full report

A STORY OF CORRUPTION, INVOLVING  

UNSCRUPULOUS MEMBERS OF

THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND OFFICERS OF THE  COURT,

CONDONED AND PROTECTED BY GROSSLY UNFAIR LAWS.

MY BACKGROUND

Born on February 16th 1927, in the West Hull workhouse, I was taken away from my 16 year old, immature, unmarried mother at the age of three weeks, and reared by her mother and stepfather, along with their existing family. A simple charlady and a casual docker, they were extremely poor.       I was, however, well cared for, taught to be good mannered and to ‘know my place’ in society.            Grandma always insisted that I should work very hard at school to earn a ‘five pounds a week job’.        Consequently I did my utmost at school, was consistently the top of my class and won a scholarship.      Unfortunately, we couldn’t afford a higher education than  ‘O’ levels and I had to start to earn a living. After working for a few months, I volunteered as a bomber pilot in November 1943 and served until invalided out, as ‘mentally unstable’, in 1947.        I started work in a pickle factory and in 1952 borrowed £200 to start a pickle business of my own with four employees.

            For many years, I worked regularly over 80 hours and frequently 100 hours weekly and by the mid seventies had built up a business with some 200 employees and a turnover of over two million pounds.           This success was due to hard physical graft and mental concentration and also to my very loyal, hard working, happy workforce with some of whom, over forty years later, I still enjoy the occasional annual works (now ‘old comrades’) dinner.     There were several hundred competitors in the country when I started but by the mid seventies, there were only a couple of dozen surviving.

            One of these was Hazlewood Foods Plc, which had actually been a family business since the previous century, but the majority of shares had been sold to two venture capitalists

 and only one family member remained.     It was no longer profitably managed but was a great nuisance to everyone else in the trade, selling much of its produce at impossibly low prices.    Consequently, it was in financial trouble.

            I had a friendly competitor, with whom I did good reciprocal business; that is to say, I packed some of his products and he packed some of mine, so we never really competed.     Its

owner, Jack Lowe, rang me in 1977 and asked how I’d like to join a public company.   I said I wouldn’t, but he seemed keen to involve me, suggesting that we each put in £50,000 and thus together, pay the debts and bail out the public company,  in exchange for a majority holding of its shares.    He said he was confident we could ‘turn it round.’  I went with Jack to visit the Hazlewood factory and it became blatantly apparent why they were losing money.

I realised we could easily rescue its fortunes and I agreed to join in the ‘reverse take-over.’

            Within the first year’s trading of the restructured company, the share price had risen from 17p, to over a pound and as a principal shareholder, I’d made a substantial profit.   By the time I retired in 1986, the Company had acquired some sixty other businesses, across a wide range of the food trade and had about 6,000 employees.   The shares had risen to over £8 and although Jack and I had parted with half of our holding to the other board members, we had both earned several million pounds.   Our lower levels of management and shop floor workers were all well paid and had a good pension scheme.    For obvious reasons, I’d given my wife and children part of my earnings but I was still very well off.   Although there was a certain amount of luck in my life, I can honestly claim that the success was very largely due to years of extremely hard work and long hours.   Money-making was never my prime aim in life; trying to be the best at my job was paramount.      Having been born with nothing and never having been given a penny, I was never self-conscious about the money and as such, it had relatively little importance.

PETER BARLOW

Hazlewood’s success was quickly recognised in the City, where we were “blue eyed boys”. So was the fact that John Lowe and I each owned 17% of the shares.   In August 1977, I was visited, at my Hull office, by a licensed dealer in securities, sent by the very well respected company, Towry Law Ltd., to seek Hazlewood`s   insurance and possibly, their

pension business.     This man, Peter Barlow, was a charming and plausible individual, with more intelligence than the average insurance salesman and I took to him immediately, learning all sorts of useful things, in an area which, strangely for a business-man, I`d never

considered before.     I was soon convinced of his wisdom and integrity and arranged for him to make a presentation to the new Hazlewood Board in Derby.  After it, we agreed to place all Hazlewood`s insurances through Towry Law, where it remained for many years afterwards.     Barlow continued to call and spoke about my personal position and that of my wife, Audrey, to whom, on his recommendation, I had passed a fair amount of my assets, principally for tax purposes.    We shared the opinion that Barlow was extremely nice and we invited him to our home regularly, where he became a close friend.        For years I had been so tied down with business that I had no time at all for socialising and many old friends had gone their own way.     Here was a man who seemed really interested in us and did all he could to be helpful. Everyone who met Barlow appeared to share the view that he was exceptionally good.

By the early eighties, I had sold some shares and had plenty of spare cash in the bank. Peter Barlow pointed out that this was not the best place for it and that my wife, Audrey and I ought to invest a substantial amount in some endowment policies which would appreciate

 quickly and be tax efficient.     We could leave it for our children, or draw on it, if ever there was a need.       So, I authorised Peter Barlow to invest over £300,000 for me, as he thought best and my wife, Audrey followed suit.    On his advice, we made him a joint signatory and Trustee. He recommended this, he said, in order that the proceeds might be more easily accessible for our children, if Audrey and I both died together.  We did not question his advice since he was both our financial advisor and, by this time, our trusted friend.    At his request, we also gave him pre-signed blank insurance surrender forms and share-transfer application forms which, because we’d moved to Kent whilst his office was in York, he said would be more convenient than having to use the post, especially since we both travelled a lot.      I was so convinced of his wisdom and integrity that I never sought any alternative advice on insurance or investment matters.           It was then 1983 and by this time, he’d left Towry Law and was working with Parkdale Ltd., in Leeds.   The following year, he set up on his own account but we agreed, at his request, like most of his Parkdale clients, that he should keep our affairs with him, personally.

            That same year, although I`d previously had stress problems from time to time, I experienced my first “strange attack” whilst Audrey and I were visiting the Wexford (Eire) Opera Festival.    In our hotel, one evening, everything went blank.     I had an “out of body” experience and couldn`t respond in any way.     Audrey said it lasted for about half a minute and when we got back home, sent me off to see Sir John Nabarro who had, the previous year, virtually preserved my life when he diagnosed Haemochromatosis, a rare debilitating and potentially fatal blood disorder.   Sir John sent me to a Harley St. colleague, Dr Peter Harvey who recognised the symptoms as, possibly, epilepsy but didn`t confirm this condition until 1993.  I wasn`t happy at work, partly because I was conducting a three year legal battle on behalf of the company but although we won the case it had diverted my attention from the main thrust of the business.   My domestic life was not too happy either, especially as I spent long periods away and came home only at weekends, stressed and tired.  The marriage had suffered after twenty-five long years of very pressing business demands.    Audrey`s claims for my attention, seemed to me disproportionately challenging, though justifiable because, sub-consciously, she probably considered herself neglected.    The fact remained that I felt under her thumb, never up to her high standards and subject to constant unfair criticism.    In retrospect, I realise this was wrong of me.

 I retired, aged 59, in February 1986, having made over seven million pounds, which largely for tax purposes, I`d shared with my wife and invested for my children.   I wanted to leave work behind and start to enjoy life, quietly, with Audrey, whom I’d inadvertently, neglected hitherto.       I loved our spacious, “Elizabethan” thatched house, idyllically set, in two acres of beautiful terraced grounds, overlooking the picturesque Elham Valley.  Within weeks, I met, Mrs Joan Smyth,  who was somewhat down on her luck, living in digs with her two young children.     A divorcee, of British parents, from South America had come to England to escape the prejudices which were blocking her career.

            She needed help and I set out to do what I could for her and her children but their vulnerability, coupled with my feeling of being completely dominated at home led to an impasse.   Losing my better sense, I rebelled and went to stay in her hotel, where very happy in her company, one thing led to another and I fell in love with her. I was immediately troubled greatly by my conscience, but torn between my wish to look after Joan and her children who were in very poor circumstances and my duty to my own family who were now very wealthy. The mental strain was too much and within six months, I found myself in a psychiatric hospital under Dr Maurice Lipsedge.   Discharged in November 1986, I decided to stay with Joan until after Christmas, for the sake of the children and then break my ties with them and return home

            In the early hours of  January 1st 1987, I crept downstairs, leaving Joan asleep, locked myself into the garage, sat in my Rolls, locked the door and turned on the ignition. Fortunately for all concerned, she woke to find me absent and seeing the intruder lights on, went to investigate.  She heard the car engine, found the doors locked and battered her way into the garage with a piece of concrete post, smashed the car window and switched off the ignition.     

        By this time, I was unconscious but she dragged me out and sent for help.     I couldn’t face life any longer and had cracked up mentally again.    Following the shock of this impulsive and un-premeditated attempted suicide, I realised how thoughtless and selfish it was.  I needed help and sought it from Dr Lipsedge who arranged for me to have almost weekly counseling for the next five or six years.  

            All this time, I’d confided closely in Peter Barlow who by now was one of my few trusted friends and I found his completely unbiased advice, together with regular counseling, kept me on a level keel - but only just.       I went to live in Yorkshire in order to escape all temptation to go off the rails again but after a few weeks, I learned Joan was seriously ill.       She was subsequently taken into hospital with heart failure.            This would have left the children with no-one to care for them so once again, I had to move back to the house I’d bought for them in Faversham.

            Joan’s bad health continued , with heart operations, for the next few years and though I lived on my own, in a number of rented rooms, I felt I had to keep a watch over them and thus continued to alienate myself from my own family.  Life was virtually a mental hell for the next five or six years and in fact there was no real happiness until my wife and I became fully reconciled in 1995.  I kept closely in touch with Barlow during all that time and he was a lifeline.     He never criticised any of the three contenders in the eternal triangle and seemed to me, for that reason, to be a man of real integrity.   In fact he never offered anyone of us advice but he was at least a shoulder to cry on. 

            He’d been a surveyor earlier in his career and he owned an acre of land behind his home.     He had the option of a neighbour’s half acre and the possibility of buying several other adjacent plots as well, on which he realised he could get planning permission to build houses.  He asked me to lend him the capital for this project and recommended that I passed shares to members of his family and friends which they would sell in small lots, to minimise taxation.   I accepted his professional, seemingly very bright advice.     In return, he would share the estimated profit of at least half a million pounds with me.     Accordingly, I put at his disposal, £300,000 worth of shares on loan.      I didn’t ask for security or interest- - in fact not even for a receipt or memo of the loan because I trusted him implicitly.       In addition, I deposited £200,000 worth of shares at his bank as third-party security against an overdraft to help cash flow for the project.

            Money had never been important to me, as such. I gave away or lent without security or acknowledgment, hundreds of thousands of pounds, without a second thought, to anyone who said they needed it. During my ‘ years in the wilderness’, I’d asked Peter Barlow to sell either some of my shares or endowment policies, as he thought best, in order to support my liberal spending.  He held the necessary surrender documents which I’d signed at his request

much earlier; all he had to do was countersign.   Consequently, due to the 1987 stock market crash and my own foolishness with cash, I was running an overdraft by 1993,  in preference to selling what few shares I had left, hoping they’d appreciate.        By that time, he’d been telling me that not much was left of my assets and I needed to consider the possibility of asking for repayment of some of what he himself owed me.

