Nid ydym yn gwybod a yw'r ymateb mwyaf diweddar i'r cais hwn yn cynnwys gwybodaeth neuai peidio - os chi ywMr. J Stuart mewngofnodwch a gadael i bawb wybod.

Insolvency Practitioners appointed trustee using force and violence to obtain domestic property

Mr. J Stuart made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Insolvency Service

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

We're waiting for Mr. J Stuart to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Insolvency Service,

Can Insolvency Practitioners appointed a trustee by the court or by the Secretary of State use force and violence to obtain domestic property from individuals and families.

What punishment does the Insolvency Services inflict on rogue IP's who instruct enforcement agent thugs who drag people from their homes for a civil matter?

How many complaints has the Insolvency Services received regarding IP's criminal actions that have allowed thugs to inflict injuries and to terrorise their victims into being made unlawfully homeless to benefit a trustee and others by unjust means using force, threats and violence, when they know they can not use force to gain entry to domestic homes for a civil 'debt' including so-called High Court enforcement AGENTS.

How many IP's have been sent to prison for their part in these heinous crimes of assault, battery and theft or terrorising or blackmailing their victims into believing they have to leave their homes or they will be instructing thugs to use force against them.

House of Commons Briefing Paper Enforcement Officers (formerly known as bailiffs) 24 July 2019.

5.4 Are not allowed to force entry to residential homes.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. J Stuart

FOI, Insolvency Service

Good morning

The FOI team acknowledge your freedom of information request and I have assigned it the reference number FOI20/21-207

I will respond to you by 01 April in line with our 20 working day statutory guidelines

Regards

Information Rights Officer | Digital Technology Services | The Insolvency Service - Delivering economic confidence| 3rd Floor, Cannon House, 18 Priory Queensway, Birmingham B4 6FD| www.gov.uk/insolvency-service | Please consider the environment before printing.

As a result of government instructions to stay at home we have changed the way we deliver our services. Our focus remains the wellbeing of our employees, you our customers and supporting the country during the Coronavirus outbreak. You can find answers to common questions and the latest information about contacting the Insolvency Service on our GOV.UK content. Thanks for your co-operation.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Insolvency Service

1 Atodiad

Good Morning

Please see response to your Freedom of Information Request

Regards

Information Rights Officer | Digital Technology Services | The Insolvency Service - Delivering economic confidence| 3rd Floor, Cannon House, 18 Priory Queensway, Birmingham B4 6FD| www.gov.uk/insolvency-service | Please consider the environment before printing.

As a result of government instructions to stay at home we have changed the way we deliver our services. Our focus remains the wellbeing of our employees, you our customers and supporting the country during the Coronavirus outbreak. You can find answers to common questions and the latest information about contacting the Insolvency Service on our GOV.UK content. Thanks for your co-operation.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

2 Atodiad

Dear Victoria
I see by the below link letter in response to the below copied in that
email, that there obviously needs to be included and lodged by your
department with that other department of the insolvency service. So as
there records are up to date, because what I have provided to you and
along with numerous other departments at the insolvency service by way of
all the papers and not least 1) the fraudulent 28 August 2018 financial
instrument executed by Nicholas Myers and witnessed by Felicity Iles as in
house solicitors for Smith and Williamson, in collusion, when I n addition
it has been executed and dated by Amicus, and it’s attorney for it to be
drawn down on, and thereafter 2) the account statement to confirm that
fraudulent agreement was drawn down on and became live, which are together
 irrefutable evidence of those frauds and collusion;
Please can you Cc copy me and those the letter is to, into that being
reported by you to that department in the insolvency service so as they
are able to update their records that they are obviously relaying
incorrect to others because that has been made aware and known to you at
the insolvency service for now over two years. Who I have so far, as you
can see from them being Cc copied into this email, now made known to by
way of this contact with them at their address showing on the letter from
the insolvency service to them;
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/reques...
Thank You
Lynda Dixon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: lynda dixon <[email address]>
Sent: 11 July 2021 12:44
To: Victoria Bailey <[email address]>
Cc: lynda dixon <[email address]>
Subject: Re: L & N D Development And Design Limited (In Administration)
(C407/365)
 
Hi Victoria
This here below link is identical to what Nicholas Myers Smith and
Williamson have gone about doing when having my home broken and entered
into and the locks changed when knowing fine well I was back living and
residing their, and thereafter misleading the court with their claim
framed as a possession claim in squaring, of a residential property by
saying in their deceitful witness statement and claim papers it was
commercial, when all the whiles knowing fine well they have 1) Brecher the
sales agreements, thereafter 2) colluded with Amicus and its officers to
have created a fraudulent financial instrument namely the dated 28 August
2018 loan agreement, which is postdating Nicholas Myers / Smith and
Williamson as officer of L&ND causing L&ND to breach the sales purchase
agreement it had entered into with me, and all so as to try in collusion
along with Amicus and its officers and attorney to try and take my home
from me, which is obviously, even from the below link / copied text
illegal.
Are those facts of  illusion, fraud, forgery and deception going to be
included in your report?
 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/reques...
“Dear Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy,

As the ministerial department responsible for your Executive Agency The
Insolvency Service who put forward or make applications for these rogue
IP's to be appointed on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Can Insolvency Practitioners appointed a trustee by the court or by the
Secretary of State use force and violence to obtain domestic property from
individuals and families.

What punishment does the BEIS or your agency the Insolvency Services or
the government or any authority inflict on rogue IP's who instruct
enforcement agent thugs who drag people from their homes for a civil
matter?

How many complaints has the Insolvency Services received regarding IP's
criminal actions that have allowed thugs to inflict injuries and to
terrorise their victims into being made unlawfully homeless to benefit a
trustee and others by unjust means using force, threats and violence, when
they know they can not use force to gain entry to domestic homes for a
civil 'debt' including so-called High Court enforcement AGENTS.

How many IP's have been sent to prison for their part in these heinous
crimes of assault, battery and theft or terrorising or blackmailing their
victims into believing they have to leave their homes or they will be
instructing thugs to use force against them.

House of Commons Briefing Paper Enforcement Officers (formerly known as
bailiffs) 24 July 2019.

5.4 Are not allowed to force entry to residential homes.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. J Stuart”

Thank You

Lynda Dixon

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

From: lynda dixon <[8][email address]>
Sent: 12 June 2021 11:51
To: Felicity Iles <[9][email address]>;
[10][email address]
<[11][email address]>; [12][email address]
<[13][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[14][email address]>; [15][email address]
<[16][email address]>; 'Emma Wells'
<[17][email address]>; 'Bryn Robertson'
<[18][email address]>; Nick Myers
<[19][email address]>; Zoe Percy
<[20][email address]>; Chris Wright
<[21][email address]>; [22][email address]
<[23][email address]>; Yanish Gopee
<[24][email address]>;
[25][email address]
<[26][email address]>; Megan Campbell
<[27][email address]>; [28][email address]
<[29][email address]>
Cc: [30][email address]
<[31][email address]>
Subject: Re: L & N D Development And Design Limited (In Administration)
(C407/365)

 

Dear All

 

After a further three weeks of passing and here we are. Still no response
at all from any of you on the below and subsequent email of the same date,
in or with any attempt what so ever by any of you to try and amicable
resolve these long standing matters.

 

By when can I expect to be provided with your proposals in offering to
arrive at an amicable to all resolve?

 

For the avoidance of doubt, if there becomes a further need, which I have
repeatedly tried and better tried to avoid. Then these repeated email
attempting to try and resolve all matters between the parties will be
brought to the attention of the courts.

 

I look forward to receiving a full and details response in offering within
the next few days, in any event by close of play next Friday 18th June
2021.

 

Thank you

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: lynda dixon <[32][email address]>
Sent: 22 May 2021 20:23
To: Felicity Iles <[33][email address]>;
[34][email address]
<[35][email address]>; [36][email address]
<[37][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[38][email address]>; [39][email address]
<[40][email address]>; 'Emma Wells'
<[41][email address]>; 'Bryn Robertson'
<[42][email address]>; Nick Myers
<[43][email address]>; Zoe Percy
<[44][email address]>; Chris Wright
<[45][email address]>; [46][email address]
<[47][email address]>; Yanish Gopee
<[48][email address]>;
[49][email address]
<[50][email address]>; Megan Campbell
<[51][email address]>
Cc: [52][email address]
<[53][email address]>; lynda dixon
<[54][email address]>
Subject: Re: L & N D Development And Design Limited (In Administration)
(C407/365)

 

Dear Felicity and all included in the To: address bar

 

Thank you for your below email, but I must surely not have to inform you
that the buck stops with those at the helm of Tinley Smith and Williamson.
Who surely have to have the best interest of their investors at the
forefront of their minds, have they not? Which is actually quite a silly
question, because cleary the way in which you and they are sitting back
watching the ongoing waste. It must be a fact that neither you or they
have due to the fact neither are acting in accordance with or with the
best interests of the investors, neither are you / they upholders of any
reputation, but rather instead to the absolute contrary.  

 

Your below email once again fails to answer any of the questions, and is
once again contradictory of what has gone before.

 

I can already see the below copied from within earlier emails from you in
relation to these inextricably linked matters;

 

Tue 08/10/2019 10:10
"Further, having reviewed the administrators’ conduct in this matter, it
is our position that any further communications on the administration and
hearings should properly be directed to the solicitors acting on the
matter, Brecher LLP." 

 

Now after all of this time and you having way back then after "having
reviewed the administrators’ conduct" and excluding him, you are now
bringing by cc copying Mr Nicholas Myers back into fold. Why?

If there is an agreement to be arrived at then have him without further
delay, or better still you yourself place all of your cards on the table,
so as to put an immediate stop to all of your waste and messing about.

Act as you all ought to have way back in August 2018 when appointed
to these matters. Rather than as you all have in and when casing as you
all have, all of the Huge amounts of wasted costs, time, money and life. 

 

Thu 10/10/2019 12:19

"Any emails to Mr Cobb or any of the senior management of Smith &
Williamson or Tilney on this matter are being passed to me for response in
line with our procedures."

 

21 May 2021 16:56

"will continue to be passed for response to the administrators and their
solicitors."

 

The latter is quite extraordinary and really is beyond belief. Not least
because you are all already fully aware that I myself, my ex husband and
all other of those who have been involved in trying to assist me get these
matters resolved in the interest of the creditos as a whole. Yet time and
again for now over 30 months to no avail, and that we have, as you asked,
tried and better tried the above, directing emails to those supposed
solicitors who are supposedly acting. However as repeated to you all time
and again. and many others, and now the courts included, it has
always been a further waste of time and money, to no, or at best very
little avail.

