Mr Cole
       
London, SE9 3RN
Thursday, 30 October 2003

Business Line
Insurance Brokers
14 Theobold Street
Boram Wood Herts.

Dear Sirs re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. London SE25 4XB . . Norwich Union 02811C7001/P0127

 Thank you for your kind attention on the phone this afternoon. This is the letter I would have sent to the Norwich Union if I could have found them straight away.

As joint beneficiary on the policy above could you please inform me of my position, regarding the following matter.

The freeholder, Mr Patel, with his tenant, recklessly propose to, (and are actually doing so) erect an air tight structure, packed with absorbent insulation 3 inches below my flat. Thus depriving, the very fabric, (joists, staircase and party walls) of the free flow of air they have enjoyed for the past 100 years.
I need to know what will be my position, should this structure ever become damp, and cause any of the various rots that will inevitably occur as a result.
Whilst the structure itself will be made of tanilized wood, my joists, being 100 years certainly are not.
Will my, or his, insurance be invalidated? Will my property become uninsurable?

I enclose extracts, pertaining to this matter, from a letter I sent to his Solicitor Friday, Lister & Wood, 15 Station Rd, London SE25 5AH
on 24 October 2003.
                             …………………………………….

But this question, is the very least of your clients problems as you will see.
I am a great believer in coincidences. The coincidence of you turning up only a few mins after I put my sign up was amazing.
Another coincidence, that you were not aware of, is that, I was doing some plumbing when I spotted you, to sort out a long-standing issue. And while I was talking to you a faulty gate-valve under the bath (now replaced) leaked down onto the shop ceiling. Only the residual water in the system was let out, since the mains, was turned off for the work, so no harm done. But it certainly raises a very serious problem for your client.

I do not know what legal advice your client took when purchasing the property, or more particularly, what structural survey he may have had done. (I suspect very little of either, but I could be wrong)
With only the very rudimentary of inspections, a survey would have advised your client that there is evidence of long-term water damage. And with only the simplest of ‘enquiries before contract’ he would have learned the history.
Mr Scrivener told me of the time the washing machine flooded when he was letting the flat long before we purchased it, for instance. But that was a clearly a self-inflicted injury, evident by the decrepit state of the machine he provided. Ours is nearly new, but that doesn’t stop a tenant of mine putting in the wrong powder and flooding the kitchen. Or indeed the washing machine just breaking down completely, and flooding it. As has happened to us at our home once before. And I defy you to find someone who hasn’t had a similar problem in their life.
I think that in 6 years we have had the flat, there have been three instances of the bath leaking into the shop below. Once due to a dripping overflow, (that of course I fixed the next day), but twice by the unbelievable stupidity of my tenants.
Whilst I can, have and will take every effort to ensure that all the plumbing, radiators, toilet, shower and washing machine are kept in tip top order and certificated every year. (paradoxically it was whilst replacing a less than perfect shower, to attempt to eliminate any such likely problems, that the small leak I mentioned occurred).
I cannot however legislate, for a tenant who exasperatingly dangles the shower rose over the side of the bath, leaves it running and goes off to work, as happened about a year ago.
Or a tenant that leaves the bath running, whilst they go and watch Eastenders, and falls asleep.

But this was never a serious problem before. As I have written, Frank and Ted were very trustworthy. Enough, for me to let them have the keys to the flat. And, they were able to nip any such problems in the bud. Consequently very little damage was ever caused. Clearly the present tenant is nothing like the previous occupiers, and would never have such a freedom.

BUT . . . . . . . . . the newly proposed circumstance, is a whole new ball game. Your client, through his tenant admittedly, proposes to erect a structure that will not withstand the slightest accidental spillage. ( I doubt it will even survive a bit of dampness). Directly under a known source of water.
If even the smallest amount were ever to get onto the structure, and the ‘sound blanket’ especially, I have not the slightest doubt it would need to be torn down and replaced. And quickly too . . . . . damp in a confined space can be very invasive indeed. It would never dry out naturally. It’s not as if you could just mop it up, as has happened in past. It will be sandwiched in a sound proof box.

This is not a problem unique to this flat either. My other properties suffer from similar uncertainties. But there . . . . .  the bathrooms are on the 2nd floor, and any such problems, are usually spotted by the tenants themselves, when it drips on them, and they act accordingly. Though of course it is still myself who has to repair the mess.
I have friends who own purpose built flats and even here they have problems. But the one, we are referring to, is 100 years old, with old floorboards, lathe and plaster ceilings and clearly likely to suffer from such predicaments.

