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.
Mr & Mrs Colin & Thelma Cole

London, SE9 3RN
Wednesday, July 05, 2006

AXA Insurance  Property Owners Unit
1 Old Street, EC3 N1RE
Re WI Properties Ltd / Policy No LP PPP 6115535 243 Portland Rd London SE25

Dear Sirs.
We are the Leasehold OWNERS of the Maisonette 243a Portland Rd, SE25
I have been informed by Metcalfe, Copeman & Pettefar Solicitors King’s Lynn on behalf of WI Properties  that they have taken out insurance on the above property with your good selves.

I would be surprised given that they claim not to know anything about the property when they bought it.  . . .  (a circumstance I find difficult to believe at this time. Despite writing to them at length on the subject I have yet to receive a substantial reply to convince me that they are not up to the same deceitful tricks the previous Freeholder and his lawyers IWG conspired in previously. The story of which can be found in brief on http://www.ingramwintergreen.org/page10.html )
. . . if WI Properties or MCP-Law have declared the problems with the property to you.
There are, a great deal of, issues that any insurer of this property should be aware. I would have written to the broker for this policy but unfortunately the freeholder’s solicitors MCP-Law have not seen fit to divulge that to us.
For convenience I have published the previous letters from ourselves to the previous insurers Norwich Union (well actually they were ones before the last since the previous owners did not see fit to include us in any insurance correspondence) on www.mcp-law.org

Briefly the previous (before last) freeholder SJ Patel fraudulently obtained planning for change of use which Croydon Council connived in to get the Council TAX. All this is documented on www.croydoncouncil.info. Part of the conditions of change of use were that soundproofing be installed in the shop below our flat 243a.
Unfortunately this was done without consultation required in The Party Wall Act (Structures) 1996, against advise and with no regard to the prevailing conditions at the property.
NO ONE has ever replied to a single letter on the subject despite the many thousand of words I have written on the subject. They all want to just ignore it and hope.

The danger to the property can be easily accessed on
http://www.croydoncouncil.info/page4.html
http://www.croydoncouncil.info/page33.html . . . http://www.croydoncouncil.info/page34.html

Croydon Council’s advise is (I kid you not) “don’t worry about rot in the floors the ceilings will probably fall down first.”  . . their interest is of course that they told the freeholder and his tenant to do it that way and are defending that ridiculous position and statement still. Of particular interest may be http://www.croydoncouncil.info/page37.html

My query to you is the same as that made to Norwich Union and I am hoping for a similar reply and assurance. That firstly my property is insured despite these inadequacies and that AXA will sue for recovery of any loss “those responsible” for that loss . . . ie the freeholders who have purchased the property with no regard to these prevailing issues. And no plans I presume to rectify them  that they have involved me in.
In order that you may understand those issues I have published the letters to Norwich Union on my new web site www.mcp-law.org (along with this letter) . . . of course if any issue remains unclear please do contact me for clarification. . . . . See http://www.mcp-law.org/page3.html

The attached letter will give you a ‘taste’ of what has gone on up to now but is by no means the whole of the story. The part onwards from the end of the 1st page marked *** will be the most interest to yourselves I expect.

Yours sincerely Colin Clifford Cole
Mr Colin Cole

London, SE9 3RN
Thursday, 08 December 2005

“Dopey Dan” Ginsbury            (do a search on him for a laugh)
“Tossers” Ingram Winter Green Solicitors
Bedford House, 21a John Street
London WC1N 2BL

Heh Dan . . re The dispute you didn’t know about at 243 Portland Rd.

Tell your mate Nathan Teitelbaum, Fineland Properties (or whatever it’s called this week) that his tenant in the shop has sent me a letter. . . well when I say sent . .  I mean pushed under the door at the above property. At first I was inclined to do exactly what she has done to every letter I and my solicitor have written to her . . . . . . IGNORE IT.
It is dated 28 11 05 and refers to matters of two weeks previous to that.
Quite apart from the uselessness of hand delivery, since I don’t live there, and go there as little as possible, I refer you to my letter of Thursday 23 June (is it really six months since you last managed a reply to one of my letters? Now why could that be? . . . as if we didn’t know).
I particularly refer you to paragraph four, which amongst other things states.  . . . . . .  “neither he (the Freeholder) nor his tenant/s 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”

I don’t know what your interpretation is of WHATSOEVER but my understanding  of the word is . . . . WHATSOEVER.