 

Therefore you once again make little sense when saying below "correct
method of communication"

So as to assist you even further and those officers at the helm of Tilney
Smith and Williamson, in seeing the extent of those you have appointed
disgraceful conduct and to further back that up. As being none other
than undoubtedly obvious failings and disregard for the rules that govern
you all. I have attached here to this email two PDFs containing just some
examples of the hundreds more that there are, and far to numerous to
mention and / or attach here. Two PDFs which have had added into them as
notes and highlights (in and with most, red text yellow highlighted). To
show just some of what has not been responded to, answered or provided by
those you have even still today in your below email, the actual audacity
to say "for response" "Any further communication with the senior
management of Tilney Smith & Williamson will continue to be passed for
response to the administrators and their solicitors.". When you clearly
know full well, that those you are passing to, do not even answer, provide
or deal with what has from the outset been put to and asked of them.

 

So what do you and those officers at the helm of Tilney Smith and
Williamson intent doing to resolve the matter? In doing so, putting an
immediate a stop to the never ending waste of time and moneys that are not
yours or theirs to waste.

 

Even you yourself are as bad, because not once have you dealt with, in
trying to answer to the fraudulent agreement dated the 28th August 2018
that you yourself witnesses when acquiescing in that fraud to try and
deceive me out of my home when allowing my home and an all edged third
party legal mortgage amongst other as allegedly according to the agreement
dated 28 August 2018 specifically in and for that agreement, without my
knowledge or consent:

 

This whole charade from start August 2018 to date is nothing but an
absolute disgrace and shambles that your should all be ashamed of.

 

If you cannot do your jobs openly honestly and fairly in line with the
protocols and acts that govern you all. Then you all really do need to
take a long hard look and think about what it is you are all doing to
society and your reputations, and stop and think what if the same was
being done upon to yourselves, and / or more so your families. Because for
sure Karma has a funny way of coming around, and it has no address.

 

None of you have or are to this day conducting yourselves in accordance
with the pre action protocol, Insolvency act, insolvency rules on demands
and petitions. Honestly and with integrity. Instead you are all so intent
to see to the opposite and in doing so, you are conducting yourselves
totally to the contrary of the protocols and duties you and
those appointed as administrators and alleged LPA receivers are governed
by i.e. the insolvency act:

 

That then leaves the only reason for all of the waste and how the
courts have been mislead by those from Tilney Smith and Williamson,
yourself included, and those appointed to represent, just as you will see
from the email to follow this one which is just one of many still to be
answered to by not least you and many others. Please can you now also do
that in full? 

 

What beggars belief is you suggesting I seek independent advice (which
will cost more money), when you are fully aware of the position I have
been places as a result of you and yours breaches, frauds, and utter
incompetence and negligence. For which either Tilney Smith and Williamson
or their insurers will in the end have to account for and repay, on I
suspect an indemnity plus basis, plus interest:

 

That is without doubt the way in will end unless you all get on and deal
with bringing matters to the amicable resolve that I have
repeatedly offered up.

 

Now please let me have Tilney Smith and Williamsons proposals for
an amicable resolve' to consider. So as to try and bring to an end the
deplorable and what appears never ending waste of time, money and life you
all seem to intent on prolonging even more so than you all have already?

 

I look forward to receiving proposals / option by return of emails to
bring all matter to a closer under what would be a drop hands / heads of
all claims agreement. 

 

For the avoidance of any doubt I will be providing a copy of this further
email and attached two PDFs to the courts so as the courts can see and are
fully aware of the ongoing waste of time, costs, money and life you are
all causing and allowing to go on.

 

Thank You

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Felicity Iles <[55][email address]>
Sent: 21 May 2021 16:56
To: lynda dixon <[56][email address]>
Cc: Nick Myers <[57][email address]>
Subject: RE: L & N D Development And Design Limited (In Administration)
(C407/365)

 

Dear Mrs Dixon

 

It is not the responsibility of the senior management of Tilney Smith &
Williamson or for me to respond to you on the matters which are being
handled by the administrators, who are independently appointed, and their
solicitors. The correct channels of communication are with them, as you
have been frequently informed.

 

The costs that have been incurred are due to your continual refusal to
accept the correct method of communication, and on account of your refusal
to accept the responses of the administrators, the solicitors and the
position that has been decided by the courts.

 

Any further communication with the senior management of Tilney Smith &
Williamson will continue to be passed for response to the administrators
and their solicitors.

 

I would urge you to seek independent legal advice.

 

Regards

 

Felicity Iles

Associate Director

Solicitor
Tilney Smith & Williamson
 
--
 
T:  [58]02071314565
E:
[59][email address]

 

 

 

COVID 19
In view of current Government advice on the Coronavirus pandemic, we have
temporarily postponed holding face to face meetings. In addition to email
and telephone communications, we are also able to support
videoconferencing meetings by Skype and continue to be open for business.

[60]www.tsandw.com

Tilney Smith & Williamson Limited (No: [61]08741768) is registered in
England and Wales with registered office at 6 Chesterfield Gardens, London
W1J 5BQ. Further details of the Tilney Smith & Williamson group are
available at [62]www.tsandw.com/compliance/registered-details.

This email is for the information of the addressee only and should not be
reproduced and/or distributed to any other person. This e-mail is subject
to terms and risk warnings available at
[63]www.tsandw.com/compliance/email-terms-and-conditions. By communicating
electronically with us, you consent to these terms.

If you received this email in error, please accept our apology. We would
be obliged if you would email [64][email address].

Please note that this email and any attachments have been scanned by an
email security system for the presence of computer viruses. However, it is
the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free, and
no responsibility is accepted by the Group for any loss or damage in any
way arising from its use.

 

From: lynda dixon <[65][email address]>
Sent: 20 May 2021 03:33
To: Felicity Iles <[66][email address]>; David Cobb
<[67][email address]>; [68][email address];
Chris Woodhouse <[69][email address]>
Subject: Re: L & N D Development And Design Limited (In Administration)
(C407/365)

 

ATTENTION: This email originated outside of our organisation. Please be
extra vigilant when opening attachments or clicking links.

 

Dear All

Cc [70][email address]

 

Further to yet again a further bout of emails in the below stream. Same
as, same as, as it has been for the last almost 30 months (August 2018 to
date) an utter waste of time and effort due to yours and those you have
instructed deplorable conduct:

 

 As it stands the waste being allowed to go by without the intervention of
you officers and in house solicitor Felicity Iles to put a stop to it, and
instead for you to have seen to matters being dealt with as they should
have been over two and a half years ago. I think it is really about time
the investors and potential investors were placed in the know of the waste
and damage to the reputation that is being allowed to go by, by what it
would appear all those heading Tilney Smith and Williamson included here
in the To address bar:

 

So please can you Felicity confirm on behalf of all To and Cc that the
below and cc copied details are correct: and whom best within it is best
to bring up to speed on the waste you officers and in house solicitor are
all allowing to go on to what has to be to the great detriment of the
investors?

 

I was to email your chair Will but it appears he has moved on, after most
likely having seen enough of the ongoing waste and damage to reputation
that the conduct of you all has to be and is for sure casing here:

 

London Office
Warburg Pincus International LLC
Almack House
28 King Street, St. James’s
SW1Y 6QW
London, United Kingdom
Phone: [71]+44 20 7 306 0306

 

I look forward to receiving confirmation or otherwise to the above and cc
copied as being those who must need to be brought up to date of the waste
and damages being caused as a result of you all standing by and doing
nothing to deal with the deplorable conduct and waste.as a result.

 

Thank you

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: lynda dixon <[72][email address]>
Sent: 19 May 2021 15:38
To: Emma Wells <[73][email address]>
Cc: Bryn Robertson <[74][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[75][email address]>; [76][email address]
<[77][email address]>;
[78][email address]
<[79][email address]>; [80][email address]
<[81][email address]>; Chris Woodhouse
<[82][email address]>; Nick Myers
<[83][email address]>
Subject: Re: L & N D Development And Design Limited (In Administration)
(C407/365)

 

Dear Ms Wells

 

I make the below points as will be made to the courts in due course when
it come to seeking the damages myself and my company are due from your
clients, costs, setting aside, and all other relating to these matters,
I.e. not least your clients Tilney Smith and Williamson breaches,
negligence and absolute incompetence.to say the least.

 

1. Your, and others from Brechers and your clients persistent denial and
refusal to answer and provide and / or even try to deal with any matters
so as to try and narrow the issue and / or mitigate the damage your
clients have caused is quite extraordinary, and along with your clients,
you, and others from Brecher are still causing and allowing all the waste
to continue is more than Quite typical of you, others from Brecher, Tilney
Smith and Williamson, and nothing but the norm. That is now and has been
for some considerable time quite clear:

 

2. You are once again refusing to answer and provide simply because you
can not point to where the answers have been provided, because they have
not been. If they had been answered in any form not least the form they
should have been in line with protocols then I would not be having to
repeatedly repeat myself.

3. Your feeble excuses in relation to the further what can only be further
attempted frauds, do not excuse either those further attempts or those
uncovered and provident already, how ever they are looked upon they are
the fraud deceit and deliberate concealments your clients are going to
have to answer too. Not least those in with the supposed demands compared
to the supposed identical alleged to be included with petitions. The 28
August 2018 agreement and acclaimed documents to and for that fraudulent
agreement. The misrepresentations in the seating claim. These along with
all others of your, your clients others frauds misrepresentations and
misleading the courts are all now shown to be quite the norm from Brecher
and you clients, stemming right back from their commencement in August
2018. None of which you or your colleagues or your clients have answered
or provided for in anyway answering.

4. Neither you your colleagues or your clients have answered in any shape
or form to point 5 below. Other than Chris Wight saying he had passed it
to B Robertson. The conduct of both Brecher and their clients through all
of these proceedings is to be quite Frank deplorable and beggars belief.

5. You and your clients are fully aware hence the reasons none of you are
answering and / or trying to deal with matters in any form, even by trying
to narrow the issues. That come what may in and of any and all of the
inextricably linked proceedings, that will ultimately be all at further
costs to your clients and their insurers.

 

I do not believe it is worth while wasting any further of my time in these
meaningless bouts of corresponding with Brechers and your clients
officers.

 

I have as far as I am aware, as the litigant in person I am, provided all
I have to in and for all matters. Unless you can list otherwise. I have
provided all that has to have been provided in all matters. Then it will
be up-to the courts and others to arrive at what it is your clients will
in the end have to pay in costs and damages.

