Case number: DD/LON/00AW/LBC/2011/0024 IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL LONDON RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL Between 8 COLVILLE TERRACE LIMITED

Applicant And Y AND I ART LIMITED Respondent _______________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROBERT MATHEW PARK ________________________________________

I , Robert Mathew Park of 19 Nevern Square London, SW5 am Director of Y and I Art Limited (the Company), will state as follows

1. I make this Witness Statement in support of the rebuttal of assertions made in application under s168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the Act)in relation to the property known as lower ground floor flat, 8 Colville Terrace, London, W11 2BE (the Property) and in conjunction with the statement made by my co-director, Antony Merrett in relation to the same matter. The facts in the matters which I state in this witness statement are within my own knowledge and are true, or are based on information which has been supplied to me in which case the sources stated and the facts of the matters are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2. I am a director of the Company, which is the leaseholder/ Lessee of the Property. I have read the statement of my co-director and I agree and support the contents in so far as it is within my knowledge, however, Mr Merrett has been residing at the Property and has been present during a lot more of the dealings than I have, so is therefore better placed to attest to the facts and events that he has. 3. I make my own statement in relation to the events where Mr Merrett was not present or directly involved. I would, however, like to confirm that I have been in regular contact with the professionals acting for the Company and I am disturbed as to the condition of the Property and the quality of the workmanship which has been revealed by our exploratory works. I have been involved with Property for most of my adult life, some 40 years, and I

am very concerned as to the historical works and the more recent works at the Property as they all appear rushed, undertaken at the lowest cost or simply not fit for purpose. 4. I am saddened that the Applicant has seen fit to make this application to the Tribunal as I would have hoped that Mr Crawley would have been more considered and civilized in his approach to the relationship between us, as tenant and landlord. In addition I am troubled that Mr Crawley is protecting his own vested interests in the Building rather than that of all of the residents collectively and for the good of the Building. 5. By way of background, I visited the Property prior to the Auction date in early September 2010. The visit was a block visit and I was there with Mr Merrett and many other prospective purchasers. When viewing the Property I specifically remember that the bathroom of the Property was torn out from the wall but certainly did not contain the immersion heaters which are now present in the Property. 6. On the Auction date of Monday 6th September 2010, I was the successful bidder for the Property, but did have some other under-bidders competing with me at that time prior to their dropping out, including who I now know to be Mr Michael Crawley, the managing agent and director of the Applicant. I remember him specifically as he approached me before the auction and commented upon the book which I was reading before the auction started. 7. When I visited the Property during the period between the Auction and the completion of the purchase I noticed that the immersion heaters had appeared in the Property and parts of the ceilings had been taken down revealing the services and that the boilers had been crudely connected to the mains electricity supply and water, and then fed the building. These had not been installed before. I returned to the Auctioneers who confirmed that they had been told by the Receiver acting for HSBC (the seller) that the Freeholder was required by way of court order to have access and install them in this manner. I asked my solicitor to look into this, and he did but due to the nature of the sale, being by a mortgagee in possession at auction, the contract offered no warranties as to condition and they were also told by their client not to answer any questions about the Property. I assume this is for fear of any later claim in respect of the Property emanating from any response which they gave, so my solicitor was frustrated and I was compelled to complete the purchase in any event as the contract was quite strict, so I resolved to keep my own

Counsel on this point and return to it after I had had the opportunity to meet the Freeholder. 8. I asked my solicitor to enquire about meeting Mr Crawley and also at some point in the future becoming a member of the Freehold Management Company, as it was very much my intention to work with the Freeholder in regards to the renovation of the Property and I felt this could undertaken to everyones benefit. However, I am disappointed that the Freeholder has taken his continuing aggressive stance, without justification. 9. I met with Mr Crawley shortly after this to ascertain the history of the Building and also to discuss the potential works and my plans for the Property. At that time half of the demise of the Property had been unlawfully annexed and partitioned by the Lessee of flat 2, Amye Clarke and I wanted to discuss this with him. He mentioned that the Freehold management company had won on all counts against the Clarkes and that they were entitled to site the boilers where he wanted in the Property. He also urged me to reinstate the flat to its actual state by removing the part installed by Ms Clarke. When I asked him about this he stated that this had not happened whilst he was in the Building but that he supported the reinstatement of the Property. When I asked him about how he secured access to the Property to install the cylinders, he became brittle and stated that he was entitled and that we should be warned that Edward Clarke had been soundly beaten and we should take note of that. I quickly changed the subject. 10. Following this meeting I have had the opportunity to review the Order of the Central London County Court where the Applicant was involved in litigation with Amye Clarke and Edward Clarke (the previous owner of the Property) and it is apparent that Mr Crawley was wrong about this. I initially thought that this was a mistake but then I found out that he is in fact a lapsed solicitor, therefore would be used to reading such orders. Additionally, our litigation with Amye Clarke in relation to the reinstatement of the Property to its lawful demise has revealed that Mr Crawley was heavily involved in matters relating to these works and their initiation in 2007. I was again disappointed as Mr Crawley appears to have acted disingenuously in his dealings with me and with the selling agents. I can only surmise that his frustration at being outbid at the auction has overcome him and he is now pursuing a private agenda for the benefit of his flat 11. Prior to Mr Crawleys installation of the Immersion Cylinders in the Property, they were housed in the eternal vault which is under the stairs leading to the front door of the

building. It appears they may installed by my predecessor in title during the original conversion work. In fact they had been sunk into the ground into pits under the stairs. But they were then removed by Mr Crawley in September. Further, Mr Crawley then attempted to disguise their original housing by installing a bike rack in the cupboard and telling me that this had been the situation historically, which I now know to be untrue. I can only guess that these cylinders are larger than the old ones hence he moved them. 12. I tried to contact Mr Crawley to meet again after my further research into the matter and was unable to due to his being unable to meet, I even wrote to his address in the Isle of Wight in order to ensure that he received my invitation. When he was finally available I unfortunately was struck down with a respiratory infection which afflicted me for the months over Christmas. Before I could get back in contact following recovery, Mr Crawley felt it necessary to attempt to forfeit the lease to the Property, which is entirely unnecessary and tantamount to chicanery in my opinion. His allegations are completely false and immersed in self interest. I can confirm there has been no systematic or otherwise interference with the Boilers by me or anyone working under me. 13. I am very concerned to have this matter resolved and have Mr Crawley stop interfering with the Property under the guise of managing the Building. I fear that he is simply trying to get hold of the Lease surreptitiously after failing at the Auction. For the avoidance of doubt all of the allegations contained in the application are denied and I would ask the Tribunal to come and view the Property as I very concerned with the Applicants unilateral actions in this matter and repeated attempt to bully his way into the Property and install cheap and unsafe plant.

Statement of truth I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed Robert Mathew Park Dated: