Colin Cole
23rd June 2005
Daniel Ginsbury
Ingram Winter Green Solicitors
Bedford House, 21a John Street
London WC1N 2BL
Sir re; Shop DISPUTE at 243 Portland Rd, SE25
I take it that since you have not managed a reply to my letters of 9th June and 16th June 2005 that you did indeed CONSPIRE to LIE TO ME about your client’s Fineland Properties Ltd (also known as Fine Land Prope Ltd, knowledge of this dispute. I am writing this letter on that very reasonable assumption. You have had more than enough time to dispel it. . . . you of course have a further opportunity to do so in reply to this letter . . . and will be published in full on my web-sites if replied to. . . my bet is that you will not however. . . . . odds have shortened to 10/1 on.
I like the bit on your web-site “We pride ourselves on being creative problem-solvers. Our lawyers are bright, commercially astute and energetic.” . . . . REALLY? . . . . . well you’re lawyers are going to have to be very “creative” indeed to “solve this problem” . . . . . ME.
Until they find a way to sort this out properly . . . your firm will have more “problems” than it can imagine right now. (I did give a similar warning to C**tis H**nes Ltd, and all their many many lawyers, and to Lister & Wood, and to Croydon Council, and to Met Police Croydon . . but of course they were all too arrogant to take any notice . . . except the lawyers, who very wisely got out of the way . . . VERY QUICKLY INDEED.)
You are to inform your clients Fineland Properties Ltd (also known as Fine Land Properties Ltd) because of that attempt in deception, that all claims I have against the previous freeholder . . . now apply to them.
That ALL the conditions that were imposed by me in the matter of my dispute with the previous owner of the freehold, S J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley . . . (I have no quarrel with his wife except by association) . . . now apply to them.
Until such time as they can provide me with proof positive that the deception is not of their making, but is the fault of S J Patel or his Solicitors Denniss Matthews.
From . my second letter to Lister & Wood . . 13 December 2003
(because of your client’s threats of physical violence) You are to inform your client S J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley, that he too, is not welcome on MY doorstep, except in accordance with his rights in the lease, and by prior invitation in writing. Further, neither he nor his tenant/s is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor. And I promise to attend to the matter with the same speed and urgency that you are attending to my own.
Of course if he does write directly, (and who can stop him doing so, it’s a free country?) I will keep the letter, especially if it is as pathetic as his last, but will ignore it. He can do the same to any of mine if he wishes.
Again it is important to note that I did not ban Patel from MY doorstep, until after I had received the threats that I had to take to the police.
And still further, since, I cannot as an honourable law abiding English Gentleman deal with either of these obnoxious people, Patel or his Tenant in a proper, reasonable and neighbourly fashion. I am giving notice that, if I have any work I need to do on my property, I will treat it as an emergency, and as per the lease, act accordingly.
But you have my word as an English Gentleman that I will not use that right to unnecessarily inconvenience anyone.
HE IS NOT TRY TO RELET THE SHOP OR TRY TO SELL IT WITHOUT MY SAY SO. Unless he declares that since he is in dispute with ME, whether enquiries before contract are made or not, that by definition any prospective tenant or owner will be too. A frightening prospect indeed, . . as you will agree. (how prophetic)
You can tell him also, that I have been threatened, harassed and potentially intimidated by experts, with far more finesse than his own pathetic clumsy efforts. Threatened by lawyers of all kinds, teams of them in fact, with everything you can imagine. . . . all to no avail.”
And later from a letter to Lister & Wood, 11 November 2003
“Because, as I have now established, and it will remain established whilst your client does not take up my challenge to deny it under oath, that S J Patel is a NASTY GREEDY THREATENING OBNOXIOUS BULLY. Who has threatened my person with physical violence. He will not be allowed to inspect my property personally. Or indeed ever step over the threshold at all. He is forbidden to contact me directly in any way.
He may however appoint any bona-fide surveyor, that I approve of, to do so for him, but entirely at his own expense, if it is that important to him. But YOU may take my word for it, that the flat, when fully decorated, will be as sound as any property of its age can expect to be. You may even inspect it yourself if you wish. . drop in anytime for a cup of tea . . . But he may not.
Quite frankly Sir, I think the request “seems calculated purely to exasperate an already difficult situation.” as you put it.” . . The offer of the tea is of course withdrawn.
Until your Company Ingram Winter Green Solicitors acts properly and honestly towards me. They can also consider themselves in dispute with ME.
I intend to discredit them with as much vigour as I apply to any of the projects I set out on. And if they have not the wit to be “commercially astute and energetic in creative problem-solving” . . . more fool them.
Already the omens are not looking good . . . your whole firm of “creative” Lawyers are not able to do something about the fact that my web-sites share the same front page as them . . . . AND I HAVEN’T EVEN STARTED YET. I’ve only been going a couple of weeks. It is my declared intention to replace your web-site at the top of the front page. And if you do not realise that is a possibility . . I have already pushed Croydon Council’s own web-site on to page 2 . . in a search of ‘croydoncouncil’ . . my sites take up seven spaces on page 1. . . . I assure you . . . . I KNOW JUST HOW TO DO IT.
What will become very quickly clear to the public is, that if your whole Company of “commercially astute, bright and energetic creative problem-solving Lawyers” are not able to deal with a little ol’ retired pensioner acting entirely on his own. They will start to think you are as big a bunch of Tossers as Lister & Wood . . who still haven’t managed a response in a year and half between them. . . . . and that sort of label sticks for a long while on Google, and eventually the wider world.
Lastly if your Clients are truly innocent in this matter . . . there is a very simple resolution for them . . . tell them to ask for their money back. If they do not do so . . as any other innocent party would . . . that will be the full proof of all of the above. . . already they find themselves in debt to me for my Legal expenses so far. . . £1010.50 . . and rising.
Yours Sincerely Colin Clifford Cole