text:
Corrupt and morally depraved, happily lying to a tribunal in 'Expert witness' reports, and to Jefferson House leaseholders
Major works & Surveyors Home
Martin Russell Jones (MRJ)
Martyn Gerrard
Brian Gale & Associates
Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
Pridie Brewster & Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)
Trust Fund & Financial Services Authority (FSA)
You are here > Works & Surveyors > Brian Gale & Associates
Brian Gale, MRICS - and Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3 1AX
(If the linked documents within the PDFs do not open, try with Internet Explorer:
(If Internet Explorer does not go to a specific part of a page on my website i.e. does not link to an anchor:
In the Internet Explorer browser, select Tools, then 'Compatibility View settings'.
Under 'Add this website' enter: 'leasehold-outrage.com' and click 'Add').
(Snapshot under Advisors to Jefferson House, 11 Basil St, London SW3)
(NOTE, above, browser set-up)
SUMMARY OF EVENTS
BREACHES OF THE LAW
OVERALL OUTCOME ON ME
(1)- The Feb 02 so-called "condition survey" by Brian Gale, MRICS = the start of the implementation of the scam by Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers.
(2)- In Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, Andrew David Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS, colluded and connived to undermine me and discredit me, by falsely claiming that: (1) "[I had] been supplied with the priced specification"; (2) "[I was] the only leaseholder challenging the costs".
(2.1)- The LIES against me 'by' Brian Gale, MRICS:
(2.2)- The LIES against me by Andrew David Ladsky:
(3) (Moved to # 2.1, above)
(4) (Moved to # 2, above)
(5)- The outcome of the 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' by Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, LVT/SC/007/120/02, was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund) - or nearly 70% in the global sum demanded.
(6)- In its 17.06.03 (LVT/SC/007/120/02) so-called 'determination', Her Majesty's London tribunal was highly critical of the specification and pricing drawn-up by Brian Gale, MRICS e.g.
(7)- Her Majesty's then London LVT's findings in its 17.06.03 report (# 5, above) - and those it - unlawfully - failed to include (# 5, above) - demonstrate the unbelievable LIES by Brian Gale, MRICS, in his "Expert Witness" reports to the tribunal - in order to assist the defrauding of the Jefferson House leaseholders.
(7.1)- Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert witness" report
(7.2)- Brian Gale, MRICS, 24.02.03 "Proof of Evidence of Landlord's Expert Witness (Surveyor) Brian Gale"
(8)- Brian Gale, MRICS, continued to LIE about the nature of 'the works' undertaken - to the very end. However there was absolutely no point my filing a complaint against him with the RICS - as it is in business to protect criminals.
(8.1) (Moved to # 8, above)
(9)- Why did Brian Gale, MRICS, LIE persistently to Her Majesty's London Tribunal, as well as to the Jefferson House leaseholders? So that his client, Andrew David Ladsky could make a multi-million £ jackpot = because HE IS A CROOK.
C O M M E N T S
(NB: Brian Gale, MRICS, is covered in my 03.06.08 Witness Statement).
Brian Gale, MRICS, of Brian Gale & Associates, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 9BS.
WARNING LEASEHOLDERS: BRIAN GALE, MRICS, IS A CROOK
As discussed on this page, (like the rest of the Ladsky's gang of racketeers), Brian Gale, MRICS, demonstrated that he would do anything for his client or, to be more precise, for financial gains:
LIE in "Expert Witness" reports to one of Her Majesty's tribunals;
LIE to leaseholders;
make malicious, libellous, scurrilous accusations against me - in his "Expert Witness" reports.
In other words: LIE like his thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman client Andrew David Ladsky.
I also draw your attention to the RICS "rules" governing the conduct of surveyors acting a expert witness (extracted from a 2003 LVT brochure):
"Where the surveyor is providing evidence directly as an expert he or she will be bound by the RICS Practice Statement which requires that
"the primary duty of the surveyor is to the judicial body to whom his evidence is given...The surveyor's evidence must be independent, objective and unbiased.
In particular, it must not be biased toward the party who is responsible for paying him."
(Predictably) in spite of his criminal activities being referred to on many occasions in my 02.02.05 complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) against the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ) (summary of my complaint # 6.2) (e.g. under headers 5.16 , 7.2 , 7.5 , 11.1 , 11.2, and in several parts of the summary)...
... - at January 2014 - Brian Gale, MRICS, was still operating as a "surveyor" - "regulated by the RICS" (!!!) i.e. criminally placed (like Martyn Gerrard and the then MRJ) before the public.
(More comments towards the end of this page about this island-Kingdom being dedicated to the assistance and protection of 'certain' criminals).
The following are extracts from the website:
Contrast also the following with what is contained on this page.
"Brian Gale Surveyors were established in 1985. We have Building Surveyors and Valuation Surveyors who are experts in working with all types of property, especially period and historic buildings."
"We are extremely proud to be members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and are regulated by RICS Guidelines and protocol." (1)
"All Surveyors are RICS Registered Valuers under the RICS Accredited Valuer Registration Scheme, giving you confidence in our levels of training and expertise."
"We are an Independent Surveying Company...so you can relax in the knowledge that our advice will be truly impartial, and not influenced by any "third party interests!" (2)
(1)- "RICS Guidelines and protocol" are not "regulations" (RICS Intro). This sector is not regulated - AT ALL.
(2)- In the case of Brian Gale, MRICS, if the target audience is landlords, translate: I will only obey your orders, whatever they might be, while totally ignoring the law.
The website lists Brian Gale, as well as Peter Moyle (e.g. with Gale, he attended the then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal's 29.10.02 so-called 'pre-trial hearing': LVT # 1.4)
In his profile entry, Brian Gale states that he "founded the business in 1986...carrying out Residential and Commercial Building Surveys and Valuations in high value central London areas...".
This page demonstrates the type of work he does. (His 'competence' has previously been under the spotlight - as evidenced by e.g. the High Court case, Wallace vs. Brian Gale Associates, 1994-1997).
(I have no knowledge of the other 2 individuals listed on the website).
The first I heard of Brian Gale, MRICS, was...
..in the 21.12.01 letter 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), 'managing' agents for Jefferson House, 11 Basil Street, London SW3 1AX:
"On the instructions of Steele (sic) Services Limited prices have been obtained from surveyors and service consultants for an inspection of the block and the preparation of a Schedule of Works for the redecoration of the exterior... together with the associated repairs to the building and grounds."
"Subject to any observations which we may receive, it is the intention of Steele (sic) Services to instruct Brian Gale Associates and Michael Jones & Associates to carry out the work."
As can be seen in the attachments to the 21.12.01 letter, Gale (as well as other contractors) sent his tender to "The Office" at Jefferson House. Why? MRJ did not have an office there.
The reason was that the true addressee was Andrew David Ladsky (see e.g. Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) - Introduction).
At the beginning of the tribunal hearings, Gale admitted that Ladsky was "a prior client". In other words: Brian Gale was appointed by Andrew David Ladsky and, in the process, totally ignored his 'professional' association code of conduct (above).
SUMMARY OF EVENTS - BRIAN GALE, MRICS - 2002 - 2006:
(See, below, Breaches of the law)
(1) - Following his official appointment by Andrew David Ladsky in Dec 01, Brian Gale, MRICS, undertook a "condition survey" with 'supporting' photographs of Jefferson House, in Feb 02 (which, given subsequent events, make 'fascinating reading').
It was followed by, among others, an unsupported 15.07.02 demand of £736,206 (US$1.3m) 'from' Joan Hathaway, MRICS, of the then Martin Russell Jones (MRJ), "for the works".
Outrage from the leaseholders led "Steel Services" (=Ladsky) - MRJ file a 07.08.02 application in Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) "to determine the reasonableness of the the sum demanded" (pt # 1)
(2) - The steps taken by the tribunal to limit the number of leaseholders challenging the application (LVT # 1), and Ladsky ignoring the tribunal's directions to the leaseholders "not pay the demand" (LVT # 1.5) - by filing a Nov 02 claim against me and 13 other apartments (WLCC # 1) - meant that I ended-up as the main leaseholder challenging the application.
Brian Gale and Andrew David Ladsky colluded and connived to undermine me and discredit me to the tribunal.
In the case of Gale, he did this in his 13.12.02 and 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" reports, by claiming falsely e.g. that "[I had] been provided with the priced specification" ; "[I was] the only leaseholder objecting to the demand" - and repeated this during the hearings, in tandem with Ladsky (pts # 2 , # 7).
(3) - The outcome of the 17.06.03 so-called 'determination' by the tribunal was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (incl. the contingency fund of £142k) - or nearly 70% in the global sum demanded (pt # 5)
(4) - The tribunal was highly critical of the specification and pricing drawn-up by Brian Gale, MRICS, e.g.
"the reports were a "wish list" for refurbishment" (quoting from a sub-contractor);
"not prepared by having regard to the rights and responsibilities under the lease";
"the tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail in the specification and in Mr Gale's evidence";
"Works were not clearly identified, were not measured where they clearly could have been, and there was some element of duplication";
"Some items were not specified at all, e.g. the types and capacity of the boilers" (pt # 6)
(5) - What Brian Gale, MRICS, had claimed in his "Expert Witness" reports e.g.
(1)- He objected to the findings from my surveyor, claiming:
"the amending and re-tendering procedure would be time consuming, expensive and entirely prejudicial to the majority of tenants";
"any cost savings from the original tendering procedure will, undoubtedly, be more than absorbed by the continuing delays and efflux of time";
"It is my honest opinion that any attempt to save a modest sum of money [NB: £500k!!! pt # 5] in the short term by curtailing the extent of the works or specification will, in the long term, be regretted. (The expression "penny wise - pound foolish" is entirely applicable in these circumstances, I believe)";
"Again, I confirm that it is my professional and honest opinion, that the works should proceed as tendered and priced."
(2)- He also claimed:
"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"
(In his 20.02.02 "condition survey" he had stated: "the roof coverings will need to be replaced; it has exceeded [its] modern life span" (pt # 7). However: when the works started, the whole roof was demolished in order to build a penthouse).
"I confirm that the Specification and Tender Document prepared by Brian Gale Associates did not contain any known enhancement or improvement works."
The works also entailed the addition of 3 other apartments. (pt # 7). Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30.
(6) - Brian Gale, MRICS, continued to LIE to the very end to the leaseholders about the nature of "the works" undertaken - in the process describing the construction of the penthouse as "replacing asphalt roof" (pt # 8)
(7) - The reason for Brian Gale's lies (pt # 9)
Overall outcome on me - below
BREACHES OF THE LAW - BRIAN GALE, MRICS - 2002 - 2006:
(See, above, Summary of events)
In - my non-lawyer opinion (*) - Brian Gale MRICS and his client, Andrew David Ladsky, have (like CKFT, Portner and Jaskel and MRJ) committed: breaches of Civil Procedure Rules' equivalent for the tribunal; of statutes - including committing criminal offences against me - as well as breaches of my Lease:
(*) I contend that it does not require being a lawyer, or a genius, to arrive at the conclusions.
• Tribunal rules (that must have existed - at the time)
Lying in "Expert Witness" reports, that were each endorsed by "Expert witness statements" (pts # 2 and # 7).
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
(1) - s.19(2) (see extracts)
By claiming falsely in 2 "Expert Witness" reports that "the costs [were] reasonable" - and therefore compliant with the landlord's obligations under the Lease - as well as challenging the assertions by my surveyor that they were not (pts # 2 , # 5 , # 6 , # 7) .
(2) - 20(3)(b) (see extracts)
By claiming falsely that "a copy of the priced specification had been available [for me] to look at " (pt # 2).
• My Lease
Clause 2(2)(c)(ii) (see extracts) - by claiming falsely that "the cost and nature of the works were reasonable" - and therefore compliant with my Lease (pts # 2 , # 5 , # 6 , # 7);
Fourth Schedule - by using the funds to build a penthouse, as well as add 3 other apartments - while making categorical denials of the intention to do this (pt # 7). (On pages 31 and 32 of the Lease, I am only liable for "maintenance and repairs and replacement where necessary").
• Malicious Communications Act 1988, ss 1 & 2A (see extracts) (= criminal offences):
(1)- Sending me (and the tribunal) the 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report that contained claims aimed at portraying me as a liar (pt # 2).
(2)- Supplying the 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report to my surveyor, and the tribunal, that contained lies about me (pts # 2 , # 7) - and sending me a 02.05.06 letter that challenged my legitimate comments (pt # 8).
• Criminal Justice Act and Public Order Act 1994 (see extracts) (= criminal offence)
Causing me distress during the hearings - by repeating the lies against me contained in the 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report, and criticising my challenge of the application - and doing this in tandem with Andrew David Ladsky (pts # 2 , # 7).
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss 1 & 2 (see extracts) - including breaching s.7(3A) by aiding and abetting the harassment on behalf of Andrew David Ladsky (= criminal offences) - BY:
(1)- making false claims in the 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report - intended to portray me as a liar (pt # 2);
(2)- Continuing to make false claims against me in the 24.02.03"Expert Witness" report (pts # 2 , # 7);
(3)- Repeating the false claims during the course of the hearings - and doing this in tandem with Andrew David Ladsky.
• Defamation Act (see extracts):
By portraying me falsely in 2 "Expert Witness" reports as a liar, and as somebody who challenges "reasonable" 'service charge' demands, 'with the motive of avoiding to fulfill my contractual obligations', and again portraying me as a liar in a letter (pts # 2 , # 5 , # 7 , # 8).
• Data Protection Act 1998 (extracts)
s.4 and ALL of Schedules 1, 2 and 3 - by processing false, sensitive data about me in the "Expert Witness" reports (pts 2, # 7).
(The Fraud Act was not in operation at the time).
OVERALL OUTCOME ON ME of the above Events and Breaches of the law - as the innocent victim of crime:
Due to his unbelievable LIES in his documents - Brian Gale, MRICS, caused me to suffer:
23 months of absolute, sheer utter hell - of ongoing mental torture, horrendous torment, anguish, distress and trauma in...
...Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, West London County Court and Wandsworth County Court...
...- as well as with 'my advisors', Piper Smith Basham/Watton and Stan Gallagher.
Loss, from my very-hard-earned life savings, of £40,000 (US$70,000) spent on 'professional' fees, as well as many other costs.
Loss of over 450 hours of my life.
Other actions taken against me for 'daring' to challenge the fraudulent demand - based on his documents - that have resulted in totally destroying my life.
(NB: Towards the end of this page, I discuss the fact that there was absolutely no point my complaining to the RICS against Brian Gale, MRICS).
WHY did Brian Gale, MRICS, LIE?
With the objective of assisting his client 'Dear Mr Andrew David Ladsky' who decided he was 'entitled' to make a multi-million £ jackpot through theft and extortion at my expense (and that of my fellow leaseholders)...
...to which he said:
Yes, of course! O' Great One!
Brian Gale, MRICS, 'completed' the so-called "condition survey" and his 'supporting' photographs - in Feb 02.
In 'her' 26.03.02 letter to the leaseholders, Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:
"The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million [US$1.8m] + VAT and fees [1]
We would stress that this is a very rough indicative estimate and should in no way be relied upon as an exact figure.
The tendering contractors may produce a price which is significantly more or less than the price indicated above depending on numerous factors which contractors take into account when tendering" (2)
(1) = c. £1.5m - which was c. 10 times the cost of previous 'repairs and maintenance' which, no doubt, included some rip-off.
(2) = Alarm bell. How can an 'experienced' surveyor make such 'an estimate' - bearing in mind that the works that ought to be taking place were 'repairs and maintenance works'.
I read this as Hathaway = Ladsky preparing the ground in order to refer back to this letter at a later stage, along the lines of: "But we did warn you in March 2002." (See 'Major works' for what happened).
In 'her' 15.07.02 letter, Hathaway, MRICS, informed lessees that:
"the cost of the works will be £736,206 (US$1.3m) [1] ...It is intended to maintain the existing Reserve Fund [2], in part to cover any additional costs." (3)
"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due either to subsequent changes in the specification [3] or to problems encountered while the works are in progress."
(1)- "the cost of the works will be £736,206" = c. 6 times the previous 'repairs and maintenance' costs.
(2)- "keeping the existing reserve fund" = More signs of the intended scam - especially in light of the fact that, 6 months previously,...
