19^th June 2013 [Blog No. 5]

Hi again, Oxley & Coward solicitors have updated me on the progress of the proposed sale of the Barnes property to the supermarket chain in their letter dated 11 June 2013. For a reason better known to themselves their most recent letter did not contain a copy of the pre-amended head of Terms, which I had requested of the executors and which was in response to their update letter dated 10 May 2013 informing me that the Head of Terms had been amended. My not having a copy of the pre-amended Head of Terms made their update ambiguous.

In my first blog on this matter on 1^st May 2013 I referred to discovering an Article in the Rotherham Advertiser dated November 2005 where reference had been solicitor Mr Barry Long (a then Consultant in the firm of Oxley & Coward Solicitors) who had acted on behalf of (I allege) a dubious estate agent who had purchased a detached dwelling from an elderly lady for a insignificant sum of £5,000 when it was realistically worth around £130,000. I mention this again here because I have just obtained permission from the Rotherham Advertiser to reproduce the article on my blog here. I have emailed Mr Turner thanking him for the privilege. See copy of Mr Phil Turner’s email below.

RE: E Peter Barnes (South Anston)

18/06/2013 10:10

Hi Mr Barnes, sorry for delay have been away. Yes, you have permission to reproduce our articles, with a reference to the Advertiser. Cheers, Phil

Phil Turner
DDI: 01709 768141

Rotherham

Advertiser

Part of the Garnett Dickinson Group

Garnett Dickinson Publishing Ltd

Brookfields Way, Manvers, Wath-upon-Dearne, Rotherham, S63 5DL

T: 01709 768000   |   www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk

Registered in England & Wales: No. 2389730

Copied below is the contents of the emails received 18/04/2011 and 19/04/2011 from Mr Phil Turners colleague at the Rotherham Advertiser relating to the Choc-Box Sting Article:-

Article from 11/11/2005 Rotherham Advertiser:-

Choc box sting

Frail—Ambrosine St Clair Fretwell.

PICTURE by KERRIE BATES. AW5800.

EXCLUSIVE by PHIL TURNER

A BAREFACED trickster pulled off an outrageous £100,000 "sting" on a near-blind pensioner by sending her a box of chocolates...

Wealthy 87-year-old Ambrosine St Clair Fretwell was allegedly cheated out of a house worth £130,000—by signing for a bogus "courier" delivery containing chocolates.

But her signature was actually on a folded land registry document purporting to show the sale of the property for a mere £5,000, a court heard. 

Alleged fraudster David Graves later sold the house to two developers for £105,000—a profit of more than 2,000 per cent.  High-flying car sales manager Graves (39), blew most of the money on paying off his mortgage and other debts, a £9,000 BMW, Christmas presents—and gave his ex-girlfriend £5,000 to pay for cosmetic surgery to enlarge her breasts.

Registered blind Mrs Fretwell—who bought the house in Golden Smithies Lane, Swinton, for £42,500 in 1990 as an investment—only found out after it had been sold and put up for auction.  Graves, of Osbert Road, Rotherham, has denied conspiring with Richard Skidmore (35), of Clifton lane, Clifton, to defraud Mrs Fretwell of her legal title and land between July and October last year.

Skidmore—whom Graves knew from a gym club—is alleged to have acted as the courier who delivered the package of chocolates. Graves claims that both transactions were genuine. Skidmore claims he was a witness to Mrs Fretwell's signature to the property transfer document and to the handover of cash.

An estate agent and a solicitors' consultant were also involved in the amazing allegations outlined to a jury at Sheffield Crown Court this week.

Prosecutor, Mr Andrew Kershaw, said that it was a story about "greed, making a quick profit and playing a cynical trick on an elderly lady." He said that the pair's story was the "highly improbable state of affairs of an elderly, partially-sighted lady gifting her £130,000 investment away on her doorstep in the evening gloom to a man who meant nothing to her."

Forensic evidence backs the prosecution claims that the trick was perpetrated on the elderly pensioner, the court heard. Frail but sprightly Mrs Fretwell—who was wearing a bandage on her head as she gave evidence—said that she and her son, James (59), who lived with her, were "absolutely stunned" when they heard what had happened at Christmas time last year.