When the extension was built at 245 earlier this year we had to suffer three serious leaks from faulty protection of open works next door. It has taken six months to dry out. And is one of the reasons we are redecorating now. But, we have just had to grin and bear it, since the company that did the work hired entirely Chinese labour and we couldn’t find out who to blame.
These things happen.

So what we have . . . .  are three scenarios. And maybe four?

1.
Your client, foolishly did not have any sensible survey or legal advice, and is unaware of the problem. In which case it is a good job I have alerted him to it. For now at least he can, AND SHOULD advise his tenant accordingly.

2.
Your client does have such knowledge, and has chosen to keep his tenant in the dark, to the possibility. Not as far fetched an idea, as you might like to believe. In the conversation I did have with the tenant she SCREAMED at me. “I don’t know anything about any soundproofing. What’s it to do with me? I’m not going to make a noise.” Etc etc, etc. which means that, the inescapable fact is, that either she was lying (unlikely since she also told that to Croydon Planning) or your client deliberately, (since he must have known, for it is he who applied for the permission), withheld that information from her. For the obvious reason, that he didn’t want her to know just how extensive (and costly) the work was in fact going to be.
And if he did withhold one lot of information, why not the other, for exactly the same reason?
Further weight is added to this theory, (and it only a theory, but a compelling one, {don’t want to be defamatory}), since, as I told you, the tenant was quite happily just ‘toshing’ out the place with a bucket of emulsion and a few bits of tongue and groove, thinking that would be enough. Why bother with that. . . . . . unless?
To show you just how extensive the work has proved to be. Most of that rubbish you saw was ripped out of the shop, AFTER the tenant thought the job had been practically finished.
There is also the possibility that if he has deceived his tenant in this way, then he may well by liable in law, to be sued by her?

3.
Your client HAS informed the tenant, and she is still recklessly going ahead with the project anyway, in the full knowledge.
Though somehow I doubt this.

But if I am really cynical, I might suspect that your client thought he had a ‘get out of jail card’. Therefore, we (my wife and I) wouldn’t be a problem, and could be MADE to go away. In other words, his’ mistaken idea that “we had no right to let”. And quite frankly Sir, given the content of his one phone call to me, and his readiness to play that card, I know what I choose to believe.

Of course the problems would be sorted out by insurance, wouldn’t they?
But would they?
Since your client, and his tenant will (certainly by now) have the full knowledge of the risk, would any insurance company pay up. Least-ways in full.
It is not possible for either of them, to claim that such an occurrence could not have been foreseen, or was not likely. (Not now that I have informed them, through you, anyway.)
It is very clearly both foreseeable and extremely likely, over a reasonable term.
It could be argued that to persist with such a scheme would be an act of crass stupidity. It certainly is in my mind. If you build a house on a flood plane you should not be surprised if it gets flooded one day, and becomes uninsurable.
Again I repeat, “there is also the possibility that if he has deceived his tenant in this way, then he may well be liable in law, to be sued by her, or her insurers, or even my own?”.  And if your client took any financial advantage, in the purchase of the property, whatsoever, because of the recurring damp problems??? . . . surely I do not need to advise you Sir of the implications.

And don’t forget it is your client’s own insurance company that I pay my insurance to, through him.

Quite frankly your client is in a catch 22. If he persists with his A3 permission he will have to comply with the Council’s directions. In other words provide a substantial and very, very vulnerable structure in a place that it clearly is not, and never could be, suitable.

And dare your client not inform his insurers of the risks he is now taking????”

Indeed has the freeholder Mr Patel informed you, as I have no doubt he should? Every other policy I have includes such a condition.

I look forward to your reply. And would appreciate a phone call to say you have received this.
Yours  Sincerely Colin Cole

cc Croydon Council Planning
cc Lister & Wood
Mr Cole

London, SE9 3RN
Sunday, 16 November 2003

Jamie Conduit
14 Theobold Street
Boram Wood Herts.

Dear Jamie re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. London SE25 4XB . . Norwich Union 02811C7001/P0127
 Still further arguments to Lister & Wood on the subject of insulation directly under a bathroom.

“Of course I am aware of ‘duty of care’. It was exactly that issue, and your client’s and his tenant’s point blank refusal (in writing) to give me any, that started all this.
But in the matter of the water, I have already stated “Whilst I can, have and will take every effort to ensure that all the plumbing, radiators, toilet, shower and washing machine are kept in tip top order and certificated every year. I cannot however legislate, for a tenant who exasperatingly dangles the shower rose over the side of the bath, leaves it running and goes off to work, as happened about a year ago. Or a tenant that leaves the bath running, whilst they go and watch Eastenders, and falls asleep.” (Or any number of other mishaps that can occur in a busy rented flat) . . .
Which is as much duty of care as he, or anyone else can expect, from anyone.
Again, “If you build a house on a flood plane you should not be surprised if it gets flooded one day, and becomes uninsurable.”
If he wishes to claim damages for something that is entirely his own fault, then by all means encourage him to do so. You know as well as I, what chance he will have. And he will have to reveal just what prior knowledge he had about the problem too. Whether he had a survey, and ignored it. Who knows?
Its a question of him disdaining the 1st rule of purchase. . . . Caveat Emptor.