...in her above 21.12.01 letter, addressed to "Dear Flat Owner", Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:
"We have to state that the sum quoted may be exceeded due to disbursements but these will be of a minor nature. Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund"
(3)-"to cover any additional costs"; "subsequent changes in the specification"
= construction of a massive penthouse + addition of 3 other apartments... as part of the "repairs and maintenance works"! (Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn Gerrard # 30).
The mini revolt that the 15.07.02 demand created among the leaseholders, led 'Steel Services' = Andrew Ladsky to file a 07.08.02 application in Her Majesty's then London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)...
...- that was kept quite for 2 months, to allow the Ladsky racketeers to bully and terrorise the leaseholders into paying: LVT # 1.1. (See LVT # 1, for the other conniving and colluding that took place at the time between both mafia: Ladsky gang and tribunal).
A pre-trial 'hearing' took place on 29.10.02 - at which directions were set (LVT # 1.4).
Brian Gale, MRICS, then issued a 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report.
The report was delivered to me post 18 Dec 02 - having ensured that I had left the country for the Christmas break - and, therefore, after the deadline set by the tribunal. (As can be seen from the envelop at the back of the pack, the stamp was not franked).
Contrast this with the fact that Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, had sent a 01.12.02 fax to the tribunal, stating:
"I understand that you have already received our expert report direct" .
The steps taken by the tribunal to limit the number of leaseholders challenging the application (LVT # 1),...
...added to Ladsky ignoring the tribunal's directions to the leaseholders "not pay the demand" (LVT # 1.5) - by filing a Nov 02 claim against me and 13 other apartments (WLCC # 1)...
...- meant that I ended-up as the only leaseholder challenging the application in the tribunal.
Of note:
(1)- I had not been supplied with the information to which I was legally entitled (discussed under # 2, below);
(2)- Her Majesty's tribunal's Clerk, David Stewart, had not copied me on any of the supporting documents to the application (LVT # 3).
= I could not challenge the 7 Aug 02 application.
BUT: continuing to fall over backwards to assist 'the brother', Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers - the tribunal opted to 'believe' the lies: LVT # 2 - that were finally exposed at the 5 Feb 03 hearing.
(2)- In Her Majesty's then London LVT, Andrew David Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS, colluded and connived to undermine me and discredit me, by falsely claiming that: (1)- "[I had] been supplied with the priced specification"; (2)- "[I was] the only leaseholder challenging the costs".
(NB: Includes previous section # 4)
While Her Majesty's London tribunal colluded with Andrew Ladsky and his gang of racketeers from the start (LVT # 1 , # 2),...
...of course, the collusion and conniving also took place between Ladsky and Brian Gale, MRICS.
Note that, of course, ALL the lies were fed to Brian Gale, MRICS, BY Andrew David Ladsky: see below, Ladsky's letter to the tribunal.
And, being an "RICS regulated surveyor", Gale, of course, complied.
In his 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal
The following is in 'response' to my (among others) 25.11.02 letter to the tribunal, that I had not been supplied with a priced copy of the specification:
Para.4.01(3)(1.1) - "Copies of the Schedule of Condition, the Specification and Tender Documents and final detailed costing [1] by Killby& Gayford have been provided in triplicate to MRJ and additional copies provided (at a charge) to individual Lessees when requested."
"I understand that 1 set of these documents were left with the Porter for ease of reference and access to all Lessees."(2)
Para.4.01(3)(1.1) - [NB: In 'reply' to my feedback] "the Specification and Tender were made available from the end of July 2002 [2] as soon as the Section 19 Notice [3] was served on the Lessees."
(1)- "detailed costing" - Contrast that with the findings from the tribunal hearings, under # 5, and # 6, below.
(2)- "A detailed costed version of the specification was left with the Porter from the end of July 2002"
This LIE by the Ladsky mafia (one of many to the tribunal: LVT # 5.4) was exposed during the 5 Feb 03 hearing (LVT # 3).
It came as a result of the tribunal forcing me to employ a team of advisors, as it was opting to 'believe' the blatant lies by the Ladsky mafia against what I (LVT # 2.1) (and fellow leaseholders) had been communicating repeatedly to the tribunal: we had NOT been supplied with the information to which we were legally entitled, and needed to challenge Ladsky's 7 Aug 02 application.
Having refused my request for a postponement - until I was supplied with the necessary information (LVT # 2.2) - at the 5 Feb 03 hearing, the Chair finally agreed to the postponement of the substantive hearings "in the interests of justice" (LVT # 3) (!!!).
In complete breach of the tribunal's directions, as I reported under para.12 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement, I only received the - partially - priced specification, just 36 hours before the 5 Feb 03 hearing - and therefore 7 months after the original demand for payment of £14,400 (US$25,400) (Overview # 1).
As I reported in my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement - under:
para.13 - I knew that my fellow leaseholders had not been supplied with a copy of the priced specification (and had communicated this to the tribunal);
para.12 - 6 times, over a 6-month period, I had asked for a copy of the priced specification (and listed the letters);
para.14 - the tribunal's Clerk, David Stewart had withheld from me (and others) ALL the supporting documents to Ladsky's 7 Aug 02 application.
(3)- As is glaring obvious from the tribunal's findings ( # 5, and # 6, below), the 15.07.02 demand (Overview # 1) was most definitely NOT a "Section 19 Notice".
In his 24.02.03 "Expert Witness" report to the tribunal, Brian Gale, MRICS, claimed:
Para.2.03 - "At this stage [29 Oct 02 pre-trial tribunal 'hearing'], of the 35 flats within the block, 11 Lessees had already paid the relevant service charge, a further 10 had partly paid and had promised to pay the balance and were not in disagreement. [1]
Of the remaining tenants, only the 5 attending as Respondents had indicated any objection to payment of the service charge, reasonableness of the works or their cost" (2)
Para.2.04 - "At the tribunal hearing...some of the 5 Lessees indicated that they had not received, or seen, copies of vital documentation [3]. In particular,...the un-priced or priced specification and schedule of works [4],...
...even though these documents had, through the middle to latter part of 2002, been deposited at the porters desk in the entrance, freely available for all Lessees to view."
Para.2.07 - "Martin Russell Jones arranged for a meeting on 14th November 2002...I personally attended, bringing with me all of the relevant documentation, in particular and including...specification of works with fully priced tender...copies of these documents were provided to tenants who had requested them." (5)
Para.2.09 - "The result of this was that (and as far as I am aware and advised by Martin Russell Jones) 4 of the 5 objecting Respondents who attended the Pre-Trial Review on the 29th of October 2002, were now not objecting any further and had agreed to pay, or had paid, the relevant increased service charge." (6)
Para.2.11 - "I must say that I find the statements made by Ms Dit-Rawé's Counsel on 5th February 2003 astonishing [7], but fully respect the tribunal's position in being faced with a request for an adjournment under the circumstances.
However, I felt that it is my duty to the tribunal to explain very clearly, the procedure and the opportunities afforded to Ms Dit-Rawé throughout this entire procedure (from the receipt of tenders back in April 2002 onwards) to receive all, and any, documentation that she required to satisfy herself as to the position." (8)
Para.5.01 - "I would like to draw to the attention of the Tribunal that I am advised by the managing agents that now some 31 of 35 tenants have paid, either in full or substantial contributions toward the cost of the proposed works" (9)
Para.5.02 - "It would therefore appear, and following on from the representations at the pre-trial review with Mr Sharma on 29th October 2002, that only one lone tenant continues to make any representation or objection of the 35 tenants." (10)
Para.5.04 - "The vast majority of the tenants in this block have been fully and completely consulted throughout all stages of the procedure, are in full and complete agreement and have paid substantially, or entirely, for the works [11] and improvements [12] to take place" .
(1)- "[ by 29 Oct 02] of the 35 flats, 11 had already paid, a further 10 had partly paid and had promised to pay the balance and were not in disagreement".
As I reported under under para.10 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement: one month after the 29 Oct 02 so-called 'pre-trial hearing',...
...'Steel Services' = Andrew David Ladsky, filed, in West London County Court, a 29.11.02 claim against me, and 13 other apartments (WLCC # 1) = the majority, as many were under Ladsky' control.
Further:
(1)- The 23.05.03 application sent by Lanny Silverstone, CKFT, to West London County Court for a 'Case Management Conference' highlighted ongoing action against 4 leaseholders (WLCC # 6).
(2)- On 31 Mar 04, when I was told falsely by the court that "a judgment [had been] entered against [me] on 18 Mar 04", I was eventually told: "No, the judgement is not against you, it's against Defendant number 9" (Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 2 )
(3)- Under para.50 of the 17.06.03 tribunal report :
"On the last day of the hearing a legal representative for another lessee in the subject property attended to say that her client was also unhappy about the service charges demanded of the proposed works"
The "legal representative" was Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham, who had written in her 09.04.03 letter dated to my then solicitors:
"...the landlord has intimated to the LVT that no other lessee is disputing the service charges demanded. That is clearly not the case."
(4)- CONTRAST the claims made to the tribunal by Brian Gale, MRICS, Ladsky and Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ - with Hathaway's (= Ladsky's) 26.03.04 letter to "All Lessees" i.e. one year later:
"Due to extensive delays in collecting the contributions from all [NB!!!] lessees..."
(2)- "only the 5 attending as Respondents"
The low attendance by my fellow leaseholders was the outcome of conniving between Her Majesty's tribunal and Ladsky - see LVT # 1.
(3)- "some of the 5 Lessees"
At the 29 Oct 02 pre-trial 'hearing' (LVT # 1.4) - we ALL clamored for a copy of the price specification. Further, the tribunal had also received communication from me, and my fellow leaseholders, in which we had repeated this endlessly.
(4)- "the un-priced or priced specification"
Note how Gale,MRICS, is hedging his bet v. what he had claimed, more than 2 months previously, in his 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report, under para.4.01(3), (above): "the detailed costing was made available from the end of July 2002 with the porter" - which he then repeats in this "Expert Witness" report.
I repeat my comments, under # 2 above, re. the same claim in Gale's 13.12.02 "Expert Witness" report.
(5)- "I personally brought the price tender and supplied it to the tenants who requested it"
I repeat my above comment # 1, and add to that, para.11, the fact that 4 months had elapsed since the 15.07.02 demand (Overview # 1)
(6)- "4 of the 5 objecting who attended the Pre-Trial Review on 29th of October 2002, were now not objecting any further and had agreed to pay, or had paid, the relevant increased service charge."
I repeat my above comment # 1.
(7)- "I find the statements made by Ms Dit-Rawé's Counsel on 5th February 2003 astonishing"
= A Ladsky input. Refers to my Counsel catching Hathaway out on her lies, as well as exposing the conniving by the Clerk, David Stewart: LVT # 3.
(8)- "procedure and opportunities afforded to Ms Dit-Rawé throughout...to receive all, and any, documentation that she required to satisfy herself as to the position"
I repeat my comment, under # 2, above.
(9)- "...now some 31 of 35 tenants have paid, either in full or substantial contributions toward the cost of the proposed works"
I repeat my comment, under # 1 above. Note that this was, of course, fed to Gale by Ladsky - see, below, Ladsky's letter 1 month later to the tribunal.
(10)- "It would therefore appear that only one lone tenant continues to make any representation or objection of the 35 tenants"
Ditto about repeating my comments.
(11)- "vast majority of the tenants have been fully and completely consulted throughout all stages of the procedure, are in full and complete agreement and have paid substantially, or entirely, for the works"
(12)- Under my Lease, I am ONLY liable for "maintenance, repairs and replacement where necessary".
(I wrote a reply to Brian Gale, MRICS, dated 13.03.03, that was handed to the tribunal's Panel by my Counsel, on 28 Apr 03).
(In addition to being behind ALL the other lies by his gang of racketeers - snapshots LVT # 5.4)
In the case of thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky, it was in his 28 Apr 03 letter, captured under pt 50 of the 17.06.03 report :
"It is noted that, apparently, the majority of the tenants wish all the works to be carried out. A letter from Mr Ladsky, the lessee of flats 34 and 35 dated 28 April 2003 stated:
"31 or 32 of the 35 tenants have paid their contribution towards the major works. They are, therefore, in agreement with both the scope and cost of the proposed refurbishment."
Whilst I accept that the Tribunal is to rule on the reasonableness of the proposed works, it must surely follow that if the overwhelming majority of lessees in the building are ad idem, some considerable weight must be given to their collective view.
It seems to me that it would be wholly inequitable for one lone tenant acting entirely unilaterally to be able to frustrate and delay the building works desired by the many"
In response to ALL of this, I repeat:
my above comments, in relation to Brian Gale, MRICS, "Expert Witness" report of 13 Dec 12;
my above comments, in relation to Gale's "Expert Witness" report of 24 Feb 03.
Of course - thanks to Her Majesty's tribunal Panel's lies in its report (LVT # 7), and its failure to perform its legal remit (LVT # 4.2 , # 7)...
...- the Ladsky gang of racketeers continued - post the substantive hearings - with the false and libellous accusations against me: 'Summary of the case' # 1.2.
Most 'conveniently' for 'Steel Services' = 'the brother', Andrew David Ladsky...
...- in breach of its statutory remit - in its 17.06.03 so-called 'determination', LVT/SC/007/120/02, (ref #992 on the LVT database)...
...Her Majesty's London tribunal did not include a summary of the impact of its findings "on the reasonableness of the global sum demanded of £736,206 [US$1.3m]" (LVT # 4.2).
The total sum demanded in the 07.08.02 application (LVT Intro) was £736,207 (US$1.3m) (£564,467 (US$995,400) excl. VAT and management fees of 11%).
Based on my Chartered Surveyor's 31.07.03 assessment, (see LVT # 4.1 for my comments about the credibility of his assessment), the outcome of the tribunal's findings (LVT # 4.1) - was:
Disallowed / breach
% of global sum
"Because improvements" (1)
£169,498 (US$298,900) (£129,958 (US$229,200) excl. VAT and "management fees")
"Could not make a determination due to lack of specification" (1)
£188,784 (US$332,900) (£144,745 (US$255,200) excl. VAT and fees)
Considering the covenant in the lease (para.59), as well as RICS' best practice (para.62) - "opinion that the reserve fund should be used as contribution" (2)
'Said' to contain £141,977 (US$250,400)
(1)- See # 6, below, for extracts from the tribunal's 17.06.03 report.
(2)- For the issue about the reserve fund, see LVT # 4.1.
Hence, taking the contingency fund into account - left an amount that 'could' be charged of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original £736,207 (US$1.3m) demanded in the 07.08.02 application.
In other words, £500,000 (US$882,000) of the sum demanded was NOT considered "reasonable".
'Could' be charged - as, in the end, the Ladsky gang of racketeers opted to ignore the tribunal's 'very inconvenient' findings, and appointed a new contractor, Mansell - in breach of consultation procedures...
...- which meant that the maximum that could be asked of each apartment was £250 (US$440), or a total of £8,750 (US$15,429)...
...v. the £736,200 (US$1.3m) demanded in the 15.07.02 demand, and 7 Aug 02 application to the tribunal - see Overview # 5 and Note 2 (see also Extortion).
(6)- In its 17.06.03 (LVT/SC/007/120/02) so-called 'determination', Her Majesty's London tribunal was highly critical of 'the specification' and pricing drawn-up by Brian Gale, MRICS e.g.
The tribunal's 17.06.03 (LVT/SC/007/120/02) so-called 'determination', (ref #992 on the LVT database):
• Para.44 - "The reports [Brian Gale's Feb-Mar 02 "SPECIFICATION"] prepared on behalf of the Applicant and provided to the Tribunal were, in the words of Mr Jones, "a wish list" for refurbishment of the subject property to a high standard.
They do not seem to have been prepared on behalf of the Applicant having regard to its rights and responsibilities under the lease.
The Tribunal would normally expect alternative proposals to be costed and produced, in order to make a proper and considered judgement of the best way forward to meet the obligations of both the landlord and the tenants"
• Para.45 - "The question for the tribunal is not solely whether costs are reasonable, but whether they would be reasonably incurred..."
• Para.46 - "In this case the Tribunal was frustrated by the lack of detail in the specification and in Mr Gale's evidence.
Works were not clearly identified, were not measured where they clearly could have been, and there was some element of duplication.
Some items were not specified at all, e.g. the types and capacity of the boilers"
• Para.47 - "[My counsel] argued that with insufficient detail in the specification, the tribunal could not say that the specification was reasonable, because it was impossible to judge the standard to be achieved.