She said it was "impossible and ridiculous" that she could have signed a Land Registry document.

Mrs Fretwell said that a man arrived with a package which she signed for although she was suspicious it could have been a bomb and was left unopened for weeks. The brown padded package had a 28p first class stamp on it, rather than the correct amount of £1.33, the court heard. "I threw it into the garden and it didn't explode so we opened it," Mrs Fretwell told the jury.

She refuted claims that she had told Graves she wanted to sell the house when he called at her home. "I had no intention of selling it," she said, although it had been valued and put on the market some years before to establish a market valuation and was later withdrawn.

She dismissed defence claims that Graves had in fact sent two boxes of chocolates—the first as an "ice breaker" the second as a "thank you." Graves allegedly called and told Mrs Fretwell he was interested in buying the house for his sister who was returning to the area from Scotland.

Graves claims that he bought the house for his sister, Eva Graves—whose name was used on the contested Land Registry document—but later sold it quickly when her plans changed.

The trial continues.

16/11/05

'Secret society'

'Mafia' claim in fraud case

Reports: PHIL TURNER

A "PROPERTY and football mafia" may be at work in Rotherham, it emerged during the chocolate box sting trial.

The allegation came after prosecutor Mr Andrew Kershaw exposed a "football club network"—allegedly including estate agent Anthony Thickett—during the conspiracy trial of two men for the alleged fraudulent sale of a near-blind pensioner's £130,000 house.

Alleged trickster David Graves got Mr Thickett—of Merryweather's—to sell wealthy 87-year-old Ambrosine St Clair Fretwell's property after she was allegedly cheated out of it when he sent her a box of Milk Tray chocolates.

When she signed for a bogus recorded "courier" delivery containing the chocolates, her signature was actually on a folded land registry document—purporting to show the sale of the property for £5,000, it was claimed. 

Graves (39), later sold the house to two developers for a profit of £105,000.

Mr Kershaw alleged that Graves had it valued at £130,000 with Haybrook's estate agents and went to Mr Thickett "of the football club network" to put it up for sale to the developers.

During questioning of Graves, Mr Kershaw wondered why he had gone to Mr Thickett instead of Haybrook's when Mr Thickett's valuation was lower. Graves said that his brother played football with Mr Thickett.

Mr Kershaw inquired if there was a "secret society of football-playing estate agents."

Graves replied that the reason for using Merryweather's was that it was the main estate agents on the property scene in Rotherham. Mr Thickett charged Graves an "introducer's fee" of £500 for the sale to property developers, Robert Brown and Timothy Turner.

Mr Thickett had dealt with the men before and they were part of his "bank" of prospective buyers, the court heard.

Graves' barrister, Mr Christopher Mills, asked his client if there was "a football and property mafia" in Rotherham dealing and passing on information, and if he was part of it.

"If there is sir, I'm not part of it," Graves replied, adding that he did not play football and did not know of such a group.

Regional car sales manager Graves—whose hobby was collecting watches—spent most of the money on paying off his £64,000 mortgage and other debts, buying a £9,000 BMW, Christmas presents and a 17th birthday car for his niece—plus £5,000 to his ex-girlfriend for cosmetic surgery to enlarge her breasts.

Registered blind Mrs Fretwell—who bought the house in Golden Smithies Lane, Swinton for £42,500 in 1990 originally to live in but later kept it as an investment—only found out after it had been sold and put up for auction.

Graves, of Osbert Road, Rotherham, has denied conspiring with Richard Skidmore (35), of Clifton Lane, Clifton, to defraud Mrs Fretwell of her legal title and land between July and October last year. Skidmore—who Graves knew from a gym club—is alleged to have acted as the courier who delivered the package of chocolates. Graves claims both transactions were genuine and that Mrs Fretwell wanted to sell the house to spite her son, James. Skidmore claims he was a witness to Mrs Fretwell's signature to the property transfer document and to the handover of cash.