He used to ask me to lend him sums from time to time for his personal use, such as his boys’ education or for a holiday or medical expenses.      I agreed because he was my best friend, without any thought of the fact, which I learned later, that borrowing of clients’ monies is frowned upon in his profession.   In December 1993, he asked to borrow £25,000 to buy a laser shooting business which he said would be most lucrative.    I told him I had an overdraft myself but he said he’d pay me 10% p.a. interest, monthly and this should make it worthwhile to increase my overdraft!    I must have needed my head seeing to, when I did as he suggested but I did it for him as a trusted friend !

            Ever since I’d lent him, virtually, half a million pounds in 1989, I’d been asking about a start on the building site.        He said at first, that the market was depressed and he thought it better to wait a while.  By 1992, the situation had improved and I was pressing him to get going, but there was always some feasible reason for further delay.  By January 1994, after seeking to obtain from him for the previous two years, without success, a full record of what had happened to all the investments he’d made for me, I asked my solicitor, John Letts, to put the question formally.   Barlow replied, telling Mr Letts to ask me !

            A few weeks later, the Royal Bank of Scotland wrote to give me notice that my shares, which they held against Barlow’s overdraft, would be sold unless he paid them the interest that was due.   I immediately dashed up to York where Barlow calmly brandished, in front of the bank manager, a £368,000 offer for his land from a big development company. So the immediate danger to my shares subsided but I became worried and asked Barlow to give me some security against what he owed me.    He said he would arrange for me to have the first charge on the land for which he’d just been offered £368.000.

This never happened, nor did he send me the written proof, as he’d promised, that he owed me £500,000.    I had to resort to tapping telephone conversations with him in order to have proof of the original loan.     Even at that point, I never dreamed that he’d been using my money up for himself, secretly and systematically.  I did, however, start to look into my back records, for the first time; never having previously checked any of the transactions Barlow had done for me. I found in an old duplicate book, a note of £74,000 lent to Barlow to buy his house, in 1983.  He’d paid back £62,000 and I’d completely forgotten the balance!    This was the first evidence of my unfortunate attacks of amnesia.     I then discovered that I’d not received a later sum of £13,000 for share sales.

On checking endowment policy sales, I was shattered to discover that over half a million pounds from these sales, had been paid into a York bank account of which I’d no knowledge.   When I’d asked Barlow for cash, over the years - let’s say £20,000 to pay a tax bill,. he would cash -say £100,000 insurance, using a form, pre-signed earlier by me, bank it in a joint account, of which I was unaware, send me the £20,000 and then transfer the £80,000 balance to his own private bank account.      This had gone on for years; my money was being systematically siphoned off by my best friend for his own use!

I sued Barlow in the London High Court, for the value of the shares I’d loaned him, plus the money he’d taken without my permission through the joint bank account, plus interest on both.   He didn’t defend the case and I was awarded judgement of £966,000. John Letts advised me to make Barlow bankrupt if he failed to repay what he owed, or without a substantial offer.  We knew that he had considerable tangible assets, including his home and three properties bought with the funds I’d lent him; i.e. the two houses which he’d bought to gain access to the proposed building site, plus his office and took action to have them frozen. He’d had the audacity to acquire the two houses in his sons’ names, with my money without my knowledge or permission and I feel certain he intended to deprive me of them completely.    

 At this stage I met another of his victims, Mrs Betty Morgan, widow of a director of the World Bank. She’d already put a stop on the sale of Barlow’s office at Acomb, saying her husband had died ten years previously and that she’d been unable to gain access to his affairs which had all been controlled by Barlow. Mr Morgan was, apparently a great fan of Barlow and like many others, had been persuaded to appoint Barlow as Trustee of his estate. Mrs Morgan said that she knew her husband who’s job carried him all over the world, had investments in several different countries. She had begged Barlow to settle the estate and on being ignored, had twice applied to the courts to have him removed as Trustee. She won her case both times but each time, Barlow swore that he’d not known about the court hearing and twice had the judgements set aside!  In the end, Mrs Morgan gave up the fight, saying she’d spent £28,000 fighting for her rights and couldn’t afford more .      Barlow remained Trustee of Mr Morgan’s estate and would be able to help himself at any time, without any potential beneficiary being aware .

            Certainly, in my own case, he was the only other living person with knowledge of my assets. I’m sure he made a point of delaying matters, thus frustrating enquiries and thereby increasing the chance of his being left in sole charge of clients’ assets, on their death.

            John Letts asked Barlow’s solicitor if any reasonable offer was forthcoming and Barlow suggested we went up to Tees side to discuss a settlement.      We drove 300 miles up there, for the appointment with Barlow’s solicitors and Barlow, typically, failed to show up.

His lawyer was embarrassed and we were furious as we drove back!     There being no further response, I had to take steps to make him bankrupt but had difficulty in serving a statutory demand because, assisted by his wife and sons, he hid away. 

                Delivering a statutory demand to Barlow, in person, I knew would be difficult to do, so I asked my son in law, Bjorn, who lived in Hull, to accompany me.  We went to Barlow`s house, near York, in two separate cars to enable one to remain outside the house, in case the other needed to go anywhere.     We arrived just after seven in the morning, on October 24th 1994.     It was still dark and we pulled right across Barlow`s drive to prevent anyone driving out.    The curtains of what I took to be the principal bedroom, were closed.     At about seven thirty, a light went on in the bedroom. Since three cars were parked on the forecourt, we were not surprised to note the house was occupied.   At 7.45, the curtains were drawn back but we didn`t see by whom.     About an hour later, I asked Bjorn to go to the house to present the statutory demand to Barlow in person.    He had my tape recorder in his pocket to verify any conversation that might take place.     There was no rear exit to the house, since it backed on to the field, intended for the housing development, which had a ditch across it.  The path from the side door led to the front garden.   Strangely, although we knew the house was occupied, no one answered the door.   Bjorn kept knocking and ringing the doorbell, on and off, for the next half hour with no success.      After this he called at the next house to prove that we had tried to contact Barlow.

            There was still no movement in the house at ten thirty so, whilst Bjorn stayed with his car, I went to the village phone box and telephoned Barlow`s house two or three times but no one answered the calls.    I phoned my wife, Audrey and asked her to keep on phoning his house, all day, if necessary, until someone replied and ask them to answer the door.    I made several calls to Audrey during the day but she`d not had any answer.     Bjorn tried knocking and ringing the door bell all day, from time to time, to get a response, but with no success.   I kept low in my car because I didn`t want Barlow to know who was trying to make contact.

He wouldn`t recognise my vehicle because I`d only had it a few weeks.  Thus, we might have been anyone because he didn`t know Bjorn but no one came to answer the door. My daughter being seven months pregnant, Bjorn went back to Hull at about 8.00pm whilst I stayed on, still blocking Barlow`s drive.     I was certain that he’d been in the house all day, probably with his wife and family and I was determined to stay put for as long as it took.    But by midnight, feeling cold and frustrated I thought   ---    “By God, if I have to stay awake all night, why shouldn`t you lot?” 

            I decided that I would now show myself, in going up to the house and start  to attract attention.  This, I most certainly did because I banged the door so violently that it set off the alarm.     The siren screamed immediately and lights blazed all around with no response from Barlow`s house but bringing out an irate neighbour demanding to know who I was and what I was up to.   He said the police would turn up and as I showed him the statutory demand, telling him I`d been trying to serve it on Barlow all day, the police did arrive.

            I related the day`s goings-on to them and said I knew the house was occupied.    They ordered me to stay in my car whilst they went to investigate.      Sure enough, someone came to the side door and spoke to them.       When they returned to my car they said they had been told by Mrs Barlow that her husband was in London, looking after his recently deceased mother`s estate. By this time, it was well past midnight.   I didn`t believe what the police had been told but there was only one way to find out.        I had made over shares for Barlow`s mother to sell, at his request, in 1989, as part of the big share-loan deal and had a note of her address in my briefcase.   

            She lived in Ealing and I drove straight down there, arriving at about 4.00am, to park right outside.   I kept watch until 8.00am and then went to the house, myself, to serve the statutory demand, should Barlow be there.  I wasn`t surprised to find that there was no one in.        I called, then, at the next house to try to ascertain if Barlow had been around recently. I was told he hadn`t and that, to the best of their knowledge, he`d not been there since his late mother`s funeral.  They suggested I phoned Barlow`s sister in Walton on Thames and gave me her number from their private domestic phone pad.

            I had no idea that Barlow had a sister whilst, in fact, he had three.      This shows how little I knew of his life, whilst he was fully aware of the most intimate details of my own.   His sister said he had not been down since the funeral, several weeks before.      If Barlow had really been down seeing to his mother`s affairs, it is almost certain his sister would have known and it is highly probable he would have called on her and/or his mother`s neighbours, who seemed to know the family well.         I feel quite certain Mrs Barlow was lying to the police and that he was in their house at Copmanthorpe all the previous day, whilst we waited outside, in vain.

             I wanted to establish what really went on that day and so, when I got back, I phoned the Barlow home, ostensibly to apologise to Mrs Barlow, for the commotion on October 24th and again recorded the conversation.        I was sure Peter Barlow wouldn`t answer the phone because he was keeping his head down.    I asked her why she`d not come to the door or the phone all day and she said she`d been afraid to.         She was alone in the house, she said, except for her youngest son, Peter, a big, sixteen year old.    Having seen my son in law - clad in a black leather jacket, she considered him a potential threat.         Like her husband, she is powerfully built and once served in the police force.      I reminded her that she had been a policewoman and should have known what to do.     I suggested she could have shouted to him from the bedroom window, phoned the police or called a neighbour for assistance.

When I asked why she didn’t do this, or send her son across the field to summon help, she gave the most inept reply, “Why should I!”

            It seemed quite obvious to me  she was lying and trying to cover up the fact that her husband had been there all the time that Bjorn and I were outside and didn’t want it known. The worst aspect of all this, was the fact they must have involved their son in the criminal conspiracy.        Bjorn and I re-visited the house a week or so later and after a little delay, Mrs Barlow came to the door and accepted the statutory demand.

On December 9th, I went alone to Barlow`s house, to serve the bankruptcy petition on him.   At around 8.15 am, with my recorder switched on, I rang the bell .     Through the glass door, I saw Peter Barlow come into the hall and quickly retreat when he saw me.   His wife then appeared, giving an enquiring look but didn`t open the door.        I shouted that I wanted Mr Barlow and she retorted, indignantly, “He`s having his breakfast!”