The tenders could not be compared where there was no detailed specification and it followed that the Tribunal could not determine that costs were reasonable"
• Para.16.07 - "It would appear to the Tribunal from the above, and the evidence given by Mr Jones that his instructions were obviously client led rather than an independent opinion.
The specification is considered inadequate in that it is vague and lacked specific detail e.g. the provision to "remove and replace with new the boiler plant and all associated pipework. It is noted that initially, there was no breakdown of the specification until 7 March 2003"
• Para.38 - "Mr Gale also accepted that there were no boiler specification in the tender document which merely stated "to remove and replace with new the boiler plant and all associated pipework"
• Para.16.07 - "In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that it has sufficient information to make a proper judgement and therefore makes no determination in respect of the boilers.
This is an area which, in the Tribunal's view, alternatives and costings should have been explored"
(NB: The sum demanded for the boiler and associated pipework was £89,824 (US$158,000). Therefore, with the addition of VAT and management fees the total amount was £117,153 (US$207,000). See # 7.1, below, for more detail).
• Paras 19 & 20 (of the tribunal's report) - " Mr Jones, C Eng MCI Bsc of Michael Jones & Associates, Engineering consultants, said that the report on the condition [of the lift] at the time had been 'a wish list"
• Para.16.07 - "The recommendation of Michael Jones and Associates to prepare a specification and drawings appeared to have been ignored by Mr Gale in his own specification.
The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work, and he conceded during the hearing that there may have been an element of duplication.
Pg 11 - Paras. 16.25 and 16.26 - "It does not appear to the Tribunal that these costs in respect of repairs and maintenance were of such magnitude on their own so as to indicate that replacement [of the lift] was the only option.
Further the comment from Mr Jones that the maintenance contractor had failed to attend to check the lift for three months appears to indicate that there was no failure of the lift during that period, since otherwise, presumably, complaints would have been received from the tenants on an ongoing basis, and no firm evidence of this was produced"
"The specification prepared by Mr Gale is therefore insufficiently detailed to allow for a quotation for this work."
"Further, no proper explanation has been given for the increase from £27,300 [US$48,300] to £60,000 [US$106,000] [for the lift] over a matter of months."
"the Tribunal is unable to make a determination on the specification, since it is considered inadequate"
The real reason for the 'requirement for a new lift' was the plan to build a penthouse apartment - see # 7, below.
Due to my being conciliatory (in the light of the most vehement claims that the penthouse was NOT going to be built) - as captured by the tribunal: "However, the Respondent has agreed £27,300 (US$48,200) and this sum is therefore allowed"
• Para.37 - "In respect of the provision for downlighters Mr Gale said: I agree that there is latitude for contractors to fit 25 or 50 units. We may have to tighten it up"
Examples of items in the 23% of the global sum demanded (# 5, above) which the tribunal disallowed because "improvements" and therefore not chargeable to the lessees under the terms of the lease:
• Para.42 - "Mr Gale was questioned on the provision of £20,000 [US$35,300] in the specification in respect of the porter's desk.
He also accepted that there could have been a fixed, rather than a provisional sum for this within the specification and said "it was a time factor really". He acknowledged "there is no specification yet"
• Para.41 - "Mr Gale accepted that he had been "upping the specification" for the fire doors" .
As pointed out by the tribunal in its 17.06.03 report:
• Para.54 - "Assuming that, on a proper construction of the lease, the services in issue are covered by the charging clause, this does not mean that the landlord enjoys carte blanche to incur costs."
• Pg 15 - Para.64 - "...the Respondent and other tenants [NB: !!!] could not be forced to contribute in the case of improvements and/or works not determined as reasonable by the Tribunal..."
(7)- Her Majesty's then London LVT's findings in its 17.06.03 report (# 5, above) - and those it - unlawfully - failed to include (# 5, above) - demonstrate the unbelievable LIES by Brian Gale, MRICS, in his "Expert Witness" reports to Her Majesty's tribunal - in order to assist the defrauding of the Jefferson House leaseholders.
(NB: Includes contents removed from previous section # 2)
Examples of the 'gems' in Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert witness" report:
• Para.3.02 - "I confirm that the Specification and Tender Document prepared by Brian Gale Associates did not contain any known enhancement or improvement works."
• Para.3.04 - "I confirm that there was no inclusions within the specification or tender documentation intended to improve or enhance any future potential development of the site by either the freeholder or head lessee"
• 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"
In fact, when 'the works' finally started in Sep 04, so did the construction of a penthouse (Photo gallery), resulting in the following outcome:
Back of Jefferson House in July 2002...
...and in September 2005
See also the Feb 02 photographs taken by Brian Gale, MRICS, of the back of Jefferson House at the time he undertook the "condition survey", ...
...as well as extracts from his 20.02.02 "condition survey" - in particular noting his "remedies" relative to the "defects" he identified - including the following:
"...the roof coverings will need to be replaced [1] and provisions made to cover any additional works may become apparent." (2)
(1)- In fact, the roof was 'so bad' that it was entirely demolished... to build a penthouse - that spans the whole length and width of Jefferson House...
...sold for £3.9 million (US$6.9m) in Dec 05, and on the market in Oct 07, for £6,500,000 (US$11.5m).
(2)- Such as the 'incidental' cost of building a penthouse - as well as adding 3 other apartments!
'Of course', as Gale wrote in his 02.02.xx "condition survey":
"...the roof had exceeded [its] modern life span" (1)
and there was "...water ingress" to "some of the properties" , "replacing the asphalt roof" "needed to be dealt with as a matter of urgency". (2)
"...with special regards to lifts, plumbing and heating. Again the majority of these components are showing their age and will need to be renewed as they have reached or are reaching the end of their useful life." (3)
(1)- As per my comment # 1, above.
(2)- 'The works' were so "urgent", that they were started 2.5 years later in Sep 04 (photo gallery) - once Andrew Ladsky had secured closure against the last valiant leaseholder on the court claim (Overview # 5).
(Note the tandem approach with Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, who, in her 30.01.02 e-mail to me, also described the works as "urgent" - and both kept on repeating the same thing) (see extracts from the sequence of letters: 'Major works' - Note).
(3)- 12 yeas later - guess what Jon Wolbrom, MRIPM, Martyn Gerrard, claimed in his 10.01.14 letter? YEP! "the boiler has reached the end of its natural life" !!!! (see Notices 2 of 5)
It appears that "the boiler" was replaced in May-Jun 14 (Notices # 6) i.e. 12 years after Gale's claim that "[it had] reached the end of its useful life"...
...- thereby providing further proof of the fraud that took place.
Of course, it has not stopped the Ladsky mafia from asking for yet more money (Notices # 6.1)!
Para.3.05 in Brian Gale, MRICS, 13.12.02 "Expert witness" report:
"I confirm that, in my opinion, the extent of the works required is reasonable taking into account the condition of the building..." (1)
"...the cost of works detailed by Killby & Gayford on 8 July 2002 and totaling £564,467 represents a reasonable assessment of the cost of carrying out all necessary works" [15.07.02 letter from Hathaway: £736,206 (US$1.3m) with management fee and VAT]. (2)
(1)- Ditto re my above comments about the construction of a penthouse, and addition of 3 other apartments + contrast that with the findings from the tribunal hearings, # 6, above.
(2)- Likewise, contrast with the findings from the tribunal hearings, # 5, and # 6, above.
Further, as I reported under para.20 of my 19 Oct 03 Witness Statement, it amounted to a major contradiction as,..
...in 'her' 26.03.02 letter, i.e. written after Gale had completed his 'Condition survey' (in Feb 02), Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ, wrote:
"The surveyors have indicated that the cost of works is likely to be in excess of £1 million [US$1.8m] + VAT and fees." (NB: Bringing the total to c. £1.5m)
The following are brief extracts; Brian Gale, MRICS, 24.02.03 report contains many more LIES.
• Para.5.03 - "Even if there were any justification (which is robustly denied) in the Expert Report of Mr Brock on behalf of this Respondent, to the amendment, or re-tendering, to revise agreed Schedule of Works, it should be noted that this will have significant and unacceptable consequences, not only on the other tenants, but to all parties concerned" (1)
• Para.5.05 - "The proposed process by Mr Brock of the amending and re-tendering procedure would be time consuming, expensive and entirely prejudicial to the majority of tenants who, as stated above, have paid or substantially paid, and in any event are in agreement with the scope and extent of the works" (2)
• Para. 5.06 - "In this respect,(and aside from professional fees incurred in the contentious Tribunal proceedings) any cost savings from the original tendering procedure will, undoubtedly, be more than absorbed by the continuing delays and efflux of time" (3)
• Para.5.07 - "The effects of inflation and increased costs from the contractors will outweigh any advantages of trying to trim back the extent of proposed works to gain advantage of the present situation. It should also be noted that any alterations (revision of tender and re-tendering etc) could well cost the tenants significantly more for no reason and for a less satisfactory finished product" (4)
• Para.5.12 - "It is my honest opinion that any attempt to save a modest sum of money in the short term by curtailing the extent of the works or specification will, in the long term, be regretted. (The expression "penny wise - pound foolish" is entirely applicable in these circumstances, I believe)" (5)
• Para.5.14 - "Again, I confirm that it is my professional and honest opinion, that the works should proceed as tendered and priced." (6)
(1)- "will have unacceptable consequences - to all parties concerned"
TRANSLATE: First and foremost on his Rachman client, Andrew David Ladsky who 'needed' the money to make his multi-million £ jackpot.
And secondly, on his gang of racketeers who were cashing in 11%+ of the global sum demanded as management fees (# 5, above). (Brian Gale's remuneration was at 'least' a 10% management fee added to the cost of 'the works': 15.07.02 demand).
(2)- "amending and re-tendering procedure would be...expensive and entirely prejudicial to the majority of tenants who have paid or substantially paid, and in any event are in agreement with the scope and extent of the works"
I repeat my comments, under # 2, above, and refer to the above tribunal findings, under # 5 and # 6.
(3)- "any cost savings from the original tendering procedure will, undoubtedly, be more than absorbed by the continuing delays and efflux of time"
Cue to laugh out loud - see tribunal findings, under # 5 and # 6, above.
(4)- "effects of inflation and increased costs will outweigh any advantages of trying to trim back the extent of proposed works...any alterations could well cost the tenants significantly more for no reason and for a less satisfactory finished product"
Ditto: # 5 and # 6, above.
(5)- "It is my honest opinion that any attempt to save a modest sum of money in the short term by curtailing the extent of the works or specification will, in the long term, be regretted. (The expression "penny wise - pound foolish" is entirely applicable in these circumstances, I believe)
(6)- "Again, I confirm that it is my professional and honest opinion, that the works should proceed as tendered and priced"
...What else can you expect from an 'MRICS' individual i.e. "regulated by the RICS" (see my other comments towards the end of this page) - who, on top of that, works for thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky?
He can only be a CROOK.
(8)- Brian Gale, MRICS, continued to LIE about the nature of 'the works' undertaken - to the very end. However, there was absolutely no point my filing a complaint against him with the RICS - as it is in business to protect criminals.
(NB: Includes previous sections # 8.1 and # 9.1)
Brian Gale, MRICS, and Mansell's 04.11.XX "Brief description of works" - At the start of 'THE WORKS':
"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"
I repeat the above photographs:
Very clearly, Mansell - Brian Gale, MRICS, have a VERY UNIQUE interpretation of "replacing asphalt roof"! Maybe it's a question of economy with words, as they headed this "Brief description of work".
The scaffolding - for the works described as "urgent" 2.5 years previously - started to be put in place in the 3rd week of Aug 04.
Nearly 2 years later, on 01.05.06, the works were not completed. (See Photo gallery).
Contrast the 16.06.05 letter from Joan Hathaway, MRICS, MRJ:
"The refurbishment of the front entrance is progressing well."
...against the evidence contained in this pack, Jun 05 and, 1 year later - at 01.05.06. See Photo gallery for additional evidence.
19.10.05 letter from Brian Gale, MRICS:
"...Mansells, the contractors undertaking the works, have now completed the external redecoration".
"The external redecoration" ?
• How about the construction of the penthouse?
• How about the addition of 3 other apartments?
'The works' resulted in 39 apartments - as can be seen by comparing the following titles from the Land Registry - for 'Steel Services' NGL373333:
22.02.06 - shows 38 apartments - to which the title for the penthouse, BGL54458, must be added (for detail see Headlessors and Owners identity);
26.04.04 - shows 35 apartments
(For evidence of 35 apartments at the start of the works see, e.g. para.7 of the 17.06.03 tribunal report ; Ladsky's 07.08.02 application to the tribunal).
In the same 19.10.05 letter, Brian Gale, MRICS, also admitted lack of proper supervision of the contractors, as he wrote:
"...if you could inform me of any windows which stick. I will then draw-up a schedule of work which needs to be rectified to ensure that Mansells undertaken (sic) work properly which they have been contracted to do."
Brian Gale, MRICS, sent another letter, dated 16.03.06 - that started with:
"The standard of workmanship undertaken by Mansells has not been acceptable and I requested that they carry out redecoration to windows..."
Using the 16.03.06 letter, on 29 Mar 06, I replied, among others:
"Mr Gale's letter of 19 October 2005 suggested that he had NOT PROPERLY SUPERVISED the works. This letter confirms it"
"The 15 July 2002 demand to leaseholders included over £60,000 [US$105,800] of management fees for Mr Gale. He should not receive this payment"
The predictable 03.04.06 'response' from Brian Gale, MRICS:
"we have been administering the contract and checking the work undertaken by Mansells"
In my above 29.03.06 letter, I also voiced criticism at Martin Russell Jones.
The 02.05.06 reply I received 'from' Barrie Martin, FRICS, MRJ, = Andrew Ladsky) - was hilarious, and needs to be seen to be believed. Among others, note the gall in the last sentence:
"Your allegation is false and we require your written acceptance that you were wrong to make it"
(NB: I also assumed that there was a link with my 30.04.06 reply to Portner and Jaskel (Portner # 1), that had evidently 'upset' Ladsky and his racketeer solicitors).
What else can you expect from Barrie Martin, an 'FRICS individual' i.e. "regulated by the RICS" - who worked for thoroughly evil, vampiric, Rachman Andrew David Ladsky - and knows that his so-called 'regulator' will back him up on his criminal activities: snapshot of my complaint against MRJ: RICS # A.
I repeat my comment, under # 7.2, above, about Brian Gale, MRICS - and add that, in the light of the RICS' 'response' to my absolutely legitimate complaint against the then Martin Russell Jones: there was no point my complaining to the RICS against Brian Gale, MRICS.
In fact, as mentioned in the above introduction, in my 02.02.05 complaint to the RICS against MRJ, on many occasions I referred to the key part played by Brian Gale in the major fraud. Typically: the RICS failed to take action.
WHY? Because there is this understanding within the Establishment (book reference) - that this island-Kingdom is dedicated to crime, and is consequently controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime. I add that only the corruptible can be corrupted.
(In addition to the collusion and conniving by Her Majesty's tribunal with the Ladsky mafia, I highlight the many among Her Majesty's ministers, police and judiciary, who not only turned - and continue - to turn a blind eye to the irrebutable evidence of criminality, but actually portray me as "the criminal", while they portray Ladsky as "the victim" e.g. My Diary # 2.6).
(8.1) (Moved under # 8, above)
Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers, among others, Brian Gale, MRICS,...
...deciding that I (and fellow leaseholders) would be made to pay for:
the construction of a penthouse, and
addition of 3 other apartments (*) -
and related works - for which we are NOT liable.
(*) Amazingly, by 2016, they had 'disappeared': Martyn 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, above),
"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 £6,500,000 (US$11.5m)
For the 3rd time, I repeat the above very damning visuals:
To be more precise:
(PDF of above diagram - at February 2006)
Unbelievable! Isn't it?
ANDREW LADSKY ; BRIAN GALE, MRICS ; JOAN HATHAWAY, MRICS, MRJ ; BARRIE MARTIN, FRICS, MRJ - AS WELL AS THE RICS AND THE THEN LONDON LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL - CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE.
THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN DOING.