Giving evidence himself, Mr Thickett said that Graves told him he had offered £50,000, but Mrs Fretwell said £5,000 was sufficient.  Mr Thickett added: "He told me he had paid a very good price. I took him at his word and he said he would like us to sell it. "He told me he had paid £5,000 for it a few days later and that he had offered £50,000 but £5,000 was sufficient." When asked if the owner was "barking mad" or irrational, he said it was unusual but not that strange.

Mr Thickett, who said that he knew Graves had used solicitor Mr Barry Long in the transaction, added that he had no view on it and had experience of similar unusual sales.

"I was surprised, knowing the house, that he had bought it for £5,000, but I didn't think it was actually strange," Mr Thickett, who had been interested in the property for more than ten years, told the court. He said that keys consisted of a door handle which could only have been been received from Graves.

Mr Thickett said that his understanding was that Graves' sister's name was on the ownership of the house, which he assumed was for tax reasons. He assumed that Graves, who stipulated he did not want to be part of a chain, had "clean ties." Mr Thickett confirmed that he had been in Las Vegas for his 40th birthday at the time of the offer from developer Mr Robert Brown.

In a statement read to the jury, Mr Barry Long, a consultant working for Oxley and Coward, said that Graves had told him he was purchasing the house for his sister Eva and all documents and deeds were in her name. The Land Registry document was signed "A Fretwell (Mrs)" and witnessed by co-accused Richard Skidmore.

Graves received a cheque for more than £109,000 from the sale, according to Mr Long.

He said that if he had known it was not above board he would not have become involved.

The court heard that the solicitor for Mr Brown and Mr Turner had been told that Mr Long had posted the Land Registry document to Mrs Fretwell. But Graves has maintained that he (Graves) picked up the form from Mr Long's office.

Unfortunately, and as you can see from blog No. 3 on 21/5/2013, my three sisters wrote to Mr Long in a “Dear Barry” email dated 2^nd January 2012 suggesting Merryweathers should be the newly instructed agents, and I have to say here that had I read the above-mentioned article with more diligence and seen that it was an employee of Merryweathers’ that had been involved in the above-mentioned Choc-Box Sting I most certainly would not have gone along with my three sisters’ proposal of letting Merryweathers manage and sell the estate, albeit they had said that I was not to be involved!!!

It also has to be said in Merryweathers’ favour, that when asked why there had been no advertising of the Barnes Property as being for sale, Mr Nick Wilson of Merryweathers did confirm in a sound recorded meeting at Oxley & Coward Solicitors on 7^th December 2012 that the reason for them not marketing the Barnes Property as been for sale was because they had not received any instructions to do so by the executors. [My Ref. Paginated page 524 refers]. It follows that the executors clearly have not diligently administered the sale and distribution of our late mother’s estate in accordance with their obligations!

This true story continues …..

7^th June 2013 [Blog No. 4]

Hi again, it’s me, Peter Barnes

I thought, as most people would think, that when “The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (known on the internet as “TOSSERS” for short) changed to the SRA things would change somewhat. However, I could not have been more wrong.

I also see Elizabeth France now works for the Legal Ombudsman. I had a running with her in my wife’s case, when Ms France worked for the Information Commissioner, which was just before Ms France went to work for BT.

Anyway, yesterday I received a K-rap of a response from the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) after her reviewing my Complaint against Oxley & Coward Solicitors (the firm). It was no more than I had expected but I had to go through the process of the Legal Ombudsman to highlight how they are just a bunch of civil servants wasting public funds, and who have no teeth.

The Legal Ombudsman’s report contained six pages of complete waffle, I don’t know how they (the Legal Ombudsman’s Office) can justify sapping-up millions of pounds of Public Funds while doing absolutely nothing, apart from covering the backs of solicitors.

If I recollect correctly, in one of the Ombudsman’s own literature regarding making a complaint (back in, or around 2004) the Ombudsman actually stated (I say bragged) that 90-odd percent of complaints (I’ve forgotten the exact percentage) never went anywhere. No change there then. This probably related to a complaint put to the Heath Service Ombudsman in my wife’s alleged clinical negligence case but I found them also to be a useless Public Funded Quango.