 

I can do no more than I have repeatedly tried to do since the outset in
August 2018 to bring all matters to an amicable settlement with your
clients under a heads of all claims agreement:

 

Your clients continued refusals to agreed or been provide reasonable and
acceptable figures, or to even enter negotiations and / or to mediate is
to their great detriment.

 

Unless I hear from you or your clients to the contrary by return, then I
can still do no more than take it as that is still the stance of your
clients after all of this times of passing, and waste you, Brecher and
your clients have caused and are continuing to cause to increase.

 

Thank you

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Emma Wells <[84][email address]>
Sent: 19 May 2021 11:50
To: lynda dixon <[85][email address]>
Cc: Bryn Robertson <[86][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[87][email address]>; [88][email address]
<[89][email address]>;
[90][email address]
<[91][email address]>; [92][email address]
<[93][email address]>; Chris Woodhouse
<[94][email address]>; Nick Myers
<[95][email address]>
Subject: RE: L & N D Development And Design Limited (In Administration)
(C407/365)

 

Ms Dixon,

 

It is your prerogative as to what you subjectively consider.  You will
find there are no admissions in my email(s).

 

You are referring to a statutory demand against Nicholas Dixon.  It really
is quite simple and furthermore otiose.

 

The statutory demand that refers to Nicholas Dixon as First Defendant was
signed electronically.  The statutory demand annexed to the petition, also
signed electronically, refers to Nicholas Dixon as the Third Defendant. 
There was a technical error/issue when the statutory demand was sent to
the process server in that it did not replicate the amendment to Nicholas
Dixon as the Third Defendant.

 

The above has absolutely no material bearing or effect on the bankruptcy
petition itself and can in no way be considered ‘tampering’ with
documents.  There is no doubt the court will see this for what it was; a
very minor technical error. 

 

However, in taking such an unmeritorious point and labouring on it as you
have, is demonstrative of the further unnecessary costs you have caused
and are causing to be incurred.

 

As to the other points, it is not for me to point you to where they have
been answered, I respectfully suggest you read your emails.  As stated,
all of your claims and allegations have been addressed on numerous
occasions in the past; the fact that you do not like nor accept the
responses given does not change that fact, regardless of the number of
times you repeatedly raise them.

 

It is also your prerogative if you continue to email the wrong parties and
in doing so choose to ignore what has been directed of you by the Court of
Appeal, consequently not complying with service.  In the absence of
compliance there has not been and will not have been service as directed. 
It will be a matter for you if you then need to apply for relief from
sanction in having failed to serve that which was required of you.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Emma Wells

Director

Direct Dial: [96]+44 (0)20 3696 7583

Email: [97][email address]

 

 

 

 

From: lynda dixon [[98]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 14 May 2021 18:19
To: Emma Wells <[99][email address]>;
[100][email address];
[101][email address]; [102][email address];
Chris Woodhouse <[103][email address]>
Cc: Bryn Robertson <[104][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[105][email address]>; Nick Myers
<[106][email address]>
Subject: Dixon - Tilney Smith and Williamson

 

Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always
exercise caution when opening files.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Message originated outside your organization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Wells

 

Dixon - Tilney Smith and Williamson

 

I have now taken your lack of response to the latter part of my last
email 13 May 2021 at 22:07 (that was copied into the body of your email 13
May 2021 at 17:55 for what it is. A lack of response to mean you have now
seen and are admitting to that tampering with the demands allegedly served
as demands when alleged in the petitions to be identical copies of the
alleged demands served that have been included by brecher ANASTASIA
HAMMOND as true copies within the petitions. However: 

 

Your shear ignorance to the questions is not going to be left unattended
to.

 

I now as I have done for some time, just as will the courts in due course,
require the answers to the questions. It is no good saying they have been
answered because if they had been, then 1) I would not be having to
repeatedly ask them, and 2) you would also have been able to point me to
them answers if they had been answered. Which you have not done and can
not do.

 

Now please can you just get on and stop wasting everybody's time, life and
moneys by answering in full for now, these small few (which is far from
all there is that remains still to this day unanswered) very simple
questions that I have listed here below in this one simple further email.

 

If you do not I will go through everything (which I amy well do in any
event) with a view to providing the now very long list that there is to
those instructing you Tilney Smith and Williamson, whom are again included
in the To: address bar of this email, and the courts when needs be, and
especially for and in relation to any costs (wasted or otherwise) that I
will be seeking from your clients in addition to the the recompense for
the damages they have caused and the ongoing damages and waste they are
allowing still to this very day to go on.

 

 1. Are you saying the signature in the PDFs of the demands and petitions
(with supposed identical as served demands included) attached to the
email Thu 18/02/2021 22:48 that was also sent to you at the same time
as the court of appeal and the Carlisle County Court. Is not the
"Signature of  " the "individuals Name ANASTASIA HAMMOND" in "BLOCK
LETTERS", who is, is she not a colleague of yours at Brecher? Or;
 2. Do you agree and are you confirming here that it is ANASTASIA HAMMOND
of Brechers LLP signatures?
 3. Are you now going to within 7 days provide either / or a full and
proper response to the letter before claim and short summary (that I 
have attached here again for ease from the email Sat 13/03/2021 19:14)
along with offering and / or option (Options If more than one) so as
to arrive at a settlement on all matters including the remaining
assets of the company L & N D Development and Design Limited (in
administration) so as to bring all matters between the parties to an
end?
 4. If not within 7 days by when will I be in receipt of the fully
compliant with the professional negligence protocols response by? And
the final question for this email:
 5. Please provide a response in relation to what actions have been taken
so as to be able to provide a response to the attached in a PDF email
enquiry in which it is said in part "Please can you 1) consider, and
2) take instruction from Tilney Smith and Williamson as to whether
they have any interest in progressing what may be able to be recovered
for the creditors as a whole from this opportunity and let me have
yours and their thoughts on the opportunity here to recoup all the
losses, expense costs and damages?"

If you do not deal correctly with and by answering in full the above and
attached letter before claIm and a short summary thereto. Then I will
continue as I have with corresponding only and directly with those
instructing you Tilney Smith and Williamson, whom are again included in
the To: address bar of this email, and make the same reasons known to the
courts, that is was necessary. Due simply to neither those instructing you
/ Brechers, you / brecher llp not answering and / or providing that asked
and / or requested in line with the professional negligence protocols and
pre action protocols. 

 

At the same time I will be asking the courts as I have already in the
appeals, to set aside all orders and Judgements to date, demandes and / or
petitions, and in addition strike out and debar those instructing you from
defending any of the claims that will either be adjoined to be heard
together in the proceedings, or if needs be (depending on the directions
of the courts) issued as either separate claims or counterclaims.
Including against those instructing you (Tilney Smith and Williamson) as
either / or,  or both the administrators of L & N D Development and Design
and / or alledged LPA receivers appointed over my home No61 Scotby Road
Scotby Carlisle CA48BD who are fully aware and in the know of their
deliberate concealing and numerous other wrongs. Many ofi not all of which
will be answered in and with a compliant response to the letter before
claim and short summary thereto, which is, as above, re attached here to
this email.

 

I look forward to hearing from you by return of email on Monday 17th May
2021. 

 

Thank You

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Emma Wells <[107][email address]>
Sent: 14 May 2021 07:31
To: lynda dixon <[108][email address]>;
[109][email address]
<[110][email address]>;
[111][email address]
<[112][email address]>; [113][email address]
<[114][email address]>; Chris Woodhouse
<[115][email address]>
Cc: Bryn Robertson <[116][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[117][email address]>; Nick Myers
<[118][email address]>
Subject: RE: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re:
A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

Ms Dixon,

 

The answer I gave to question 4 below should have referred to the answer I
gave to question 3.

 

I assure you it is not my intention to be childish nor waste your time but
I simply cannot advise you on the right way to go about making your
complaints to the court.  I act for the respondents and for me to give you
advice in this or any other respect is not permitted.  That is why I urge
you to seek independent legal advice from a solicitor or similar who can
advise you on whether and how you can do so and on  the proceedings more
generally.

 

All of your claims and allegations have been addressed on numerous
occasions in the past; the fact that you do not like nor accept the
responses given does not change that fact. 

 

May I remind you that you were directed by the Court of Appeal that
"Service of documents pertaining to these permission applications must be
served directly on the Respondent's Solicitors.”  The court, and indeed
the court rules, requires you to ensure you serve all documents relating
to these proceedings directly on us and not on our clients and especially
not on third parties who are not involved in the proceedings.

 

Regards

 

 

Emma Wells

Director

Direct Dial: [119]+44 (0)20 3696 7583

Email: [120][email address]

 

 

 

From: lynda dixon [[121]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 13 May 2021 22:07
To: Emma Wells <[122][email address]>;
[123][email address];
[124][email address]; [125][email address];
Chris Woodhouse <[126][email address]>
Subject: Re: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re:
A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

This Message originated outside your organization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Wells

and ALL

[127][email address] 

[128][email address]     

[129][email address]     

[130][email address]     

 

I have now had to as you can see included into this email those
instructing you. Because it is them who need to see this purse disgraceful
conduct of yourselves at Brecher and for those instructing you to put an
immediate stop to it.

 

The below response you have had compiled is typical of you / Brecher, and
as made more than clear numerous time, takes matters nowhere, deals with
nothing, answers to nothing, and amounts to nothing but further wasteful
communications from you / brecher. Which will when and if the need arises
be placed before the courts in all inextricably linked matters, and
especially for and when it comes to costs and your clients having to pay
my costs and damages for all the time both you and they have wasted:

 

The lack of candor of you all it nothing but an utter disgrace that you
should all be absolutely and totally ashamed of.

 

For this final time so as you can see where you are for sure wrong,
underhanded, deceitful, and not least here in your below
further wasteful response. I respond here below in the body of the email
in red text, some of which highlighted yellow:

 

Thank you 

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Emma Wells <[131][email address]>
Sent: 13 May 2021 17:55
To: lynda dixon <[132][email address]>
Cc: Bryn Robertson <[133][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[134][email address]>
Subject: RE: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re:
A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

Ms Dixon

 

We have responded to all relevant queries you have raised.  The fact you
do not like the responses you have been provided with does not change that
fact.  Addressing your number queries in turn.

 

1.     This question is incoherent.  In any event I believe my colleague
Mr Robertson has already made our clients’ position in this respect clear
to you. The court of appeal will need to know by when it is going to be
provided. So please explain why you think the below where the question is
copied from is incoherent? When clearly it is not at all incoherent. In
fact it is a very straight forward question, and regardless of who has
to answer it, whether you alone of you after having as you have, obtained
the assistance of B Robertson to avoid having to answer it, just as he has
repeatedly avoided doing.

