| Re: [DPS:4I:51DR001/001:E] RE: Legal Update – 51 Draycott Place |
| Tarquin Management Ltd <51DP@davylondon.net> |
| 03/05/2025, 17:49 |
| Jason Kallis <jkallis@meralibeedle.com> |
| Galvin Dominic <dgalvin@c-sr.com>, Galani GB Karolina <karolina@galani.com>, Erdem Bahadır <bahadirerdem@erdemhukuk.com>, "sibelerdem@erdemhukuk.com >> Sibel Erdem" <sibelerdem@erdemhukuk.com>, "pinarerdem@erdemhukuk.com" <pinarerdem@erdemhukuk.com>, John A Galani <john@galani.com> |
Dear
Jason,
The
issues raised in my recent emails, and included in the set-aside
application, are clear: your failure to serve critical
documents, your refusal to confirm whether steps have been taken
under the vesting order, and your conduct in misleading the
court. These matters are procedural and professional in nature.
They are independent of any discussions with the leaseholders.
Those talks will neither nullify the application nor erase the
conduct on which the allegations are based. Using that meeting
as a reason to delay your response is not acceptable.
From
recent proceedings, you have still not provided the following,
despite repeated requests:
-
A copy of your skeleton argument filed for the hearing
on 12 February 2025;
-
Proof of service of the claim form.
Your
failure to provide the skeleton argument is a breach of CPR
39.8(1):
"Any communication between a party to proceedings and
the court must be disclosed to, and if in writing (whether
in paper or electronic format), copied to, the other party
or parties or their representatives."
This
is not optional. It is a rule designed to ensure fairness and
transparency. Deliberately withholding material filed with the
court is not a minor lapse; it denies the other party a proper
opportunity to respond and distorts the fairness of the
proceedings. That failure has persisted despite written requests
on 5 March, 26 March, and 4 April.
The
same applies to your continued refusal to provide the skeleton
argument submitted to the First-tier Tribunal. Tribunal Practice
Direction 3(7) and Rule 6(1)(a) require that documents submitted
to the Tribunal must also be served on the other parties. Your 3
April 2024 email concerning the costs hearing indicates this was
a deliberate choice, as you wrote: "This [the skeleton
argument] was not served, as (a) there is no obligation to
serve it and (b) the Respondent was asked to exchange the
skeleton … [but] ignored that request." This was based on
the mistaken belief that service was unnecessary absent an
exchange. That interpretation is plainly incorrect under both
Tribunal and CPR rules and reinforces the pattern of treating
disclosure obligations as discretionary.
Secondly,
we ask you again to confirm that you have not taken, and will
not take, steps to implement the vesting order while the
application to set it aside remains pending. Proceeding with
enforcement of the order before the application is heard would
constitute an attempt to interfere with the proper
administration of justice and gain further unfair advantage. If
you are unwilling to give this assurance, we will consider
applying for urgent injunctive relief.
Finally,
you have still offered no response to the central allegation in
the set-aside application: that your witness statement and claim
form misled the court on a material point. As an officer of the
court, you have a duty to uphold the integrity of the process.
Ignoring these concerns places you in breach of that duty and
raises serious regulatory issues under SRA Principles 1, 2 and
5. When our application is heard, your conduct will be examined.
Whether you choose to engage now or explain yourself later is
your decision.
I
should also point out that further silence will only reinforce
concerns that the relevant rules have been knowingly disregarded
and that the court was misled. It will also strengthen our case
that your conduct has not been accidental.
You
are expected to comply with your legal and professional
obligations without delay. We look forward to your reply,
including the above-mentioned documents and confirmations.
Yours
sincerely,
Davy
Thielens
for and on behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd
P.S.
We will respond to Mr Galani separately. Before turning to
practicalities such as date and location, we need first to
explore whether the parties can align on enough common ground
and mutual understanding—including of likely outcomes and
conditions—to make such a meeting worthwhile.
On 28/04/2025 13:55, Jason Kallis
wrote:
Dear
Davy
I
understand from my client that they, via John Galani, have
asked to meet with you on 15 or 16 May to try and resolve
all matters, including the set aside application. In my
view, that application could and should be opposed, and we
would get the cost of doing so. Nonetheless, as the parties
look like they may wish to meet and resolve.
For
that reason unless there is a hearing listed earlier, I will
not respond to the application before 16 May. If you don’t
resolve matters then I will respond in the time I must,
before the hearing.
Best
Jason
On a WP basis
Dear
Davy,
Thank
you for your latest email.
We
appreciate your willingness to discuss matters amicably;
however, the central issue remains the immediate execution
of the TR1 as ordered by the court. We note your ongoing
delays in completing this step despite the clear court
directive and your ability to interact with us and indeed
engage court proceedings when it suites Tarquin.