You are well aware of why that condition is imposed. Quite apart from her previous behaviour we now have this new problem. It is now obvious from your and your client’s Fineland Properties’ behaviour, from general common sense and from documents received due to the prominence of my web sites. (and you still have a chance to deny it yet again since you have failed to do so up to now).
That (from http://www.ingramwintergreen.org ) “ I am going to presume that Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley along with Ingram Winter Green Solicitors Bedford House and their clients Suryakant J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley and Fineland Properties Ltd, 43 Vincent Court (also known as Fine Land Properties Ltd. 2 Hillcrest Av. NW11 or Fineland Properties Ltd C/O Messrs Elliot Woolfe & Ros, Equity Hse, Edgeware ) . . . Reg owners Ruth Teitelbaum, 28 Overlea Road London, E5 9BG and Nathan Teitlebaum, Crest House, 34 Hillcrest Avenue, London NW11 0EN, CONSPIRED to lie, deceive and defraud me of my considerable claims in the matter of this dispute.” . . . . . Continued below.
Copies of previous letters to Norwich Union forwarded to AXA Insurance. . .
 ( a sort of insurance policy as it were) . . . . . Click here.
In other words A BUNCH OF CROOKS, do you not agree? . . I assure you that my next headline will be . . . Ingram Winter Green, Denniss Matthews, Nathan Teitelbaum, (Fineland Properties), S J Patel are a BUNCH OF CROOKS  . . if I do not get a denial by return of post. . . . and as you know my HEADLINES do have a habit of finding their way to the top of the web page don’t they?

Right now the only thing that appears in doubt is whether Mrs P Dyer was part of that conspiracy? If I do not hear to the contrary from either yourselves or her own Solicitors I will presume that to be a fact also. She probably thought that getting rid of Patel was good riddance without realising what a lot of tossers you lot are.

*** Mrs Dyer’s letter refers to some water leaking into her shop from our premises. My first question is. Why is she surprised? I have been warning her of that likelihood from day one. If you are not aware . . . (seeing as you did not make enquiries before contract apparently . . . or ARE YOU A BLOODY LIAR?) she built her shop entirely against “The Party Wall Act 1996 (structures)”. AGAINST my advice,  WITHOUT my permission, and WITHOUT the due and proper consultation. .  ALL . . . . required by that act.

She built her shop in the full knowledge of the likelihood of water leaks. If she was not aware, then previous freeholder certainly was and probably did not pass that on to her. Which is more than likely since he told her he owned the premises upstairs. A deliberately lie to encourage her not to make enquiries of her own.

Your client’s tenant Mrs Dyer is wholly responsible for installing her kitchen where it is and in the full knowledge (or if she did not have, it is her own fault) that sooner or later there would be an ingress of water into her shop, as has happened many times in the past, and long before I bought the property, AND SHE WAS SO INFORMED AT THE TIME BY ME.

Therefore any claim she thinks she may have against the property above her will be fervently denied and repudiated by me. If she has any sense she would contact a Solicitor straight away who will explain her position . . but so far, since the day I came across her, she has failed to show one ounce of sense . . so I am not hopeful. NORMALLY she could rely on her landlord to intervene couldn’t she? . . . but that isn’t going to happen is it? HE CAN’T EVEN PROVIDE DETAILS OF ANY INSURANCE that he may or may not have been provided, can he?
Why am I not surprised?That she “has contacted Fineland Properties and spoke to Mark and Brian to which I (she) has had no response. It should be have been Fineland Properties addressing this issue but it seems I (she) am doing their job for them.”