 

2.     I cannot advise you.  I suggest you seek independent legal advice.
You answer is nothing but further waste and quite childish to say
the least, especially given what is written there below in reply to you
first suggesting the same.

 

3.     Brecher has never “tampered” with any material presented to the
courts.  This allegation is without any merit whatsoever and refuted in
its entirety.  It is also defamatory.  We will not engage with you any
further on this allegation. You know you are wrong here because I have
already provided you as I have the courts (Both appeal and Lower) with the
proofs. I have as you are fully aware now realised that has been quite
common of Brechers and those instructing you i.e. to conduct their
affairs in an underhanded dirty, deceitful and tricks ways. Just as you
and those instructing you have since the outset back in August 2018. Not
least but first by having my home broken and entered into whilst I was
out. When yous were fully aware those instructing you had caused
the company L&ND to have breached the sales purchase agreement, when
handing the property back to me by refusing to pay me the £750 per month
rent and / or balance of sale amounts due to me to conclude the sale of
the part that was being sold to L&ND, and also then after having being
made aware I had moved back into the property. You / Brecher and /
or those instructing you had the property broke and entered into. Which
was after those instructing you had already colluded together with Amicus
Finance Plc and it officers to have created that fraudulent 28th August
2018 agreement (and alleged associated documents which I am yet to see as
per the agreement and it saying either I or my solicitors would be sent
those associated documents in relation to that what we now know to be
the fraudulent 28 August 2018 agreement) which you, your colleagues from
Brecher and those instructing you keep and continue to avoiding answering
to:

 

If what you say is correct and Brecher has never, Are you then saying the
signature in the PDFs of the demands and petitions (with supposed
identical as served demands included) attached to the email Thu 18/02/2021
22:48 that was also sent to you at the same time as the court of appeal
and the Carlisle County Court. Is not the "Signature
of  " the "individuals Name ANASTASIA HAMMOND" in "BLOCK LETTERS", who is,
is she not a colleague of yours at Brecher?

 

Have you now looked again at the beyond doubt comparison proofs that you
have already been provided with and re directed too, now repeatedly?

 

I suggest you do again, because it is there in black and white and with a
statement of truth coming from Brecher ANASTASIA HAMMOND in with that
tampered with demand. You cannot say I haven't now here again pointed you
to that tampering that I have with prior emails over the course of the
last few days alone, can you?.

 

4.     See answer to 4 This is 4 but all you are saying is "See answer to
4" Or do you mean something else?

 

5.     Your emails are incoherent so it is not “easy to see”.  The point
here is your failure to send correspondence and serve documents that you
send directly to Ms Iles and others, none of whom have any day to day
involvement in these proceedings, rather than to Brecher, being the
solicitors on the court record for the respondents. You have as have
others at Brechers been informed as have those CEO's and in house
solicitor Felicity Iles of those instructing you, whom I have now included
into this stream of emails so as they can see the purse waste of time and
moneys your are causing to go on, and so as they can then do
something about putting an immediate stop to it. Because I will not be
responsible or condoning of any of it, just as I expect the courts will
not.

 

The same goings on is exactly why they have on numerous occasions had to
be informed there will be no further correspondents with Brecher, because
as you have this si time around (which is clearly evident from even just
the below stream of emails) / they / Brecher are just wasting money, time
and life by not answering or providing all reightfuly requested and / or
asked, and therefore they (You and your colleagues from Brecher) are not
worthy of being communicated with so as to just allow them to waste
further time, life and moneys/ None of which theirs to be wasting. 

 

I will will not be responding to you any further on this line of
communication.  All of your questions have been addressed previously and
you appear to be deliberately seeking to obfuscate matter so as to run up
our clients’ costs. It is as made clear time and again you
and your colleagues from Brecher along with those who are instructing you
(the respondents) who are and have been for all of the time wasting time
money and life so as to run up the costs you, Brecher and those
instructing you have to date. All of which are disputed due to the way in
which you have all conducted yourselves and now by the looks of it with
further underhanded deceit to try and gain an advantage and win.
Further underhanded deceit which is not at all good for one's reputation
is it?  

 

As above, if you can not now see that tampering from those documents in
the PDFs included with the statements of truth of Brechers ANASTASIA
HAMMOND. Then please do let me know. Otherwise if you do not, I will
take it you have now checked again and seen that tampering first
hand for yourselfs.

 

Emma Wells

Director

Direct Dial: [135]+44 (0)20 3696 7583

Email: [136][email address]

 

 

 

From: lynda dixon [[137]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 13 May 2021 13:27
To: Emma Wells <[138][email address]>
Subject: Re: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re:
A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

This Message originated outside your organization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Wells

 

Once again due to your lack of acceptance of the facts and the fact that
neither those instructing you, you or your colleagues from Brecher have
still not dealt with answered or provided that requested and / or asked,
here we are with a further convoluted stream of emails that are “unwieldy
and oppressive communications”.  with a “situation that has spiralled
completely out of control.” due to not least the aforementioned facts
i.e. "that neither those instructing you, you or your colleagues from
Brecher have still not dealt with answered or provided that requested and
/ or asked"; 

 

The below you have responded with in red is the usual and nothing but the
usual waste that comes back from Brecher and also those instructing you.
It answers nothing, deals with nothing and takes matters nowhere forward.
Therefore you continue as you and those instructing you have for all of
the last almost three years, to waste time, life and money.

 

I can not simplify any more than they are and I should not have to when it
is perfectly clear with the questions being followed by the question
marks, such as: 

 1. "All of which is covered in detail within the letter before action and
short summary there to. Which is still to be adequately responded to
by those instructing you or Brecher on their behalf. Either / or a
full and proper response along with offering and / or option (Options
If more than one) so as to arrive at a settlement so as to bring all
matters between the parties to an end is required within seven
days. Therefore I do not see why a copy is not also provided to
those this email is cc copied to i.e. the court of appeal. Please can
you now confirm with a return of email that it will be within 7 days?"
 2. "If the court who are being misled is not the proper channel. As per
were you say in your below email: "If you wish to raise allegations to
the effect that we are misleading the court then you should do so
through the proper channels". Then I am not at all sure what is.
Please can you and this court let me know what the proper channel is.
At all times please, bearing in mind that I am a litigant in person
without means?"

3.      It is not me, but rather Brecher who has tampered with material
that they have then presented to the courts and therefore mislead the
courts even further. I am simply pointing that out to the court. What is
wrong with that? Perhaps you can answer that?:

 

4.      Or do you / Brecher expect me to allow those instructing you, you
and your colleges at Brecher to get away with it?

5.      Yet is is easy to see from the below copied from page [66] in the
attached PDF. Just as it is from those four emails I sent to the court of
appeal earlier today with you cc copied prior to this email and your below
response. That none of the above is being properly addressed if at
all responded to so as to ensure it is dealt with in accordance with
protocols, pre action, professional negligence or at all by Brechers on
behalf of those instructing you / Brecher LLP. When, if ever, is it going
to be?

I have also added by responding below with black bold highlighted yellow
text, and in addition asked a few further questions for you to answer.
Please can you now do that in addition to answering those repeated here
above?

 

Thank you

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Emma Wells <[139][email address]>
Sent: 13 May 2021 11:52
To: lynda dixon <[140][email address]>
Cc: Bryn Robertson <[141][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[142][email address]>
Subject: RE: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re:
A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

Ms Dixon

 

Please see answers below in red.

 

Regards

 

Emma Wells

Director

Direct Dial: [143]+44 (0)20 3696 7583

Email: [144][email address]

  

From: lynda dixon [[145]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 13 May 2021 11:19
To: Emma Wells <[146][email address]>
Subject: Re: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re:
A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

This Message originated outside your organization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Wells

 

Your below email is confusing and incorrect:

 

I have responded in the body of your email below.

 

I look forward to receiving that asked and requested in my below email
23:27 yesterday.  I have answered your questions below.  Your email of
23:27 is totally incoherent and I am unsure what it is you expect me to
respond to in that respect or provide you with Please confirm by return of
email that it will be provided to me and the courts within the 7 days. I
am responding to you now.  I am not sending this email to the court to do
so would be inappropriate. That will then hopefully allow matters to move
forward towards an amicable settlement of all matters which should have
taken place in August 2018 and would have had those instructing you not
breached the sale agreement and instead gone about seeing to what they
were made fully aware of needed seeing to in order to conclude, planning
for an additional 34 plots, with only 4 subject to affordable s106
agreement, securing of the access needed to implement any sales or
planning, and thereafter a sale of the assets 6 houses (5 new and 1 part
exchange), and a site with planning permission in place for 34 further
plots.  As you are very well aware this is not a true reflection of events
and my colleagues have already addressed this unfounded allegations at
length.

 

Should it not be then the courts will be updated re the same. That is your
prerogative.

 

Thank you

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Emma Wells <[147][email address]>
Sent: 13 May 2021 07:52
To: lynda dixon <[148][email address]>
Cc: Bryn Robertson <[149][email address]>; Anastasia Hammond
<[150][email address]>
Subject: RE: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re:
A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

Ms Dixon

 

How exactly is it you contend that your email of 18^th February effected
service of the grounds of appeal? 

 

Don’t know what you are meaning by this above, please explain? The Court
of Appeal required you to serve your amended grounds of appeal on the
Respondents.  The appeal I am talking about is the appeal of Mr Justice
Johnson’s Court order made following the hearing on 30 November 2020 (a
copy of that order is attached).  As you have been repeatedly informed by
the Court of Appeal you are only able to appeal the judge’s refusal to
adjourn the hearing and the order he made for costs.  The Court of Appeal
has no jurisdiction in relation to other aspects of the order. On 12 March
the Court of Appeal gave you permission to amend your grounds for appeal
and ordered you to serve them on the respondents.  I am the solicitor on
the record for the respondents and you must serve those  amended grounds
on me.  Before yesterday I have no record of you having sent the amended
grounds of appeal to me.  That is all I am asking you to do and all the
Court of Appeal asked you to do.  If you think you have done so already
then please point me in that direction and I will correct my mistake with
the court.  Everything else is of no relevance.  Your lengthy response
over several emails indicated you had served the amended grounds of appeal
in your email of 18 February, however your email of 18 February doesn’t do
that.

 

If you read the four emails of yesterday in the order they were sent. Then
I am sure along with 13 March 2021 19:13 email referred to within those
emails, and now also for simplicity, the below copied that was said by
Felicity Iles who is as you are fully aware, the in house solicitor of the
respondents instructing you. Who says this I have now once again copied
here from the below email Sent: 12 May 2021 23:27, says it all. The
respondents have as the court of appeal is fully aware, been served, and
those grounds as amended are clear in relation to what is being appealed
and why. If they are not clear to you, then please let me know where and
why they are not?

