Colin's Name and Shame on www.mcp-law.org

HOME

If you are going to name and shame someone you have to make sure you Act Reasonably (under the circumstances) or it can be construed as harassment. . . . . . even when it was not as in my case.

Defence - Offence of Harassment, S.2 <Archbold 2002:19-277b>

Three defences are available under S.2:
that the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;
that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

None of the following is conjecture. The whole story has been PUBLISHED on the Internet for up to two years. Predominately on my “Name and Shame” site www.croydoncouncil.info.

Further . . . . much of the early history was corroborated under oath in Croydon Crown Court. In an action taken against me, by the previous tenant. To obtain an injunction, preventing me, from preventing her, trespassing on MY property. . . . Which of course failed. During the hearing I learned much of what had gone on, from her sworn testimony.

“The story” accompanies a letter from Derek Conway MP 29th November 2004 . . in which he writes. . .
“I read it’s five pages with growing incredulity at the lengths you have had to go to in defending your interests.”

The history.

My wife and I bought a lovely flat above a shoe shop for my retirement. We had good tenants, who we looked after, and everything was very peaceful for five years. In the summer of 2003, on my way to play golf with friends I received a most alarming mobile phone call. . . . our peaceful world at the flat had come to an end.

It was from a Suryakant Patel ( a man I have deepest loathing and contempt for now, with good reason ) who informed me that he had bought the shop and the freehold. He had permission to turn the shop into a take away. He had permission to run a large duct over our property to the roof. . . . and did I want to sell the flat to him for a 1/3 of it’s value?

I doubt it is repeatable in Court, what I said to him. . . I am the last man on this planet anyone would DARE to take advantage of. As many have found out recently to their considerable cost.

10 years previously a major Estate Agent chain had tried to swindle me out of a valuable building plot. That Co no longer exists. I campaigned against them for 4 years and drove them into liquidation. It is a famous case still well known in Bromley.
Ironically the money I received to compensate bought the very flat now in dispute. And I did it ALL on my own.

Patel had bought the freehold of 243 including 243a because he had seen in our lease a clause forbidding us to let. He used his tenant to harass us unmercifully. Informing her that I was a “nuisance racist tenant of his he was trying to get rid of.” . . he told her he owned the property upstairs. He told her to trespass on it too. He had put false plans into Croydon Council to show that part of our property was his/hers.

When I complained about all the rubbish (remarkably similar to the recent piles of rubbish caused by the plaintiffs (CC4 ii)) in the yard. Patel invoked that clause and told us we were not allowed to let. Which had been his plan all along.

Unfortunately he was reading the wrong lease. . . he must have been so disappointed. I had changed that clause when we first bought the flat.
Undeterred he then set about a course of harassment to drive our tenants out. Which he did. (remarkably similar to the recent harassment from WIP and their new tenant, who also managed to drive out most of our tenants.

Because Croydon Council had not written to inform us of this new planning permission. I had no say in the matter. They were fined later by the Local Government Ombudsman and found guilty of maladministration.
In the course of these events we were subjected to the list of GENUINE harassment listed in “this is harassment Mr K ” a private page I wrote and published that could not be accessed by the public in reply to an email sent to me by plaintiff 1 AGAINST my many instructions NOT TO. This page by the way has been quoted from in evidence but was NOT PRODUCED to get the injunction.
And I will quote from it . . .

This is HARASSMENT Mr K . . . Not ONE letter, the 1st EVER addressed to you.

HARASSMENT is someone trespassing on your property day after day despite being told not to, over and over again. Day after day . . month after month. UNTIL YOU STOP THEM BY FORCE and get threatened with arrest ON MY OWN PROPERTY for doing so.

HARASSMENT is being threatened with a firearm.

HARASSMENT is receiving letters that contain . . . “are you a member of the National Front or the Klu Klux Klan? Why don’t you let your hatred for mankind stop eating away at your flesh.”

HARASSMENT is piling piles of rubbish in the back yard ( oh hang on déjà vu again) and DELIBERATELY (admitted in Court) making as much mess as possible to drive out the ‘racist nuisance tenant . . the freeholder was trying to get rid of.’ . . he was referring to me . . the only thing that was true about that was the get rid of bit . . . by deliberate and successful attempt of ‘incitement to racial hatred’ . . he deliberately told her I was his tenant (as he had informed Croydon Council to get the planning so therefore there would be no problem with the flue)

HARASSMENT is threatening “to cut my balls out. Don’t you worry about that mate” from Suryakant J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley the 1st freeholder.