How Productive Is Your Sales Force?
If you don't know, or if you've been struggling to improve it, you're not the only one. Any business with a sales team, whether social enterprise or corporate, may focus only on increasing sales income, while overlooking the true costs and challenges of productivity. You've got to increase sales, but you've also got to select customers offering high potential for lifetime value. Selling the SMART Way® is the way to do it.
Prospect Profiling: Customer Selection strategies based on past successful customer interactions. Make sure your sales force never wastes time on prospects who are DOA - dead on arrival.
Advanced Lead Scoring: SMART Way Prospect Scorecard, a rich qualifying benchmark ensuring the team invests its scarce, precious sales time in high-potential accounts, leaving low-potential ones for less-costly selling channels. Every Scorecard is unique to your company.
Pipeline targets and Leading Indicators: metrics that "flip" pipeline management, track progress by buyer behavior not sales activity, and focus on leading indicators to insure productivity and accountability.
Selling the SMART Way is a methodology we deliver in three phrases: Assessment, Workshop and Technical Assistance Clinics. Projects are usually delivered via live, virtual meetings and last from four to six months or long - so we can make sure you're successful.
What Can Selling the SMART Way Do For Your Sales Team?
Insure that your sales people focus on prospects and customers with the highest potential for lifetime value, and avoid wasting time on DOA's, prospects that are Dead On Arrival.
I mprove visibility into the process, at every level, so sales people stay focused, sales managers know how to coach, and senior management can plan effectively.
Simplify the creation of performance metrics that support optimum sales effort at minimal sales costs.
Create Accountability at unprecedented levels, with insights into the sales process that produce continuous improvement.
Why Wait? Complete Your Leaky Bucket Assessment Today.
It's free, it takes five minutes, and you'll get your confidential report immediately.
Tell Me More about Selling the SMART Way!