If she knew half of what Nathan Teitelbaum, Ingram Winter Green, and Denniss Matthews get up to as I do now, she would not have been so surprised herself . . . . . why don’t you inform her she’s on her own when it comes to sorting out disputes. It was why you conspired to lied to me about knowing there was one wasn’t it? If she had any sense she would consult a Solicitor and get an injunction to force Fineland to address her difficulties but even so she might not be lucky bearing in mind her own culpability for the problems. She should . . . as I am now aware others are doing . . . repudiate any agreement she has with your clients and refuse to pay any more rent until they act properly and reasonably according to whatever contract she may have made with them.  . . . we both know they won’t go to Court over the matter and we both know why.

I hope she realises the hopelessness of her situation brought about by her own actions time and time again. You had better advise her that if water is indeed leaking into her shop?  She has THREE DAYS to remove her ceiling before my floors start to rot. And she can expect to have to do that EVERYTIME that happens. As it is she has left it for two weeks before deciding to write to me, and it has taken a further two for me to receive that letter.

And if my floors do rot you can be sure I will be suing those responsible.  And while you are at it you could remind your pal Teitelbaum how hopeless his situation is too. . .  unless he comes up with a sensible solution.

I shall be instructing my Solicitor to seek an injunction against your client Fineland Properties to provide us with an insurance policy. AND an injunction against Fineland Properties / Mrs Dyer to provide adequate surveyors report on the structure she built as laid out in his (solicitor) previous letters to The Freeholder and P Dyer, again IGNORED. The cost of which I intend to lay firmly on your clients, and P DYER.

And even then I will be repudiating ANY claim she may or may not think she has against the owners of the flat upstairs.

From my FIRST letter to those other Tosser Solicitors . . Lister and Wood of South Norwood:-

Friday, 24 October 2003

THE MATTER OF THE DOORSTEP IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.

Even if the tenant, were Mother Theresa herself, and clearly she is not, and, even if I had the least bit of confidence that she would ensure the good behaviour of her customers, which clearly I do not.
I WOULD NOT ALLOW IT.
The nightmare scenario of her customers, at odds, maybe one day, with my tenants IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  . . . . .  TRUST ME. Can you imagine the idea of a crowd of her customers scoffing their takeaways in MY doorstep, keeping out of the rain perhaps? Maybe even denying my own tenants access? In the middle of the night?
Your client has perhaps 13 feet of frontage. He will have to provide his tenant with an entrance at the other end of the shop front. A perfectly reasonable demand. And I urge you Sir, NOT to try and press the matter on a hopeful matter of precedent.
It is over this matter ALONE that I laid out my credentials to you earlier.
I CAN, and WILL prevent it, AT ALL COSTS.
YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE, I urge you, that someone as extraordinary as myself, will have a plan. Please don’t waste your client’s money fighting this issue. It will be far cheaper for him to comply, as I have indicated.

IT IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.

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 Portland Rd 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.
And I will quote again from that letter to Croydon Council.
“As I have mentioned in several of my letters, Mr Patel made me the most extraordinary phone call, immediately after he acquired the freehold of the property. He announced that he was going to put up a large duct over the back of the property. To which I replied, I would consult my lawyers.
And then as calm as you like . . asked if I would like to sell my interest in the property, bearing in mind that it was now going to be above a take-away, have a large duct running up the back of it, hard to get a mortgage  etc and wouldn’t be worth very much?
I think you can imagine what I said to him. He really is the most arrogant of men. Demonstrated most pointedly by his written statements, “ . . as you are only renting the flat.” and, “Since you are not living in the flat how could you enjoy the premises.”
Well we are certainly not ‘enjoying’ it at the moment.”
A most extraordinary phone call indeed, witnessed by my golfing partner, Donald Carlos.
We were both, stunned by your client’s effrontery.

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????
                              
........................................................................................................................................................................................

