Mr Colin Cole
London, SE9 3RN
Friday, October 13, 2006
Nicholas Cooke
Henderson Ins brokers
Peterborough PE2 6FT
Re WI Properties Ltd / Policy No LP PPP 6115535 243 Portland Rd
Dear Nicholas.
One again thank you for your letter of October 11, 2006, and particularly it’s promptitude.
Of Course you are correct that in the conversation between us on Monday 21st August we discussed the AXA Insurance cover for the above property. And I do confirm that as far as I was aware at the time (and I do NOT say date here, since the reason will be obvious) I was not aware of any incident or damage that might give rise to a claim.
HOWEVER I have pointed out that not more than an hour after that conversation I learned that whilst we were indeed conversing ANOTHER conversation was taking place far from my knowledge or understanding that rendered my supposed assurance completely unfounded. And I have explained that occurrence in great detail.
However you tell me “that AXA now feel it prudent to survey the property.” and not before time if you don’t mind me saying.
BUT whatever the outcome of that survey . . THAT IS STILL NOT THE PROBLEM.
Your AXA Property Investors Protection Plan Policy is a very well crafted document . . . and is as it should be . . . very protective of the Insurers interests. . . and I have no problem with that prudence.
However because of that prudence there are a number of clauses in it that I suspect very strongly would make a DETAILED examination of the circumstance of the insuring of the property by the owners null and void. And one of the ones (but by no means exclusively) that worries me the most, and will, until I get to the bottom of it . . is.
Page 30 Policy Exclusions item 4
“Infidelity or dishonesty of the Insured . . or
other persons to whom the Property Insured may be entrusted . . “
THE PROBLEM IS ALL ABOUT LIABILITY. Not AXA’s liabilities. But the liabilities of W I Properties and their tenant Ethyor Hussain.
It cannot have escaped your notice, since you and your company are so prominently
mentioned, the existence of www.mcp-
Any respectable Co putting up with the sort of publicity I am dishing out to Metcalfe
Copeman & Pettefar would do something about it. They would consider suing me for
defamation and damages of course. But at the very least they would go to a Court
and seek an injunction to get the site closed down in the interim. . . it’s easy
. . even a Solicitor can do it.
And so would MCP Law if they could. . . . why do you
suppose they do not?
Well I’ll tell you why. For the same reason Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews put up with the horrendous contempt I heap upon them so publicly. Because either what I claim on the site is entirely true . . or . . the fact of it is even worse.
MCP Law’s meager letters to me have all been about trying to shrug of the liabilities
of this property on behalf of their clients. Unfortunately their attempt were so
pathetic, patronising and naive they could almost be classed as childish. (my own
son gave up that sort of deception when he was 3 yrs old. “what have you got in your
hand?” . . “nothing dad” . . “I mean the other hand” . . . “nothing dad” changing
hands.) . . .
“Auction eh! . . so what Auction then?”
MCP Law claim that their client W I Property bought this property at public auction and intended to convey by it, that they were not aware of all these liabilities.
REALLY? . . .
Well let me give you another scenario, which I think fits far more snugly. Let us suppose for a microsecond that Fineland Properties Ltd managed to enter this property into a Sale without any hint of the problems associated with it, so they could get a good price for it.
Along come W I properties . . .la de da de da de da . . . whistle whistle .
Oh look!
a property in Portland Rd . . just what we’re looking for. . . . let’s bid the full
market value for it shall we?. . . . preposterous? . . well that’s what MCP Law
expect me to believe.
So let us suppose, and there are still people who believe in fairies, . . that that is what happened. . . . what would happen next?
Metcalfe Copeman and Pettefar get in touch with Ingram Winter Green and ask the BIG ONE . . . Does your’ client Fineland Properties Ltd know of ANY disputes not declared in the Auctioneer’s Catalogue.
Now whatever else you believe . . . just do a search on “243 Portland Rd SE25” . . in parenthesis . . and I think you will find two whole pages of searches devoted ENTIRELY to this dispute.
Not even Ingram Winter Green would dare lie about there not being a dispute or any
liability.
In other words . . . W I Properties AND their bent Lawyers knew about all
this long before they completed on this sale. And long before they insured it with
you, as if it were just some other ordinary property. WITHOUT declaring the problems
to you or to AXA, if your naiveté in the matter is entirely genuine . . and why
should it not be? . . If they had declared it to you then you would have known what
this was all about from the start.
IN OTHER WORDS “Infidelity or dishonesty of the Insured . . or other persons to whom the Property Insured may be entrusted . . “
So . . . what happened then . . even assuming, as I say, that the auctioneers details (and again . . “which auction?”) had no mention of the liabilities. . . IWG would have had to declare the dispute and if MCP Law were paying the slightest attention they would have realised the scale of it.
So what happened next . . . I’ll tell you what makes the most sense . . since against all the odds, the sale proceeded. . . MCP Law on behalf of W I Properties demand a refund . . or . . a vast reduction in the price. . . (we already know that EXTORTION is one of their fortes)
But then proceed to conspire with their clients to write to me as if they knew
nothing about anything and hope (prayed would have been more useful) I won’t figure
out what went on. . . in the meantime they enlist the help of a certain Ethyor Hussain
to bash the property about . . make as much mess as he can . . . DRIVE MY TENANTS
OUT. . . (they are leaving this Sunday because of “all the trouble” . . he won’t
like the new ones . . I’ll make sure of that). . . .
I have yet to ascertain the culpability of Hussain but that may well be discovered in Court soon. What is not in doubt is the furtive way he has carried on and his rejection of the one chance he had, to be advised in a friendly manner. . . now he will find himself advised whether he likes it not.
