Mr  Colin  Cole

 

Monday, September 25, 2006

 

Nicholas Cooke

Henderson Ins brokers
Peterborough PE2 6FT

Re WI Properties Ltd / Policy No LP PPP 6115535 243 Portland Rd

 

Dear Nicholas.

  Thank you for your letter of 22nd  September, and particularly it’s promptitude. Whilst I accept the reassuring intention of it, I am not the least reassured by it’s content. Merely saying the property has been insured is far too broad a statement. Taking out a policy and paying for it  . . is not the same as  . . . . . the property is insured.
Just for instance. You write. “the property in question was fully covered through AXA insurance and at that time there was no damage caused to the property through any insured contingency that could give rise to claim.”
I am intrigued to know, how you arrive at the certainty of that knowledge? Your client W I Properties’ Solicitors inform me that not only were no inquiries made at the time of purchase (the date of that insurance) but, NO SURVEY or even “inspection” was carried out either.

 

Just for another instance. In November last year the previous tenant wrote DIRECT (against my instructions, but never mind) to me that there had been a leak from our flat into her shop. I can confirm that a puddle of water had appeared intermittently on the lino floor which my tenants cleared up a few times. I presumed that perhaps, since the occurrences seemed to coincide, that the washing machine waste pipe was not flowing as it should, and dutifully cleaned it out and as far as I was aware the problem disappeared. However . . 9 MONTHS later . . . in a letter sent DIRECT (again against my instructions, and this time I very much mind) W I Properties complain about a leak that seems strikingly similar.

 

The world is full of co-incidences, and this one is a corker. One hour after the telephone conversation you refer to in your letter, I had traveled back to our holiday home to continue the kids holidays. My wife said she had just received a phone call from one of our tenants that the leak had reappeared and seemed to be coming from the radiator in the kitchen. Which means whilst I was talking to you, another conversation, on the very same subject was taking place elsewhere. I won’t bore you with the saga we had with British Gas over this but I will say that they could not find the leak either but made a few recommendations, which I carried out. And once again the leak has disappeared.

 

 WHICH MIGHT WELL MEAN that this leak has been progressing, maybe for up to a year. But that would not have been a problem before because the ceiling below us was (and still is there) old lathe and plaster which would have easily identified the whereabouts of such leaks. And also was easily and cheaply reparable after the affected area dried out.

 

THAT IS NO LONGER THE CASE.
NOW . .  the floor structure (MY floor structure by the way) has been encased in two layers of plasterboard and worse jammed packed full of fiber-glass. With absolutely NO AIR FLOW WHATSOEVER. And that is the cause of my concern ever since it was put there. If you have troubled to read the long letter I first sent, you may be able to discern why this is not a very good idea at all.

 

EVEN WORSE I now understand that the tenant has tiled over the party walls. I happen to know for a FACT that some of these walls are very badly affected by rising damp. It’s a 1900 property with no damp course. It’s even worse than that. The right hand property is about a foot higher than ours and we get their damp as well. (we had to have ours proofed as a condition of our mortgage) but the original shop owner did not. The next owner just boarded over the damp. AND AGAIN PACKED it with fiber- glass. And now these COWBOYS http://www.mcp-law.org/page7.html  have just tiled over what is already a very serious problem.

 

MUCH WORSE all this has been carried out in secret and without informing us despite being required by the Party Wall Act 1996. I have written several times to the Owners through their Solicitors MCP Law but so far all my letters have been, to all intents and purposes, ignored. THAT always makes me very suspicious indeed.
I have even written to the new tenant. Who is so secretive he wouldn’t even provide me with his name . . let alone his address. (AGAIN this is contrary to the Party Wall Act).  . . . That secretiveness is about to change DRAMATICALLY in the next few days as all these people will discover. . . but is not an issue for this letter right now.