YOU BETTER MAKE DAMN SURE MY PROPERTY IS INSURED TEITELBAUM. . . (Fineland Properties Ltd)

Colin Clifford Cole.
More problems for WI Properties including part of a Letter to the bent Croydon Council Planning Office
Click here.
HELLO . . IS THERE ANYBODY THERE ???
IS THIS WRITING BIG ENOUGH?????
I HAVE SENT THIS LETTER 8 TIMES NOW TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF AXA INSURANCE INCLUDING THE COMPLAINTS DEPT and HENDERSON Ins Brokers.
IF I DO NOT GET A REPLY IMMEDIATELY I WILL LOOK UP THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES EVERY DIRECTOR AT AXA INSURANCE AND SEND THIS LETTER DIRECT TO THEIR HOMES . . . . .  AND IF THAT DOESN’T WORK I’LL CALL ROUND THEIR HOUSES AND DELIVER IT PERSONALLY UNTIL I DO GET A REPLY.
ARE THERE ANY WORDS YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND?
Friday, August 18, 2006
Mr & Mrs Colin & Thelma Cole

Friday, August 25, 2006
Carrie Anne Gregory
AXA Insurance  Property Owners Unit
1 Old Street, EC3 N1RE
Re WI Properties Ltd / Policy No LP PPP 6115535 243 Portland Rd London SE25

Dear Ms Gregory.

 Thank you for letter of the 18th August. I note you “have now had an opportunity to investigate my issues.”

It is a pity then that nothing in your letter refers to any of them.
My complaint to AXA is that I did not get a SUBSTANTIVE reply to my considerable correspondence dated Wednesday, July 05, 2006. Getting on now for TWO MONTHS AGO. I am yet to receive that substantive reply. If you are not capable of understanding the issues that I raise then please find someone who can. NORWICH UNION had no difficulty in understanding them previously and IMMEDIATELY gave me the correct and proper assurances that I require from you (AXA) now.
I suppose it is an improvement that at least you are replying to me now. Albeit replies of no content whatsoever.

Colin Clifford Cole.
CC Nicholas Cooke  Henderson Ins Brks
More problems for WI Properties including part of a Letter to the bent Croydon Council Planning Office
Click here.
This is the Letter they seem to be struggling with below. . . . Now they got a harder one to struggle with  But wait . . A reply now from none other than Peter Hubbard Chief Executive Officer no less. . .
 Who  takes the part of Mystic Meg . . . . Click here.
See also  
www.axa-sucks.co.uk
 Click here
FSA/PN/111/2004 21/12/2004
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today fined AXA Sun Life plc 500,000 for producing misleading advertisements for the sale of two products. The advertisements were part of a far-reaching media campaign which included direct-offer promotions, advertising in a variety of national magazines and newspapers and television advertisements. They were distributed over a considerable period of time, February 2002 to January 2004, thereby putting a significant number of consumers at risk of being misled.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Library/Communication/PR/2004/111.shtml

& Welcome to
 Axa in Blunderland!
Asset Mismanagement, Wealth Destruction,
Mistrusts, Laughingstocks

 

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.”

wp4fd7d0e3.jpg
You got any threats to make Denniss Matthews?
Or Ingram
Winter Green TRY ‘EM ON ME. Colin Cole
CONSPIRATORS Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley and Islington have been very busy. They managed to close half my sites for a little while. . . So they are going to be hosted  elsewhere from now on (as you can see). Denniss Matthews wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they took me to Court otherwise they would do so . . . so they threatened  my hosting Co . . see Law Society Dirty Tricks page . . . . And of course my  Letters to Denniss Matthews