            I tried to disguise my exasperation, as I felt my blood pressure rising and called, through the glass that I would wait for him.    She told me to go away and see him at his office!   His son, Peter, came out shortly afterwards and said his father would only see me at his office.       He then asked me, adding mild amusement to my growing irritation, why I was causing all his family so much stress.   Eventually, Barlow himself, doubtless realising that he was cornered, came charging out, wildly, with blazing eyes and flailing arms in what must have been a vain attempt to frighten me off.      He was a powerful six-footer, built like a rugby full back and really intimidating, coming at me like a madman, a completely different person from the “saintly” character I ‘d known hitherto.   It was sheer anger, rather than courage, which made me hold my ground and shove the petition into his hands, whilst I told him what I thought of him.   Barlow then went back into the house, leaving young Peter behind, to escort me off the premises, complaining that I had upset his father!     I formed the opinion then, that Barlow was a dangerous psychopath .

            Seeking to learn more about Barlow`s background, I had made enquiries of staff from Towry Law and Parkdale, in Leeds, whom I knew he had once worked with.       Generally speaking, his old colleagues didn`t seem to like him but could tell me nothing which was specifically incriminating.     They disapproved of his questionable handling of his clients - for example his practise of persuading them to make him a Trustee or Executor;  something generally frowned upon by financial advisers.        There was one man remaining whom I`d not spoken to, who used to be the head of Parkdale when Barlow worked with them.       Nicholas MacMahon-Turner was well known and respected in the profession and after many enquiries, I found that he lived at Stockton-in-the-Forest, near York.

                 When I left Barlow, on December 9th, I went  to meet Mr MacMahon-Turner . Relating my experience, he wasn`t surprised to hear it but he, too, said he couldn`t offer any help.    A couple of hours later, I made a routine phone call home and my wife said there had just been a request that I contact the Fraud Squad at Tadcaster.  Mr MacMahon-Turner, it would appear, had phoned them right away, after I left his office.    

            I went to the police station that afternoon and made an initial statement.     After being questioned by Sergeant Ross and PCW Melanie Gallagher, I was not surprised that they seemed a little sceptical, as I related events to them.    They must have wondered how I could have been so stupid.         A few days later, after they’d checked up on my allegations, they arrested Barlow, raided his office and removed his computer with a good many documents which revealed that he had a very doubtful character and had been in financial trouble for a long time.

 He had a great many bank accounts with movements of his clients` money, as well as his own.   Fraud Squad Auditors, given the task of trying to unravel everything said it was most complex.  Other creditors, with a legitimate grievance, came to light.  Immediately after Christmas 1994, John Letts compiled, with my help, a dossier of all Barlow’s assets that we knew about; several properties, the largest of which was Barlow`s home and adjacent land, as well as a legacy, resulting from his mother`s recent death. I went to York, early in the New Year and collected bankruptcy order number “139 of 1995”.

ANTHONY J. SLEIGHT

            The next task was unexpected.      My belief was that the Official Receiver handled all bankruptcies but I was told---I believe in the Official Receiver’s office---that creditors, in my position, were obliged to employ a professional bankruptcy practitioner, privately and pay him to act as a Trustee, in realising and distributing the bankrupt`s assets.  This, of itself, didn’t seem unduly unreasonable but I was told that, on top of that, the Official Receiver would claim a sizeable percentage of the proceeds, in addition to the Trustee`s fees, for doing virtually nothing. This is grossly unfair.

I thought that Price Waterhouse might do a good job and phoned my old friend, Marten Fraser, a senior executive in their Nottingham office to invite him to do the job.    He explained that P.W. only undertook business liquidations and suggested I asked ‘Coopers and Lybrand’ in Leeds.  I needed to speak to Roger Limbert, at Walker Morris, (solicitors) in Leeds with reference to a transaction Barlow had made, relating to one of my policies which seemed to have vanished.   Such was the appalling state of Barlow’s records that the Fraud Squad was having difficulty tracing all the proceeds and later, I was asked to help.    I visited Coopers & Lybrand  but was greeted by a pompous young man who treated me with such disdain that I left.  Walker Morris was in the neighbourhood so I met Mr Limbert the same day.  I thought he might be able to recommend a reliable Trustee and I was pleased when he said he knew “just the man” and would be delighted to introduce me.   We walked round the block and he presented me to Tony Sleight, a partner in a firm of bankruptcy practitioners, Geoffrey Martin & Co, whom he recommended highly.  I spent half an hour with Mr Sleight, speaking about what Barlow had done and the inefficiency I’d faced in the Official Receiver’s office, where I’d left our claim file, which subsequently they couldn’t find.    He didn`t seem to have a good opinion of the Official Receiver`s staff and immediately phoned their Hull office, demanding, in no uncertain terms, to be put through to the Chief, personally.  He related my experience to the Receiver who promised that my complaint would be looked into.

            I decided, there and then, that this was a very keen and sharp individual who would not be messed about and that he would make a militant Trustee.   I discussed Barlow`s assets with him and he seemed anxious to act for the Creditors.          He explained his method of remuneration could be either according to a percentage scale, laid down by the Dept of Trade, or on a time/cost basis.  From the information I gave him, he estimated what he might recover and calculated, for my benefit, in my notebook, the commission which would be payable on the Dept of Trade.scale. He recommended that we agreed to work on the D. of T. Scale, probably because I’d identified nearly half a million pounds worth of assets, which looked easily accessible.   I was pleased about this because it was closer to my own philosophy than an open ended, hourly rate.   I said I would recommend that he be appointed Trustee, on that basis, at the first creditors` meeting.

            The first Creditors` meeting took place on April 19th 1995, at the Official Receiver`s office, when I learnt I was the largest creditor, by far.   The assets and prospects for recovery were discussed briefly; my recommendation of Sleight was approved and his work could now begin.  During the summer and autumn of 1995, I met Sleight and his colleague, Mrs Forsyth a number of times; once in the company of my wife and Mrs Morgan.     Within a few weeks, he’d taken possession of the Barlow home and development land, plus the two houses giving access to it,  realising £390,000.      I met Sleight and his colleague, Forsyth, at the Pavillion Hotel on the outskirts of York, early in October, to discuss the results to date.  When he showed me the ‘receipts and payments’ account I was greatly alarmed to see that, excluding Sleight’s own fees, less than a quarter---only £97,000, remained from the gross amount realised.     Mrs Barlow, who of course, like most wives, had had a 50% interest in her home and land, did best out of the deal, being given £161,000 by Sleight, out of that £390,000, thus she ending up as the sole owner of the house, worth about £150,000.        She’d also had the outstanding £61,000 mortgage paid off out of the gross realisation!    In effect, this meant that, after misappropriating my money, Barlow, retained his home, with the mortgage paid off, out of Creditors` funds!!

 Sleight paid the Official Receiver nearly £17,000 for zero help.       He paid himself, some £24,000 and the solicitors who introduced me to him, £28,000, for handling the sale of the property!   I was appalled by the legal fees, and had the sympathy of both Sleight and Forsyth who agreed that the charges seemed excessive.  I asked if they could be taxed, and when told they could, I asked Sleight to take that course.    I confirmed my request for taxation, in a letter to Sleight, dated November 16^th, which, also complained about the amount claimed by the Official Receiver and the wonderful deal the Barlows had enjoyed which added insult to injury but which was, apparently, legal. 

            Soon afterwards, Sleight told me he wanted to leave the Geoffrey Martin partnership but was having difficulty in persuading his partners to let him retain the Barlow file because they wished to keep it.     He asked if I would intervene and I phoned Mr Martin, personally, who then agreed to release it.   Sleight also said he wanted a Creditors` Committee to be formed and called a first meeting for December 21st 1995.

I attended, with the only other creditor present being Tim Ingham, representing the Ingham Trust.   (Three creditors were required to form a committee and two for a quorum.) Sleight, who as Trustee, chaired the meeting, said that a Mr Brown, a farmer, from whom Barlow had borrowed £20,000 illegally, after he was made bankrupt, had agreed to serve but had sent apologies for the initial meeting.   Also in attendance was Mr Taylor, a solicitor

from Walker Morris.    An apology had been received from Mrs Forsyth because her father had died.  Sleight ran through his receipts and payments to 15th November, which showed the extent of the decimation of Creditors` funds.    £390,000 receipts, from assets recovered, were reduced to £119,000, by outgoings :-         to Mrs Barlow, paying off the mortgage,  Official Receiver`s charges,      solicitors fees and       divers small items,. It failed, for some obscure reason, to include the £25,589.50  claimed to that date by the Trustee.  This meant that the net amount remaining for the creditors was really    only £93,500 -       less than a quarter of the gross realisation!     I voiced strong objection to the legal fees claimed by Walker Morris and asked for confirmation that they would be taxed, as requested earlier, both verbally and in writing.        Mr Taylor then said

“Technically, these fees cannot be taxed because they have been agreed by the Trustee.” 

Much to my shock and disgust, Sleight supported this statement, in spite of the fact that he and Forsyth had agreed with me, at Fulford,, that Walker Morris` fees were too high and when I asked if they could be taxed he had said ‘yes’. I did ask for taxation and confirmed it by letter.      I could scarcely believe this brazen duplicity, especially from this “Officer of the Court”.      Another obscenity !

            Sleight then asked the Committee (Ingham and I) to be paid his remuneration, based on a time/cost basis, instead of the Scale, as originally agreed, because the scale fee was not enough to cover his expected future costs.  He said that the creditors would be better off this

way.  He must have thought we were stupid to believe that what would benefit him, would also benefit the creditors who would have to pay him! I was vigorously opposed to this and to the legal charges.    Tim Igham remained silent because, unlike myself, he was not very aware of what had gone on up to date.        When he learned more about it, he was in full agreement with me on both major points.       I expressed sympathy for Sleight because the

Dept.of Trade scale started off at 20% and reduced through 15% and 10% to a lower plateau of 5%.  He was a partner in Geoffrey Martin & Co when Barlow`s major assets were realised and the higher percentages had been claimed by that company, leaving Sleight with the flat rate of 5% for all the work he would do.    But, as I said at the meeting, this was something he should sort out with his old partners and nothing to do with the creditors.    I even said that if

Sleight did a good job, the creditors might consider an added, ex gratia, payment but he said this was “not possible.”

            By the time I left that meeting, my opinion of Sleight had changed diametrically; he was obviously, extremely devious.   That being so, I wrote to him on January 5th to confirm my insistence that he remain, as agreed, on the scale and I reminded him, politely, that he and Mrs Forsyth had agreed, back in October, that Walker Morris fees were too high and did not deny my request for their taxation. 