By the way; you can access my wife’s blog on her alleged clinical negligence claims (she was crippled by Pratif Majumdar (Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon) in an operation on her Right knee back in 1987, and also about her instructed solicitors, by clicking on this link; http://moniqueannbarnes.blogspot.co.uk/  The site is worth a visit especially if you and/or one of your relatives have had cause to take legal action against our NHS. It will/can stop the claimant receiving further corrective treatment from the NHS and they are backed by the claimant’s instructed solicitors who tend to prevent the case from progressing but not until they have exhausted all funding of the case.

Back to the Legal Ombudsman in my case: The Ombudsman states in her report that she has not taken into account all the issues raised by Mr Barnes. Why not??

In her report dated 5^th June 2013 she states in page 3:

………, although I can consider the way that the firm have dealt with the estate as part of their overall service, I can only criticise it where I have evidence that they have acted in a way that was wrong or was wholly unreasonable.

However I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and I am not satisfied that this is the case. It is clear that the firm have given very careful thought as to how to deal with the assets in this estate and in particular the way that they should deal with the small industrial estate (estate). Their view, having taken professional advice, was that they should try and get planning permission for retail use and then sell it but that, in the meantime, they should try and let the units so as to secure some income for the estate. The firm have taken this approach and I consider that they have acted reasonably and in line with the professional advice that they received.

Above, the Legal Ombudsman has incorrectly stated that the executors sought planning permission as a result of professional advice received. They did not and have not sought planning permission; they did not want to expend money on doing that. In any event the ombudsman failed to consider that the proposed purchasers (the supermarket chain) were obtaining their own planning consent, and I had been advised by the selling agent acting on behalf of the adjacent landowner that the supermarket chain had already had the green light from the council for the planned development.

The ombudsman says they were right in letting units on a short tem to secure some income; I allege that what the ombudsman does not consider here is, however, that they wasted money by advertising units to let that were unfit for letting due to some having a prohibition order on them imposed by the Chief Fire Officer. They actually let one unit on a 2½ - 3 year lease which had a Prohibition Order put on it by the HSE many years ago for having unsafe entrance doors. All the vacant units required rewiring to comply with the new Electrical Certificate requirements.

The ombudsman has not considered that for the pittance of rent that they hoped to achieve would not cover the extra administration costs or the extra work involved, and only the managing agent and the executors could profit from the extra work involved. The ombudsman has not considered that they expended unnecessary costs on upgrading the electrical installation in the unit they did let by them not leaving the unit vacant. They leased the unit for a weekly rent that was half the price it would cost for renting a skip for the day. I smell a RAT here!

The ombudsman also failed to consider here that the executors had disposed of part of the estate by leasing the unit on a 2½ - 3 year lease (on what my legal adviser termed as a Ransom Strip) prior to the executors obtaining Grant of Probate and thereby tying-up the estate from being available for sale with vacant possession for at least that period of time. This proves they had no intention of selling the estate for at least 3-years.

The ombudsman has not considered that the adjacent landowner had also threatened the executors with legal action for them dragging their feet instead of negotiating with the supermarket chain in which her own land was involved in the deal.

The ombudsman has not considered the executors and selling agent’s advertising campaign where and when they put a very small and inappropriate advertisement in the local press as can be seen clearly on my earlier blog. I allege that the advertising of my late mother’s property had been a sham, and against any professional estate agent’s selling principles!

The ombudsman says; “I note that Mr Barnes has said that the firm have incurred unnecessary costs because they agreed to undertake the electrical upgrade for the units whereas he considers that this was for the tenants to deal with. However the firm have explained that they were advised that they needed to deal with this to ensure that their insurance remained valid. The firm therefore had to weigh the cost of the work against the potential costs of not having insurance cover and, on that basis, I would not agree that their decision was unreasonable”.   

The ombudsman failed to consider that it was I (Mr Barnes) that informed the executors and selling agent at the onset that the electrical installations in the vacant units were in an unfit state and that this was one of Mr Barnes’ objections (among other reasons) against them advertising and letting vacant units on the premises.

The ombudsman also failed to consider that which I put to her/them regarding: Re Crowther [1895] 2 Ch 56.