To
facilitate progress, we propose a face-to-face meeting on
either the 15th or 16th of May in central London. The goal
of this meeting is to clearly set out all amounts due and
agree that these should be offset when the final payment
becomes due. The proposed agenda is as follows:
- Confirmation
of the date by which the enfranchisement TR1 will be signed
and executed. We will not accept delays, we have been the
victims of such tactics by Mario far too often both in court
and outside it.
- Agreement on
the quantum of outstanding service charges. Please note we
have written enough times on service charges issues over and
over, this is not the place to rehash 8 years of
correspondence (we urge you to review Tarquin's emails
archives including damages to our flat stemming from leaks,
and other issues with other leaseholders pending for so many
years). Since service charges have not been provided in the
required (or even in any) format for several years, and
numerous questions from leaseholders on older ones remain
unanswered, to agree on any outstanding amounts, we will
require proper accounts for the outstanding years with full
supporting documentation including but not limited to
invoices, contracts and bank statements. As such, we must
establish a clear framework and mechanism with tight
deadlines for inspecting these accounts and related
paperwork, enabling us to instruct accountants to review
them promptly.
- Settlement of
our legal fees as per the judgement, which Tarquin
Management Ltd is now liable for, as well as confirming your
current solvency by filing up-to-date company accounts for
which as a director you are in breach of your fiduciary
duties on.
- Clarification
and validation of the two pending insurance claims affecting
Flat 1 and Flat 5, which at least as leaseholders of Flat 5
we reserve our rights on for the underlying claim against
Tarquin and any unwarranted insurance withdrawal Tarquin
might have made.
Please
note, once properly documented and agreed, all these amounts
should be offset accordingly to simplify and full and final
settlement including the freehold transfer.
Finally,
while acknowledging your comments regarding Mario, we
wholeheartedly refute them, after many years of being on the
receiving end of extraordinarily verbose excuses and
obfuscations but never a single action, knowing Mario is a
barrister and he knows very well what he writes, including
that drugs are illegal under UK law and not subject to his
whims, yet we remain solely focused on practical outcomes
and the resolution of outstanding matters rather than
individual circumstances or past communications.
We
look forward to your confirmation of the meeting and to
swiftly resolving these longstanding issues, but we are
clear that no further delay will be accepted and we will
pursue this until the judgement is fully executed.
Dear
John,
Thank
you for your
message.
Let
me start by clarifying the purpose of our recent
letter to all leaseholders. It was not about your
right to pursue enfranchisement—that is your right,
and we. What we are challenging is the way your
solicitor has handled the process. Several of his
actions go well beyond what is acceptable and are
being reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
The letter was simply to let everyone know where we
stand and why.
You
say you are open to a more amicable approach. That is
good to hear and a welcome change to your solicitor’s
refusal to negotiate. I made a similar offer in my
letter of 25 February — to move on from the past, keep
the tone calm, and focus on facts rather than vague
and generic allegations. That offer is still open. But
to avoid more litigation, both sides need to work with
clear, tangible issues and show a genuine willingness
to cooperate, find common ground and compromise.
Amicable cannot mean one side gives in completely.
Most
of our disagreements are about money, not principle,
making an expedient outcome via negotiations credible.
Voicing openness to talk is a step in the right
direction. But to make it worthwhile — and to show
that intent is real — we need a bit of structure. A
clear agenda, issues we agree to cover, and our
positions circulated in advance. If we cannot manage
that basic preparation, then it is hard to see how we
will resolve bigger issues through discussion.
If
the upfront work feels too cumbersome — preparing a
proper agenda, agreeing the issues, setting out
positions — it is worth remembering what we are trying
to avoid. The legal costs so far could have paid for a
new roof and more. That alone makes the effort
worthwhile.
You
referred again to Mario's comment in a letter from
years ago. That quote has been used often to suggest
that it was our mantra, steering our actions
throughout. It was not. It was one line, written in
anger at the time and we have never acted on it. None
of the “threats” found in that letter were ever
carried out. Since I took over in April 2024, the
approach has been straightforward: fix what is
reported, communicate clearly, and resolve problems
where possible.
Everything
raised with me has been dealt with — from leaks and
blocked drains to human excrement in the basement and
bikes in the hallway. If anything was missed, it is
because I was not told. If there is a current issue,
just let me know and I will take care of it.
At
the same time, expecting full service without paying
for it is not realistic. For nearly six years, three
of five leaseholders — including yourself — have paid
nothing. That is 60 percent of the building’s income,
withheld indefinitely. I have gone through the records
back to 2015 and still cannot find a clear explanation
of why payment has been withheld since 2019. When we
asked, the replies were either “our position is well
documented” or “it is well known.” For my benefit, as
someone new to all this, please let me know where that
explanation is set out, or send me a copy, so I can
understand your objection. Without it, it becomes very
difficult to negotiate or settle anything. Keeping
such a key point vague or undisclosed is hard to
square with a genuine intention to talk.