            Barlow`s office at 2 Carr Lane, Acomb had been bought by Barlow, with my money but after my High Court action against him in 1994,  he had secretly made it over to his son Charles.    In January 1996, the property was recovered after a court action against Charles. Sleight immediately billed him with the costs, of some £9,000- plus the threat of bankruptcy, if he didn`t pay up.  I wrote to Sleight again, on February 11th 1996 approving  any legal action he wished to take against the Barlow family and again, pressing for taxation of Walker Morris fees.         He replied to this on February 15th saying,

“As Trustee, I am not prepared to have these costs taxed,” and implied that I was wasting his time by repeatedly asking.     This confirmed my belief that he was in league with the solicitors , was not to be trusted and had little, if any, concern about the Creditors` interests. Sleight wrote to me again on 23rd February saying that he was surprised to have recovered    “ a substantial amount of paperwork” from Barlow`s office, considering that the police had gone over the premises a year earlier.  I was equally surprised that Sleight, himself, had taken so long to check the place.  He asked if I would go and help sort through what turned out to be over half a ton of documents saying,  --   “ .....as you may be able to assist significantly in deciding what is relevant, or not.”          I spent a week in Sleights office, soon afterwards, combing through all this stuff, sorting it and making over 50 pages of duplicated notes, the top copies of which I gave to Sleight.      There was an enormous amount of information and irrefutable evidence of Barlow’s lies and conspiracies.   He had about 20 bank accounts,     not all in his own name,    as well as mandates to access many clients` accounts.    The transactions were so complex they couldn`t be followed through, let alone be resolved.      It was apparent that he paid food, household and car expense bills by credit card and not many accounts by cheque.      There were dozens of unpaid bills, final notices,   threats of legal action and    actual summonses,   many of them still in unopened envelopes,   going back several years.    Barlow seems to have been able to recognise letters which demanded money as if he had x ray eyesight and he hadn`t opened these.    Yet there were withdrawal slips from a cash machine in Acomb   showing that he regularly drew down between £2,000 and £4,000 in cash, monthly!     The police and Sleight agreed that he must have been slotting this away in some bank, probably under a false name.   The Fraud Squad officers said there was no way they could trace this, unless Barlow could be caught red handed or he confessed, and that he would probably live off the money he took from me, for the rest of his days. It seemed obvious to me, that the entire family was involved in Barlow’s misdeeds.    Barlow admitted in Court, under oath that he had put several properties, bought with my money, into his sons` names and also that he even got his sons to sign legal documents, including a fraudulent application for legal aid, to which he he admitted he had no right, using false names and addresses.      After his trial, I asked the Crown Prosecution Service to charge him with this but they refused.          Is there any wonder we have so many villains?

Sleight suggested, about February or March 1996, that we had Mr and Mrs Barlow  watched by private detectives  and brought in for questioning.   John Letts and I prepared a long list of questions, for Sleight to put to them, but he did nothing, even though I pressed him several times, to interrogate the pair.      Sleight again advised that we took legal action

against Charles Barlow to recover the £9,000 which he owed the creditors in legal costs.      I had agreed fully, having already expressed my approval in writing to Sleight     in a letter dated February 11th.     Later in the year, he mentioned these points to me yet again and again said he thought he should bring in the entire Barlow family for questioning, if necessary, to try to find out where all the large sums of misappropriated money had gone.  Yet again, I expressed approval but, as the year went by, nothing happened. I was feeling increasingly frustrated at the lack of action by Sleight.          My letter to Sleight, dated November 3rd 1996, reflects this impatience.   I phoned his office, a little later that month, to make an appointment to see him. I do recall saying to his Secretary that it was time Sleight  “got off his arse.”    She made no comment but told me he would see me on December 17th.

            I received a letter dated Dec 11^th,  his long overdue “Report to the Committee,” and   “Receipts and Payments,” account plus a number of formal resolutions :-  That the “Receipts

and Payments” account be approved,  t    hat preferential creditors be paid and a first dividend made to unsecured creditors.    Finally, that the three actions for which Sleight had received verbal approval, nine months earlier, be endorsed.     He seemed to be delaying action for as long as possible ---probably trying to make his task appear more difficult than the straight forward job it really was.         I wonder if it was my latest letter and my comment to his secretary which speeded him up!

When I looked through the accounts he`d submitted for our approval,   there were a number of things with which I disagreed.

 A:-      Mrs Barlow`s share of the house and land, at 19 Tadcaster Rd., worth over £150,000, was claimed, by Sleight, to be one of her husband’s assets.       This was wrong.

B:-    No interest was shown as being owed to the creditors, whilst I believed that by that time, nearly £20,000 of interest should have accrued    on the creditors` funds, in the bank, awaiting  distribution.     I learnt subsequently, that all interest on such monies were confiscated by the government and      I considered this law to be highly immoral   since it wrongly deprived those who had already lost money      and who, in our case, had been wrongly deprived already. 

It was like being abused mercilessly, by an onlooker who`d already witnessed my rape!

C:-          I still objected most strongly to Walker Morris` legal charges and could, in no circumstances, ever agree them. 

D:-         I didn`t understand why “VAT receivable” was shown as an expenditure.   

E:-         The most controversial item was the extremely high amount of “Trustee`s remuneration”, shown as £39,094.

F:-         Not only that but wrongly omitted from the accounts, was an additional amount of £14,775, claimed by Sleight, up to that date, but not shown as a liability.       I`m quite sure, he had hoped the Committee wouldn`t notice this blatant attempt to disguise his wrongful claims.       By reading the accompanying letter carefully, this extra sum could be deduced but it could easily be overlooked.        I missed it myself, on first reading.                     

Because I would need to challenge Sleight`s  “receipts and payments” account, I anticipated trouble at the meeting with him, scheduled for December 17th and I wrote to John Letts, on December 12th, setting out my feelings about the deceitful way Sleight was behaving, so that there could be no misunderstanding of my standpoint, as a creditor.

I drove up to York for the appointment and as I entered Sleight`s office,     I was met by two very straight-faced hosts in the form of Sleight and his colleague, Forsyth.          He immediately demanded an apology from me for “swearing at one of the staff”.      This was obviously with reference to my phoned remark, made to his secretary about Sleight`s dilatory attitude and lack of progress to date. I said I hadn`t sworn at the girl but had been somewhat emphatic, regarding the lack of progress in the bankruptcy. I said “It depends whether “arse” is considered to be a swear word these days but I am sorry if I gave any offence to the lady”.   

            The meeting didn`t get off to a good start.   I gave him back the resolutions, all signed by me except for the approval of the accounts.    He naturally wanted to know why I objected and I said there were several points, some contentious, that I would prefer to have discussed at a subsequent Committee meeting.   Forsyth then pressed to know what these points were at once.  I wanted to avoid any argument, especially since I had no witness but she was insistent and so I went over them.  When I asked why nearly £15,000, inferred obliquely by Sleight, in his letter, as still owing to him,   had not be disclosed in the receipts and payments account, he seemed rather taken aback and merely said it was    “not necessary to show outstanding creditors!”       I commented that this was a very significant amount and should have been disclosed openly.    I pointed out that it meant he was in fact claiming some £54,000 and told him this was twice the sum he was entitled to.      The exchanges were becoming a bit heated and I began to wish I`d brought my tape recorder along,    There were two of them and their version, even if false, might predominate over my single voice, at a later date.

I asked why no interest had been shown in the accounts, considering the very large sum of creditors’ money awaiting distribution.  Possibly £20,000 could have accrued over the previous 15 months or so. He said we were not entitled to interest and I replied that I couldn`t accept that to be the case.      Weeks later, I learned that he was, in fact, correct because our iniquitous laws actually state that all interest on creditors` money, awaiting distribution, is claimed by the state! Sleight should have explained this to me but he didn`t.  

 He said that Mr Brown and Mr Ingham had approved the minutes of 21 December 1995 meeting, agreeing that he should be paid “on the clock” I told him this was impossible because there had been no Committee meeting since that time, to agree anything.

What is the point of agreeing which method of payment would be applied, if the Trustee can alter the agreement at will, to ensure he is paid the maximum amount?    The whole thing, in that event would be a complete charade.       I told him that, I myself couldn`t approve those minutes since they contained mistakes;   they didn`t reflect accurately what took place and were very misleading.          I assured Sleight that nothing would make me change my mind regarding the method of his payment.   I objected again to the legal fees, confirmed that I did not accept Mr Taylor`s claim that they couldn`t be taxed and insisted that Sleight should take steps to see this done.  

Obviously, by now, Sleight and I were completely opposed.    He said, pointedly, that his time was clocking up at £175 an hour, whereupon Forsyth said,   “and mine`s clocking up, in addition, at the same rate”.         Her presence was completely unnecessary and merely doubled the cost.     We were getting nowhere - so I said, “in that case, the sooner this meeting ends, the better” and I left.   When I got back to Kent, I sent Sleight a detailed letter, dated 20th December, setting out my recollection of what took place at the meeting and asking him to agree, or to state where he differed.       He didn`t reply to this so I sent him a reminder on January 7th, asking if he thought my impression of the meeting was correct.

This was acknowledged, without comment, by his secretary, the following day.   Meanwhile, Sleight had called a meeting of the Creditors` Committee for January 29th 1997,  ---“ Because members of the Committee are unable to agree my Receipts and Payments account.” -   This notification also asked Committee Members to tell him, in advance, where they disagreed with his figures and about any other items they wished to include on the agenda.     I sent him two letters, by recorded delivery, to ensure he couldn`t deny having had them, setting out seven amendments which I considered   essential    to the minutes of the previous Committee meeting.         I also listed numerous questions, including items on the receipts and payments account.        There was, quite obviously, in my opinion, something seriously amiss in Sleight`s Trusteeship and I needed to prepare for the next Committee meeting carefully.    I was certain he was trying to charge the Creditors as much as possible and that he had some sort of   mutually beneficial arrangement with Walker Morris.      

By my reckoning, even if one accepted that £506,000 had been recovered, the Trustee was only entitled to about £31,000 fees.    If, as I maintained, Mrs Barlow`s share in the home of £161,000 and the repayment to the building society of £61,000 were excluded from Peter Barlow`s assets, Sleight would only be entitled, on the scale, to some £23,000.        He was claiming, at that stage, nearly £54,000!     I needed some expert advice and arranged to visit my old friend at Price Waterhouse, Marten Fraser, in Nottingham on December 23rd. Marten sent me to see P.W.`s specialist bankruptcy solicitors, Actons and they, in turn, discussed my case with Deloittes, over the phone. They could scarcely believe what I told them about the way in which Sleight was carrying on.    They said it sounded little short of criminal and told me to hold my ground.        Actons confirmed to me that all the interest on funds awaiting distribution to the Creditors, was confiscated.        They also assured me that creditors could insist on taxation of fees and that Sleight could not refuse to carry on, as Trustee, without the leave of the Court.