text:
Home » Jake Gene Winter, Jr.
Jake Gene Winter, Jr.
Jake Gene Winter, Jr. age 94, died Monday, December 21, 2020, at the Timely Mission Nursing Home in Buffalo Center. A private family funeral service was held at 11 a.m. on Monday, December 28, at Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Buffalo Center. Burial was held in Graceland Cemetery. The funeral service and graveside service was live-streamed on Oakcrest Funeral Services' Facebook page, www.facebook.com/oakcrestfuneralservices. A memorial service for Jake will be held at a later date.
Jake was born November 11, 1926 in Buffalo Center, the son of Jake and Mary (Betels) Winter. He grew up on a farm east of Buffalo Center. He survived Spinal Meningitis when he was five and started school two years late. He graduated from Buffalo Center in 1946.
On February 27, 1949, Jake was united in marriage to Arlene Hazel Skaare of Rake at the Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Buffalo Center. They enjoyed 69 years together. Jake stayed involved in the Bethlehem Lutheran Church throughout his life.
Jake worked for several farmers around the Buffalo Center area and drove school bus part time until he started work at the Buffalo Center Community School as a custodian in 1961. Jake retired from custodial work in 1989 and continued to drive bus until 2004. He was very involved in all the school sports activities, driving 'pep' and players' buses; and worked on the football chain gang for more than 30 years. Jake was very active and never liked sitting around. He played softball on the church leagues and spent as much time as he could on the golf course. At night he could be found playing cards with friends and family; and during the day tinkering in the garage and visiting with neighbors.
He is survived by his son, Tom (Jeanie) Winter; a daughter, Cynthia (Jay) Hagen; three grandchildren: Brandi (John) Will, Melissa (Kris) Logue, Mitch (Dannielle) Hagen; great-grandchildren: Brady and Melene Will, Liam and Owen Logue, Brylee, Charlette and Julian Hagen; a step great-grandchild, Coleton Logue; brothers-in-law: Lloyd Gray, Jerry (Sharyon) Skaare, Lois (Wayne) Hayes; and 27 nieces and nephews.
Jake was preceded in death by his wife, Arlene Winter; parents: Jake and Mary (Betels) Winter; mother-in-law and father-in-law: John and Celia Skaare; son, Craig Winter; brothers and spouses: John and Marion Winter, Alvin and Gladys Winter, Richard and Gloria Winter; sister and spouse, Ann and Lyle Patterson; sister, Sharon Gray; sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law: Inez and Robert Liverca, James Skaare, Carol Gossman, Ronnie Skaare; niece, Cheryl Liverca; and nephews: Keith Winter and Dennis Winter.
In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be made to North Iowa Community School, Buffalo Center Ambulance, Bethlehem Lutheran Church, or Hospice of Southern MN, in Jake's name.
Oakcrest Funeral Services in Buffalo Center is assisting the family. Online condolences may be left at www.oakcrestfuneralservices.com