HARASSMENT is having bottles of piss poured on your front door every day, and even through the letter box.

HARASSMENT is planting a flue that practically pokes into your kitchen window ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY and refusing to remove it, except eventually through the assistance of 3 Members of Parliament and The Local Government Ombudsman and considerable personal legal expense (for which I an still owed and your client just IGNORED, and he expects me to be worried about his problems.)

HARASSMENT is maliciously calling the Police on numerous occasions to try and have you falsely arrested. (for being on your own property)

HARASSMENT is calling the Fire Brigade . . . lying to them and getting them to smash your property up (for which they apologized very promptly. But the Police did not which is why I started my web sites about them)

HARASSMENT is employing BENT Solicitors (Lister & Wood) to maliciously threaten you with bogus law. . . . over and over again. . . . and it might be useful for you to read the letter that finally put a stop to that, there are some interesting references to harassment your client might like to absorb . . it’s a hell of a letter . . . faxed to every business in Croydon . . . . . . . demolition don’t come into it.
(they reported harassment too . . . The police laughed at them)

HARASSMENT is taking you to Court to get an injunction to try to stop you . . . preventing them . . trespassing on your own property. . . . . . which of course failed but was very stressful.

NONE of which was quoted by Sarah Adlam in HER version of events, from the page, though she managed to quote liberally with the paragraphs she and Matthew Hutchings found suited their purpose.
And is why THIS PAGE TOO was MISSING from the INJUNCTION FILE.

Because Patel had blighted our property with his deceitful planning application. Because of his obnoxious behaviour. Because of the damage he has done to our property (for which I am still trying to
address in Croydon Crown Court . . . AND with the plaintiffs in this case.)

I informed Patel I would do the same to him. I informed him that if he ever were to sell the property he was to inform ANY new owners they would be in dispute with me.

I gave Patel so much trouble for his pains. He couldn’t wait to sell the property. But how would manage that?

He went to a bunch of liars. I can say that quite openly, since I PUBLISH that on my many web sites. I’ll repeat . . . ALL of the following has been published for more than a year, without reply.

He found a property Company . .Fineland Properties Ltd who are well known to the Association of London Government, along with the solicitors who connived in the sale, Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews for running a number of property scams.

Under the guise of numerous fly by night Co’s they advertise in leaflets and local papers, all with mobile No’s of course, for Right to Buy properties. (RTB) and also for “Problem Properties”

A brief word on the RTB Scam. Not content with the enormous profits in buying Council Properties at knock down prices. They also swindle the sellers out of their bounty money. Usually £20,000 to get out and let them let the property, three years before they become eligible for their RTB reductions from the Council are valid.

Ingram Winter Green (Daniel Ginsbury) arrange the purchase but insist that Denniss Matthews (Nigel Matthews) handle the sale. The seller hands over the keys to whom he thinks is acting on his behalf, and get a promise to forward the money on. Which of course the do not. . . . in the end they send round a couple of bully boys and offer a pittance instead of the agreed reward. I publish this as “IWG Grab a Granny”.

All this is published on my sites. And has been for more than a year. Because of an article on my sites The IWG, Tower Hamlets, Unity Trust Bank and BIA connection. Where I discover that not only are IWG ripping off councils houses in Tower Hamlets they are also in partnership with them in a business project Succession London. Along with disgraced BIA who were seriously fined by the FSA and their MD sacked.

I believe my expose was instrumental in getting the RTB scam stopped in Tower Hamlets. An action group was formed on the basis of my expose. I found out all this of course because of my “Name and Shame” sites. But not, until long after the sale of our freehold to Fineland Properties, through Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews.

This unholy trio, also run the “Problem Property” scam. Whereby they purchase a property CHEAP because of outstanding issues, legal especially. Then having purchased the property they DENY ALL KNOWLEDGE of the dispute through their solicitors IWG.

There is a letter in these files that had already been written addressed to me, to facilitate this deception. “It has just come to our notice . . . etc”. Which I had never seen before, and was never sent. I asked my solicitor to confirm that, and he did.

