Mr Colin Cole
London, SE9 3RN
Wednesday, 09 August 2006
The Occupier
Shop 243 Portland Rd
To whom it may concern ,Re . Dispute 243 Portland Rd SE25 /
My name is Colin Clifford Cole and I (we) am the OWNER of the Flat 243a Portland Rd.
I don’t know what you have been told (very unlikely to be the whole truth) about this premises but before you spend any more money on the refurbishment you should be aware of the enclosed letters. They are only the tip of the iceberg. THERE ARE MANY MORE.
You should be aware that you are NOW IN DISPUTE with the owners of the above property for all the reasons contained therein and for other reasons clearly published on my many websites.
Links can be found on www.croydoncouncil.info
You will remain IN DISPUTE until all the problems that concern us are resolved. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO CONSULT A SOLICITOR FORTHWITH.
I would also refer you to a letter of 29th August 2003 from Mrs Dyer to Mr M O’Brian, Croydon Planning in an assurance in order to facilitate the planning, that states “I am not cooking on a large scale as a Kebab or Fish & chips shop. Cooking will be finished by 12 noon and warmed in the microwave as the customer arrives.” . . a copy of which I can provide you with on request. ANY cooking done outside those hours will be vigorously contested by me. By COURT ORDER if necessary
Any more information you require contact me at the above address.
Yours Sincerely Colin Clifford Cole
Mr Colin Cole
London, SE9 3RN
M. Patrick-
Patricks Solicitors
453 Manor Park E12 6TJ
Madam .. . . . Re . Dispute 243 / 243a Portland Rd SE25
I have just been forwarded a letter from you dated 3rd April regarding the above
issue. In that letter you refer to further letters in January and February which
I have not received.
Probably for the same reason that I have only just received this
most recent letter, which was sent to the wrong address.
My address is clearly stated
at the head of this letter. As it was at the head of all the previous correspondence
from myself to your client, which he totally ignored.
My address is clearly stated
on the Court Orders made against your client which again he totally ignored.
And it
was clearly stated on the Court Order that you have been asked to deal with. Which
since your replies were sent elsewhere were to all intents and purposes ignored
as far I was concerned since I had no knowledge of them.
Talking of wrong addresses.
This dispute is as you correctly state about the Party Wall Act 1996. Every single
part of which your client has deliberately ignored. And I say deliberately advisedly
since I took the trouble to write to him and inform him of his obligations under
that law.
And I’ll take the trouble in this letter to advise you also, since you didn’t
seem too sure about it in your appearance in county court on behalf of your client.
[From
that Act
- Before exercising any right conferred on him by section 2 a building owner shall
serve on any adjoining owner a notice (in this Act referred to as a "party structure
notice") stating-
(a) the name and address of the building owner;
(b) the nature and particulars of the proposed work including, in cases where the building owner proposes to construct special foundations, plans, sections and details of construction of the special foundations together with reasonable particulars of the loads to be carried thereby; and
(c) the date on which the proposed work will begin.
(2) A party structure notice shall-
(a) be served at least two months before the date on which the proposed work will
begin;
The Party Wall Act has provision for disputes in
10. -
(a) both parties shall concur in the appointment of one
surveyor (in this section referred to as an "agreed surveyor"); or
(b) each party shall appoint a surveyor and the two surveyors so appointed shall
forthwith select a third surveyor (all of whom are in this section referred to as
"the three surveyors").
As I say every bit of which your client had ignored up to
now.
Obviously it is too late for your client to extend the courtesy of giving notice
of works. But there is no reason why the rest of the Act cannot still be complied
with even at this late date.
Please ask your client to provide his proper name and
address, as required by that Act. (He is the ‘owner’ for the purposes of that Act)
I have great difficulty trusting anyone not willing to identify themselves. And I
would remind you that your client would not even provide me with his name, and I
had to find it out myself.
You have as requested by the Court provided a choice of
three Surveyors to be employed to comment on the suitability of the works carried
out, that are relevant to the PW Act. However that is not a lot of use to me at this
stage since I have nothing to take to them on which to comment.
Not only does the
PW Act require that your client provide (b) the nature and particulars of the proposed
work. . . plans . . . details of construction . . . .
But the original Court Order
that your client ignored, required him to do so for all the works carried out since
2003 for which your client now finds himself responsible. Without such plans it is
difficult to expect a Surveyor to give an informed opinion as to their suitability.
If
your client is not able to or capable of providing such details I would suggest he
employs an Architect to do so for him.
He will need specifically to provide details
of the soundproofing. The ventilation of the sub floors, or in this case, the lack
of it. Materials used, and including coverings of those parts of the structures that
abut to our own.
Until I have received these important details I do not see how I
can proceed with contacting the ‘agreed’ Surveyors.
I would also take this opportunity
to remind you that because of the unusual circumstance of the appointment of the
‘agreed’ Surveyors. That the Court did allow that if I found that they did not agree
with the Surveyor I would have appointed I maintain the right (under the law) to
appoint my own.
I think it only fair to inform you that this letter and a copy of
your own with it’s enclosures will be forwarded to my own Solicitor and Council as
yet further evidence of the neglect, harassment, secretiveness, and deceit we have
had to suffer from either your client, his landlords or their Solicitors in a forth
coming case in the High Court of Justice.
Yours Sincerely Colin Clifford Cole
http://www.mcp-
M. Patrick-
453 Manor Park E12 6TJ, and her client Ethyor Hussain Shop 243 Portland Road, think
it is clever to IGNORE ME.
If she is not careful and continues to do so she will find
herself JOINING all the other Solicitors who thought that was a good Idea.
Lister & Wood Croydon, Denniss Matthews Anerley, Ingram Winter Green, Islington, and last but not least the CROOKS at MCP Law.
It is nearly ONE YEAR since she 1st started doing so.
NOT A GOOD IDEA.
“Ignoring me
. . . is NOT an option” . . . . . as countless others have found out.
Mr Colin Cole
London, SE9 3RN
M. Patrick-
Patricks Solicitors
453 Manor Park E12 6TJ
Madam .. . . . Re . Dispute 243 / 243a Portland Rd SE25
It seems that not only is it impossible to receive the courtesy of a reply from
your client. But also the courtesy of a reply from his solicitors, yourselves. Unless
once again, you have been sending them to the wrong address.
I refer you to my
letter of Tuesday, 17 April 2007, to which there has been no reply three months later.
If I do not receive a comprehensive reply forthwith I will apply to the Court for
you to do so.
Once again this letter will be forwarded to my own Solicitor and Council
as yet further evidence of the neglect, harassment, secretiveness, and deceit we
have had to suffer from either your client, his landlords or their Solicitors in
a forth coming case in the High Court of Justice.
Yours Sincerely Colin Clifford Cole
HOW DOES HE DO IT??
Within 4 days of re-
& others, Colin has claimed 6 entries on page 1 of a Google search mcp law . . within a month I will drive them off the web until they settle my claims.
(as I will do AGAIN to IWG & Denniss Matthews until they settle what THEY owe me.)
For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total Wankers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.
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