DAYS LATER, Martin Russell Jones sent an invoice, dated 1 March 2007, claiming payment of £8,688 (US$15,300) !!! (Portner # 7)

Who knows what the thugs will think of tomorrow?

By the way, what happened to the invoices for £14,452 (US$25,600) and £15,447 (US$27,300)?

Hum! Definitely acts of vengeance - which I knew they were - (by what some people might describe as 'sociopaths') for my challenging the LVT application - that not only fell flat on their face, but actually led to a boomerang effect as they induced me to file a complaint against: Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor on 20 December 2004, and against Martin Russell Jones on 2 February 2005 (overview at the start of the section)

Another 'slight' detail : the West London County Court claim is filed in the name of a company I have never heard of : Rootstock Overseas Corp (For what subsequently came to light see: Portner # 3 , # 15 , # 27 ; Headlessors)

NOTE at September 2008: Evidence that the 27 February 2007 WLCC claim - based on accounts produced by Pridie Brewster - was FRAUDULENT: upon receipt of my 3 June 2008 Witness Statement, on 6 June 2008, Andrew Ladsky dropped "ALL" of the claim against me (Portner points # 29 - 31) - giving the preposterous, laughable excuse that "the managing agents had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord..." (Portner # 33)

= COURT CLAIMS = FRAUD TOOLS

I believe that any fair minded, reasonable person considering the evidence contained in this section, will have no difficulty understanding why I now hold the view that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales acts as a fertiliser for malpractice in the sector. (Hence, the same view I now hold of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the parties I have approached in the legal sector: the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Legal Services Ombudsman and Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

As I stated earlier on: mercifully, in spite of the behaviour of the ICAEW, the sector is dominated by highly professional accountants with the utmost level of integrity.

Why should the ICAEW opt to tarnish the perception of these professionals by blindly rejecting what I consider to be a valid complaint - and behaving as it did - is a mystery.

(Subsequent note: "outrage" is (mercifully) also found within the ICAEW 's membership - see Introduction, above)

Back to list

 

PRIDIE BREWSTER AND THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES HAVE CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.

  C O M M E N T S

Back to top