Miss S. Carr is party to fraud and conspiracy to defraud with her partner in crime solicitor Alison Stott of Aykley Vale Chambers, Aykley Heads, Durham City. Carr also used material perjury in the proceedings between us, which was not only allowed, but was protected by the Masonic Mafia controlled Judiciary and police.
Miss S. Carr, 16A The Lyons,
16 The Lyons, Hetton-le-Hole,
11th February 1998
Re your allegation of rights over my property which were subject of this mornings visit by your builder Mr. Jefferson and your subsequent complaint to and visit by police to my property.
Dear Miss Carr,
In your letter to me of 5th February 1998 you say that you have instructed builders D.W. Jefferson to enter my property today and to carry out work to strip part of my side of the party wall between our properties, render and then to pebble dash it. You claim that you are allowed to carry out that work by virtue of the order made by the former Recorder Mr. Fryer Spedding on 24 October 1996.
The order made by the former Recorder did not relate to any other work other than to carry out a repair to such damage to the wall as was sustained during the re roofing of your property on the weekend of 13th and 14th November 1993.
As you will recall when that damage was sustained, those replacing your property roof refused to identify themselves and you too refused to identify them. It eventually took three and a half years for you to give the identity of those who carried out the re roofing of your property.
It is apparent that you are attempting to act under case number DH400898 where I was of course the Plaintiff in that case number DH400898.
From the outset of my problems with you I have made it known that I have no objections whatsoever to you carrying out work to remedy the damage sustained to our property on that weekend of 13th and 14th November 1993. Now you apparently believe that it is your right to carry out work which is clearly in addition to that permitted under the court order. You have further implied that I can be imprisoned by not allowing you to carry out that additional work. In the circumstances I regard your statement as a furtherance of your acts harassment and intimidation against my wife and I.
I will again make you aware that you agreed that when you prepared the bundles ready for trial before the former Recorder, you deliberately left out documentation from it. That documentation had included your application to the court for consolidation of the then three actions and the courts refusal to allow it. Mr. Fryer Spedding falsely claimed while he delivered his judgement that those actions had been consolidated and he gave judgement only under case NE401650 where I was then cited as the Defendant in all of those actions. I was of course the Plaintiff in two of them. You had no authorisation to carry out the work of preparing those bundles ready for trial. At the time the solicitor Alison Stott was delegated the work of preparing the bundles ready for trial, she was not acting as your advocate, and later agreed before the court that at that time she was delegated that work she had only been assisting you. Questions still remain to be answered about this matter.
This morning you requested police to attend my home by alledging that I was in breach of the court order. My wife and I had a long conversation with your builder Mr. Jefferson and he was made fully aware that I have no objection to him carrying out the work of repairing the damage that was sustained on the weekend of 13th and 14th November. I have expressed my objection to the additional work which you now demand that you be allowed to carry out on our property. One of the policemen (PC309) said that if I attempted to stop Mr. Jefferson from removing trellis from my wall and prevent the wall behind it from being stripped and re rendered, it would constitute a breach of the peace and I would be arrested. It was explained to that policeman that the extra work that you now demand was not authorised by the court and that only that damage detailed in case number DH400898 was subject of the order made by Mr. Fryer Spedding. A policeman who had already called at my home on Saturday, at my request, said that he could not act because it was a civil dispute and not a police matter.
I have since spoken today with an Inspector Adamson, stationed at Washington Police Headquarters. He has told me that he also regards the matter as a civil matter and that there should not have been the threat of my arrest should I attempt to stop any work being carried out which was not subject of the court order. In the event, if any such arrest takes place, the Inspector has said that I should refer the matter directly for his attention.
You have already agreed that you cannot stop me from placing any structure back onto our side of the party wall which formerly comprised as part of the pantry of our property. But contrary to this, you now allege that you alone have rights over that part of the wall which is within the curtilage of our property, and has been maintained and decorated by us for the past twenty two years. Mr. Fryer Spedding, among his many wrongful acts detailed in my affidavits of 13 August and 4 November 1997, of which you have copies, said that he believed that there was a wall between our properties which served only your bathroom and therefore said that he did not regard it as a party wall. The wall which he referred to of course was the west facing gable of my property. There is no separate wall adjoining the gable serving only your property. With regard to the party wall which has until comparatively recently formed part of the south wall of our former pantry, that too is stated in the title to my property to be a "party wall and be maintained and repaired accordingly". Your solicitor has confirmed in a letter to me that under the party wall system no party can call upon the other to carry out repairs on a party wall.
In these circumstances I call upon you to state by what reason you believe you have a right to carry out any other work of which you now demand, which is additional to the repair of the damage which was sustained on the weekend of 13th and 14th November 1993 when your property's roof was replaced?
I informed your builder Mr. Jefferson this morning that I had no objection to you rendering the party wall behind my trellis on the understanding that by allowing that you would not thereafter claim any rights over it. I said that if you supplied me with a signed letter to that effect, then I would allow that extra work to be carried out. Mr. Jefferson returned and said that you were not agreeable to that and that should I not allow that extra work then you threatened that you would ask for police to attend.
I believe that it is now time to request from you your opinion as to which walls adjoining our two respective properties are party walls? It is clear from your general attitude that you do not regard any adjoining walls to be party walls. The original gable wall between our properties on which your property was constructed in a lean/to manner was agreed by the vendors of my property to be part of the party walls between our properties. You are aware that the gable wall is in great need of repair as it too allows dampness into my property. You have claimed it is my wall and not a party wall and therefore have no responsibility to repair it. Though making that claim, on the weekend of 13th and 14th November 1993 you then instructed those replacing your property's roof to cut along the whole breadth of the gable and then insert into it lead flashing which had not previously existed there. By what right did you consider you were entitled to issue such instruction when you claim that the wall belongs only to me and that you have no responsibility in its present condition?
To conclude, should you attempt to carry out any additional work on my property additional to that covering the repair of the damage which took place on 13th and 14th November 1993 it will be regarded as a breach of my rights as an owner of property.
Mr. Jefferson told my wife and I this morning that he had seen no evidence of any of your alleged dampness in the internal wall of your bathroom. Are you therefore agreeable to its inspection by Mr. Jefferson or someone instructed by me?
I look forward to your early reply.
Mr. M. Kellett
Carr did not reply to the above letter. Police allowed our side of the party wall to be partly stripped of old plaster and then be replastered. James .D. Jefferson Builders told police that to make a proper repair of the damage all of the wall would have to be stripped of plaster.The part of the wall that had suffered damage on the weekend of 13 and 14th of November 1994, that had became detached from its lower half, was simply plastered over by Jefferson to conceal the fact that the two parts of the wall were detached. That was done under the instruction of Carr though the builder, Jefferson, had previously said that to make a proper repair of the damage, the detached upper part of it required to be taken down and be rebuilt. That was the opinion of the builder that my wife and I asked to examine the damage back in January of 1994. To take down the wall would have showed a further lie of the former Recorder Mr. Fryer-Spedding when he falsely ruled that the damaged wall served only Carr's property. The outward signs were very contrary to his statement anyway. The taking down of the wall would have proved his lie. Carr of course did not want that. Carr's builder, Jefferson, agreed that there was no separate wall in there serving only Carr's property. The proof of that was video filmed when Jefferson stripped part of the wall of old plaster. When it was becoming very apparent that Carr's house was built as a lean to structure against the wall of our property, he stopped stripping the wall of plaster and claimed it was proving too difficult to get the old plaster off. The original damage remains but is now concealed by the new plaster.
Contact me at E-mail address: Justice@jiwalu.demon.co.uk
Back to opening page
Back to page list