Now . . . . . .  you might not know too much about buildings Sir.
But I do. Amongst my many talents I am quite capable of building a house, and have done so. But you do not have to be Christopher Wren, to know that you cannot build an airtight box full of insulation directly under a bath, and expect to get away with it for long. And if an intelligent man like yourself needs ‘instructions’ to realise that ???? . . . . . . then I shake my head in dismay.

Of course I am aware of the scope of the damage. . . But I seem to be the only one who is, and why I am so concerned about it. The scope Sir, is CATASTROPHIC, in an old building . . or any building. Dry-rot (Merulius lacrymans) can permeate through many feet of solid concrete, then many tens of feet after that along an old, wooden floor. It is even likely to infect the building next door. It will go through that lime and mortar party wall as if it wasn’t there.
Is your client prepared for the legal consequences of that as well?
Do you doubt me?  . . . . . . . . From the net http://www.disasteradvice.co.uk/Glossary/Term/Wet-Rot+Fungi it is ‘spoken’ in terms of a DISASTER.
“Dry rot fungi Merulius lacrymans flourishes under conditions of bad ventilation and high humidity. THIS FUNGI IS MORE EFFICIENT AT DESTROYING WOOD THAN ANY OTHER TYPE OF FUNGUS PREDATOR. In a flourishing or proliferating stage, it can attack wood which would normally be considered too dry to be attacked. Education Note: Most persons feel that the presence of sun light and air alone may dry out a structure from saprophytic fungi, which is not true. What also is not true, when either wet rot or dry rot fungi dominate and attack a structure, simple drying surfaces of building materials alone, will not address underlying fungal issues. While wet rot fungi cannot penetrate brick, stone or metal, which does not have the aid of an airstream that can circumvent the other side of a wall, DRY ROT FUNGI CAN PENETRATE OR PASS THROUGH WALLS IN SEARCH OF NEW WOOD TO ATTACK.”
Exactly what your client and his tenant have provided. The perfect breeding ground. . . . and while there is a breath left in my body . . I will not let them continue to endanger my property as they are doing right now.
And it is not just a question of a single overflow of a bath perhaps . . . maybe one day. If any leak were to occur in that confined space it might be many weeks before it was spotted by those underneath. If they bothered at all that is. And by then it could be too late. In any case, if that insulation gets wet, IT WILL HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN, and quickly.
It’s not as if the structure can be protected in some way either. That would be exactly like trying to give integrity to a flat roof . . from the inside . . one without weatherproofing either. . . . exactly as we have here . . open floorboards over lathe and plaster.

Further your client is already in breach of the lease. Since it is his DUTY to insure the property and not do anything to affect that insurance. He is supposed to inform the Insurance Company of any changes to the structure that might affect that insurance. Since he didn’t have a clue about the insurance, it is pretty certain that he did not do so . . . . so again, don’t you lecture me on ‘duty of care’.

. From discussions this weekend, with my own architect. Not only has your client probably not informed the Norwich Union of the works. He has failed to consult me either.

Which means in fact, he has probably broken the law as well.

From the net, . . . . . . .including Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
Extensions, damp proofing works and internal refurbishment or structural alterations may all include work on a party wall and because what you do to your side of the wall may affect the other side, in many cases the consent of your neighbours is needed before work can start..
The Party Wall Act - keeping the peace
In the past, party walls were at the centre of some long drawn out and costly court cases. But since 1997, when the Party Wall etc Act 1996 came into force, homeowners in England and Wales have had a straightforward procedure to follow when building work involves a party wall. The Act has minimised disputes by requiring property owners to appoint a surveyor to agree the time and manner in which the work can be carried out, or to appoint an 'agreed surveyor' to act for both of them should problems arise.

The aim of the Act is to allow the owner of a property to carry out work on - or adjacent to - a shared wall, while at the same time protecting the interests of anyone else who might be affected by that work.
Party Wall etc. Act 1996 1996 Chapter 40

The act also uses the expression "party structure". This is a wider term which could be a party wall or a floor partition or other structure separating buildings or parts of buildings approached by separate staircases or entrances (for example flats).

20. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them-
"adjoining owner" and "adjoining occupier" respectively mean any owner and any occupier of land, buildings, storeys or rooms adjoining those of the building owner and for the purposes only of section 6 within the distances specified in that section;
3. - (1) 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;
All of which, your client has miserably failed to do. Don’t you ‘remind’ me of duty of care Sir.”
Which means the structure that is endangering my property may not be in fact be even legal. I am investigating that possibility.
Look forward to any light you may be able to throw on the matter.


Yours  Sincerely Colin Cole
If you want to know what these sites are all about, Don’t miss
DAN J GINSBURY’S STUPID  TOSSER SOLICITOR Page @ IWG.org Click Here
Mr Cole
London, SE9 3RN
Monday, 10 November 2003

Business Line
14 Theobold Street
Boram Wood Herts.

Dear Sirs re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. London SE25 4XB . . Norwich Union 02811C7001/P0127
 Further arguments to Lister & Wood on the subject of insulation directly under a bathroom. The structure is now finished, by the way, but work stopped when the tenant became aware of these problems. Through me of course. The freeholder Patel wasn’t going to make them aware.

“Of course I am aware of the scope of the damage. . . But I seem to be the only one who is, and why I am so concerned about it. The scope Sir, is CATASTROPHIC, in old building . . or any building. Dry rot can permeate through many feet of solid concrete, then many tens of feet after that along an old, wooden floor. It is even likely to infect the building next door. It will go through that lime and mortar party wall as if it wasn’t there.
Is your client prepared for the legal consequences of that as well?
And it is not a question of just a single overflow of a bath perhaps . . . maybe one day. If any leak were to occur in that confined space it might be many weeks before it was spotted by those underneath. If they bothered to that is. And by then it could be too late. In any case, if that insulation gets wet, IT WILL HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN, and quickly.
It’s not as if the structure can be protected in some way either. That would be exactly like trying to give integrity to a flat roof . . from the inside . . one without weatherproofing either. . . . exactly as we have here . . open floorboards over lathe and plaster.
But even that is still not the full scope of the problem. Even without tenants above, that structure is endangering the fabric of the building in its present form. When you put up insulation above plasterboard you should put up a vapour barrier too. Plastic sheeting essentially, was one installed?
Because water vapour, (not steam) travels straight through plasterboard. You need to protect the insulation from the vapour condensing in it when it has done so. It’s a very standard practice, and is compulsory in all loft rooms for instance, and goes immediately above the plasterboard. All you need is a slight temperature difference, between downstairs and upstairs and vapour will condense in the colder of the two.
Hmmmmm??? let’s see. Now where would there be a lot of water vapour, in a hot room?  . . . . . eeerrrrrmmm!!!!!???? . . . . . . . . this is a really hard one.
I know! A kitchen. I don’t suppose there’s going to be a kitchen directly underneath is there. . . . . oh look . . . . yes there is.
So! Lets put a vapour barrier in then? No . . . . .  because then what you’ll have if the bath ever leaks is a high level paddling pool.
Even if the insulation is in plastic already, admittedly the vapour will condense on the underneath. But the paddling pool effect will also apply. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that is not exactly the case here.
This really has not been thought through at all.”

Yours  Sincerely Colin Cole
cc Croydon Council Planning
Mr Cole
Sidcup
London, SE9 3RN
Thursday, 20 November 2003

Business Line
14 Theobold Street
Boram Wood Herts.

Dear Sirs re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. London SE25 4XB . .Norwich Union 02811C7001/P0127
 Thank you for your reassuring letter of the 17th November. In which I find no ambiguity. It certainly has put my mind at rest, since the scope of the problem is so potentially catastrophic. I am especially satisfied that it would be the Insurers that would “proceed against such party or parties causing the loss.”
(I would appreciate a copy of the policy wording though).
In addition to the Insurers right to claim, I find that the Party Wall Act of 1996, bestows similar opportunities to sue ‘the owner’ for myself, and on behalf of my tenants. Even if the structure, were to be built legitimately that is.
From part 7 of the Act.
7. - (1) A building owner shall not exercise any right conferred on him by this Act in such a manner or at such time as to cause unnecessary inconvenience to any adjoining owner or to any adjoining occupier.

