WHO was harassing WHO?
Who was harassing who?
Monday, 03 November 2003
Lister & Wood re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. Patel
You are to inform your client Patel, 2 WICKHAM AVE, CROYDON, that he too, is not
welcome on MY doorstep. Further, neither he nor his tenant DYER of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND
RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter,
or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves
or any other reputable solicitor. Because of their NASTY THREATENING behaviour.
Letter to MCP . . . Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Also inform your clients I require
and DEMAND no direct contact with them WHATSOEVER unless it is through yourselves
or another reputable solicitor. (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time
being.
Letter to MCP . . . . . Friday, 23 June 2006
Further to my letter earlier today I
have just received a demand (not due till Sept) from WI Properties for the payment
of insurance. Quite apart from my instruction in my letter to you of Wednesday, May
10, 2006,
“Also inform your clients I require and DEMAND no direct contact with them
WHATSOEVER unless it is through yourselves or another reputable solicitor.”
There
is also a matter of the agreements made with the previous owners of the freehold
that I expect your client’s WI Properties to abide by.
Letter to MCP . . . . Tuesday, 29 August 2006
Further I understand that my tenants
were contacted by the builders recently. Remind your clients again . . . “neither
he nor his tenant of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my
tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over
any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor.
“
Letter to MCP . . . . 04 September 2006
I have just received a disconcerting letter
from your clients WI Properties.
Which words of (and I’ll make the writing bigger in case they are blind or something.).
“neither he (WI Properties) nor their tenants of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor.”
. . . . . are they having TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING????
Letter to MCP . . . Tuesday, 26 September 2006
Have I got to make these letters any bigger?
“neither he (WI Properties) nor their tenants of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor.”
Which bit . . . . are they having TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING????
Letter to MCP . . Wednesday,
13 September 2006
Ask Hussein why he thought it would be clever to DELIBERATELY disconnect
our electricity from our meter plunging the flat into darkness this evening?
I say
deliberately since he freely admitted it to me (and the lady from EDF who contacted
him on my behalf.)
Before he slammed the phone down on me telling me “to fuck off”
Letter Lisa Richardson
to plaintiff 1. 04 May 2006
You advised that the insurance bill for the whole building
was quite high, due to the risk associated with the use of the shop unit. You need
to load the payment due from the shop tenant, rather than just apportion it as you
would normally between the two. The increased premium is a result of the way in which
the ground floor is being used and they therefore need to pay a higher proportion
of the cost.
So what did he do?? . . Send a demand for 2/3rds of the insurance (which was not
due till end of Sept) on 25 August 2005.
Completely ignoring LR’s advice, and stating
a ridiculous sum of £2,335.10
AND IGNORING THE PREVIOUS ARRANGEMENTS
On 16th September
2006. The first claimant raised with MCP what was ‘the maximum pressure’ that could
be applied to the defendant in the context of alleged rent arrears. Of which there
were none.
Letter to MCP . . . . . Sunday, 26 November 2006
I have received two communications
from your client xxxx of WI Properties.
He seems judging from the contents “we do not fully understand the bottom line requirement” to be either, incredibly naïve in his ‘understanding’ of the situation. Total arrogant in his blindness to it. Or completely deceitful in his dismissing of it. No mention of the real problems are contained within.
I am going to be generous and assume it is the former since he clearly does not ‘understand’ the terms . . . . NOT to contact us on ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER except through yourselves. . . (And while he is at it he could tell his tenant to do the same since he has been bothering our own tenant yet again this very Sat evening)
One direct letter from me . . . . and they go to Court for harassment???? . . . .
.
JUST WHO . . . was harassing WHO?
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
Mr Colin Cole
London, SE9 3RN
Thursday, 22 May 2008
The CROOKS @ Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar
Re . Dispute 243 Portland Rd SE25 / WI Properties Ltd
Apart from your clients being forbidden to contact me DIRECT . . . . as in the INJUNCTION . . . . or do they suppose they get free reign and I do not . . . . . . Apart from the numerous time I have forbidden them to contact me direct . . . . which I’ll get to later.