 

I won’t go too much into the history of this shop over the last 3 years. That is amply taken care of on my many (10) websites devoted to it.
But briefly the shop was sold cheaply originally with provisos. Many relating to damp and occasional leaks, subject to the purchaser’s survey. The purchaser was not concerned about these problems since he had a plan of his own (all this is not conjecture any more because the substance of it was admitted under oath in Crown Court at a later date). His, Suryakant J Patel’s  plan was to acquire our property cheap. . . very cheap. (this is also not conjecture since he had the gall to pre inform me of that intention. he believed he had a blackmail clause in the lease that would compel us . . . . shame he was reading the wrong lease wasn’t it? He was so disappointed.)
He deliberately set out to use incitement to racial hatred, including going as far a threat of firearms, threats both physical and legal, lies, deception, trespass and even extortion. But I turned the whole lot back on him and his bent Solicitors, Lister & Wood, as only I am capable of.

When they all retired hurt he sold the property on. But obviously with difficulty, since he had to sell it to a Co that specialized in buying, (and even advertises for), such problem properties.
Patel sold it to Nathan Teitelbaum of Fineland Properties Ltd, through his (intentionally not acting on his behalf, and with his connivance) Solicitors Denniss Matthews and Fineland’s Solicitors Ingram Winter Green acting for the buyer. In fact they both were. Quite simple a bunch of crooks. This unholy trinity, I now know but did not at the time, regularly conspire to act in accord, to do just this. They buy the properties cheap, and proceed to use previously contrived legal guile, in an attempt to avoid any legal claim or damage to their pal/partner, the new owner. http://www.ingramwintergreen.org/page18.html

Of course I was having none of that, and I have just heard gratifyingly, on the very date of your most recent letter that this “is causing us a lot of problems.”   . . . I’ll bet it is. . . . . again as only I am capable . .  . .
See http://www.ingramwintergreen.org/page5.html

 

 The new owners W I Properties through their Solicitors MCP Law, are acting the same. Trying to avoid responsibility. And if they think for a minute they are going to fare any better than the previous bunch, they will find themselves seriously mistaken. At great cost I do assure, as only I am capable. I have issued this same warning, as I always do, to all previous participants but this has never been heeded . . .but they were given warnings. And then came to seriously regret . . . ignoring them.
So far MCP Law’s letters have been sparse and economical with the truth in the extreme. The new Tenant has been secretive, furtive and I would suspect deliberately (maybe advised to be) non co-operative. He isn’t aware yet, but soon will be, that that is all about, (in fact has already) to change. As I say . . . dramatically. He will not be at all pleased.

 

So much for a very brief history.  But now back to the original point.

You spoke during our telephone conversation, of “unforeseen circumstances”. And of course I understand that principle thoroughly. It is the basis of all insurance. But these are NOT UNFORSEEN circumstances.  My flat has always from time to time leaked and it is not possible to prevent that. It is a busy flat let to all sorts, and sometimes not always to whom we would prefer. Any more than the shop downstairs would choose it’s customers. This scenario was foreseen by me at the very outset.

 

The structure that was erected against my party walls and under my floor (which is another party wall by the way) was constructed, against my wishes, against my advise, without proper notice and without consultation, drawings or specifications . ALL required by The Party Wall Act. The recent works have been carried out the same furtive way.

 

 So . . . . should ANY damage to that structure occur, from whatever cause, I will accept NO LIABILITY or even claim of it either from the tenant or the owners W I Properties, or even AXA. If you want to insure it, that is of course your own prerogative. As far I’m concerned . . . it doesn’t exist . . except to endanger my property.

I seek an undertaking from you and from AXA that you accept those premises.

 

Further it is my firm belief that not only will this structure damage my floors and even the fabric of the building over time, it may have already done so. Which would  make a mockery of your :-  “at that time there was no damage.”
I have no way of telling since everything goes on hidden under my feet as it were.

I seek a specific undertaking from both you and AXA that MY property is insured for this particular scenario. That they (AXA) will see my property repaired in the case of damage to it, and re-house my tenants. And that AXA, if they need to, will recover any moneys expended, from either the freeholder or the tenant or both. In it’s worse scenario that could well exceed the total value of the property and even next doors as well. . . . I will refer you to “We decided the best thing to do was to pull the whole building down and rebuild:” on http://www.croydoncouncil.info/page33.html

 

 The reason for my concern, and why I seek a specific undertaking.
Is that from reading the conditions of Insurance I can find at least six breaches, by the new owners and tenant, of the conditions set out in the “Property Protection Investment Plan” booklet that accompanies the Policy, which would void the policy No LP PPP 6115535 . . for them that is.