Instead they sent different letter denying all knowledge of the dispute and threatening serious costs if that were to involve their clients.
I questioned them mercilessly about how this sale had been accomplished. (in exactly the same manner as my enquiries to MCP Law, over the more recent sale to WIP)
My numerous letters to Ingram Winter Green have never been acknowledged let alone replied to. I call them LIARS, Conspirators and a lot worse. . . AND STILL DO. . . PUBLISHED on the Internet.

They denied all knowledge of the dispute, or that the seller had informed them on enquiry. Despite the fact that the ‘flue’ that is so often mentioned in these files, was still on our property at that time. And despite the fact that Croydon Council, under pressure from 3 MPs, the Local Government Ombudsman and my own Solicitor. Had threatened Court action if it was not removed soon. To claim that it was possible to sell the property without declaring all that was preposterous.

I started a web site to “name and shame” them all, which grew into four web sites. They are probably the most successful of their kind in the Country, if not the World. They attracted over 1,000,000 hits a year. They are a serious nuisance to any would be neer-do-wells, and they are meant to be.

If you searched on almost anything to with this property, or this dispute my sites are invariably No 1 in the World. If you Google search “243 Portland Rd SE25” every entry for more than a page is about this dispute. Even though they don’t go anywhere at the moment because of the Court Order made against me. I have no control over Google searches. Only my sites.

I AM VERY PROUD OF MY SITES. I am a one man PUBLISHING industry. NON profit making and only applied for the COMMON GOOD, as well as my own.
My sites are nasty to those that deserve it. And they are meant to be.

Just for good measure I am the Party Political Leader of Britain’s newest Major Political Party. . . . . . CRACC
Croydon Ratepayers Against Croydon Council. . . . we competed very well in last years Local Elections.

So much trouble did I give Fineland Properties and their bent Solicitors that they couldn’t wait either, to unload the property.
But what to do? . . they couldn’t go to another “problem property” buyer. Because, they would get the same amount of ‘trouble’ from me. And no one in their right mind would buy this property knowing what had gone before.
They couldn’t sell it on the open market because they would have to declare the dispute. And any new buyer would only have to peruse the internet for 5 minutes and realise the scale of it.

So they had to find a way, that any new buyer could say. “they knew nothing about the dispute when they agreed to purchase the property.” . . . . And they found WI Properties Ltd.

They found an Auction House Barnett Ross that doesn’t require signed documentation, to bid over the telephone. . . . and they got Metcalfe Copeman and Pettefar to LIE on EVERY occasion on behalf of the purchasers WIP. . . . . and so the ‘INCREDIBLE” story was born.

The present.
Naturally I was a trifle suspicious when I heard that the property had changed hands yet again (the 4th owner in 3 years) in a letter from IWG. I enquired on May 10th 2006 of the new solicitors MCP Law, in exactly the same way I had done . . . one year before to IWG. But a bit more sarcastic I’ll concede. . . born from my already suspicious mind.

MCP Law replied 12th May 2006, “Our client was not aware of the problems concerning the flue prior to purchasing at auction.”

I KNEW they were lying to me from that very 1st letter. (and I was right) Because that wasn’t the answer to the question I asked. The problem of the flue had been resolved 6 months before. And was hardly an issue.

So I queried that, expressing my disbelief. And MCP replied again, Three weeks later . . it takes them that long to think up an answer, (conspire one in fact we later find) which again fuelled my suspicions . . 30th May 2006. .
“Our client purchased the property at public auction and was not aware of the dispute between yourself and the previous owner.”

Which of course is a lie. They didn’t buy the property at auction . . someone else supposedly did. And they did know about the dispute. . (from sworn statement) . . not believing them again, I pressed the matter further.

They replied again (three weeks later which again alerted my suspicions) 23rd June 2006. . “Our client did not have any knowledge of the difficulties between you and the previous owner before they agreed to purchase the property.”
Which is an even BIGGER lie. Because their clients purchased the property BECAUSE of the dispute. According to J Burton’s testimony.

Acutely aware of all this deception I started a new website about MCP Law. Called “A site dedicated to the letters (or rather lack of them) from Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar”. . . . they ignored it as usual.