Followers of my sites might have noticed that they have been down more than they have been up these last two weeks .May 2006 . . That is because since they were moved offshore to escape legal dirty tricks the servers have been under constant attack . . . Enough to destroy the hard drives. . . Can’t say who it is of course and it can’t be Ingram Winter Green or Denniss Matthews because they aren’t even clever enough to be Solicitors.  . . However  I’m told they know a man who is clever enough and he is the crook Mohammed Yaseen who used to be MD (before he went to prison) at nscglobal (a Co that David Ingram of IWG, is also a Dir) . . . . . .   BUT is he the same Managing Director now at nscglobal under another but very similar name, Yaseen Khan as I am informed ?  . . . . care to confirm or deny that any of you? . . . Not so far they haven’t. , , , ans on the back of a mailbag to par84colin@hotmail.com
More Dirty Tricks. This time from IWG . . (see also Law Society Dirty Tricks Page)
They are at it again. This time Tossers Ingram Winter Green are making the threats. One of my sites was closed down this week 18/09/06. . for all of a day. The way it works is. Knowing they can do nothing about these sites through proper and legal means. The ones they charge exorbitant sums, executing for other people.  What Firms like IWG and Denniss Matthews (see below) do instead is. They send what are called ‘Cease & Desist’ notices to the site’s Hosting Co.  The Hosts only get 10’s of pounds a year for hosting a site so really can’t afford to get involved. So whatever the argument they simple comply. They know the threats are malicious, and unfounded, since the complainant would sue the author if they were not. But the hosts cannot afford to fight them. Fortunately there are other hosts offshore who won’t be bullied by bent Solicitors. The reason IWG can’t do anything about these sites properly is. Even they are not going to go to Court and swear on oath they did not conspire to lie and cheat me. But they thought nothing of deliberately lying in writing to me for the profit of  their client originally. But denying it in a witness box is a whole new ball game. As dear ol’ Jeffery Archer, and Jonathan Aitken found out. . . . .  Click here
I have yet to have any response from either MCP Law  or their clients re; the ‘state’ of the property or re; my objections to it. Therefore my letters to AXA Insurance regarding that matter to which I have still not had a response after nearly 3 months.
To . . . The Directors of AXA posted to the following addresses . . . .  21 September 2006
NICOLAS JEAN MARIE DENIS MOREA,: GROUP CHIEF EXECUTIVE
6 LYALL STREET, BELGRAVIA, LONDON, SW1X 8LJ
MARK CLIFF
TYR HOUSE, CHARITY LANE, OTLEY, SUFFOLK, IP6 9NA
ANDREW PETER FAIRCHILD
NORTH DOWN 15 HOP MEADOW, EAST BERGHOLT, COLCHESTER, ESSEX, CO7 6QR
KEITH GEORGE GIBBS
SHARLANDS, BLACKBOYS, UCKFIELD, EAST SUSSEX, TN22 5HN
PETER JOHN HUBBARD
14 QUEENS GATE, STOKE BISHOP, BRISTOL, BS9 1TZ

PHILIPPE LOUIS HERBERT MASO Y GUELL
39 MARKHAM STREET, LONDON, SW3 3NR
LAURENT MATRAS
1 NILE STREET, LONDON, N1 7LX
FRANCOIS DE MENEVAL
7 AVENUE BOSQUET, PARIS, 75007
JOHN O'NEILL
79 BISCAYNE, MALAHIDE, COUNTY DUBLIN
IAN DAVID LEA RICHARDSON
90 MONTAGU MANSIONS, LONDON, W1U 6LF
JEREMY PETER SMALL
CHERRY TREES, WEST HEATH, PIRBRIGHT, SURREY, GU24 0JQ
GUY STOULS
31 ONSLOW GARDENS, LONDON, SW7 3AH

Sir . I trust the following  letters are self explanatory ???
see http://www.mcp-law.org  Letters to AXA

Well that certainly done the trick . . . I had a letter the next day.  So if anyone is having trouble getting through at AXA just write to these guys  . . My reply . . . .  also the following day is on the NEXT page  . . . see it’s not hard is it? . . . . Click here.

2006

2008

Deja vu 2005? “I am going to presume that Nigel Matthews  @ Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley along with Daniel Ginsbury @ Ingram Winter Green Solicitors Bedford House and their clients Suryakant J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley and Fineland Properties Ltd, 43 Vincent Court (also known as Fine Land Properties Ltd. 2 Hillcrest Av. NW11 or Fineland Properties Ltd C/O Messrs Elliot Woolfe & Ros, Equity Hse, Edgeware ) . . . Reg owners Ruth Teitelbaum, 28 Overlea Road London, E5 9BG and Nathan Teitelbaum, Crest House, 34 Hillcrest Avenue, London NW11 0EN, CONSPIRED to LIE, deceive and defraud me of my considerable claims in the matter of this dispute. . . See why ? .  . . Click here