LIME PARK COMPANY DIRECTORS
Lime Park Estate Limited was set up in March of 1985 by some of the residents in Lime Park, as company number 01893712 expressly to take over management of a shared access that is seen in a Land Registry plan below coloured in blue. Most other parcels of land contained in the Park have been identified with individual Land Registry numbers. Other parcels are small and subject to acquired rights over time that may not yet be registered.
According to companies house this is a 'residents' property management company, code: 98000. But that may not be strictly accurate, where many of the occupiers in the Park are not represented and this company works against the interests of some of those who are not represented to cause loss contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.
Whereas, any company purporting to manage a shared drive exists to ensure that such access is secured for all - as required by the covenants - and a performance that must be carried out as a condition of the transfer. In this case there are two ways of accessing the shared drive, one of which is not properly being maintained. It appears then that the transfer may not be valid in law, if it is that the directors have willfully neglected to perform their duty over a prolonged period of time.
It occurs to us that in the rush to have a go at the man in the northern corner of the Park, that the wrong format was deliberately chosen to avoid any chance of their target learning of their agenda.
A formal joining of hands may be a good thing where the upkeep of a driveway that is a shared right of way is concerned. The appropriate association should not be one where ownership could become a potential issue or where there is a controlling mind who might become a problem in the future. Any risk of ownership or ultimate control in dictatorial fashion should be avoided and prevented concerning shared access and rights of way.
A more appropriate formal association would be a Public Interest Company or a Trust. Of these a Trust would be preferable for the benefit of all users of the shared facility because there is reduced administrative cost and ownership by way of share acquisition is not a problem, because there are no shares for sale in a Trust.
At certain times during the operation of Lime Park Estate Limited, the minutes reflect the secrete agenda of some residential property owners to acquire the old generating buildings. Peter Townley was the first to be identified, with Henry Arnell making it plain soon after that he wanted the generating buildings bulldozed.
In 2012 Louise Jones openly stated during one of the company meetings that she wanted to buy the generating buildings. The other directors agreed to pursue the matter with Wealden District Council to see if the Enforcement Notice from 1986 was still extant. Presumably, this was vital to Ms Jones' purchase agenda where she also wished to purchase at an undervalue with the planning blight in place - as Peter and June Townley had been keen to keen to foster as it benefited their acquisition plans.
None of these issues could have been aired at a Trust that included the interests of all beneficiaries, and that is why a Trust was not formed, begging the question: why would Wickens Estates have agreed to transfer the drive package to a Limited Company that was not independent of the owners - as they had been?
From the timing of formation of this company contrasted against correspondence between Wickens Estates Limited, it appears that Wickens were making enquiries as to tree works and parking in the Park, but were unwilling to write to the new occupier of the generating buildings in this regard because they did not have the force of law behind them, lacking locus standi. Instead of remaining impartial, Wickens Estates agreed to pass the shared drive to a number of the residents, for them to be able to address parking and tree treatments where there was a covenant as to tree removal, with a £0.50 pence penalty for removal of each tree, but as we say no powers in the transfer document to secure compliance with any covenant other than upkeep and operation of the shared drive.
Like any right of way, the right to park conveniently is a given. No garage in existence in Lime Park at that time were used to park cars, and number 4 had no garage at all. Nikolai and Clare Askaroff soon remedied this with a planning application to build a double garage, but again, once built this was not used for the parking of cars, more for the storage of furniture and as a workshop until it became full of furniture. The property owners in Lime Park routinely parked their cars on the shared driveway, as conveniently as possible to their homes.
Lime Park Estate Limited (LPE) did though seek to restrict the parking of cars concerning the occupiers of the generating buildings. Their excuse for such action was that there was no formal residential use recognised by the local authority. This company pressed home that angle, reliant on everyone keeping mum about the history that all of the then directors knew about.
An exclusively residential use of the generating buildings, if acknowledged at the outset would have benefited the other residential users, in keeping any commercial use out of the Park. LPE probably had considered this, but preferred the option that Wealden were giving them of denying any use at all, where the Council were happy to work (conspire) with LPE to hide the history as the essential element in the deception.
A dual pronged attack commenced, where residents in the Park had asked Wealden District Council to do their dirty work for them. This Council responded in a remarkable way, not doing their duty to protect the historic built environment, but rather siding with the residents who between them where seen to have more money and social standing. They issued a Tree Preservation Order as seen below, in the full knowledge that such an Order would cause damage to the historic asset in their administrative area.
However, any company purporting to be run by residents for the residents should be administered by the residents with every resident having equal say in the running. Had Lime Park Estate Limited been operated correctly from the start, they would have known from reading of the registered title of the drive plan and measurement of the boundaries of Lime Park, that no tree being treated was within Lime Park, hence was in any event outside the jurisdiction of any person concerned that covenants between occupiers were not being observed. Indeed, it is doubtful that Lime Park Estate had the correct legal standing to be able to take such action, where all they were concerned with was and is the shared access, for nothing other than the drive was transferred to this company according to the registered title.