The Creditors` Committee consisted of only three people, Ingham, Brown and myself.   As the principal creditor, I was very closely involved with what was going on.     Mr Ingham seemed to believe everything that Sleight said, without question, so I had to be very outspoken when opposing Sleight.    Mr Brown wasn`t the slightest bit interested and said he never wanted to be on the Committee. I’d not met him but speaking on the phone, formed the opinion that he wasn`t very intelligent and would probably comply with anything Sleight might suggest. In the event of Mr Ingham and I disagreeing, I`m sure Brown could have been persuaded to vote any way which suited Sleight.    It was important, therefore, to inform Tim Ingham of everything I knew, to try to convince him of the truth of the matter and make him realise that I was being honest and fair in my assessment.    I did realise that he’d reservations about the robust way in which I opposed Sleight and I wondered what were his own views.    With this in mind, I made an appointment to visit him, at his home, on January 21st 1997.     By this time I had listed seven essential amendments to the misleading minutes of the December 1995 Committee meeting and numerous questions which I considered should be asked at the next Committee meeting. My intention was to go over these with Tim Ingham and see to what extent he agreed or differed.

I duly arrived at Tim`s house, where we settled down with a coffee and I started to go over each point with him.   When I mentioned Sleight`s fees, he told me that almost exactly a year earlier, he had signed his approval of three resolutions which were sent to him by post, with a letter dated January 23rd 1996.  This covering letter stated that Sleight wasn’t prepared to continue as Trustee unless the three resolutions were approved. I never received this letter. Tim`s family was pressing him to encourage a rapid winding up of the bankruptcy because, in their case, the dispute with Barlow had been going on for years before I discovered Barlow’s misdeeds.

 Tim was, if anything, more anxious, that the bankruptcy should not be held up than he was about the dividend.  One resolution, in the letter, was for Sleight to continue legal action with regard to 2 Carr Lane, a property which Peter Barlow had tried to withhold, by making it over to his son.         Another was for the approval of the Receipts and Payments account, about which I had raised several objections.  The third was that Sleight be allowed to change the basis for his fees, from the D. of T. scale, to a time/cost basis. Although I’d voiced the strongest objections to this at the December 1995 meeting, Tim assumed that since I hadn`t contacted him about it, I must have changed my mind.  Therefore, to expedite matters, he signed his approval.

My alarm was obvious.   I almost reeled as I told Tim that this was the first I knew of it. If Mr Brown had also signed approval, it meant Sleight would have got what he wanted by deception, since he had not informed me of this postal ballot at any time -     not even in our recent, acrimonious meeting on December 17th 1996.      I asked Tim if I might use his phone and I spoke to Brown who confirmed he had, in fact, signed the three resolutions as a matter of course.          I tried to explain to him the situation but he said he wasn`t the slightest bit interested in the matter and didn`t wish to be involved.        Tim said that he’d assumed I`d received the letter and resolutions and since I`d not contacted him, he considered I must have decided to agree with them,    despite the reservations I expressed at the committee meeting.          I felt really sick.  Unless Tim withdrew his approval, all seemed lost because Brown was highly unlikely to bother to go to such trouble and it would be two against one in Sleight`s favour.  

Tim was a highly intelligent and fair-minded person who had been non-commital so far but by the time I left,   I had shown him enough evidence to prove how devious Sleight

was.              My documents also revealed that I was in Sleight`s office on the very day that communication had gone out and it was never mentioned to me.  Nor did Sleight mention it at

any time subsequently, although he’d said, “ the others have agreed I should be on the clock”.   On these occasions I had always told him they couldn`t have approved any change because there had been no meeting to give them that opportunity to do so.  Although I knew about proxies, I had never heard of postal resolutions, as such.    Tim told me he wished he’d never signed that resolution and would not have, had he been aware of all the facts earlier.       He assured me that he would withdraw his approval at the forthcoming meeting.  He agreed with all the points I made and the necessity of amending the minutes of the last committee meeting.         He also agreed that all the questions I intended to raise were valid ones.  

I was so ill, because of this meeting, that I had to consult my London physician. I felt violated again, physically and mentally, and really couldn`t take in, the depths to which an Officer of the Court could sink.   Sleight knew how very much I was opposed to his wish to “move the goal posts”;   he was aware how strongly I objected at the last Committee meeting and that I’d confirmed, in writing, a few days later, my objection to any change.       Yet, fully aware of this, within a few more days, he sent this letter and resolutions out to the other two Committee members without my knowledge. It was a most deceitful tactic, yet it looked, at that time, as though it might achieve what Sleight was after.  There isn`t the slightest doubt in my mind, that he kept all knowledge of these resolutions from me, deliberately.   He knew I would have hit the roof if I`d received them and I would have called for a meeting of the Committee immediately, to put my case once again.

When I returned to Kent, I discussed my proposals with John Letts and told him the shocking news I`d received from Tim Ingham.   I showed John a copy of the letter and the resolutions and he said they were “improper, for several reasons.”    They should have been sent to every Committee member and should have provided for dissent, as well as agreement,

 to be registered.   Not only that---the covering letter carried a threat, which would influence any decision by Brown and Ingham because it stated that unless the resolutions were approved, Sleight would cease to act -      which, of course, would have added cost for the creditors who would have had to start all over again to brief another Trustee.       It might be difficult to prove conclusively that I had never received this posting but everyone was aware of my feelings in the matter and knew I would have reacted very strongly indeed.   In view of this, Sleight should have enquired why I had never returned or even mentioned the document.

Because I easily become flustered when confronted, I realised that I would need to set out my stall for the January 29th Committee meeting, only a few days off.  So I typed out my objections to the misleading minutes of the previous meeting and listed the seven essential  amendments.         I also typed out numerous questions for Sleight to answer.   He had been advised of all these things, previously, in my two registered letters.       The amendments and questions filled three A4 sheets and I decided to table the documents at the commencement of the meeting so that I wouldn`t need to become embroiled in a heated argument.     When the meeting took place, I was very pleased to have done this because Tim and I were confronted by Sleight, plus Forsyth and two partners from Walker Morris -   Messrs Taylor and Bates. This show of force was obviously intended to be intimidating and the first thing I did was to object to the presence of Forsyth and the lawyers.

I said I felt inhibited and somewhat over awed because I considered they were there merely to support Sleight and also that they were an unnecessary cost.  Sleight said they were needed in case questions were raised. I replied that the Creditors Committee members didn`t need them and if they stayed, it should be at Sleight`s expense. 

 The meeting started with the minutes of the previous meeting.       I said  they were misleading and must be amended.     I distributed copies of the documents I wished to table and asked that they be approved and accepted.         There was some discussion about the amendments before Mr Ingham proposed that, to save time, the tabled amendments should be accepted en bloc and this was agreed and passed, with no objections.   The 28 questions which I had tabled, were considered by Sleight to be a personal attack on his integrity and he called on me to apologise.         I assured him that they were asked with the interest of all the Creditors in mind and that some were suggested by two firms of internationally known bankruptcy practitioners.   I said I was sorry if he considered that the questions were intended as an attack on him but this was not the case.

            Divers other matters were debated, including the laser shooting business, for which Barlow had borrowed £25,000 from me in December 1993.          Sleight had sold this to Barlow`s wife for a mere £1,700,   without advising the creditors,      whereas the law clearly states that the   ‘creditors must be consulted before any of the bankrupt`s assets are sold to an associate or to members of his family’.  It was agreed that Charles, one of Barlow`s sons would be served with a bankruptcy notice on his return to the UK, unless he repaid £9,000 court costs to the creditors.  The Committee agreed that it would not be cost effective to bring in Mr and Mrs Barlow for questioning because they were so well rehearsed and un-co-operative.   There was unanimous approval for Simon Barlow to be brought in and made to admit that he had no right to the £24,800, left after paying off the mortgage on the sale of the Drapers Close house -  failing which,    he should be sued.    If we had to take him to court, it might cost up to £8,000 maximum but Sleight said he would probably repay without question and the cost would be less than £1,000.    In any case, both sums were well worth pursuing.

It was agreed to employ private detectives to follow Mr and Mrs Barlow for two weeks to try to ascertain where they might be moving cash.      The creditors still maintained that £161,000 paid to Mrs Barlow, as her share in the family home, should never have been included in the gross amount of the bankrupt`s assets.          The solicitors fees were again challenged and once more, a request was made for taxation.    Again, Taylor said it wasn`t possible because Sleight had accepted them but he warned that   ‘even if they were taxed, it would cost the creditors some £6,000, win or lose!’   The more we asked for taxation of the legal costs, the more both Taylor and Sleight insisted that it was impossible.        All our protests were ignored by both of them,   whilst Bates and Forsyth, fully aware of the situation  stood mutely by  - this was like gang rape with approving spectators!

For full measure, Taylor then warned the creditors they’d face high costs if they tried to have Walker Morris’ fees taxed.     This intimidation of the creditors by Sleight, a member of the Court and Taylor, a senior solicitor, in front of his subordinate solicitor, is a most serious matter.  The law clearly provides that       ‘even if a Trustee has accepted them, the legal fees MUST be taxed if the creditors pass a formal resolution requiring taxation.’  Sleight and Taylor had a clear duty to advise the Creditors` Committee Members about this  especially in view of our constant vociferous demands. They not only failed to do so but told the Committee that taxation was “impossible.”

 When the question of Sleight`s remuneration cropped up again, he swore that I had been sent the letter of January 23rd 1996 although he again said    “unless I`m paid on the clock, I will not carry on”. If he really felt this communication was valid, he could merely have claimed to have a majority vote in favour, ie Brown and Ingham, against me.  However, this possibility ended abruptly when Tim said that he wished to withdraw his approval for

Sleight to be paid on the clock.        The meeting then went out of control as tempers were frayed until Taylor suggested that no decision be made and that the Committee should go home and consider the situation.     This was agreed.    

As is my usual practise, immediately following the committee meeting, I typed out my interpretation of what went on, in order to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding at later date. I sent a copy of this report to Tim Ingham and asked if he agreed with it, as a true record of what took place or, otherwise, to point out where he might disagree with my impression. Tim went through it and returned it to me, with the comment -  “Nothing in the above which I would wish to contradict.”

At the meeting, when I’d said that “ I never knew about the postal resolutions, dated 23rd January 1996 until Mr Ingham told me about them in January 1997,” I was handed what was claimed to be a copy of the letter which was said to have been sent to me in January 1996.  Because of the acrimonious nature of the meeting, I was not in a fit mental state to absorb the content of this copy letter and I handed it back, unread, asking for a copy to be made available for me to take away at the end of the meeting.  When the meeting broke up, no one remembered it, so, the next morning at 9.30am, when I was back in Canterbury, I sent a fax addressed to - “ Tony Sleight, or his secretary, or Mrs Pat Forsyth”, asking for a copy of this letter, of 23rd January 1996, to be faxed back to me, explaining that I was - “seeing Mr Letts today”. I also requested a copy of the letter that was sent to Mr Brown on that date. Later that morning, Sleight`s office did fax two copy letters to me but they were copies of  other covering letters, dated 18th January 1996, to Mr Brown and I, respectively, enclosing the minutes of the December 1995 meeting. Therefore, I sent another fax to Sleight`s office at 1.25pm, advising them of their mistake and again requesting them to fax a copy of the January 23rd 1996 letter to John Letts office,  -(in time for our meeting.)        It never arrived and Sleight`s Company has since admitted that they don`t have this copy letter in their records.     