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Order list number from given number In detail, ex: I have a list weekday:
list_week_day = [0,2,4,5,6]

if today.weekday() = 3 , then order list_week_day = [4,5,6,0,2]
So, how to do that ???

A: new = old[n:] + old[:n]

You append the front part of the list to the back part.  Can you finish after that hint?  n is your weekday.

A: Did you try the following? I suspect it is not the most efficient way to get what you desire, but it certainly is a way to get it.
list_week_day[today.weekday() : ] + list_week_day[ : today.weekday()]

A: Could also try:
wday = 3
[(x + wday) % 7 for x in list_week_day]

# [3, 4, 5, 6, 0, 1, 2]

A: As suggested here, you can use numpy's roll command, choosing a suitable value to roll by:
>>> import numpy
>>> a=numpy.arange(1,10) #Generate some data
>>> numpy.roll(a,1)
array([9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8])
>>> numpy.roll(a,-1)
array([2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1])
>>> numpy.roll(a,5)
array([5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1, 2, 3, 4])
>>> numpy.roll(a,9)
array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9])

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I read recently about the celebrity Twitter scornfest regarding Kendall Jenner's now minorly infamous tweet about wishing "things could be easier sometimes". Frances Bean Cobain chastised Jenner's self-involvement during a time when "poverty, draught, disease" and worse continue to plague our world. And yet, I sympathize with Jenner's plight.
A friend of mine once confessed during a depressive episode that although she feels sad about her personal struggles, she also battles guilt because other people in the world have "bigger problems" than hers. What right does she have to feel bad about family, friendships, her own self-esteem, or her direction in life when there are millions of people living in war zones without sufficient access to clean drinking water?
We've all had times where we feel like our problems don't matter because there are people alive with worse stressors and traumas to grieve, but relativity does not invalidate your experiences.
We all think and react within our own realms of experience. Just because you may not have experienced the same traumas as me does not mean you haven't felt my pain — or that I haven't felt yours.
If the worst emotional pain you've ever experienced was your dog running away, a broken heart after the demise of your two-week middle school romance, or that time you walked home in the pouring rain on a cold day, your brain may well be processing exactly the same pain as someone whose immediate family member was murdered, or someone who found out they have a debilitating, incurable disease. It all depends on what has happened during your life and how you have dealt with those events.
The worst trauma I've experienced was my brother's suicide. It takes a lot for me to dwell on my own sadness about anything else because nothing I've experienced compares to that threshold of grief. I am thankful that the experience forced me to prematurely emotionally mature. I have learned to see a new perspective on my priorities in life, and what isn't worth the stress.
Fortunately, most people haven't experienced life-shattering trauma, but that doesn't mean that they haven't felt the same amount of emotional pain as I have, and that doesn't mean that their pain is any less valid than mine.
There will always be someone facing hurdles worse than yours. There is no wrong way to feel, only more or less healthy ways of expressing and coping with your feelings. Never discredit yourself for feeling any medley of emotions, even those which don't make sense at the time. If you feel something, there is a reason you're feeling it, and discrediting yourself inhibits proactive mental processing.
Don't run from your emotions; embrace them, and respect the emotions of others.


text:
The Saunterer
About our banner's quail
Titled "California Party," it's an image of a watercolor by artist Roger Folk (used with his permission). It and twenty wonderful others of his, all scenes of nature, can be ordered by emailing Roger Folk at RAFolkArt@aol.com. They are 3 in. x 18 in., free of the low resolution of the above image, and priced at $17.50 + $4 shipping.
The Friend You've Been Waiting For
The friend you've been waiting for has also been waiting for you. Meet each other at your local animal shelter.
Who runs this blog?
The Saunterer. That's me, H. Charles Romesburg, Professor in the Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University. As part of my research I saunter through the writings of especially creative people, keeping an eye open for insightful ideas on subjects that are joined with great goodness and creativity. I will in this blog present ideas from the writings of more than three hundred of these creators: painters, scientists, mathematicians, entrepreneurs, writers, poets, naturalists, actors, rock climbers and more. Among the subjects that will be covered: How workers in most every vocation and avocation can work as artists do, creating use, beauty, or both, of rare note. How regularly experiencing wild nature makes us better creators. How it is that the more all forms of life come to be revered, the more creative society will be. For some of the other subjects that will be covered, click on cnr.usu.edu/romesburg
Click here for the complete archives
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
College of Natural Resources - Utah State University
The Scientist :: News Journal for the Life Scientist
Forest Policy - Forest Practice
Copyright 2005 by H. C. Romesburg
« Albert Camus on living for money | Main | Sidney Hook on what makes a great teacher »
Mark Kac on the two kinds of geniuses
As Mark Kac tells:
In science, as well as in other fields of human endeavor, there are two kinds of geniuses: the "ordinary" and the "magicians." An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what he has done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of where we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark. They seldom, if ever, have students because they cannot be emulated and it must be terribly frustrating for a brilliant young mind to cope with the mysterious ways in which the magician's mind works. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest caliber. Hans Bethe, whom [Freeman] Dyson considers to be his teacher, is an "ordinary genius,". . . . (Quoted from Enigmas of Chance: An Autobiography, by Mark Kac. Harper and Row. 1985. p. xxv.)
For a brief biography of Mark Kac, click here.
July 14, 2008 | Permalink
Will Durant on the function of religion
Jay Leno on the secret to a long marriage
On Beverly "Guitar" Watkins
Florida Scott-Maxwell on the enchantment of the sky
John Keats on the autumn of the year
Alfred North Whitehead on the importance of self-discipline
Claude Debussy on the role of rules in art
Joseph Fort Newton's definition of education
Thomas Alva Edison on the value of failing
Samuel Butler on the inadequacy of language
Nrsys on Willi Unsoeld on ananda
James Radford on Tony La Russa on why cats are very special
Mark Rasmussen on Eric Clapton on blues music
James Radford on Virginia Gildersleeve on political correctness
James Radford on Will Durant on where to find the story of your life
Isaac McCracken on Massimo Pigliucci on Fermi's paradox
D on Amelia Earhart advised women to compete
Natasi Leeva on Charles Seigneur de Saint-Évremond on the value of patience
Errington on C. L. R. James on the influence of sports in society
Jen Christopherson on Ruth Harrison on cruelty to animals
Books by H. Charles Romesburg
H. Charles Romesburg: The Life of the Creative Spirit
Practically all of the quotations in this blog's posts are collected in "The Life of the Creative Spirit."
H. Charles Romesburg: How About It, Writer?
Based on a study of more than 12,000 essays from the very best literary magazines, this book provides writers with lists of thousands of classic forms of opening sentences, titles, transition sentences, ways of saying "for example," and ways of closing nonfiction pieces. When you are writing an essay and want a hint for a better or fresh way of saying what you mean, looking through the lists acts on the imagination, stimulating your creativity. From Lulu Press (ISBN 1-4116-2862-4, 194 pp., softback), it's $16.95 when ordered from Lulu.com/Romesburg , and $22.95 from bookstores. To view its cover, click on www.cnr.usu.edu/romesburg/how_about_it_writer.htm To view its title page, contents, and first two chapters, click on: www.cnr.usu.edu/romesburg/how_about_it_writer_preview.pdf
H Charles Romesburg: Best Research Practices
The Saunterer's new book (2009), Best Research Practices explains how to plan and carry out reliable experiments, how to conceive and circumstantially support research hypotheses, how to test research hypotheses with the hypothetico-deductive method, how to discover cause and effect, and more. It's based on his examination of 5,000 top scientific articles, studying the methods used to produce reliable knowledge. Preview it on-line by going to the following link: http://print.google.com/print?isbn=9780557017836