Regardless, Lime Park Estate Limited issued proceedings against the one person who was not represented by the so-called residents company. They alleged lopping of a holly tree within Lime Park and demanded £0.50 fifty pence compensation.
The transfer was a mechanism where Peter Townley and Henry Arnell believed that in taking on such management that they had more powers than they had in fact acquired. The objective was to disadvantage the occupier of the land on which the old generating buildings stood/stand. Is it then a coincidence that during the time of acquisition and with Wealden helping apply pressure to the occupier of the generating station, that umpteen offers to purchase were received. You might believe that the these events are linked.
Anyone reading the file is likely to realise that Wickens Estates Ltd probably knew that Townley, Arnell and possibly Martha Morphew and Elizabeth Cowling, were barking up the wrong tree. Although Wickens Estates Limited may have suspected what their motives were, we presume that they were not fully apprised of the intentions of Townley and Arnell (as Lime Part Estate) - otherwise, Wickens Estates Limited would become vicariously liable in aiding and abetting the unlawful agenda. This is the subject of an ongoing investigation. Anyone thinking of buying a property in Lime Park should be aware of the legal muddle they are entering into. We would recommend demanding sight of the company minutes and accounts, when you will see that their directors have been acting outside of the law.
We would not be surprised if all of a sudden, the company minutes were lost. But if the directors were tempted to destroy the evidence so, such an act would most certainly viewed by the court as the act of several guilty minds conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
Wickens Estates Limited (Co No 00463356) is now Store Property Developments Limited. They changed their name immediately after the transfer to distance themselves from the transaction.
Lime Park Estate Limited lost their claim because the holly tree they complained of was not only dead, but not even within the boundary of Lime Park. Other claims were equally poorly founded. But this case established a legal estoppel, so creating case law that may be relied on in future disputes.
Wealden also lost their case, with all but one tree remaining in the original Tree Preservation Order. This is because it is unlawful to place a TPO on any tree within thirty feet of a historic building. These were thus vexatious and malicious prosecutions. The residents had ganged up on the occupier to prevent conservation works to the old generating buildings, when they should properly have been supporting such works.
After nearly 20 years of Wealden hiding the truth of the historic generating works, finally in 1999, London University proved conclusively that the surviving building in Lime Park was the genuine article. You can read the Report of Archaeology South East here.
POTHOLES - There is a lot of work going on in Lime Park, but not to the drive, the reason the company was formed. It makes us wonder what the directors think that this company exists for. Copyright © photograph, Herstmonceux Museum Ltd 19 February 2019, All rights reserved.
The lawful purpose of a residents property management company is to fairly represent the interests of all concerned. Hence, a prerequisite is that all the occupiers of whatever, are offered the opportunity to make representations - and this is normally by being a member, whether a company or just an informal association. You may consider such tactics on the part of Lime Park Estate Limited to be bullying or intimidatory, but the Companies Acts describe this as oppression - which is of course unlawful - and as that mantra moved past November 2006, became illegal by virtue of the Fraud Act 2006, with anyone involved potentially liable in respect of the Accessories Aiding and Abettors Act 1861.
Clearly, unless resolved, this is a matter for Companies House and/or the Department of Public Prosecutions, possibly involving the disqualification of any and all directors, unless they work to correct their modus operandi and include the interests of all those using the shared drive in their day to day thinking.
SHARED DRIVE - The land coloured blue is a drive that was transferred from Wickens Estates Ltd to Lime Park Estate Ltd in 1986, subject to: "a covenant to observe and perform the covenants referred to in the Charges Register and of indemnity in respect thereof." The directors of Lime Park Estate must therefore keep the access at both ends of the drive open.
PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE - This access to the shared drive should be kept clear at all times. These photographs taken in April 2016 -top] October of 2016 [middle] and January of 2019 [lower] shows that the covenants that must be performed for the benefit of all users, are not being performed by the directors of Lime Park Estate Ltd. Copyright © photograph, Herstmonceux Museum Ltd January 2019.
The directors of Lime Park Estates Limited as at the 15th of July 2012 were:
* Shelagh Claire Lambert (17-09-53 Sales Executive)
* Peter Gwyn Langford Townley (15-07-1924 - Retired)
* Louise Elizabeth Jones (06-09-1959 - Receptionist BMW Hailsham)
* Camille Anne-Marie De Kok (12-03-1961 - Sales Manager Camlock Systems)
Prior to this Henry Arnell and Gillian Arnell were residents, naming number 2 Lime Park: Linden House.