(2) The building owner shall compensate any adjoining owner and any adjoining occupier for any loss or damage which may result to any of them by reason of any work executed in pursuance of this Act.
It is also worth putting on record at this time.
That since the structure was put up without your prior knowledge or approval, which I presume because you did not contradict me. And since certainly I was not consulted, therefore I am advised, the structure was probably built illegally. (And I expect it would be beholden to ‘the owner’ to try to show otherwise.)
Therefore I anticipate, that it has very little intrinsic value of it’s own, if any. And could not be subject to a claim, even if it had to be torn down. (In much the same way as car that has been ‘souped up’ without permission would be.)
And hence would not affect my premiums.
I will however make every effort to persuade ‘the owners’ to remove any wet insulation very quickly. Reducing your/our risk to my property. Quite apart from the dry rot risk, it would soon start to stink.
Whilst ‘the owner’ may think it all a risk worth taking for his short-term gain, it is not one I am going to let him get away with.
Additionally I have made a formal complaint to Croydon Council about the ‘illegality’ of the manner of it’s construction.

Yours  Sincerely Colin Cole
Cc Lister & Wood, Croydon Council Planning.
Mr Cole
London, SE9 3RN
Thursday, 20 November 2003

Business Line
14 Theobold Street
Boram Wood Herts.

Dear Sirs re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. London SE25 4XB . . Norwich Union 02811C7001/P0127
 
 I strongly suspect though, that ‘the owner’ S J Patel does not appreciate his position. Through his lack of English, his stupidity and reluctance to spend money on advice, whenever he can avoid it. I doubt very much he will understand the difference between ‘cause’ of the problem, and ‘source’ of the problem.
He did after all, not know what the word ‘enjoy’ meant in English law.

He is so stupid that he will have read your letter of the 17th November as meaning that it’s alright. . It’s all insured. Not realising that it is HE that is going to be sued as the ‘cause’ of the problem. He has probably told his tenant it’s alright too. I don’t envy him when he tells her that she is not insured after all.

It has never been denied that the bathroom/kitchen complex would always be the ‘source’ of the problem. That is self-evident. It has been so for decades. But ‘the owner’ would have known that when he bought the property. He may even have got the price reduced because of it, and therefore ‘bought the problem’. I have asked his solicitor to confirm this, but they have neither confirmed or denied it.

What is at issue, is ‘the owner’s’ reluctance to understand that his structure would be the ‘cause’ of the problem, if all that fibreglass ever gets wet. It is after all completely airtight. And rot will ensue within weeks.
What they are doing is crazy.

He is risking the total destruction of the property. But he has been warned, and if that bankrupts him. He has only his self to blame.

Yours  Sincerely Colin Cole
Shock NEWS Horror . .  Croydon ‘Cowboy Builders’ courtesy of
MCP Law client’s W I Properties Ltd. . . Click here.
 The plot thickens. . . . .
On MSN search
AXA sucks!
... you all ways, and of course there is no comeback , despite my letters of protest! On receipt of my pathetic payout, £17,000 less than the figure promised in 1983 I decided to break all ties with AXA as ...
www.axa-sucks.co.uk · Cached page

AXA PPP Health Insurance Slammed by Ombudsman - 1
In May 2003 I won an 18-month battle with AXA-PPP when the Financial Services Ombudsman ruled they ... They are relying on the fact that most people will give up after one or two letters.
www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/HallOfShame/ AXA_PPP/AXA_PPP4.html · Cached page
Don’t get confused. The following are letters to Norwich Union and their brokers Business Line who replied correctly and efficiently in a matter of days . The arguments still apply so I sent the same letters to AXA who passed them along to their brokers Henderson Insurance Brokers . . . . . And that is where they fell off the end of the Earth. I have waited nearly 3 months for a proper reply.  . . Since July 5 2006

2006

These sites were created because Solicitors Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews  will not respond to my many letters, and because The Law Society will not investigate all this:-
 The reason these sites are still here presumably, is because they are ALL not willing to answer the simple question . . “Did you or did you not conspire with your clients, S J Patel, Nathan & Ruth Teitelbaum of Fineland Properties Ltd,  to deliberately LIE, CHEAT and DECEIVE in order to DEFRAUD me of my  considerable claims against them?” . . well not in Court anyway. . . lying is one thing . . perjury another.  All the content of these sites is based on that premise, and NONE of it has ever been denied or even contested.
 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

NOTICE TO ALL search engine, ISP’s, Nominet, Hosting Co’s, domain name providers and the like. ANY adverse legal content on my sites Is AT LEAST ONE YEAR OLD but more likely 2 years, and therefore is EXEMPT from prosecution in ANY form under UK Law by virtue of being OUT of STATUTE. Please ignore any threats of legal action. .They will just be ‘trying it on’..Besides it’s ALL true otherwise they would have sued me. Google search  defamation limitation.Pre-action Protocol for Defamation In particular, time is always ‘of the essence’ in defamation claims; the limitation period is (uniquely) only 1 year,  .www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_def.htm