                 I discussed the situation with John Letts who wrote a letter to Sleight, on January 31st confirming my dissatisfaction with the meeting of January 29th, mentioning the following specific matters:-   Firstly, objecting to Mrs Barlow`s share in the property being included in the bankrupt`s assets recovered.   Secondly, my objections to the Walker Morris legal fees and the misleading statement that they could no longer be taxed.         Also my rejection of Sleight`s request to change the method of remuneration   and the invalidity of the postal resolution to change it.   My strong objection to the fees being claimed by Sleight was confirmed.  The claims against Barlow`s two sons, ie  A.    £9,000 owing from Charles, whom it had been agreed, with the Creditors, should be made bankrupt, to recover this amount, and B. the balance of money due to the Creditors of £24,800, from 5 Drapers Close, following its sale and the discharge of the mortgage.       It was agreed by the committee that Simon Barlow should be made to admit he had no right to this, either by interviewing him, to minimise the legal costs, or by suing him.        Finally, Mr Letts` letter asked for an interim distribution to be made, especially in view of the loss of Creditor`s interest caused by all the unnecessary delay.   Sleight`s office acknowledged receipt of John Letts` letter and said it had been passed to Walker Morris to deal with.      W.M. did not respond to it for three months, until May 1st!

Sleight sent me a copy of the minutes of the January 29th Committee Meeting, prepared by Walker Morris, on March 7th. They were totally unsatisfactory. There wasn`t a word about the seven important, essential amendments required, to the misleading, December 1995, Committee Meeting Minutes, tabled by me, proposed by Tim Ingham and endorsed by the committee.    I feel this was a deliberate omission and that we should have received amended minutes for the December 1995 meeting.   We never have.  The Jan 29th 1997 minutes failed to mention the repeated request for taxation of the legal fees and the repeated false statement by Taylor, supported by Sleight, that    “ these fees cannot be taxed

because they have already been accepted by the Trustee”.     Both of them knew full well that the law provides that legal fees -          “MUST be taxed if the committee passes a formal resolution requesting taxation”.           Both men deliberately witheld this fact  from the Committee Members, who were not aware of it, although both had a duty to advise the Committee.    My vehement objection to Sleight`s request to change the method of his scale fees to a time/cost basis, was not noted,  nor the withdrawal of Tim Ingham’s agreement for any change. The postal resolutions of  January 23rd 1996, were not mentioned or the fact that I had complained at not having been informed about them by Sleight.         These misleading minutes of the January 29th 1997 meeting, implied that Sleight had considered he was “on the clock” since December 1995.   This was certainly incorrect and, in fact, the opposite of the truth.   The resolution to pursue Simon Barlow for £24,800, was actually contradicted by Walker Morris` minutes, which were completely misleading ---stating that  “proceedings should not be commenced without the matter being given further consideration by the committee”.  The minutes do confirm the resolution to make Charles Barlow Bankrupt, on his return to the UK and the resolution to employ a private detective to follow Mr and Mrs Barlow for two weeks.       None of these three resolutions, which were clearly passed by the Committee, has ever been carried out.  In fact, Sleight has abandoned the £24,800 which he was instructed to sue Simon Barlow for, if necessary, ‘at a cost of,’ his own words, “ a maximum of about £8,000 if it has to go to court but probably Simon Barlow will return this sum, to which he has no right, without this need, and cost under £1,000.”

His confidential letter to Tim Ingham, of 30th November 1999 states,     maliciously -  “There is no guarantee of success and the lion`s share of the recovery would go to           Mr Hickson.  Your comments would be appreciated.”   Clearly, this latter sentence invites  Mr Ingham, with his lesser interest, to say,   “OK forget it”.      Since I would be, by far, the biggest loser,     this seditious letter illustrates Sleight`s personal dislike of me   because I would not tolerate his devious tactics.

John Letts wrote to Sleight, at the Poppleton Appleby` office on 26th March 1997, firstly expressing surprise that no detailed reply had been received from them to his letter of January 31st.  He complained at the brevity, ambiguity and incorrectness of the minutes, as well as the omissions, including the agreed, essential amendments to the minutes of the initial committee meeting of December 1995.  He sent them a copy of my report of the 29th January 1997 meeting which had been endorsed as a true record, by Tim Ingham.   

Walker Morris` reply to John Letts` letters of January 31st and March 26th, was not received until May 1997  and did not properly address the questions which John raised.   It offered a long explanation of how Mrs Barlow`s share of the matrimonial home, in joint names, came to be included in her husbands assets;    obviously contrived to maximise the benefit to Sleight, at the time when he did not contest his agreement to be paid on the Dept of Trade scale.    This first involved the sale of the development land only; with her share of the proceeds being used subsequently, to buy Mr Barlow`s share of the house.  To claim that this justified Sleight in saying that the entire value of the total property constituted the bankrupt`s assets, made no sense, at the meeting, or on reading Walker Morris` explanation.

 Five years later, Sleight`s successor, Neil Hickling, completely agreed with us, and the amount shown as Barlow`s assets was reduced by some 43%, on the most recent Receipts and Payments account. This correctly excluded Mrs Barlow`s share in the joint ownership and other items, as we had consistently insisted. Walker Morris` letter went on at length to try to justify their charges, principally on the grounds that Sleight had accepted them and that, therefore, the Creditors could not challenge them. This completely misleading statement, also given to the Committee on two previous occasions by Taylor and endorsed, each time, by Sleight, borders on criminal mis-representation. Clearly, both men had a duty to inform the Committee that a “formal resolution” could be passed, requiring taxation, if that was the Creditors` wish - which it very clearly was.    

They went on to threaten that, if their charges are taxed, they will add over £3,000 of extra costs.  These would be in addition to legal costs, mentioned at the committee meeting, which Mr Taylor estimated as £5- 6,000-, which Creditors would face if they dared to have Walker Morris` fees taxed - win or lose.     Regarding Sleight’s fees, the letter implies that since Sleight said he would not carry on unless he was paid “on the clock”, he assumed that, because he had carried on, he was entitled to be paid thus.        The truth is that the Committee would not agree to change the method of remuneration and therefore, Sleight resorted to sending postal resolutions to only two out of three Committee Members, backed by a threat to resign, in the hope that this would encourage their agreement.    Walker Morris` letter claims that I was handed a file copy of the letter of 23rd January 1998 at the committee meeting.        Mr Taylor and everyone else present can only verify, indeed as I can only say myself, that I was handed a piece of paper which I gave back immediately, without scanning it, asking for a copy to be given to me at the end of the meeting.  Walker Morris` letter touches on my faxed request for a copy of this alleged document when it states  “the Trustee is under no obligation to chase up such documents.”   This statement is surely wrong.

I don`t know whether to consider Walker Morris` correspondence - noncommittal, imprecise,  ambiguous or  deliberately misleading.  For example, with reference to Charles Barlow`s debt to the Creditors, it concludes  “A statutory demand has been prepared and is awaiting our receiving notice that Mr C.M.Barlow has returned to the jurisdiction and of his whereabouts.”       The simple fact is that it was agreed by the Committee that he should be made bankrupt, as soon as he came back to the UK, unless he repaid the £9,000 court costs to us.   I don`t know why this was not clearly stated, in their letter of May 1st 1997.   Then it waffles on at length with regard to Simon Barlow, instead of simply stating that to take him

to court to reclaim that ownership would, in Sleight`s opinion, cost a maximum £8,000 but that to bring him in and confront him with a situation where he would be most likely to submit that he had no right to it, would  cost under £1,000.   The Committee decided that the latter course should be tried first and in the unlikely event that it failed, he should then be sued at an estimated maximum cost of  £8,000.   This was made quite clear at the Committee Meeting but, as in the case of several other resolutions, Sleight has neglected his duty to the Creditors and never made any attempt to carry out the actions which the Committee clearly required and he agreed should be done.  In fact he deliberately lied to the Court, saying that the money was “not worth pursuing,’”having told the committee that it was “well worth it.”

Finally, Walker Morris letter of May 1st, implies that I am largely responsible for the high cost of the bankruptcy proceedings     because of my    “requests for information and explanations, plus my serious allegations.”  It says  -“as a gesture of goodwill, the Trustee did allow your client (me) access to the information held by the Trustee relating to the bankrupt with a view to assisting in the maximisation of recoveries.”  and suggests that, “he ( I ) should  “restrict his (my) further involvement ---to ensure the bankruptcy may be would up in an efficient and cost effective manner for the benefit of all the creditors.”   This gives a completely wrong and damaging picture.     My involvement was by specific invitation from Sleight, who in a letter dated 23 February 1996 invited me to -       “spend some time looking over this paperwork   as you (I) may be able to assist significantly    in deciding what is relevant or not.”     Accordingly I spent a week in Sleight`s office trailing through half a ton of paperwork, thus saving Sleight a lot of time and aggravation and giving him a great deal of valuable, documented information.   Towards the end of the May, Walker Morris advised us that Mr Brown had resigned and that, therefore, the Creditors` Committee no longer existed.

Since that time, therefore, I have done absolutely nothing to interfere with the bankruptcy proceedings.  I’ve waited some five years, in vain, for the promised six-monthly reports from Sleight, ( required by law (rule R6 152 )).       I have frequently complained to John Letts about Sleight’s inactivity, his great delay in making an interim distribution, thus depriving Creditors of interest - possibly £40,000 by the year 2,000 -     and his misdeeds, which I considered should be challenged, in no uncertain terms.         I thought it time that I should complain to his professional regulating body but John said this might result in having to use another Trustee, with attendant, added costs and further delays - therefore, I should be patient.   John placated me by saying that Sleight must apply for release one day and that I would then   ‘have every opportunity to challenge him, on all counts, before he can obtain release’.    This would include his being responsible for repayment of any excessive money he`d agreed to be paid to Walker Morris, should taxation reduce their claim.     

Time ticked by; the bankrupt,  Barlow,   was duly charged with the theft of clients` money and the eight weeks trial was set down to start in April 1999.         It was obvious that Sleight would not seek to complete the bankruptcy until after the trial, but      a substantial interim distribution could have been made well before that time and we had hoped it might.  I didn`t want to do anything which would give Sleight any excuse to delay matters and therefore, I kept quiet.                          

      By this time, I believed Sleight had proved himself to be an unscrupulous villain, concerned only with his own income, at the expense of and without the slightest concern for, the Creditors. He was, in my opinion, totally unfit to be a Trustee and I was determined, by this time, that I would do all I could to have him dismissed from this position so that he could not go on cheating people.        I would also do all in my power to recover what I could from him, for the Barlow Creditors.       But prudence required that these actions against him would need to wait until a final dividend, or a substantial interim amount, had been paid out.