I am interested to know if members are being charged Consumption Tax & Recycle Fee (Tax) on their auction purchases along with other charges.
I hear lots of different stories and there have been some brief discussions about this in the past but I am not sure if members are fully aware of the following.
Whenever an agent buys a vehicle from the auction the auction will charge the agent 5% consumption tax.
For example, let's say the last bid or winning bid is 500,000yen, the consumption tax on top of the car cost will be 25,000yen. If the car cost is 1,500,000 yen the consumption tax will be 75,000yen so therefore the higher the car sells for the higher the consumption tax will be.
When an agent exports the vehicle they will then claim back the consumption tax in their next tax cycle which will be either 1/4 or yearly depending on the business.
So, if your agent is charging you consumption tax, bare in mind they are claiming it back and I am sure they are refunding you the amount or not charging you this tax in the first place.... .
The consumption tax is going to increase soon so the above is something important to know.
There is a government tax called Recycle Fee which is charged each time a vehicle changes hands. The recycle fee will vary from as low as 5,000yen to 25,000yen depending on the make and model of vehicle. On the auction sheet, the recycle fee amount is always displayed so that the buyer is aware of the amount due to it varying between the make and models.
As with the consumption tax, the auction will charge the agent/buyer this tax at the time of buying the vehicle and once again this tax is claimed back by the exporter if the exporter can produce a BOL (legal shipping document) showing that the vehicle has been exported out of the country.
So if your agent is charging you recycle fee, bare in mind they are claiming it back from the government and as with consumption tax I am sure they are refunding you or not charging you this in the first place..... .
Some agents charge their customers a negotiation fee because the agent is charged this fee by the auction. The cost of negotiation that the auction charges the agent is minimal and depending on the auction group (USS, CAA, JU, TAA etc) and vehicle category it will vary between 2,000 to 5,000yen. Some agents do not charge this fee where some agents do which is fare enough since it is an extra charge but then some agents really know how to charge in this area as well.
Their question was - "Successful Bid Charge: ¥16,000 (yen)" is this the amount it costs to negotiate a vehicle because I was charged my normal agents fee by my agent plus 16,000yen for negotiation. Why does it cost so much to negotiate a vehicle, at first I thought my agent was making up charges. When I questioned my agent, they emailed me a very similar form but in Japanese which I can see the 16,000yen and they told me it is the charge the auction charges if the vehicle is won through negotiation".
Well, it does not cost 16,000yen "extra" if the vehicle is brought via negation. What the 16,000yen refers to is that if you (the agent) wins the vehicle you (the agent) will be charged 16,000yen "in total". Your agent is not charged the normal auction buyers fee for that auction plus an extra 16,000yen.
The agents that have a flat fee which is normally around 100,000yen normally already incorporate an auction buying fee, the fee the auction charges the buyer. Depending on the agent, they may of allowed 12,000yen for auction fee so therefore in this case, it would cost them 4,000yen more buying the vehicle via negation, not 16,000yen more.
Other Fee's such as Shipment Setup or Shipment Arrangement Fee etc.
Some agents charge these fees on top of their agents fee and this can vary between 5,000 to 25,000yen or more depending on the agent.
If the agent is advertising an agents fee of 100,000yen (the market average) then why do they then charge a fee to arrange the shipping of the vehicle, I guess they might think you are going to come over to Japan and arrange it yourself. It has always been my understanding that an agent in Japan obtains the vehicle and exports it (arranges the exporting) for their customer…….. pretty standard procedure really.
So why do some agents have a separate fee for arranging the shipment of your vehicle and the answer is very simple really.
Until recent times, most agents had an agents fee they charged customers and this fee included everything from buying the vehicle, auction fees through to shipping the vehicle and it use to be around 120,000yen during the nineties and from the late 90's it was reduced to 100,000yen as the average cost. During the last 5-10yrs there has been an increase in the number of new agents in Japan and these new agents brought a new pricing system with them. Instead of having a flat fee they now advertise a lower agents fee but in return make it up and beyond with other added on costs also known as the "hidden costs".
It is human nature to shop around for the cheapest agents fee and even though my agents fee is clearly displayed on my site I still receive the emails like "how much do you charge to by a vehicle and export it".
If an agent can advertise or offer a lower agents fee they become more competitive against other agents especially with the inexperienced importers. The more experienced importers know these smoke and mirror tricks so they generally are not fooled.
So for example, my agents fee is 100,000yen and it includes everything (except extra inland transport as every agent charges extra for this) but I could advertise tomorrow that my agents fee is 80,000yen and then charge you 20,000yen to arrange the exporting of your vehicle. This means I can advertise on my website that my agents fee is only 80,000yen per vehicle when really it is 100,000yen when you include the extra madeup or hidden fees. If I am charging my customers consumption tax or recycle tax and keeping these taxes as well I could in fact advertise my agents fee for a lot less.
Anyway, I thought I would start a thread about it, partly to make some members aware in case they are not and to help other members when choosing an auction agent and that they double check exactly what you will be changed on top of what the vehicle sells for at auction.
Finally for the record and since I have taken the time to write this, I do not and never have charged consumption tax or recycle fee, I do not charge an auction negotiation fee at all nor do I charge an shipment setup fee or anything like that.
Very informative post Mark, thanks for sharing.
Remember this was early 2011. So I paid 42,310yen in Consumption Tax that my exporter was refunded, that's $500 or more.
I bought another car a month before this at almost the same price, and also went to negotiation, so that means $1000 or more was spent on Consumption Tax. I never really paid much attention to the fees, I just paid my bills without giving it much thought. I was also given free long term(over a year) storage so I looked at it as a cost o doin business. I am not complaining about being charged for it, however it is good to know what exactly I paid for.
Thanks again Mark for explaining this in depth, it is something I will be taking into serious consideration with my future purchases.
Last edited by SilverStar; 07-27-2013 at 05:33 AM.
Mark as usual showing why he is the best in the business.
back in 2004 i paid some of these fee's. but at the time the margins on these cars was so good i could care less..
i was made aware of these fee's in 2008, but i have been using exporters that dont try to take advantage of the un-educated so it hasn't been a concern.
Lets remember that taxes for things that are not exported, there is no refund. Inland, negotiation charges, or services provided in Japan are taxed and we cannot recover it when the vehicle is exported.
I think people have to remember that a tax refund is not an easy process. First of all, finding out that tax can be refunded was not something we knew for years before it was explained to us. As I started on my own, with a partner who thought he knew everything when I later learned he knew nothing and asked him to leave, I was left on my own to "learn the business". As Mark as shown us, the consumption tax issue had been a highly guarded secret that was never publicly discussed by exporters. I'm glad its out in the open because it will arm potential buyers with more knowledge.
In addition, an accountant has to prepare a tax return, which can be done quarterly, bi-annually, or yearly. It has not been mentioned here that not all the consumption tax is refunded. And, no one considers the cost of preparing the accounting in order to make a tax refund. Then the wait happens.
If an exporter is doing a quarterly statement, and is paying the consumption tax to the auctions, this exporter could wait up to 5 months for some of the money they paid out. That's to say, once the quarter has been completed, and if they submit their accounting to the tax office the day after their quarter has completed, then they could wait about 3-4 more weeks for the refund. Once we started to do the returns, we found it took about a month for one of my staff to do the final accounting to submit to our accountant, and if the accountant wasn't busy, it would take 2 weeks for them to complete the return and file. Then we wait 3-4 weeks. Now with online filing, the process of filing is quicker for our accountant, and shortens the wait time by a week or two.
Our quarterly tax accountant return is about 200,000 yen in fees. That is not including the labour hours my staff put into preparing the accounting. I have figured it costs about another 250,000 yen to SASTRAD for preparing the accounting. While we would have to do the accounting anyways, however in a different way (I think), I can't consider the whole cost as a means of getting a return.
For auction-focused sellers like us, we now tie up millions of yen every quarter because we are paying the tax on behalf of the buyer. So, (here is a little rant) what burns me is when someone wants to discount my fee to the point that it actually costs more money up front to provide them a service. In other words, if a car costs 1 million, the tax is 50,000 yen, and with the auction fees and recycle tax, it could be that I am actually paying out more money than I'm taking in from their fee, and will have to wait for the tax return, which could be months before I see the money. This is why I am strongly against dealing with individuals who want to discount my fee if they are buying an expensive car.
We have come to accept that consumption tax and recycle tax are the short-term costs of doing business, and while we don't get everything back in the end, I hope that now people get a bit more of an understanding of how the exporter has to deal with the taxes; it costs the exporter money to recover their money.
I spoke with Silver about his taxes, as he bought the cars from us. Should he wish to comment, its up to him. As a good client with good communication between us, the situation has come to a happy resolution.
Last edited by Sastrad; 07-31-2013 at 03:24 AM.
I posted here before I saw the other thread that talked about charging the recycle tax but I did want to clarify how much the service fees were too.
I admire how you handled the situation and won't go into the same detail here except to say that what you did was not illegal and was not a crime.....yet some other Exporters when caught red handed in fraud will move the world to try and avoid responsibility and hold their customer(s) in contempt.
I see what you mean about the overhead and how much this affects even the larger companies. I already have an idea from many Exporters and even some very large ones, just how much float money they need for weekly purchasing and bidding, let alone the cash flow issue the consumption tax creates.
This is one thing that makes me want to say 'stay away from the small guys', they have the most incentive and need to cheat/defraud buyers to stay afloat already being cash-strapped and vulnerable to delays in cash flow. I want to clarify that "Small Guys in Japan" generally means companies without anything to lose (no land, no auction membership).
Welcome to the world/business of a car exporter in Japan......lol, not as easy as it may seem as you have worked out going by your above reply.
My original post (and further ones to come about other things) were not directed at anyone in particular, it was only directed to the agents who do charge the taxes and other etc, if you are one of those agents that do then yes it would of included you but as you mention you have recently changed policy so it does not affect you.
You might want to post when your policy change happened so you do not encounter other customers of yours asking questions why they were charged.
I am also glad it has come out, I have been thinking about posting what I did for a long time, I have been holding off because I knew it would rock a few boats in the industry, there will be a few agents out there running for cover at the moment and back peddling like there is no tomorrow making up stories to their customers because I am sure there are a few unhappy importers out there at the moment.
Accounting fee's and cash out lay etc........ all part of being an agent although your detailed reply about it is good, it will give customers a better understanding of why we do not discount our agents fee's.
Lots of great info here guys.
The numbers in my previous post were from a car that I purchased through SASTRAD. I did not want to post who the exporter was, I only wanted to show a real world example from someone who has paid the consumption tax and other fees.
Steve contacted me within minutes of my reply and explained the situation in detail. Over the past few years I have watched SASTRAD expand quite rapidly. Being a small business owner/operator myself I know how hard it is to quickly grow to keep up with your industry, and still fine tune all of the minor details that keep you competitive.
The way Steve handled this speaks volumes about his honesty and integrity. This awkward situation has been resolved and he will be refunding me, which made me very happy but I was not expecting it.
SAS is top notch, I've never done business with him but I can tell he gives value for money and at the end of the day that's all importers should expect.
BTW Braves OP... dare I say - sticky material.
Last edited by Boyblue; 08-11-2013 at 12:32 AM.
If anyone believes the excuses for why any agent charges taxes on exported vehicles then I am sure you will believe anything. I am sure some agents are in damage control with well written stories to their customers and would love for this thread to disappear.
The first thing you learn as a car exporter is how to claim the taxes back as we are talking about a lot of money here and it is common knowledge in this industry (on this side of the fence).