 

Copied with bold and underline emphasis added from part of that email 13
March 2021 19:13 which is also an email in the stream of the email from
your colleague at Brecher that he Sent: 12 April 2021 11:28;

 

"Please see attached grounds (as amended) by way of service, and sealed
order. Any problems and / or if you will not accept service by email this
time around, please say so and why not if this time it is different to
what other times have been when you have accepted by email. 

 

As you will see I have cc copied the court of appeal so as they are aware
the grounds (as amended) have been served. 

 

I can now confirm I have also received your attached 04/03/2021 very
belated (by over 4 months) letter in response to my letter before claim
dated 03/11/2020. 

 

However, as can be seen from the attached. Your 04/03/2021 letter answers
nothing at all in relation to the attached short summary and along with
the letter before claim in which (either alone or both together) the
numerous wrongs causation of the claim in not least breach, negligence and
numerous options that were open and available to you (officers and in
house solicitors Felicity Iles) Tilney Smith and Williamson and your
appointed administrator Nicholas Myers were very clearly set out.
Therefore, there is no reason at all for you not having answered in detail
and in full to the same within your bleated letter in response; "

 

Re copied here from the below email Sent: 12 May 2021 23:27:

 

"PDF page [59] "You have stated that you will continue to write to senior
management at Tilney Smith & Williamson. These emails are being sent
through to Mr Myers and Brecher LLP as the appropriate respondents to the
matters within the case. The administrators are being advised on their
conduct and decisions by the solicitors. Therefore I am unable to comment
on the details set out in your email of 17 January 2021 but this has been
passed to the administrators and their solicitors for response."

PDF page [60] "I repeat that all future correspondence received will be
passed to Mr Myers and Brecher LLP.""

 

 

In any event the problem is your emails and all correspondence from you
are totally incoherent and confuse matters.

 

They are far from it. The confusion is caused and thereafter exasperated
by those instructing you (and since you and Brechers avoidance in
answering and providing that requested) not having dealt with what was
made known to them at the outset and ever since thereafter due to them not
responding and / or providing what has repeated with the majority been
asked of them, you and Brecher in the first instance. Had any of you done
so there would have been one tenth the material and correspondents between
the parties, and an amicable resolve arrived at well over two years ago.
If not in fact when it should have been August 2018.  With respect I do
not agree.  Your emails are lengthy, incoherent and extremely difficult to
read or understand. The Court of Appeal has also criticised you for this.
I think you will find the criticism is as a direct of those instructing
you, you and Brecher not answering or providing that requested. Hence the
likes of what this further stream of emails has now become.

 

Whilst you seek to blame myself and my colleagues for that I don’t see how
that can be the case. 

 

It is a fact, please read the emails and attachments and understand the
attachments, and anything you do not understand ask so as it can be made
clear. The number of repeated request that have had to have been made make
that more than clear. All those instructing you, you and Brechers have
sought to do for the whole of the time is avoid having to face the facts,
answer to the facts and provide the facts by way of what has repeatedly
been requested from the outset in August 2018. Had it been from the outset
in August 2018 all would have been as above amicably resolved. But it was
not and those instructing you breached the sales purchase agreement
between the company and me and every since tried to cover that up along
with all other of their negligence and / or down right incompetence. This
is not the case but given it is of no relevance to these proceedings I am
not going to address this any further.  You have been informed of our
clients’ position on this on occasions too numerous to mention. Again here
are all of the problems those instructing you and you / Brechers are
causing by not answering or dealing with the issues that there were and
still are which are proven by facts and emails right from the beginning in
August 2018. Now ever since by and due simply to those instructing you and
since you / Brecher not addressing the facts. Then because of all that,
matters have not moved forward. Which they should have done and would have
done in August 2018 had those instructing you taken not and seen to what
was in need of being seen to then by them for them to secure, protect and
realise the assets of the company. Are you / Brechers and
those instructing you now going to try and move matters forward with a
view to arriving at an amicable resolve?

 

You also continue to make completely unwarranted allegations against us
and our clients, 

 

The facts which I have pointed you to are just that facts, not allegations
unwarranted or otherwise but actual facts you would see if you took the
time to see and understand. Which I fully suspect you do but none of of
your want to admit.  Not a question.

 

despite being asked on numerous occasions to refrain from doing so.  

 

I will refrain once those instructing you, you /Brecher come clean and
admit answer and provide what has been made known and asked of you all.
Not a question.

 

I will not engage in further meaningless correspondence about this with
you.

 

There are all of your problems, instead of dealing with answering and
providing that asked of those instructing you, you and your collueges at
Brecher you respond as you have, with meaningless emails that deal with
nothing and move nothing forward.That is how it has been since the outset
in August 2018 with all of you including those instructing you, you and
all others from Brecher. Not a question.

 It only serves to run up costs which are ultimately to your detriment as
you have been told by both ourselves and the court on numerous occasions.

 

The above is answered above and speaks for itself, as did the one
instructing you. Which can be heard in the voice recording of the meeting
he had with my ex husband in around August 2019 in their London office.
Not a question.

 

I suggest you instruct a solicitor because at least then we might be able
understand your position.

 

 Here is further proof you do not read emails because as you would have
seen, litigant in person without means in my prior emails. Whom is being
taken advantage of by those instructing you, you / Brecher. Not a
question.

 

Please can you now as a start answer and provide that asked and requested
in the below email I Cc copied to the courts of appeal.  No idea what it
is you’re asking for – your email below is incoherent. I have made
this easy for you by copying above and highlighting yellow the
questions that are actually followed by the question marks. Please can you
now answer them? 

 

If not then please can you say why you are not going to so as I can make
the same known to the courts?  No idea what it is you’re asking for – your
email below is incoherent. As above

 

 

Emma Wells

Director

Direct Dial: [151]+44 (0)20 3696 7583

Email: [152][email address]

 

From: lynda dixon [[153]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 12 May 2021 23:27
To: Emma Wells <[154][email address]>
Cc: Civil Appeals - CMSA <[155][email address]>; lynda
dixon <[156][email address]>
Subject: Email 5 of 5 Today 12-05-21 - Re: Email 1 of 4: Re: A3/2020/0023
( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always
exercise caution when opening files.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Message originated outside your organization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms Wells

Cc Court of Appeal

 

Thank you for your below email;

As proof of why you are incorrect and are misleading this court even more.
All I need do and do here is little more than point you and this court to
the below (copied from further below which I have added into the body of
your email) red text at Point 2, and Point 1:

 

To the email that had within it that which I have copied and pasted here
below Point 1. From an email that you were cc copied into when it was sent
to this court on the 18 February 2021 at 22:48:

 

Please will you now by return of email to me and this court of
appeal accept for this court of appeal that Brecher have mislead the
courts with that made clear in the email of that date 18 February 2021
22:48, which you were cc copied into along with the attachments in proof
of the same tampering by those whom it could have only been Brechers as
issuers of the demands and petitions. Therefore you Emma Wells ARE fully
aware. Brechers have and now you are again further misleading the
courts. Yet you still wish to try with your below email to mislead this
court of appeal even further. For those reasons alone all of these matters
brought about by those instructing you can be and should be struck out by
the courts of the courts own volition;

 

Point 1: 

Copied from part of the email to all including this court of appeal, the
lower court Carlisle and you yourself Emma Wells:

"From: Richard [[157]mailto:[email address]]

Sent: 18 February 2021 22:48
To: 'Civil Appeals - CMSA'
Cc: [158][email address]; 'Emma Wells';
[159][email address]
Subject: RE: A3/2021/0023 and 0024 - Myers and anr v Dixon and ors "

"Please Note: 

There is no disrespect intended; 

 

But please take note there is a huge amount of stress and duress as a
result of all of the erring and errors in this / these matters. That are
now being compounded by way of and due to the lack of response from the
Carlisle County Court, and erring on the part of the Carlisle County court
and others. Who are now causing the Dixon family even more distress and
suffering, and through no fault at all of their own, but that of the
claimants and the judiciary. And; 

 

We have a question for the judiciary. Is it acceptable for the petitioners
or the petitioner’s solicitors to amend documents and then file them with
the court as the original, without making it known to anybody that they
are different to when they serve them? 

Just as they have with the 8^th December 2020 dated demand. Said in
statements of truth “Verification OF the petition” to have been served
upon Mr N Dixon. 

 

The same can be seen from the two version attached. One alone, which was
sent back by Ms Dixon due to it having been put through the letter box of
the wrong address, and the supposed same within the petition documents
filed with the court and served. Albeit changed to reflect the debtor as
being the Third defendant. As opposed to what is showing First defendant,
in the demand of the same date 8 December 2020 that was put through the
letter box at the wrong address. 

 

After which the petitioners / petitioner’s solicitors have filed that with
the courts as the demand issued, along with statements of truth and
“Verification OF the petition”. When it has been before then, altered by
the petitioners / petitioner’s solicitors so as to show different to the
court. There is more on this below, with the comparisons attached; 

 

Surely it cannot be. One rule for one and another for another, Can it?
i.e. Us. Because if that was us tampering with documents, then they
claimants / petitioners / petitioners solicitors would be all over us with
accusations of lying to the judiciary and perverting the course of
justice.

 

Dear Mrs Ahmed 

 

I have copied this email to Ms Lynda Dixon who I expect will wish to relay
and / or refer you to the same, and also due to the above below written to
to with altering documents, the Carlisle County Court, and; 

To Ms Emma Wells."

 

Point 2: 

I have copied this here red text from the below that I have added into the
body of your email:

"Please see that I have copied above from within the attached PDF of
emails named "JUST SOME Emails with respondents in house solicitors
Felicity Isles"" None of the individuals that you emailed are the
Respondents nor do they have day to day conduct of the proceedings.  The
email exchange with Mr Robertson of this firm relates to a separate
matter. "Again you are misleading the court because the exchanges with
anybody at Brecher relates entirely to and encapsulates the whole of
proceedings between the parties, not least because it is those who are
instructing you who are appointed as administrators
and alleged LPA receivers and who are to be held liable by either
a separate claim or counter claim for all the losses costs
and expenses and loss of opportunity as a direct consequence of not only
and not least their negligence and lack of cooperation in seeing to all
that they were made fully aware of was in need of being seen to at the
very outset of their appointment. All of which is covered in detail within
the letter before action and short summary there to. Which is still to
be adequately responded to by those instructing you or Brecher on their
behalf. Either / or a full and proper response along with offering and /
or option (Options If more than one) so as to arrive at a settlement so as
to bring all matters between the parties to an end is required within
seven days. Therefore I do not see why a copy is not also provided to
those this email is cc copied to i.e. the court of appeal. Please can you
now confirm with a return of email that it will be within 7 days?"