Throughout the summer we suffered more harassment at our premises. In July the shop closed down for a while. And a new tenant took over. . . In exactly the same fashion as the previous tenant. Ethyor Hussain proceeded to smash the property about. Pile rubbish in the back yard. Harass our tenants until most of them left.

Smash the place about, without notifying us as he was required to do by Law (Party Wall Act 1996). Without identifying himself as he is also required to do by that same Law. Everything was done in a furtive manner. When I asked him his name he refused to tell me.

Another time he deliberately switched our electricity off and went home plunging our flat into darkness. When I phoned him about he told me to “fuck off.”

Later we started getting ridiculous demands from WIP, direct from them despite my clear instructions not to do so. . . Over and over and over again I told MCP to stop their clients contacting me direct. The demands got worse. And one demand was for insurance of an increase from £68.32 per year to £2,335.10 per quarter. It went on and on.
Fed up all this genuine harassment against us.
Fed up with trying to get WIP’s tenant to behave correctly and obey the Law.
Fed up with WIP’s builders urinating in the yard. Turning our electricity off. I was really annoyed with them by then and wrote accordingly Sept 13th.. . . another letter I cannot find in their files incidentally.

Besides who was harassing who?

FED UP with them all I decided to “Name and Shame” the lot of them.

On Sept 26th and 28th I wrote to MCP I told them I would do just that. I gave then many weeks notice before I actually did publish on my web site. And I told them exactly what I was going to say about them.
As usually they ignored it.

Obviously my name and shame worked. But instead of doing anything about my problems. They decided to test the Law to it’s limits and issued these writs against me.

As for the ‘harassment and distress’ they claim. It is ludicrous to suppose that that a powerful property company can be distressed on the basis of a single letter. . . . . (and in LAW they cannot)
If Mr xxxxxx’s family are distressed as he claims. It can only be because he has distressed them. I certainly didn’t. . . so to claim otherwise on OATH is PERJURY

When you set out to SHAME people who deserve it in the way that I do. You have to be very aware of the Law of Harassment. You must make sure you do not approach them personally and you must not involve their families in any way. (which is why that single letter was sent to a place of business).

This prosecution is a total fix up and they know it, but more important is . . . by the publication of this updated website . . . they know . . I know they know it. . . . . and can prove it.
Besides who was harassing who?

So what they gonna do now?

If the plaintiffs want to keep on pursuing this case the 1st thing they are going to have to do is get some new Solicitors and a new barrister. Which is going to be very difficult indeed . . . . first to find some that would prosecute this HOPELESS case . . . . but worse when it gets chucked out of Court . . . they won’t mind the sort of publicity I no doubt would give them for it. . . . besides they would actually charge WI Properties for it since they wouldn’t BE ACTING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF . . . .
AND if they get a judgement against them . . . THAT may well be quoted for ever more . . . . . but with a reasonable settlement at least my web sites will go away. . . .

They call it ‘Harassment’ . . . I call it Name and Shame

HOME

I find myself a little flattered. That I am to be the first individual in the World to be sued by a large Company for harassment for something I published on the Inter Net.
(as far as I know)

If this prosecution were to succeed it would be the end of journalism as we know it. No one would be able to publish anything about another, no matter how true.

This case would become a precedent where a pair of RICH company Directors can obtain a gagging order, ONLY SUITABLE for a defamation case simple by crying “Harassment.”

At the moment the only precedent I am aware of is that of Thomas v News. Where an individual sued a large Company for harassment, solely by publication.

Here we have a large Company suing an individual and claiming the same protection. . . . . an idea that is surely obscene.

Not only journalists would be liable to prosecution but publishers also.

My publications are NOT harassment. They are a well established form of protest. . . . . it’s called NAME & SHAME.

If my Name and Shame were not true. There are ample Laws of defamation and libel to cope with that. But not the Law of harassment.

If this prosecution were to succeed the Police themselves could be liable, for putting up Wanted Posters. Even if they were about a known felon. And certainly publishing Name & Shame details in the press or by leaflet, could be subject to prosecution.

Publishing on the Inter Net is exactly the same as publishing a Newspaper.

And if you inform the subject weeks in advance as I did.
How can a publication ever be considered Harassment?