Meanwhile, I had advised the TSB of my intention to start legal proceedings against them to recover about £300,000 of the sum which Barlow had been able to take from me because of their negligence.         This ended amicably, in August 2001, after a round table discussion and I settled, out of court, for a sum of £235,000, (plus costs) from them, rather than have more litigation.    It was agreed that the TSB would rank, in my stead, as a Barlow creditor for this sum, (plus costs), and that my own claim in the bankruptcy would be reduced accordingly.    John Letts also corresponded with the Investors` Compensation Scheme, from whom I received £74,000, which also reduced my claim against Barlow.         Sleight was informed about these recoveries as they took place.      Against this, there were, from time to time, items that increased my claim in the bankruptcy.   The greatest of these was an amount of  £94,000 or so, plus interest, to which Barlow had helped himself , between 1987 and 1990  which I had forgotten about it completely!

When I retired from Hazlewoods, in February 1986, I was asked to decide whether I wished to take a lump sum in lieu of part of my pension. I considered, in view of my poor health during the previous few years, that it might be a good idea to take half of it at once and duly received a payment of £94,000.       I passed this to Barlow, for him to invest for me, in endowment policies and he did so, making himself a joint Trustee, with my approval. He took out ten policies, with Albany Life, at a time when my affairs were in complete turmoil, due to my involvement with Joan Smyth.  When Barlow was being prosecuted by the Fraud Squad for allegedly robbing me, he was never charged with misappropriating this pension money because, due to my mental state at the time, I’d forgotten all about my pension arrangement, made in 1986! T       he matter was thrown up during Barlow`s trial, when he admitted taking the money but pleaded that it was with my blessing!     There was never any doubt about it. He admitted it, as part of all of my money he`d taken, between 1987 and 1993.  I can still scarcely credit that he was found not guilty of stealing. He pleaded that he intended to give me it all back one day!    He told the jury I had said he could help himself to any of my money (well over a million pounds) when he needed to  - an unbelievable lie!   Between 1987 and 1993 I made him eleven specific loans, at his request, by way of cheques, totaling £58,000, mostly for his sons` school fees, his holidays and a cosmetic operation to reduce the size of his wife`s nose. This fact was made clear during his trial and I fail to understand why the jury still believed I had given him permission to help himself, when in the same period, he had asked me to lend him these eleven specific amounts.

Whilst the C.P.S. employed one of its rank and file barristers, Barlow enjoyed the services of a top Q.C., paid for by legal aid, to which Barlow admitted, in court, he had no right and had made false statements to obtain. I asked the CPS barrister during an interval in the trial, to put to Barlow a simple question -  

  “ Why was it that if Hickson gave you permission to use whatever of his

money you wanted, you needed to ask him for and he lent you, ten sums, specified by you, totalling £58,000 during this period?”

The CPS barrister, Mr Dallas, then told me brusquely that he was ‘not allowed to speak to prosecution witnesses outside the witness box.’ and that vital question was never asked. Yet,  Barlow was allowed to sit and chat to his Q.C. throughout the trial. Where is the justice in this ?

            In December  2,000, a frenzied Sleight wrote to John Letts, rejecting ‘completely,’ my claims as a creditor, for  “lack of documentation in support”, of my claim and  because    I had cast doubts on the validity of the judgements against Mr Barlow!      His rejection was made in spite of the fact that I had obtained Judgement for £967,000 against Barlow in the London High Court in 1994.         On point number one, there was plenty of evidence, given under oath, and confirmed by paperwork, in the Barlow trial,    which supported my claims.   The only possible complaint Sleight might have ventured, was that the total of my claim changed over the years, as facts came to light, or circumstances altered. (eg TSB and Investors’ Compensation Scheme payments)  Such changes were relatively small, reducing my net claim to about £1.2 , over six years ( the amount which the TSB repaid me means that they rank as a creditor, for a similar sum and my own claim is reduced by the same amount.)   Sleight could easily have made a substantial interim distribution as early as 1997  but he hated me for contesting his devious actions and used any minor fluctuations in my claim as an excuse to delay any dividend.        He tried to make me appear, to other Creditors, to be disruptive and so turn them against me.      In his letter to John Letts, of 13th January 2000 he says  -   “ I have been in correspondence with the other unsecured creditors recently,   with regard to the quantum of your client`s claims.”     This seems unusually presumptuous, if not out of order and brings to mind his insidious letter to Tim Ingham, which suggests £24,800 was - “not worth recovering from Simon Barlow, because the lion`s share of the recovery would go to Mr Hickson. Your comments would be appreciated.”     How much more biased could he be?  

As to the verdict at Barlow`s trial, in my opinion it was an obscene injustice.

             Nevertheless, a few weeks later, contrary to Sleight`s, December  rejection of all my claims, Walker Morris said that Sleight would support my claim, if I reduced it to £800,000.    If Mr Ingham had made that request, I would have given it serious consideration but coming from a man who had behaved in such an appalling way, it sickened me. So I refused and Sleight went on to contest my claim to the £94,000 “Albany Life”, commuted pension, money; even though it was accepted by everyone involved in the trial, including Barlow himself, that he had used this sum, plus a few thousand pounds of interest.          This unnecessary charade was, as many of Sleight`s actions have been, for one purpose - that of clocking up more hours for himself (in the hope that he might get away with paying himself “on the clock”) as well as to benefit his cronies at Walker Morris.   In addition he could enjoy the satisfaction of putting me, his principal adversary, to unnecessary expense.

We had to go to court to prove that the ten endowment policies, taken out in 1986, by Barlow on my behalf, actually existed; despite the fact that everyone at the Barlow trial, including the Fraud Squad, agreed that they did and that Barlow had used the money. It was not too easy to track down the actual policies and it entailed numerous letters, faxes and phone calls. Gradually, as the day for the court hearing came nearer, the printed evidence came to light and this evidence was disclosed to Walker Morris, as it came to hand.  The fax confirming the final policy did not arrive until the day before the trial. On May 11th 2001, we attended court in York for this, completely unnecessary, hearing and whilst in the witness box, under some duress, I insisted that I was speaking the truth, saying  “ the proof of the

final policy is down there, in my brief case”.  So it was and my point was upheld.  We won the case, thus proving my entitlement to a dividend of about £3,700 on a further £94,000 (plus interest) but I had a shock when the judge awarded the costs against us! This was because of rule Vol3 (2) 343 which says that if a creditor takes the Trustee to Court, the creditor must, as the ‘Applicant’, pay the costs of both sides, win or lose (except in exceptional circumstances.) Where is the Justice in that?   

 I felt unnecessarily challenged, victimised and cheated again  !     I wanted to appeal against this harsh decision but John said I would be wasting my time because the judge would have the last say. Walker Morris submitted a bill for £15,673 .33 for this court hearing, of just over 2 hours.   We challenged this, typically outrageous, charge and  it was reduced to £8,680 .63        but my total costs, having won the case,    in order to gain some £3,700, at 4p in the pound,) more dividend,  were over three times this figure.  The appalling thought is that, even had the costs been awarded against Sleight, the money would have come out of Creditors` funds- (70% my own!). In no way could he lose a penny, costs wise.

Where is the justice?  ‘Rape’ upon ‘rape’, sanctioned by, so called, British Justice which, in my humble opinion,  is based on a legal system, nurtured and modified to suit, greedy, hypocritical, conscienceless, Court officers and  lawyers to provide a regular, affluent environment for privileged members of the higher echelons of their clique.   I count myself most fortunate to have a modest, honest family-man for a solicitor, who says he shares my despair at the ‘evil, corrupt system’ and my loathing of some of its ‘unscrupulous practitioners.’  (I have John Lett’s permission to say this.)

By the autumn of 2001, I was pressing Mr Letts to bring Sleight to account, in spite of the fact that he had counseled me to be patient and wait for the final Creditors` meeting which he said, Sleight must call, before being released. That day seemed to be constantly receding! I wrote to John on September 30th reminding him that we’d not had an up- dated “Receipts and Payments” account since January 2000 despite the law’s requirement for at least one every six months. I expressed fears that,   “The expenditure will probably be much higher.”      Creditors had never been fully appraised, regarding the expenses incurred by the Trustee, whilst both Sleight’s and Walker Morris` excess ‘milking’ of the estate, were still needing to be challenged strongly.

Accordingly, after some further consultation, John wrote to Sleight, at Smith & Williamson`s office in York, on November 20th 2001, putting him on notice as to the questions we wished to raise formally;   principally, the excessive payments he’d made to himself and Walker Morris.      Next, our rejection of the secretive, invalid, postal resolution, which Sleight appears to have contrived, to try to circumvent my determined refusal to allow him to pay himself  “on the clock.”      Sleight`s repeated rejections, jointly with Taylor, of all requests to tax Walker Morris` legal fees were, in John’s very polite words,  “bad practice”     ( I would have put it much more strongly).   We reminded Sleight how Walker Morris’ costs, which I had to pay, for the May 2001 action, were reduced, on taxation, from £15,673 .33  to  £8,680 .63.   John went on to challenge the invalid inclusion of Mrs Barlow`s share of the matrimonial home, £161,431 .98 in Peter Barlow`s assets and the questionable deal made, when the property was sold.   The disposal to Barlow`s wife, of a laser shooting business, bought with a loan of £25,000 by me in December 1993, for only £1,700 in 1995, without the committee`s approval was challenged.

 Explanations were sought about resolutions made at Creditors` Committee meetings, which were not carried out and his failure to supply regular reports and statements to Creditors, as required by the Bankruptcy Laws.  Finally, his reason for the inexcusable delay in paying any dividend, resulting in considerable financial loss to the Creditors of interest, (possibly £40,000), confiscated by the State!    

A reply, dated 3rd December 2001, was received from Smith & Williamson`s London office. It told us that Sleight had left their York office, which had closed down, with the “day to day management being undertaken by the Worcester office”. It answered none of  Mr Letts’ queries and merely said they would- “be looking into the issues raised”  and, meanwhile, -“enclosed - an up to date (Trustee`s Receipts and Payments) account”.          Strikingly, the first line of the receipts had been reduced from their January 2000 figure, of £457,000,  to £240,000, as of November 30th 2001,thus upholding the creditors’ constant contention.

This meant that our repeated insistence, that Mrs Barlow`s share of the home, of £161,000, should not have featured in her husband`s assets, had at last been acknowledged as justified, and other adjustments made.     It looked as if the contrivances of Sleight and Walker Morris, were not endorsed by Sleight`s successors and the accounts were revised accordingly. The amount shown as Trustee’s fees had risen, from £54,000, to over £107,000 (plus VAT) since Nov 1996 whilst not a penny had been recovered !!  --(on the agreed scale, Sleight’s entitlement would be well under £30,000) - and the legal fees had increased to over £46,000 (plus VAT) from £32,000!

    ie  ADDED EXPENSE £67,000          ADDED INCOME NIL !!