 

Further: For the avoidance of doubt to show that those instructing you or
Brecher on their behalf have still not as they had not then adhered to
what you say relates to another matter when all matters are as a
consequence of not least those instructing you's negligence,
failures and  / or incompetence. See Para 15 in the attached here PDF
named "Forms 6.19 Dixon-Myers Stephens v2 for v5 exhbits" at PDF page 6 of
9 which was one of two PDF attachments attached to the email sent to
Carlisle County Court at the same time as Cc copied to Brecher on Thu
18/02/2021 10:56. Hence the above a further 7 days to provide the fully
and proper response as is required by the professional negligence protocol
to a letter before claim which was sent along with the short summary for
that response we are still awaiting to receive from those instructing you,
or Brecher on their behalf, with offers included so as to try and bring
all of these matters to an amicable resolve ending. In doing so saving the
court time, waste of life and money and not least waste of costs that are
being allowed by you / Brecher and those instructing you to be wasted in
these numerous inextricably linked matters:

 

"15. [225] On the 10/11/20 the respondents / petitioners making demand
acknowledged the letter before action / claim [87-127], but to date
despite their letter saying the below. They have not adhered to the
Pre-Action Protocol For Professional Negligence protocol and therefore the
demand and petition should be and can be of the courts powers be set aside
stayed;"

 

Please desist from further misleading this courts which is nothing but
what you are doing further with that you have said / written in your below
email 12 May 2021 15:45:

 

In proof of that for this court of appeal, the Lords and Lady Justices. I
have listed up above the date of an email 18 February 2021 at 22:48
that they and you must have to re visit for the proof, and in addition I
have attached here for ease a few streams of emails printed into a PDF
named "JUST SOME Emails with respondents in house solicitors Felicity
Isles" so as to further show that which you have said in your below email
is incorrect, which I have expanded upon within the body of your below
email in red text and copied the same up above below Point 2.

 

The two further PDF'S 1) One of which includes at least one of three
Demand as allegedly served being returned to Brechers, and 2) the
alleged same demand by way of a sworn affidavit / statement as being the
same true copy demand being included as the original served which it is
stated to be in the statement of truth. As a true copy of the original
within a further PDF that is attached to the email to this court that was
cc copied to you and had that copied above below Point 1 at the
beginning of that email dated 18 February 2021 at 22:48:

 

Which you are fully aware of, as are this court and the lower Carlisle
County Court.

 

You will obviously have now seen for yourself and would have prior to your
below email further misleading this court, if you had looked first before
writing further misleading emails, which are clearly to the contrary of
the true facts and that you have entirely refuted in with your below
email. Very easily to be seen from demands and demand within the
petitions. Let alone all other papers you, your collages at Brecher LLP
and those instructing you have been provided with and / or asked to answer
to, and even from those emails attached here in a PDF for ease of pointing
out which page numbers in the PDF that the below copied can be seen at in
those emails from those instructing you, in particular their in house
solicitor Felicity Iles:

 

If the court who are being misled is not the proper channel. As per were
you say in your below email: "If you wish to raise allegations to the
effect that we are misleading the court then you should do so through the
proper channels". Then I am not at all sure what is. Please can you and
this court let me know what the proper channel is. At all times please,
bearing in mind that I am a litigant in person without means?

 

It It is no wonder Lady Justice Carr had cause to say around 15 February
2021 14:57 that the material seen was "unwieldy and oppressive
communications." and that "The situation has spiralled completely out of
control.". This stream of emails is only now adding to that. But what
otherwise am I to do in order to correct your wrongful misleading of
this court, and in order to obtain what has now been repeatedly having to
be requested from those instructing you and you and others at Brecher, but
which is still to no avail because of the vast majority still not having
been answered or provided. How else otherwise am I to make known to the
court and ensure the court are able to see what and how many times all
that still to be answered and / or provided have been asked for yet still
not answered or provided. Without which there is obviously no way of
narrowing the issues or bring to a settlement any of the dispute. All the
whiles you / Brechers and those instructing you are casung to be wasted
life, vasts sums of moneys and Huge amounts on costs that you / Brecher
and those instructing you are unnecessarily trying to charge for. When
cleary if you / Brechers or those instructing you had gone about their
duties correctly in the best interest of the creditors as a whole, and /
or even answered and provided all asked and / or requested over the last
two and a half years. Then there would have been no need at all for all of
the waste that has and is still being allowed to continue
by those instructing you, you and others from Brecher LLP. 

 

It is to say the very least uncalled for and unfair for you to try and
portray me to the court as the wrongdoer, or the one here who is not
acting in the correct manner:

The repeated requests and that asked, that I and others who have tried to
assist me have had to make and ask over the last almost three years since
the negligence of those instructing you first came to light, as it did in
August 2018, and still to no avail. Is quite a disgrace, and all due to
neither those instructing you (the respondents) or you, or your colleges
from Brecher answering or providing. 

 

I am as you are fully aware a litigant in person with no means, no legal
knowledge and whom has been and is being taken full advantage of by you /
Brecher and those instructing you. All due to none of you dealing with
anything, including the below / attached at all. Or if they have for any,
it has not been until after numerous (and I mean dozens) of repetitive
emails having to be sent, and that are still having to be sent so as to
correct your either ignorance of the facts, or misleading of others. Or
have had to be repeatedly sent by me (and others who have tried to assist
me), in order to have your clients, you or your colleges from Brecher
respond. Let alone adhere to what is being asked or requested of / from
them, you / Brecher to be provided to me / us (those who have been
assisting me from time to time), and still, neither those instructing you
/ Brecher, you or any other from Brecher have:

 

Hence the emails still having to be sent to those instructing you's in
house solicitor Felicity Iles and CEO's to try and get what is in need of
being dealt with dealt with. So as to at least try and narrow the issues
and have both the courts and your clients see and more so accept your
clients and your (Brechers) wrongs. Which have together been the whole of
the waste of all the time, money and life that there has been to date
wasted since those instructing you were appointed way back in August
2018. 

 

It is not me, but rather Brecher who has tampered with material that they
have then presented to the courts and therefore mislead the courts even
further. I am simply pointing that out to the court. What is wrong with
that? Perhaps you can answer that?:

 

Or do you / Brecher expect me to allow those instructing you, you and your
colleges at Brecher to get away with it?

 

I do know this. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it had been me who
had been in collusion with another (as those instructing you have been
with Amicus Finance Plc, its officers and potentially administrators
Begbies Traynor), tampering with material and evidence, and for examples
for the courts to see;

 1. That which those instructing you have when they have colluded together
with Amicus Finance Plc to have created and executed a further loan
agreement dated 28th August 2018. Which those instructing you have
then executed as administrators, so as to have entered both me and my
company into it without my knowledge or consent and in doing so they
have colluded with Amicus Finance Plc to have included in and for
that 28th August 2018 agreement, (1) Me as an alleged guarantor, when
it says no Guarantee was applicable, NA, (2) My home No61 Scotby Road
as a property forming part of the security when it did not and does
not since August 2017, and (3) Me as allegedly having given a third
party legal mortgage for that 28th August 2018 agreement specifically.
When neither of the latter or even the guarantee after the meeting in
May 2018 with Keith Aldridge (founder and director) of Amicus Finance
Plc and Ben Jackson of Amicus Finance Plc were applicable, or included
in the prior August 2017 agreement:
 2. The demand/s (and without checking I am not sure if it is 1, 2 or all
three) you / Brecher now have showing different (after having been
tampered with / changed by Brecher)  in with the petitions to those
original demands alleged to have been served. That you / Brecher have
now included along with sworn statements of truth as to them being
true copies of the original. That are alleged to have been served as
the demand/s:

Then, as above, if the shoe was on the other foot. You / Brecher and those
instructing you would be asking the court to hold me in contempt of court
or something like that for misleading the courts. Just as you / Brecher
and those instructing you are and have been misleading the courts. Yet you
are all still refusing to answer to that having been put to your all,
including the in-house solicitors for those instructing you Felicity Iles.
Who as can be seen below, in amongst that I have copied from within the
attached streams of emails (printed for ease into a PDF for page number
purposes) has conduct of these matters, and who executed the above
fraudulent instrument dated 28th August 2018 as witness to Nicholas Myers
signing that fraudulent loan agreement that was entered into by those
instructing you without my knowledge or consent, which would not have been
given;

 

Just as I am further here. I am one again having to yet again repeat
myself. Just as I have found myself having to do time and again to all,
including those instructing you, you and your colleges at Brecher to try
and get either / or to deal with matters, but which none of you have or
are. Hence the hundreds of emails (many of which having to be repeated
dozens of times) that have now had to be sent repeatedly to have those
instructing you, you and others at Berchers provide what it is being
requested, and the answer to what it is that is having to be asked of your
all repeatedly, but still to no avail. That includes an dozens of repeated
requests for an adequate reply to the letter before action and short
summary thereto, which neither you, anybody else from Brecher or those
instructing you have done. Which is very easily seen from the attached
steams of emails that I have for ease printed into that attached PDF so as
I can point the court of appeal and whomever else needed to where this
here below copied can be seen said by those instructing you. In particular
Felicity Isles who is as you are fully aware the in-house solicitors for
the respondents:

 

See the below at those below PDF page number within the attached PDF named
"JUST SOME Emails with respondents in house solicitors Felicity Isles":

All of the below is what has been relayed to us by Felicity Iles as in
house solicitors for the respondents, much of which more
than just contradictory of your below email;

 

PDF page [5] "We would therefore ask that you direct your correspondence
solely to Smith & Williamson.":

PDF page [5] "This was confirmed by the administrators’ legal advisers,
Brecher LLP, on 11 September 2019 who also confirmed they would not be
engaging with you further in relation to this matter." 

PDF page [1] "Further, having reviewed the administrators’ conduct in this
matter, it is our position that any further communications on
the administration and hearings should properly be directed to the
solicitors acting on the matter, Brecher LLP."

 

Which is somewhat contradictory of the above and even more so the below.

 

PDF page [7] "Any emails to Mr Cobb or any of the senior management of
Smith & Williamson or Tilney on this matter are being passed to me for
response in line with our procedures."

PDF page [59] "I refer to your emails to my senior management regarding
your complaint and claims against the administrators and against Smith &
Williamson LLP. As a solicitor at Smith & Williamson, one of my roles is
to examine complaints made against the firm In your email of 7 January
2021, you state that the actions of Mr Myers have been inappropriate and
negligent and request that Tilney Smith & Williamson intervene to resolve
the matter."