Again IN OTHER WORDS “Infidelity or dishonesty of the Insured . . or other persons to whom the Property Insured may be entrusted . . “
As I say . . . . this not just about a few wet ceilings. . . but if you want to insure them . . then by all means do so. . . . but don’t put in ANY claims against me or my tenants. . . . . now or in the future. . . WHATEVER your Survey finds . . . . OR . . . . your supposed Risk Assessment. . . which if you’ve got any sense will include a full knowledge of the history of this property . . AND some legal advise on the LIABILITIES.
Ethyor Hussain had his one chance to discover his liabilities BUT I believe, he was advised not to do so by his landlord.
IN OTHER WORDS “Infidelity or dishonesty of the Insured . .. “ . . aided and abetted by his Solicitors.
Far fetched? . . . not a bit of it . . . that is EXACTLY what happened back in 2003/4. . . and is why I believe this property has changed hands every year since. . . they can buy it . . and they can insure it . . but when it comes to renewal . . the Insurance Company is wise to it by then.
Yours Colin Clifford Cole.
On this page . . Nicholas Cooke of Henderson Insurance Brokers finally decides that
. . “In view of recent correspondence received (see the rest of this site) by both
AXA and myself . AXA now feel it prudent to Survey the Property. This will be carried
out shortly.”
Well bully for you AXA . That’s what I’ve been telling you all along
for 4 months now but has been resisted by you for all that time.
BUT THAT STILL ISN’T THE PROBLEM.
It’s about LIABILITY , and the conspiracy between Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar and their client’s to avoid that liability. Which I say adds up to ‘Infidelity and dishonesty . . “ Which according to the policy voids and nullifies it. . . an interesting reply may be expected no doubt
Are you a complainer? Do you believe we are entitled to good service? Do you think complaining is a good way to get it? North One Television a major independent T.V. company would like to hear from you. Ms Marking, Development Producer is looking for people who stand up for their rights and are proud to cause a fuss.
Mr Colin Cole
Monday, November 06, 2006
Nicholas Cooke
Henderson Insurance Brokers
Peterborough PE2 6FT
Re WI Properties Ltd / Policy No LP PPP 6115535 243 Portland Rd
Mr Cooke,
You asked for my patience in this matter in your last letter of 18th October.
When you have been dealing with as many crooks, liars, schemers, extortionist and
swindlers . . . . . . and that’s only the Solicitors involved . . . . . you learn
to be a bit patient. If only to create their downfall.
See http://www.mcp-
However forbearance will only spread so thin. Can you assure me that the reason I have not heard further about a survey is that this is due to the tardy inefficient procedures of AXA Insurance. And not, as is becoming increasingly likely given the circumstances. That having inspected the property and not finding it to their liking . . . . that they, YOU, your sleazy clients and their crooked solicitors do not know what to do about it. ( I say crooked advisedly since I have asked David Rutter if that is the case and he was not able to deny it in a reasonable time. Consequently I am entitled to make that presumption from now on.) Let us hope your involvement in all this is more benign.
I have in front of me a very interesting document indeed. An order from Croydon County Court, giving permission to instruct a PROPER “surveyor in this matter.” So it would be advisable that the AXA survey is complete, proper and HONEST. Rare commodities in the history of this premises, I assure you.
I had hoped to see the results of this survey, that you presumed may (“if not already”) have taken place . . . . by now. To firstly show the Surveyor I will be appointing, (at your client’s or their tenant’s expense no doubt . . PW Act 1996) but also to show the Judge at our next scheduled (and I hope most revealing) meeting. I will expect a reasonably sharp response if you don’t mind Mr Cooke. One way or the other.
. . . . and what happened to AXA CEO Peter Hubbard’s “risk assessment” by the way?,Do they really take a month to complete? . . . I bet they don’t
Don’t you just love it when a prediction turns out exactly? From my letter to you Monday, September 25, 2006 . . . “That also is entirely at Hussain’s own risk since I wrote to him on August 9th inviting him to make enquiries of his own. Most pointedly he either chose, or was advised, not to do so. A judgment he will most certainly come to regret. . . . Mr Hussein now finds himself responsible, not only for the work he has just carried out, but also for the work carried out since the summer of 2003. . . . he might not believe that right now . . . but THAT DECISION has already been GIVEN and made for him . . . . in his absence from Crown Court last Thursday. (I do hope he wasn’t further advised not to attend.) “
Colin Clifford Cole.
PS . . . my sites now receive over 1,000,000 hits per year. . . . still they say all publicity is good publicity don’t they? . . . tell that to Gerald Ratner.
2006
DISCLAIMER . . Click here
My claims made on this and other web sites are based on the fact that Metcalfe Copeman
& Pettefar ( MCP Law ) refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. They should
have no reason, unless to do so would embarrass them or their clients in disclosure
of lies, connivance, and conspiracy. In exactly the same fashion as the IWG, Denniss
Matthews conspiracy. I have asked them over and over again to tell the truth but
they have declined. It is reasonable and correct therefore to make the assumptions
that I have and that are printed through out these sites. MCP Law still have the
opportunity to refute these claims if they wish . . . Provided they can prove it
that is.
In fact the reason they didn’t refute them . . . is they were true. Lisa Richardson
DID Conspire to Defraud.
Their clients DID NOT buy the property at AUCTION and they
DID know about the dispute when they AGREED to buy the property. In fact they bought
the property BECAUSE of the dispute. . . . All this has been sworn to under OATH
by Jonathan Burton Solicitor at MCP. . . . But he calls it . . . . “Was not meant
to deceive.”
2006
2008