As
for communication, we created the 51DP email to keep
things in one place. That is all. As you are already
aware, Mario had a mental health crisis and was under
medical care for over a year with clear instructions
not to engage in any work-related activities. He had
no involvement with this matter, the current legal
proceedings, or anything to do with the building since
last April. He remains a director, but his role will
stay minimal for the foreseeable future, and I will
remain your contact for Draycott Place. How we
organise ourselves internally and the affairs of the
company have no bearing on you or the leaseholders.
I
hope the above will be taken in the spirit intended.
If the other leaseholders are also open to meeting, I
will make the time. But the meeting needs to be
practical: shared preparation, clear issues, and a
willingness to meet somewhere in the middle.
Kind
regards,
Davy
Thielens
on
behalf of Tarquin Management Ltd
On
16/04/2025 08:21, John A Galani wrote:
Dear
Davy,
Thank
you for informing us of your change in email
address. It appears Mario has been removed from
correspondence; could you clarify the reason for
this?
We
note this apparently points to potential changes
in company ownership, directorship, or
management—factors implied by your update. As
leaseholders dealing with Tarquin Management’s
prolonged absenteeism of many years, we strongly
encourage proactive communication regarding
significant organisational changes affecting
management of the building. Historically, this
transparency has been utterly lacking, and
continues to be so as I understand from another
leaseholder with a leak he is desperate to fix,
but for which Tarquin just does not care about (it
sounds so familiar to me personally
unfortunately).
Your
previous written threat of creating financial and
procedural hardships if we proceeded with
enfranchisement is well documented. However, our
legal right to enfranchisement is clear and
irrevocable. We reiterate our invitation to
resolve this matter amicably and expeditiously,
rather than continuing costly and unnecessary
legal conflict.
While
I refrain from commenting on legal specifics you
raised below, given I am not a lawyer, it is worth
noting the irony of Tarquin Management’s legal
complaints: Tarquin consistently evades attending
court proceedings, ignores legal deadlines, and
prefers to contest matters through obfuscation
rather than transparent judicial processes. I
will therefore let our lawyer deal with this, and
you, directly.
Additionally,
we urge you immediately to bring your company
accounts up to date, as they remain significantly
overdue and non-compliant with legal
requirements—particularly concerning your duties
as director. Your repeated attempts (now for the
sixth time) to subtly alter your accounting period
by one day do not pass unnoticed and reflect
poorly on your management standards.
Given
your apparent new role, I suggest we meet at your
earliest convenience to finally resolve these
issues face-to-face (this would include other
leaseholders although I have not sought
representation of all concerned leaseholders in
this email)—an opportunity we have sought
repeatedly over the past years. Let us seize this
chance to settle matters decisively and positively
for all involved.
Sincerely,
John
A Galani
Dear
Leaseholders,
I
write to you directly with an important
update concerning the freehold of 51
Draycott Place.
Mr
Jason Kallis, acting as your solicitor,
obtained a vesting order against the
freeholder by filing a claim without
properly serving it — we did not receive a
copy until after the order had already
been made. He omitted key correspondence
that directly contradicted his version of
events, and made misleading, and in some
cases plainly false, representations of
fact to the Court. We also received no
notification of the hearing from the Court
and only became aware of the proceedings
after the order had been granted — far too
late to be heard or represented.
On
the basis of these procedural defects and
the misleading of the Court by your
solicitor, we are now applying to set
aside both the service of the claim form
and the order itself.
Mr
Kallis’s conduct in this matter —
including his misrepresentation of facts
and repetition of defamatory accusations
under oath that were entirely untrue and
unsupported by any evidence — is being
referred to the Solicitors Regulation
Authority for investigation and
appropriate disciplinary action.
Given
the circumstances, the Court will almost
certainly set aside the order. Any costs
involved in reversing it and unwinding its
effects will fall solely on the party who
misled the Court. We would invite you to
support the setting aside of service and
the order, which would help minimise
unnecessary cost and delay for all
parties.
We
have attached a copy of our email to Mr
Kallis for your information.
Lastly,
going forward, please direct all
correspondence regarding 51 Draycott Place
— including general matters and legal
notices — to our new address: 51DP@davylondon.net.
This replaces the previous address (tarquin.management@gmail.com)
and ensures proper handling of all matters
related to the building.
Yours
sincerely,
Davy
Thielens
on
behalf of Tarquin
Management Limited
<Notice
of Intent to Apply to Set Aside.pdf>