PDF page [59] "You have stated that you will continue to write to senior
management at Tilney Smith & Williamson. These emails are being sent
through to Mr Myers and Brecher LLP as the appropriate respondents to the
matters within the case. The administrators are being advised on their
conduct and decisions by the solicitors. Therefore I am unable to comment
on the details set out in your email of 17 January 2021 but this has been
passed to the administrators and their solicitors for response."

PDF page [60] "I repeat that all future correspondence received will be
passed to Mr Myers and Brecher LLP."

 

Yet is is easy to see from the below copied from page [66] in the attached
PDF. Just as it is from those four emails I sent to the court of
appeal earlier today with you cc copied prior to this email and your below
response. That none of the above is being properly addressed if at
all responded to so as to ensure it is dealt with in accordance with
protocols, pre action, professional negligence or at all by Brechers on
behalf of those instructing you / Brecher LLP. When, if ever, is it going
to be?

 

PDF page [66] "Email 13 of 13 - SAVE AS TO COSTS - Further REPEAT email
for answering to following the Directions of Lady Justice Carr Dear All
CEO's and Officers (below listed) of Tilney Smith and Williamson (as
Administrator from), and in house solicitor Felicity Iles:

[160][email address]

[161][email address]

[162][email address]

[163][email address]

[164][email address]

Smith and Williamson are the Administrators and wrongfully appointed LPA
receivers, and that requested and asked for is all available and in the
possession of the you all, or at least should be

available to you all, and therefore all should have been answered and
provided by you in your roles as administrators and alleged LPA receivers.

All of that which has been asked for. Is the minimalist and simplest of
your tasks and therefore there was and is no need for you to involve
solicitors at huge cost detriment to the creditors as a

whole:

I am not accepting any unnecessary (which they all have been and are to
date), costs for solicitors as a consequence of you not having dealt with
all matters prior when you should have when first asked.

The only reason we are where we are still, and now after over 30 months of
you being in office. Is as a direct result of that requested not being
provided when it was first requested, and the answers to that asked not
being provided when first asked, and your firms appointed administrators,
LPA receivers to say the least negligence, deliberate concealing,
incompetence and mal administration.

Therefore these repeated and forwarded emails (and which are just those
few of late), have been sent direct to you all as CEO's and Officers of
Tilney Smith and Williamson and in house solicitor Felicity Iles so as to
prevent and avoid any legal costs being further incurred to the great
detriment of the creditors.

The number of emails sent have only had to be sent / re send and / or
forwarded due to them not having been answered and / or that requested
provided in the first place when original asked for and / or requested."

 

I now look forward to you answering that above and you confirming to me
and this court that you are wrong and that the court is and has been
mislead by Brecher and now further misled by your below email.

 

Thank You

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: Emma Wells <[165][email address]>
Sent: 12 May 2021 15:45
To: lynda dixon <[166][email address]>; Civil Appeals - CMSA
<[167][email address]>
Subject: RE: Email 1 of 4: Re: A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A)
DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

Dear Ms Dixon

 

Thank you for sending through the 4 emails.  The commentary in your
covering emails to the court is misleading and inappropriate and entirely
refuted.  If you wish to raise allegations to the effect that we are
misleading the court then you should do so through the proper channels; I
suggest, once again, that you seek independent legal advice.  For what it
is worth, however, the emails you have forwarded were sent to individuals
at Smith and Williamson and Tilney.  As you have been told on countless
occasions all documents and correspondence in relation to these
proceedings should be served on Brecher, the solicitors on the record for
the respondents, to ensure they are received and dealt with. Please see
that I have copied above from within the attached PDF of emails named
"JUST SOME Emails with respondents in house solicitors Felicity Isles"
None of the individuals that you emailed are the Respondents nor do they
have day to day conduct of the proceedings.  The email exchange with Mr
Robertson of this firm relates to a separate matter. "Again you are
misleading the court because the exchanges with anybody at Brecher
relates entirely to and encapsulates the whole of proceedings between the
parties, not least because it is those who are instructing you who are
appointed as administrators and alleged LPA receivers and who are to be
held liable by either a separate claim or counter claim for all the losses
costs and expenses and loss of opportunity as a direct consequence of not
only and not least their negligence and lack of cooperation in seeing to
all that they were made fully aware of was in need of being seen to at the
very outset of their appointment. All of which is covered in detail within
the letter before action and short summary there to. Which is still to
be adequately responded to by those instructing you or Brecher on their
behalf. Either / or a full and proper response along with offering and /
or option (Options If more than one) so as to arrive at a settlement so as
to bring all matters between the parties to an end is required within
seven days. Therefore I do not see why a copy is not also provided
to those this email is cc copied to i.e. the court of appeal. Please can
you now confirm with a return of email that it will be within 7 days?"

 

Emma Wells

Director

Direct Dial: [168]+44 (0)20 3696 7583

Email: [169][email address]

 

From: lynda dixon [[170]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 12 May 2021 14:49
To: Civil Appeals - CMSA <[171][email address]>
Cc: Emma Wells <[172][email address]>
Subject: Email 1 of 4: Re: A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v
MYERS (c407/365)

 

This Message originated outside your organization.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email 1 of 4: Re: A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS
(c407/365)

 

Dear Sirs

 

Thank you for your update email.

Please may I be provided with the email from the respondent 11 May 2021
because I was not sent or included into that email by the respondents?

 

I am going to with three further email streams (with Email 2, 3 and 4 of 4
as the subject) provide to you, the court of appeal two emails to show the
respondents have been provided with what they are saying to the court of
appeal they have not (ground as amended) and also one further stream to
show that they have still not adhered to the professional negligence
protocol with an adequate response to the letter before action with short
summary that has been repeatedly requested of them, yet still awaited so
as it can also be provided to the court of appeal for them to take into
account.

 

Thank You

Lynda Dixon

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Civil Appeals - CMSA <[173][email address]>
Sent: 12 May 2021 13:27
To: '[email address]' <[174][email address]>
Cc: '[email address]' <[175][email address]>
Subject: A3/2020/0023 ( C) AND a3/2021/0024 (A) DIXON v MYERS (c407/365)

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I write further to the above case references and the email received from
the Respondent dated 11 May 2021, which was referred to the case lawyer
who has made the following directions;

 

"The office has been advised that the Respondent has not been served with
the Appellant's amended grounds of appeal. The Appellant must serve the
amended grounds of appeal within 3 working days.

 

In terms of the status of these permission applications, we are awaiting
the transcript of judgment in respect to the decision of Mr Justice
Johnson dated 30 November 2021, which we understand is currently with the
Judge for approval. The office will chase the clerk to Mr Justice Johnson
for an update."

 

Kind regards,

 

Mrs R Persad

Case Progression Manager

Civil Appeals Office

Rm. E328

 

Royal Courts of Justice|Strand|London|WC2A 2LL|DX 44456

 

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:
[176]https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...

 

This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / Blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

 

 

[177]Image removed by sender. ImageTop

 

4th Floor, 64 North Row, Mayfair, London, W1K 7DA
Switchboard: [178]020 7563 1000
DX: 42701 Oxford Circus North
Web: [179]www.brecher.co.uk

!...{...}..!..!.

 

We are currently conducting meetings with clients and third parties using
various video conferencing platforms. Whilst every effort is made to
ensure that these meetings are secure we cannot guarantee the security of
these platforms or the privacy of information disclosed during such
meetings. By participating in a meeting with us via video conferencing you
are accepting that the meeting may not be secure and that Brecher LLP
accepts no liability for any breach of security or resulting disclosure of
private and/or confidential information as a result of such breach.

Please send any correspondence to Brecher electronically, if possible, as
our postal services may be disrupted due to Coronavirus. Thank you.

The contents of this email and any attachment are strictly confidential.
They may not be disclosed to someone who is not a named or authorised
recipient. They may also be subject to legal professional privilege and
unauthorised disclosure, copying or use is prohibited. If you receive this
e-mail in error please notify the sender by replying using the words
Misdirected E-mail in the subject, and then delete the message and any
attachments from your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments
have been scanned for viruses, the success of scanning products is not
guaranteed. The recipient(s) should therefore carry out any checks that
they believe to be appropriate in this respect. In view of the provisions
of the Human Rights Act 1998 Brecher LLP does not monitor all outgoing
e-mails from the firm. Brecher LLP accepts no liability for the contents
of e-mails unconnected with the affairs of the firm or its clients.

Cybercrime Alert: Bank Details
There is a significant risk posed by cyber fraud, particularly affecting
email accounts and bank account details. Please note that our bank account
details will not change during the course of a transaction and we will not
change our bank details via email. Please check bank account details with
us in person if in any doubt. We will not accept responsibility if you
transfer money into an incorrect account.

Brecher LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and
Wales with number OC372975. It is authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority and is subject to the Solicitors’ Code of
Conduct which can be accessed at [180]www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct page.
The word “partner” used in relation to Brecher LLP refers to a member of
the LLP or to an employee of the LLP of equivalent standing and
qualifications. A list of members and non-members designated as partners
is open to inspection at the firm’s registered office: 4th Floor, 64 North
Row, London W1K 7DA.