text:
VICTOR ORTIZ MEDIA WORKOUT QUOTES & PHOTOS
VENTURA, CA. (July 25, 2017) – Former world champion Victor Ortiz held a media workout in Ventura, Calif. Wednesday as…
NESTOR TOBIAS: BOXING IS IN OUR BLOOD
The sun sets everywhere in Namibia except at MTC Nestor Sunshine Promotions, where Nestor Tobias is known to break night.…
NONITO DONAIRE JOINS RINGSTAR SPORTS
LOS ANGELES (July 25, 2017) – Four-division world champion Nonito Donaire will join forces with Ringstar Sports as the international…
VIDEO: ADRIEN BRONER PREPARES FOR MIKEY GARCIA!
Four-division world champion Adrien Broner has taken a unique approach as he prepares to face undefeated three-division titlist Mikey Garcia…
JUSTIN DELOACH-NATHANIEL GALLIMORE THIS SUNDAY ON PBC ON FS1
BAKERSFIELD, CALIF. (July 25, 2017) – Rising super welterweight contender Justin DeLoach (17-1, 9 KOs) will now face once-beaten Nathaniel…
TEAM SAUERLAND SIGNS BRITISH PROSPECT MIKAEL LAWAL
Team Sauerland are pleased to announce the signing of British cruiserweight prospect Mikael Lawal on a long-term promotional contract. …
AIBA PRESIDENT TO BE REMOVED?
The president of amateur boxing's governing body, AIBA, is set to be ousted from his position with instability and financial…
ALL-BRITISH QUARTERFINAL CLASH FOR MUHAMMAD ALI TROPHY
All-British quarterfinal clash for Muhammad Ali Trophy between WBA World Champion Groves and Cox at The SSE Arena, Wembley on…
DOGBOE BATTERS CHACON IN SEVEN-ROUND TKO
ACCRA, GHANA – Isaac Dogboe is called the "Royal Storm." Poor Javier Chacon got caught up in it on this…
23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228


text:
2 Koreas speed up exchanges of Olympic delegates
By Yi Whan-woo
A North Korean delegation headed by Moranbong Band leader Hyon Song-wol arrived in South Korea, Sunday, to discuss preparations for performances by the North's top arts troupes during the PyeongChang Winter Olympics.
This was the first visit by North Korean officials to the South since October 2014 when three aides of leader Kim Jong-un -- Hwang Pyong-so, Choe Ryong-hae and Kim Yang Gon -- attended the closing ceremony for the Incheon Asian Games.
The Hyon-led delegation's trip also comes as the two Koreas are scheduled to send delegates to each other's country this week in joint preparations for South Korea's first Winter Games.
The two sides agreed on a scheduled visit of a 12-member Seoul delegation to the Masikryong Ski Resort from Jan. 23 to 25, while the North notified the South that a team of eight officials will visit PyeongChang to inspect the Olympic venues and accommodation.
Cheong Wa Dae said North Korea's participation in the Winter Olympics is expected to help easing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
"It will work to lay the groundwork for the easing of tensions and the establishment of peace on the peninsula, in addition to the reconciliation of the two Koreas," Yoon Young-chan, chief press secretary to President Moon Jae-in, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the seven delegates looked around the Gangneung Arts Center, where North Korea's Samjiyon Orchestra is expected to perform next month, after crossing the Demilitarized Zone and stopping by in Seoul.
Hyon co-leads Kim's favorite pop group, the Moranbong Band, and the 140-member orchestra.
The delegates wrapped up the first leg of their two-day trip at the Golden Tulip Skybay Hotel in Gangeung, about 60 kilometers northeast of PyeongChang.
They will return to Seoul today to visit another site for a performance before heading back to the North.
The South Korean government opened up a land route connecting the Demilitarized Zone and the North for the first time since February 2016, exclusively for the Hyon-led delegation. The route had been closed after the joint industrial park in Gaeseong, North Korea, was shut down.
Hyon has cemented her status as one of North Korea's most powerful women after joining the Workers's Party's Central Committee in its recent reshuffle.
She was the only woman at the table when delegations from the two Koreas met last week to discuss follow-up measures after they agreed on Pyongyang's participation in the PyeongChang Olympics.
Hyon was also the highest-ranking female figure to be included in the inter-Korean dialogue since June 2013.
On Jan. 23, the South Korean officials will visit the Masikryong Ski Resort near North Korea's port city of Wonsan on the country's east coast.
Masikryong is Kim's latest prestige project and the two sides will prepare for joint training of their skiers as part of reconciliatory efforts.
The delegation will later visit Mount Geumgang, where a joint cultural festival will be held to celebrate the PyeongChang Olympics. The scenic mountain used to be a joint tour project site and a symbol of reconciliation before tours by South Koreans were suspended in 2008 after the killing of a tourist who wandered into a military zone.
From Jan. 25 to 27, an eight-member advance team from the North will visit the South to look around the Olympic venues, press center and accommodation for over 400 North Koreans who will participate in the Winter Games.
The eight delegates will represent the 22 athletes, 230 cheerleaders and 21 journalists.
The North Korean delegation will also include 24 coaches and officials.
yistory@ktimes.com More articles by this reporter
N. Korean band leader steals limelight
Hyon Song-wol, head of a North Korean orchestra which is scheduled to perform in South Korea during the PyeongChang Winter Olympics, drew the most attention among North Korean dele...
North Korean delegation in South for pre-Olympics inspection [PHOTOS]
A North Korean delegation arrived in South Korea on Sunday to check the venues for its proposed art performances at next month's PyeongChang Winter Olympics, officials here said. T...


- Ayat, Zone 5, 4 bed rooms house for rent, Addis Ababa.
Ayat, Zone 5, 4 bed rooms house for rent, Addis Ababa. The house is located in safe residential compound and it has living and dinning room with working fire place, big open kitchen, another closed kitchen, guest toilet, an office, master bed room with terrace, walk-in closet, and Jacuzzi steam bathroom, one bed room with shower, two bed rooms with common bathroom, maid room with shower, laundry room, guard house, garden, invertor battery power backup, and parking for 4 cars. The rate is negotiable. Note: the house will be available as of December 1st, 2017.
Ayat, Zone 5, 4 bed rooms house for rent, Addis Ababa.