PROPERTY PRICE HISTORY:
East Lodge, Lime Park - Estimated value £ 256,000 (range £204,800 to £307,200)
House, Lime Park - Sold £354,957 freehold 22 Aug 2006 (Rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/)
Lime House, Lime Park - Sold £310,700 freehold 26 Apr 2001
Lime House, Lime Park - Sold £165,000 freehold 4 July 1997 (Zoopla.co.uk/house-prices)
Lime Park Estate Limited is shown at Companies House as being dormant. We wonder how that can possibly be the case where they employ Russell Pike (Perfect Gardens) and several other builders and landscapers on a regular basis. If they are paying for regular services, we wonder how they are paying such sums if not from a bank account. Routine cash payments might fall to be considered under money laundering regulations as undeclared income. If they have a means of collecting money from their directors to hold monies and then settle invoices, they are deemed to be trading. If they have a company bank account with money flowing in and out, they are deemed to be trading, not dormant as they have declared. We would imagine that such misdeclaration might be of interest to Companies House and the anti money laundering teams at the bank(s) concerned and of course Her Majesty's Inland Revenue.
According to a number of company check websites, Clare Askaroff is the controlling mind of Lime Park Estate Limited, also having a majority shareholding.
Lime Park Estate Limited owns the shared drive and nothing else in Lime Park. The shared drive has two entrances, one from Church Road leading north into the Park, and another leading from Gardner Street near the Fire Station, leading south-east into the Park along a right of way that passes through (or alongside) land belonging to Bernie Ford.
For some time the directors of LPE Ltd have been locking the access gate and allowing shrubs and other flora to overgrow the gate, in so doing depriving the occupiers of a Deed of Covenant right of way, contrary to their fiduciary duty to observe and protect the rights of other users.
This violation of the rights of others is also causing or putting others at risk of loss, contrary to Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, potentially making all those directors involved in the conspiracy to frustrate those access rights, guilty of the criminal offence of fraud.
The lawful purpose of a residents property management company is to fairly represent the interests of all concerned. Hence, a prerequisite is that all the occupiers of whatever, are offered the opportunity to make representations and to purchase shares to ensure that no single person has a controlling stake in the company.
Clearly, this is not the case concerning this company.
You may consider such tactics on the part of Lime Park Estates Limited to be bullying or intimidatory, but the Companies Acts describe this as oppression - which is of course unlawful - and as that mantra moved past November 2006, became illegal by virtue of the Fraud Act 2006, with anyone involved potentially liable in respect of the Accessories Aiding and Abettors Act 1861.
Unless resolved, this is a matter for Companies House, possibly involving the disqualification of any and all directors, unless they work to correct their modus operandi and include the interests of all those using the shared drive in their day to day thinking.
NICE NEIGHBOURS - Immediately after June and Peter Townley moved into Lime Park in 1986, they began making trouble for the occupier of the adjacent historic buildings. Eventually, Peter Townley asked his neighbour directly how much he wanted to sell up. This was after receipt of umpteen anonymous offers to buy via estate agents that had been ignored. These anonymous offers could have been from any person in the Park, though common sense dictates that as the building had been ignored for so long prior to the occupation of the conservationist, that the sudden interest must have come from competing land owners - and of these there were only those in Lime Park. The Scriptures tell us that to covet another's land is a sin, as is bearing false witness against a neighbour. For general guidance as to what is right and what is morally wrong, you might take a look at The Ten Commandments. From the chronology of actions of Peter and June Townley, we don't rate their chances of meeting Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates very highly.
The object of denying the history attaching to the generating buildings appears to have been to be able to purchase the premises at an undervalue. Planning blight is often used for this purpose. With the eager help of the local authority - and in particular with the help of Christine Nuttall, David Phillips and Victorio Scarpa, it is alleged that Peter Townley conspired with Wealden District Council to deny the history, forcing the occupier to multiple appeals where it must have been agreed between parties that the council would tell the Secretary of State that there was no history for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to consider - and that they did. Wealden are well known for soliciting complaints and then fostering a relationship with their stooges, in some cases supplying confidential documents to any person who might be able to apply pressure on the Council's adversaries, such as to divert their attention during litigation.
In order to be able to carry this off and continue to act with one eye shut, Wealden refused to compile a list of local historic buildings. If they had done so, they would not have been able to carry on deceiving the Secretary of State, the County Archaeologist, or many of the Members of their Council who were and are honest. Unfortunately, many councillors are not honest, having become tempted by the potential to make money from the planning system, or fostering their own land interests, having allowed themselves to be swayed by dishonest officers that the odd mistake can be swept under the carpet without consequences.
Map of the Wealden District
LINKS & REFERENCE
FARMING - The backbone of any society is the production of food to feed the population, though these days much of what we eat is imported from other producers, such as fish farmed in Asia. We can no longer find enough fish locally having exhausted our fisheries. Agriculture is also changing where we have drained the soil for so long with artificial fertilizers that yields will fall, meaning a shift to obtaining protein from the sea - but unfortunately we are disposing of around 8 millions tons of plastic in our seas - poisoning marine life that we need to keep us nourished. Food security is therefore high on the United Nations agenda via the Food and Agriculture Organization.