This is only the second prosecution of it’s kind in history. The 1st is Thomas v News Group. Where The Sun was held liable for ‘harassment’ due to publication, but was justified because of it’s racial slur. Tthis case has set a precedent.

My case would set a further precedent so is of great public interest. The court is being misled and if found in plaintiffs favour would alter ALL journalists rights, from then on.

It could halt investigative journalism completely.

It’s a media case. The right to publish whatever I like. Article 10. And the claimants can sue for libel if they wish. It is a Human Rights issue. . .. MY human rights.

No actual harassment took place so should fail at first hurdle. There is only one letter in existence to either party or their company, on ANY subject whatsoever.

Since it is a claim of harassment I do not have to defend the claims made by me on my website in any way. . . though of course I can.

There was no need for injunction in the first place, since an offer was implicit on every page of my website. That it would be withdrawn at any time on condition they told me the truth.

Whether my claims were, true or not, it doesn’t amount to harassment. Even if they can be proved false. That’s libel. The issue of the sale of the property is irrelevant to harassment.

Besides . . . my claims were only made because they did not refute them, over many months. NOT because I could prove them. . . . . although I can now.

I am fighting this case on two fronts. Defamation is claimed. But they have issued for harassment. I have examples that show the two are not accordant. Would what I did be harassment if I had said something nice?

They are claiming harassment over what I said. Not what I did.

Because of the Restrictions. .

I can’t even go to the Citizens Advice Bureau . Or consult with others who would offer advice and help. I do not have access to anything other than paid advice, which is onerous on a retiree, with a young family. How could any trial be fair under those circumstances.

Case histories / precedents. Apart from general clauses (more than one occasion for instance) in the act. We find from http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j4474/helen_green_v_db_group_010806.htm

although section 7(2) provides that harassing a person includes causing the person distress, the fact that a person suffers distress is not by itself enough to show that the cause of the distress was harassment.

occurring on at least two occasions and

calculated in an objective sense to cause distress and

which is objectively judged to be oppressive and unreasonable.

The relevant sections of the Act were the subject of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Majrowski and Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Trust [2005] QB 848. There were two limbs to the decision, both of direct relevance to this case. First the Court of Appeal held that vicarious liability was not confined to common law claims, and that an employer could be vicariously liable under section 3 of the Act for harassment by an employee in breach of section 1. That limb of the decision was the subject of appeal to the House of Lords [2006] UK HL 34 in which the opinions of the House were given on 12 July 2006. The decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld.

The second limb of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Majrowski, which was not the subject of appeal to the House of Lords, was directed to the meaning of harassment within the Act. At paragraph 82 of the judgment May LJ cited the following passage from the judgment of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR in Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EMLR 78 at paragraph 30:

"The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct which is capable of constituting harassment. 'Harassment' is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable."

May LJ then continued at paragraph 82 of his judgment:

"Thus, in my view, although section 7(2) provides that harassing a person includes causing the person distress, the fact that a person suffers distress is not by itself enough to show that the cause of the distress was harassment. The conduct has also to be calculated, in an objective sense, to cause distress and has to be oppressive and unreasonable. It has to be conduct which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment, and conduct which a reasonable person would think amounted to harassment. What amounts to harassment is, as Lord Phillips said, generally understood. Such general understanding would not lead to a conclusion that all forms of conduct, however reasonable, would amount to harassment simply because they cause distress."

Thus to constitute harassment within the meaning of the Act there must have been conduct:

(a) occurring on at least two occasions

(b) targeted at the claimant

(d) which is objectively judged to be oppressive and unreasonable.

In Sharma v Jay (2) Wells (3) Medico Legal Investigations Ltd, when dealing with an application to strike out the claim , Gray J defined what amounted to harassment in these terms at paragraph 22:

“(i) that in order to constitute harassment the conduct must be calculated (ie likely) to produce the consequence that the claimant is alarmed or distressed;

(ii) that the conduct must in addition be oppressive and unreasonable;

(iii) as to reasonableness, that it is incumbent on the claimant in his Pleading to allege conduct which is arguably unreasonable;

(iv) that the mere fact that the conduct complained of has foreseeably caused distress to an individual is not enough: the requirement to establish an arguable case of oppression and unreasonableness must also be satisfied if the claim is not to be struck out. “