What’s this load of nonsense eh?
Another case of “ if he is more than 21 days in
arrears can we repossess? What is the maximum pressure we can apply to Mr Cole” .
. . . . 18th September 2006
Well just for starters Ground Rent 2006 was paid in Sept 2006 . . . . WHEN IT WAS
DUE. As per my letter Friday, 10 November 2006 “First of all I am still waiting for
receipt of my £25.” . . . copy of your acknowledgment is attached.
MY ground rent
AND Insurance IS DUE AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER. . . . always has been . . . . ALWAYS
will be. . . . . the freeholder canceling a paid up policy half way through its tenure
. . pocketing the difference . . . and attempting to charge a tripled premium to
boot from mid term . . . . ISN’T going to happen.
* 5th application * . . . ? .
. . . * 3rd Request for payment? * .
. . . . what a pack of lies.
Where are they then?
. . . . What dates were they “requested” on? . . . .
or are these further disclosures
your clients can’t produce.
They know PERFECTLY WELL there has been NO DIRECT communication
of any kind . . . in either direction . . . . . by either parties since Dec 2006.
NOW about the Insurance AND the GROUND RENT.
The Landlord / freeholders OWE US considerable
monies DUE in legal fees getting that monstrosity OFF OUR PROPERTY. . . . because
they wouldn’t do it of their own free will.
I made arrangements . . . albeit by tacit
agreement that that debt would be paid off in installments . . . by deducting the
money due for rent and insurance from the TOTAL OWED.
It was good enough for the previous
owners . . . who did not dispute it . . .and it was good enough for the previous
owners.
AND it was good enough for your clients too in 2006 . . . I deducted the insurance
fee from the DEBT. . . . . AND the same in 2007. . . . . .
(their belated claim doesn’t
count . . probably why they LIED about the;
* 5th application * . . . ? . . . .
* 3rd Request for payment? *
Our lease specifically states that NO ONE must DO ANYTHING
that will increase the insurance payments. . . . . change of use of a shoe shop (FOR
THE BENEFIT OF YOUR CLIENTS and their predecessors ) . . . CLEARLY breaks that condition.
I
have refused to PAY THE INCREASE since 2003. It has been good enough for the previous
owner AND the one before him.
AND it’s going to be GOOD ENOUGH for your clients too.
IT
was EXACTLY for (but not confined to) the avoidance of those liabilities MCP Law
CONSPIRED to lie to me about their clients ‘knowledge’ of the conditions and DISPUTE
in the sale of 243.
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
. . . . and if your not sure about it you can
find it explained on some informative web-
http://www.mcp-
Or Crooked wanker Solicitors @ MCP Law Peterborough, Wisbech ...
http://www.mcp-
who both rate quite highly on a Google search conspiracy to defraud contrary to common
law . . . . (but not as highly as . . . MCP Law)
SO . . . . as per my letter attached Tuesday, 26 September 2006 attached
“Your client
W I Properties now owes me £917.37 -
Less £68.13 . . . and £25
. . . = £93.13 (for 2007) = £756.11
which will be £756.11 -
IN SEPTEMBER
IF YOUR CLIENTS CONTACTS ME AGAIN DIRECTLY . . .
I WILL MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE HIGH
COURT.
Tell them to go to http://www.metcalfecopemanpettifar.co.uk/page28.html
WHO
was harassing WHO?
Where they will find numerous examples of the following PLUS a copy of this letter.
Letter
to MCP . . . Tuesday, 26 September 2006
Have I got to make these letters any bigger?
“neither he (WI Properties) nor their tenants of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor.”
Which bit . . . . are they having TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING????
Are their any words you do not understand?
Colin Clifford Cole . . . . . . . .
PS . . . where are those DISCLOSURES?
Listed on
“More Impropriety of Sarah Adlam @ MCP Law CROOKED Solicitors”