Assets

E[2.27] Unless the will otherwise provides—see A[5.215], when carrying on a business either to sell it as a going concern or under authority contained in the will, the personal representatives may only use those assets which were used in the business at the time of the deceased's death.

The Ombudsman as well as the executors, failed to consider that the units the executors had advertised as been for letting were not in use at the time of my late mother’s death, as in E[2.27] above. In fact they had lain empty for a considerable time (many years in fact) due to the dilapidated condition of the units, including an HSE Prohibition Order on one unit, and other reasons (one imposed by a Chief Fire Officer) of which I advised the executors at the time when I vigorously apposed them leasing units on the estate. Nor was there any provision made in the Will to authorise them so-doing. I allege that the executors recklessly put the estate at risk apart from being guilty of a Devastavit, a wasting of the estate.

See copied below my email of 6 June 2013 to Ms Dunphy (Investigator) in response to the Review dated 5^th June 2013 as received from Legal Ombudsman Cerys Jones. You should find it self-explicit.

From: barnes_imali@hotmail.co.uk

Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:04 PM

To: Deborah Dunphy

Subject: Re: LEGAL OMBUDSMAN REF: 201222828

6^th June 2013

Dear Ms Dunphy

Thank you for your email earlier today with the Ombudsman Cerys Jones final decision attached.

I was aware that the process of going through the Legal Ombudsman was a complete waste of my time but it was a process that I had to illuminate and to enable me demonstrate on my blog that the Legal Ombudsman’s Office (a Quango) is a complete waste of space and  a waste of public funds. All the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) has done here is to give the firm/executors (Oxley & Coward) the “Green Light” to carry-on milking the sacred cow!!!

See link: https://plus.google.com/103164538777535624168

One thing has come out of this though; I see in the second full paragraph on page 3 of the Legal Ombudsman’s attachment that the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) has confirmed, and I quote; “In this case however the evidence is that the firm have now agreed a sale for the commercial premises with a supermarket chain at a price that was considered to be good by the managing agents”.

I was not aware until now that the sale had actually been agreed. This shows how much the firm/executors have kept us in the dark! However, now it’s been confirmed by the Legal Ombudsman (Cerys Jones) I can use this as a fact and in support in another legal matter, and I want to thank her for that.

I disagree with the Legal Ombudsman’s decision due to her omitting to review vital evidence in the matter and I reserve the right to take Legal Action against the executors/the firm when I consider it appropriate to so do.

E.g. The case law of Crowther [1895] 2 Ch 56.

Assets E[2.27] Unless the will otherwise provides—see A[5.215], when carrying on a business either to self it as a going concern or under authority contained in the will, the personal representatives may only use those assets which were used in the business at the time of the deceased's death. The executors were unable to use assets (and let vacant Units on a 2½ to 3-yars lease) that were not in use at the time of my late mother’s demise.

Neither did the Legal Ombudsman consider that funds have been retained in the estate’s account by the firm as collateral to sell the firm, as opposed to duly distributing same among the beneficiaries.

The Legal Ombudsman failed to consider that at the onset executor Mr Long had confirmed (verbally and in writing) in January 2011 that selling to the supermarket chain would make what he called “A CLEAN SALE”. At a subsequent meeting with the beneficiaries Mr Long also confirmed that there were sufficient funds coming-in from the rented units to maintain the management of the estate without letting any vacant units. I have this in the sound recorded conversation made of that meeting.

I await hearing from you Ms Dunphy in regard to my most recent complaint.

Yours sincerely

E P Barnes

cc The Rt. Hon Mr Kevin J Barron MP

I’ve just done a find a solicitor search on the Law Society Website to see whether-or-not Ombudsman Ms Cerys Jones is registered with them as being a solicitor, and I see she is not. See copy of search copied below.

Find a solicitor

You searched for: JONES; CERYS.  
Found 0 results.

It beggars belief how anyone without up-to-date legal knowledge can say they are qualified to report on whether-or-not a solicitor has done their job correctly and within the realms of the law, if they are not a practicing solicitor themselves.  

This true story continues …..