Just one for instance, disclosure. MCP Law tell me, that W I Properties knew nothing about the problems of property when they purchased it and more importantly insured it. I think we will find in the fullness of time that that statement was disingenuous and designed to deceive me  . . . I have never been proved wrong in my suspicions up to now, and I don’t expect to be now.

They are all most certainly acting like it. MCP Law have been asked to clarify their statement and have pointedly failed to do so.

 I am also concerned about Policy Exclusion clauses in PPIP page 30 2) a) and particularly
3. DAMAGE caused by or consisting of a) corrosion rust wet or dry rot shrinkage . . . the relevancy of which I’m sure you will appreciate, given the content of this letter.
 

In addition your own statement “and at that time there was no damage caused to the property” strongly indicates non disclosure also, to my way of thinking.

I would be interested to learn if any notice of change of conditions has been forwarded to you since purchase, either, by the way. See also page 38 PPIP

And particularly Page 39 d) ii) which I assure you has now become relevant.

 

I also understand that the tenant has installed some expensive equipment in the shop. That also is entirely at his own risk since I wrote to him on August 9th  inviting 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 advised not to attend.) He will have confirmation within the next few days. . .  and I will be taking him to account for it from then on . . . . . TRUST ME.
Anyone who buys or otherwise invests in a property, without making enquiries or conducting a proper indemnified survey. Does so entirely at their own risk. Especially if they spurn advice to get proper legal representation.

Consequently that particular risk will remain indefinitely.

 

The previous owners and tenants finally came to realise all this which is why they dumped the property on some mug at auction.

Up to now it has fallen to myself to attempt to prove the endangerment of the property from the fabrication of this structure.

THAT position has now been dramatically altered and Mr Hussein will now be COMPELLED to prove it does not. . . .. at his own technical expense and also his own legal expense. AND he will find that not only will he be responsible for his expenses . . .but according to The PW Act MINE ALSO which will be considerable. I do not hire cheap lawyers and especially not cheap technical advisers.
I doubt he is insured for these eventualities either . . . please advise.

 

You should also be aware, for your information only, since it does not affect the issue as far as you are concerned. That I refuse to pay, towards the enormous increase (6x) in the cost of the insurance, that has been levied as a result of the change of use, inasmuch as
a) it is contrary to our lease and
b) it (the increase) is only for the benefit of the proprietor of the shop who will need to pay all of it. In a separate matter I refuse to make even the due payment, which will remain at £68.13p, until a pre existing debt covering previous cost of legal expenses, is paid off towards us, again adequately covered in our lease. . . These arrangement were accepted by previous owners. . . maybe not willingly it is true . . . but accepted nonetheless.

 

I prefer to carry out all further discussion in writing from now on. I believe your replies will be useful for reference in Court in the very near future. I do hope I will not have to wait too long for your substantive or even substantial reply.

 

 Yours Colin Clifford Cole.

On this page . . . Mr Ethyor Hussain fails to attend County Court.
I ask AXA through their Henderson Insurance Brokers to clarify EXACTLY what my position is. Just saying a policy has been taken out means absolutely nothing. There are more escape routes in the policies than there are at Wembley stadium.

But wait . . . Now  a letter from THE man himself. Peter Hubbard Chief Executive Officer AXA Insurance. . . . who displays some remarkable gifts of precognition. Matched only by the clairvoyant abilities of Nicholas Cooke the  broker Henderson Insurance Peterborough (see Infidelity or Dishonesty) who can  apparently survey a property for damp from his desk 147km away. . Also Peter Hubbard CEO AXA reminds me that “it is usual business practice to discuss details with the acting broker”. . . . . I TRIED THAT Peter and got nowhere. . That’s why I had to write to every AXA Director to get a reply.

Mr Colin Cole

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Peter Hubbard

Chief Executive Officer
  AXA Insurance

One Aldgate EC3N 1RE

 

Re WI Properties Ltd / Policy No LP PPP 6115535 243 Portland Rd

 

Dear Peter

 

Thank you for your ‘interesting’ letter of the 3 October 06. I am delighted that such an exalted personage as your self, has “clarified AXA’s position.” Not withstanding your statement that “no further correspondence will be entered into”.
I think it would be expedient to ‘clarify’ my position.  I am particularly interested in some of the statements in your letter.
 