 

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/tel:+44%20(0)1908%20546%20298
2. mailto:[email address]
3. ICAEW
http://icaew.com/
4. ICAEW Linkedin Page
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=51468
5. ICAEW Twitter Page
http://www.twitter.com/icaew
6. ICAEW Facebook Page
http://www.facebook.com/icaew
7. https://bit.ly/3p8aEnY
8. mailto:[email address]
9. mailto:[email address]
10. mailto:[email address]
11. mailto:[email address]
12. mailto:[email address]
13. mailto:[email address]
14. mailto:[email address]
15. mailto:[email address]
16. mailto:[email address]
17. mailto:[email address]
18. mailto:[email address]
19. mailto:[email address]
20. mailto:[email address]
21. mailto:[email address]
22. mailto:[email address]
23. mailto:[email address]
24. mailto:[email address]
25. mailto:[email address]
26. mailto:[email address]
27. mailto:[email address]
28. mailto:[email address]
29. mailto:[email address]
30. mailto:[email address]
31. mailto:[email address]
32. mailto:[email address]
33. mailto:[email address]
34. mailto:[email address]
35. mailto:[email address]
36. mailto:[email address]
37. mailto:[email address]
38. mailto:[email address]
39. mailto:[email address]
40. mailto:[email address]
41. mailto:[email address]
42. mailto:[email address]
43. mailto:[email address]
44. mailto:[email address]
45. mailto:[email address]
46. mailto:[email address]
47. mailto:[email address]
48. mailto:[email address]
49. mailto:[email address]
50. mailto:[email address]
51. mailto:[email address]
52. mailto:[email address]
53. mailto:[email address]
54. mailto:[email address]
55. mailto:[email address]
56. mailto:[email address]
57. mailto:[email address]
58. file:///tmp/tel:02071314565
59. mailto:[email address]
60. https://tsandw.com/
61. file:///tmp/tel:08741768
62. http://www.tsandw.com/compliance/registe...
63. http://www.tsandw.com/compliance/email-t...
64. mailto:[email address]%20target=
65. mailto:[email address]
66. mailto:[email address]
67. mailto:[email address]
68. mailto:[email address]
69. mailto:[email address]
70. mailto:[email address]
71. file:///tmp/tel:+44%2020%207%20306%200306
72. mailto:[email address]
73. mailto:[email address]
74. mailto:[email address]
75. mailto:[email address]
76. mailto:[email address]
77. mailto:[email address]
78. mailto:[email address]
79. mailto:[email address]
80. mailto:[email address]
81. mailto:[email address]
82. mailto:[email address]
83. mailto:[email address]
84. mailto:[email address]
85. mailto:[email address]
86. mailto:[email address]
87. mailto:[email address]
88. mailto:[email address]
89. mailto:[email address]
90. mailto:[email address]
91. mailto:[email address]
92. mailto:[email address]
93. mailto:[email address]
94. mailto:[email address]
95. mailto:[email address]
96. file:///tmp/tel:+44%2020%203696%207583
97. mailto:[email address]
98. mailto:[email address]
99. mailto:[email address]
100. mailto:[email address]
101. mailto:[email address]
102. mailto:[email address]
103. mailto:[email address]
104. mailto:[email address]
105. mailto:[email address]
106. mailto:[email address]
107. mailto:[email address]
108. mailto:[email address]
109. mailto:[email address]
110. mailto:[email address]
111. mailto:[email address]
112. mailto:[email address]
113. mailto:[email address]
114. mailto:[email address]
115. mailto:[email address]
116. mailto:[email address]
117. mailto:[email address]
118. mailto:[email address]
119. file:///tmp/tel:+44%2020%203696%207583
120. mailto:[email address]
121. mailto:[email address]
122. mailto:[email address]
123. mailto:[email address]
124. mailto:[email address]
125. mailto:[email address]
126. mailto:[email address]
127. mailto:[email address]
128. mailto:[email address]
129. mailto:[email address]
130. mailto:[email address]
131. mailto:[email address]
132. mailto:[email address]
133. mailto:[email address]
134. mailto:[email address]
135. file:///tmp/tel:+44%2020%203696%207583
136. mailto:[email address]
137. mailto:[email address]
138. mailto:[email address]
139. mailto:[email address]
140. mailto:[email address]
141. mailto:[email address]
142. mailto:[email address]
143. file:///tmp/tel:+44%2020%203696%207583
144. mailto:[email address]
145. mailto:[email address]
146. mailto:[email address]
147. mailto:[email address]
148. mailto:[email address]
149. mailto:[email address]
150. mailto:[email address]
151. file:///tmp/tel:+44%2020%203696%207583
152. mailto:[email address]
153. mailto:[email address]
154. mailto:[email address]
155. mailto:[email address]
156. mailto:[email address]
157. mailto:[email address]
158. mailto:[email address]
159. mailto:[email address]
160. mailto:[email address]
161. mailto:[email address]
162. mailto:[email address]
163. mailto:[email address]
164. mailto:[email address]
165. mailto:[email address]
166. mailto:[email address]
167. mailto:[email address]
168. file:///tmp/tel:+44%2020%203696%207583
169. mailto:[email address]
170. mailto:[email address]
171. mailto:[email address]
172. mailto:[email address]
173. mailto:[email address]
174. mailto:[email address]
175. mailto:[email address]
176. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
178. file:///tmp/tel:020%207563%201000
179. http://www.brecher.co.uk/
180. http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct

8 Atodiad

  • Attachment

    R Dixon T1 Amicus 05.07.21.pdf

    593K Download View as HTML

  • Attachment

    Re L N D Development And Design Limited In Administration C407 365.html

    355K Download

  • Attachment

    Re L N D Development And Design Limited In Administration C407 365.png

    0K Download

  • Attachment

    Re L N D Development And Design Limited In Administration C407 365.png

    3K Download

  • Attachment

    Re L N D Development And Design Limited In Administration C407 365.html

    355K Download

  • Attachment

    FOI207 J Stewart Response.pdf

    127K Download View as HTML

  • Attachment

    2021 06 15 companies house document.pdf

    91K Download View as HTML

  • Attachment

    2021 05 14 Proposals companies house document.pdf

    535K Download View as HTML

Link: [1]File-List

Dear Sirs

 

Thank you for your attached letter, which is nothing more than to set
about to convolute matters and cover up the irrefutable proofs and facts
that have been provided to you but have not been dealt with either, at all
or for sure incorrectly. They are all certainly in the public interest and
not least because I amongst others, as is Ms Lynda Dixon are members of
the public.  

 

Your Mr Michael Ashford and therefore obviously (as a result of your
attached letter) you yourself has been provided with and seen the
irrefutable proof not least for the fraud forgery and deception in with
the 28 August 2018 fraudulent instrument, which has also been made clear
and known to the ICAEW in the attached two emails, as it has others who we
can now see from the attached letter have been provided with incorrect
information from the insolvency service. Because all of this was reported
to numerous of the insolvency services departments long before the
attached (in a PDF named “FOI207 J Stewart Response.pdf”) letter to them
from the insolvency services with reference “Our ref: FOI20/21-207” Dated:
“22/03/2021”. Yet is has been relayed incorrectly to those recipients by
that department of the insolvency service, as again incorrect facts. What
further does that tell us the public as to the conduct of the Insolvency
services? It can only be one of two 1) cover up or 2) utter and total
incompetence and not fit for purpose.

 

I do however suspect it is Cover up after cover up in cahoots with the
insolvency practitioners. Which is an absolute disgrace and must for sure
be fully investigated and those responsible removed with further and
appropriate action taken against them, and if that includes you Mr Mark
Dansk and Mr Michael Ashford, both of those administrators, 1) Mark Fry
from Begbies Traynor and 2) Nicholas Myers (along with their in house
solicitor Felicity Iles who has witnessed that 28 August 2018 fraudulent
instrument) of Smith and Williamson, then so be it.

 

Now we demand these matters are re opened and properly investigated, in
addition to this matter also being moved up to Tier 2 investigations, and
again, I further make known and clear to you that you must now act as a
matter of urgency before the company Amicus Finance Plc and its
administrators are no longer. Hence that further attached here in two
stand alone PDF downloaded from the registrar of companies / companies
house.

 

Please now kindly confirm both the matters raised are now going to be
properly and fully investigate in the fullest interest of the public, not
least because all of those perpetrators complained about are either;

1) Continuing to operate in both the finance industry and insolvency
industry. Therefore there is still out there for sure immediate danger to
the whole of the public, not least the reputational damage that will be
further caused to the overall finance industry. And;

2) Continuing as both you Mr Mark Dansk and Mr Michael Ashford appear to
be whilst remain within the insolvency serve, yet not seeing to doing your
jobs correctly or at all even when irrefutable proofs in evidence have
been provided for the fraud forgery and deception.

 

Even just as one clear example of what irrefutable proofs have been
repeatedly provided, see the attached email of 2 attached, from which the
below copied has been taken. The same has been made more than clear and
dealt with time and again in most all of the communications I have
provided to many and not least your departments in particular Michael
Ashford | Deputy Head  of Compliance and Targetin, Karl Burgess | Examiner
| Compliance and Targeting | Investigation & Enforcement Services in the
various insolvency services departments, yet nothing at all done about
that irrefutable proof of fraud forgery and deception having been carried
out;

 

“I see by the below link letter in response to the below copied in that
email, that there obviously needs to be included and lodged by your
department with that other department of the insolvency service. So as
there records are up to date, because what I have provided to you and
along with numerous other departments at the insolvency service by way of
all the papers and not least 1) the fraudulent 28 August 2018 financial
instrument executed by Nicholas Myers and witnessed by Felicity Iles as in
house solicitors for Smith and Williamson, in collusion, when I n addition
it has been executed and dated by Amicus, and it’s attorney for it to be
drawn down on, and thereafter 2) the account statement to confirm that
fraudulent agreement was drawn down on and became live, which are together
 irrefutable evidence of those frauds and collusion;”

Thank You

And

Kind Regards

 

Richard Dixon

[mobile number]

 

From: Mark.Danks [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 05 July 2021 09:33
To: [email address]
Subject: Amicus Finance PLC - your complaint about Michael Ashford

 

Dear Mr Dixon

 

Please find attached my response to your complaint about Michael Ashford.

 

This response is outside of the time limit published in our complaints
process, which due to my oversight and I apologise for that.

 

Regards

 

Mark Danks

 

Mark Danks | Head of Compliance and Targeting | Investigation and
Enforcement Services | The Insolvency Service – Delivering economic
confidence | 0300 304 8420 | [mobile number] |
[2][email address] | [3]www.gov.uk/insolvency-service Follow
us on Twitter: @insolvencygovuk

The Insolvency Service is now delivering its services both remotely and
through its offices. Please refer to our [4]GOV.UK content for the latest
information on how to contact us and to find answers to common questions.
Thanks for your cooperation.

Please only respond via email. It is your responsibility to ensure that
information is sent securely so if you have any concerns about sending
information securely or need to send a large volume of data (more than
13MB) please contact me to discuss how to best to do this. Thanks for your
co-operation.

 

########################### This email is confidential and is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If
you are not an intended recipient then you have received this e-mail in
error and any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying is
strictly prohibited. You should contact the sender by return then delete
all the material from your system. To see how the Insolvency Service uses
your personal information please [5]Click Here.
www.gov.uk/insolvency-service ###########################

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D77686.DF1D8CF0
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.gov.uk/insolvency-service
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...
5. http://www.gov.uk/insolvency-service

Gadawodd J Roberts anodiad ()

I made a request to Nottinghamshire Police concerning a police officer misrepresenting police powers and bailiffs. It was refused:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

The legal action it was based on, however, contains information some may find useful:

R (CC of Nottinghamshire Police) v PAT & Flint [2021] EWHC 1248 (Admin)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm...

Nid ydym yn gwybod a yw'r ymateb mwyaf diweddar i'r cais hwn yn cynnwys gwybodaeth neuai peidio - os chi ywMr. J Stuart mewngofnodwch a gadael i bawb wybod.