I had not realised that AXA had gone into the business of clairvoyance.

 

You write, belatedly and only because of my enquiries I would point out,  “we are arranging for a risk assessment for the property 243 Portland Rd. This will provide us with confirmation that AXA Insurance accepts this as a suitable risk and we fully understand the condition of the property.”

 

I always thought that risk assessment was about deciding whether a property was suitable? . . . not confirming it. . . or was that just a Freudian slip?
 

You also write “You have been assured that the property is covered and should any claim arise, this will be assessed in the appropriate manner against the terms and conditions of the policy.”

Which reassures me not the least. Since the terms of your policy provide for so many get out clauses in favour of yourselves. The principle one being, of course disclosure.
Which brings us neatly to the next point, which makes about as much scientific sense as water divining and is equally mystical.
You write:-  “I would refer you to the letter of Nicholas Cooke of Henderson Insurance Brokers. He confirms that the property is fully covered and that at present there is no damage to give rise to a claim.”

As I have already pointed out in my previous letter . . . how the bloody hell does he know?

According to the Solicitors MCP Law acting for WI Properties. No enquiries were made prior to the purchase and insurance of 243 and no inspection either. Already we now discover that there has been a leak that may well have gone on for the best part of a year with no attention paid apparently by the then, and now freeholders or their tenants. And yet without inspection Nicholas Cooke is prepared to declare “there is no damage to the property.”
 

Has a simple damp survey been carried out even? Has anybody taken the ceilings down and had a look?

I would suggest those simple expediencies would be far more useful than whatever a ‘risk assessment’ turns out to be. Especially one that has already been predetermined, so therefore not worth a carrot.

Fortunately I myself do NOT subscribe to such mysticism and clairvoyance. So being more pragmatic and sensible. I have now taken out a Court Order to be complied with by tomorrow (6CR24717) against the tenant of the shop Mr Ethyor Hussain. Which states amongst other clauses that a PROPER survey be done by an appointed PROPER Surveyor on which I will have the basis for PROPER reassurance. There will also be a Case Management Conference in which I may well learn a few more things I wish to know.

Since apparently this is the last word on the subject I will remind you of my position from my previous letter.

“But these are NOT UNFORESEEN circumstances.  My flat has always from time to time leaked and it is not possible to prevent that. It is a busy flat let to all sorts, and sometimes not always to whom we would prefer. Any more than the shop downstairs would choose it’s customers. This, scenario was foreseen by me at the very outset.

 

The structure that was erected against my party walls and under my floor (which is another party wall by the way) was constructed, against my wishes, against my advise, without proper notice and without consultation, drawings or specifications. ALL required by The Party Wall Act. The recent works have been carried out the same furtive way.

 So . . . . should ANY damage to that structure occur, from whatever cause, I will accept NO LIABILITY or even claim of it either from the tenant or the owners W I Properties, or even AXA. If you want to insure it, that is of course your own prerogative. As far I’m concerned . . . it doesn’t exist . . except to endanger my property. “

“I also understand that the tenant has installed some expensive equipment in the shop. That also is entirely at his own risk since I wrote to him on August 9th  inviting to make enquiries of his own.” “he either chose, or was advised, not to do so.”

Anyone who buys or otherwise invests in a property, without making enquiries or conducting a proper indemnified survey. Does so entirely at their own risk. Especially if they spurn advice to get proper legal representation.

Consequently that particular risk will remain indefinitely.

But it seems he has nothing to worry about since your risk assessment  . . “will provide us with confirmation that AXA Insurance accepts this as a suitable risk.”

 

Astonishing. . . but a useful statement in Court no doubt.

 

Yours Colin Clifford Cole.

 

CC Shop 243
CC Nicholas Cooke

CC MCP Law

CC www.mcp-law.org

 

I command you.

“A risk assessment WILL provide confirmation”

I always thought a risk assessment would decide WHETHER a risk is acceptable . . Not  . . WILL confirm it BEFORE it is even carried out.

 

Risk from thesaurus: bet, chance, gamble, speculate, hazard,  jeopardy, imperil, unsafeness.

 

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.  

 

 Click Here.

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