  Five weeks later, not having heard further, John wrote again,

on January 10th, to Smith and Williamson to ask if they had looked into  -“the issues raised” in his November letter and to ask if Sleight was still a partner in the firm; otherwise to advise us of his current whereabouts.               

 Still with no reply, John  wrote again, in February, enquiring of their investigations and again asking where Sleight was.      He wrote to them, yet again, on March 25th complaining that  - “in spite of our chasing by letters and on the telephone, we have heard nothing further”.      He went on to say that we might apply the Court to secure a response but wished to avoid the expense.

an answer came, after nearly five months, dated 5th April 2002. It acknowledged, nonchalantly, John`s five letters, above, spanning almost five months -    “....please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your letter dated 21 November 2001”.     It advised us, for the first time, that Sleight had left their practice and it used the Data Protection Act, as an excuse, to avoid telling us where the little renegade was hiding.        It ended by saying briefly, that the Company considered Sleights` time/costs valid, by virtue of the infamous postal resolution of January 23rd 1996.    John replied, on April 8th, saying   “ Mr Sleight is the Trustee in Bankruptcy and as such, an Officer of the Court.....please let us have his address.”      He went on to reaffirm our contention that the postal resolution was bad and invalid.

After five months, we received a letter, dated April 15th, from Smith & Williamson, in which some points raised in John Letts` letter of November 2001 were touched upon and certain of our allegations, naturally, rebuffed out of hand.     Again, I was blamed for causing the delay in completing the job.  It said  “ Hickson failed to confirm his exact claim”, whereas the true cause was Sleight`s deliberate procrastination, in his aim to plunder the assets, with a complete lack of concern

for the Creditors, who`s interests he was employed to defend.     The last sentence in the letter stated , casually -  “ please note that the trustee in bankruptcy is now Neil Hickling and not Tony Sleight. The trusteeship was transferred on the 20 December 2001   _{and was notified by means of a newspaper advert”!!}

summarising,     to avoid all possible misunderstanding :-

despite my solicitor’s five repeated letters, from November 20^th 2001, through to march 25^th 2002,     pressing for important, essential information about the administration of the bankruptcy over a five month period,     messrs smith and williamson declined,   through their legal department,     to provide any of the requested information, whilst at the same time,    obtaining,    by court order,         without notice to the creditors,    the discharge of Mr Sleight on 20^th december 2001.

The order was issued on january 4^th 2002 and      advertised inconspicuously, in the 7^th march 2002 issue of ‘the independent’

(not read by me.)      The terms of the order required creditors to challenge it within 28 days of publication.

Mr hickling’s solicitors only sent my solicitors the court paperwork on june 7^th 2002,   long after the period of challenge had expired.     in my opinion, the order was deliberately withheld from me until i was out of time---      they must have known that I would not let mr sleight be discharged without a fight !           I asked my solicitor what he thought about such deceit and he said        “it stinks !”

            A snippet, in an obscure corner of the Independant was disclosed.    The loathsome, cowardly little parasite, having despoiled his victims to his full satisfaction, had considered the time had come to slink stealthily away, leaving colleagues to clear up his filthy mess.

It was only quite natural, however, to expect that they would defend their ex-partner`s actions, however disgusting.

I`m sure that Mr Sleight hoped that by absconding, in this odious fashion, he would forestall my pursuit of his, and Walker Morris` wrong doings. It only made me the more determined to bring them to account, even if it was extremely costly to me.         What made his ignominious withdrawal into the woodwork the more galling, was the fact that his partners,  or ex-partners, appear to have become party to a conspiracy which deliberately attempted to conceal his abandonment of duty and his gutless flight.     I might, otherwise, have believed that they could not have been so depraved as Sleight,    but it is blatantly obvious that they knew,     way back in November 2001,     that he intended to try to escape justifiable retribution  by applying,   furtively to the Court for his release. I believe they deliberately withheld this information for nearly five months and even then, refused to advise us of his location.

So, it would seem, the battle would now need to be continued against   Mr Sleight, if possible, as well as his ex colleagues.    John explained to me that legal action against Sleight and Walker Morris would now be that much more difficult.  The great majority of judges would give Sleight, as a fellow Member of the Court,    every possible benefit of the slightest doubt.          They would probably agree that the postal resolution was invalid    but would,    in that case, assess his involvement and it would be impossible   to prove or disprove, completely,   the validity of the excessive amount of time    he claims to have spent.  We are fully convinced that he has protracted the proceedings, with the sole purpose of trying to justify his claim for an excessive amount but the judge would not, necessarily, share our view.  Even on winning my prime objective of contesting Sleight`s remuneration,    I would be highly unlikely to find a judge who would give full compensation.        Where Walker Morris` fees were concerned, I could not sue them directly, but must pursue Sleight, for agreeing their fees.  Since Sleight had obtained his release, it might be difficult to do this. On taxation, these fees would probably be reduced considerably but it is debatable, whether the cost of my action would be warranted by the amount clawed back.    The dreadful irony is that I must bear the cost of these actions, personally, win or lose, because the law says the ‘applicant’ (in a case against the Trustee)   must bear the costs of both sides,    irrespective of the outcome, unless the judge should see some special reason for ordering otherwise.    (He thought this doubtful).

By November 2002, many hours had been taken up, by both sides,  in preparing affidavits, etc., for the pending legal battles.      I had already spent thousands of pounds and we had only reached the “Summons for Directions” phase, where the Court decides on a timetable to be followed.   I am very happy to say that all our requests, put to the judge, on that occasion, were granted, including our insistence that   Sleight must be put into the witness box.     The barrister representing Sleight at the Summons for Directions, pleaded that,            “Mr Sleight is not having the best of health and should be excused”.

By September 6th 2003, little else had been accomplished  . We had had a round table,  ‘without prejudice’  discussion with Neil Hickling   (Sleight’s Successor) and Smith and Williamson’s solicitors.        When asked about the almost 5 months delay in answering John Letts’ letter of November 20th 2001, Hickling said he was sorry,  “it was due to a cock-up in the office!”

What sort of an excuse is this in a matter of such importance?    It has since been revealed that    Sleight was an embarrassment to Smith and Williamson and they wanted rid of him.

They must have known   he was seeking to escape his responsibilities by obtaining his release as Trustee and I am certain  they deliberately withheld this information until it was  ten days too late for us to challenge.    Two things are blatantly wrong here.    The law says that      ‘before a Trustee can obtain his release,  a meeting of Creditors must be held to agree, or challenge it.’   It wasn’t, and furthermore,    the judge who granted Sleight’s release should not have done so without reference to the Creditors.         Meanwhile, Smith and Williamson, who must have been aware of the circumstances,       withheld all information for nearly five months.    They claim it was advertised in the press but we’d asked them about Sleight,   specifically,   several times    during that period  and they neglected to respond.           This was much more than a mere “ cock-up in the office!”

 ‘     The administration of the bankruptcy was virtually wound up by 1997 and not a penny has been recovered since, although Sleight and his solicitors had taken some £67,000 between them since that date.          How can Smith and Williamson claim a further £50,000?   The only work they have done, in fact, is argue against our claim that we were grossly overccharged by Sleight and Walker Morris -   which they now admit, was a valid and justified claim     on our part.  H   ow could this exchange of opinions and a few letters, plus a round table meeting amount to £50,000 ?

Accordingly, John Letts offered to close the matter, if they paid the creditors what they admitted had been overcharged     by Sleight and Walker Morris - “each side paying its own costs.”    We should really, expect them to cover our costs since they admit we were right.    They employed frustrating, delaying and bullying tactics, wanting to force us to face more expensive court proceedings hoping that the potential cost would break our resolve.     By 2004 John Letts was already saying I was “in a no win situation with a battle against avaricious, unscrupulous lawyers and an unfair legal system which protects its own fraternity, to the detriment of ordinary people.”        He asked me how much I was prepared to lose and warned that it could run to six figures!     I told him at that time, to go ahead, notwithstanding the possible loss of what little remained of my repeatedly plundered assets. 

After a delay of 20 months, we finally received the Costing Judge’s report, in May 2005.   He wasn’t asked to decide whether Sleight should have been paid by the BoT scale or on the clock,        (as originally agreed with the creditors) but merely to consider whether the charges were fair.  For the purpose of his assessment, he assumed    wrongly      ( giving Sleight the benefit of the doubt)  that it was agreed he be paid on a time/cost basis.       This was never agreed;  the creditors insisted he remained on the D.of T. scale.    He also gave Sleight the benefit of every other doubt; for example,   he says he gave Sleight the benefit of the doubt for ‘the paucity of records due to the length of the case’,   when later,     he also says just the opposite -    ‘office holders (such as Sleight) must keep proper records of what they’ve done and why they’ve done it, otherwise they are likely to find doubts are resolved against them.’

It begs the question ‘why then did he give Sleight such benefits when he was such a bad record keeper?’   

Yet, even so, he found that Sleight had overcharged by nearly 60%!

The Costing Judge wasn’t asked for an opinion on the legal fees but Smith and Williamson admitted that Walker Morris had over charged    and the fact that I was able to have Walker Morris’ legal bill reduced by 50% in Sleights case against me in York,   is indicative of the very high level to which they have habitually overcharged. 

On May 11^th 2005, I asked John Letts what was to be done. On July 27^th he replied enclosing advice from our barrister     and again the warning that I would face a large legal bill and gain nothing financially by going on fighting the case.      Nevertheless, I told John to ‘pursue Sleight and Walker Morris with all possible vigour and assured him that     I had the full support of fellow creditor,   Tim Ingham.          John then asked Smith and Williamson to make a sensible offer to settle but a year later, had received no response. John Letts then wrote to Smith and Williamson asking them at least to repay what the Costing Judge said had been overcharged – over £40,000.

After twelve years of agonizing   over all this blatant cheating and injustice,    I was becoming sick with frustration and considered    the Official Receiver should take some part in seeing fair play.    He has agreed to repay the creditors with any excess fees he’s received due to the ‘amount recovered’ it having dropped by £220,000,   ‘upon application by the Trustee’    but so far,  Smith and Williamson    have not acted     on our requests for them to apply.         John Letts has written to the Insolvency Service,    the governing body  who are supposed to control the actions of bankruptcy practitioners and     they merely told us to pursue the matter through the courts, which would add more to our expense      with little or no chance of justice.

            John Letts’ and the barrister’s advice to give up the fight against impossible odds was totally against the grain and I turned to an old friend, Simon Easton, who was my old Company’s solicitor and is now a solicitors’ consultant in Chancery Lane, who travels the world to give legal advice.  He came twice to Canterbury after studying the case, said that he agreed entirely with John and our barrister, that even though right was entirely on my side and the creditors had been dreadfully cheated, the longer I carried on the battle, the more I’d lose. Therefore I feel it would be stupid to ignore this advice, even though I feel sick at the thought of total capitulation so I have agreed to cease my actions to recover what is rightfully due.

My only consolation is that I’ve been able to salvage on behalf of the creditors, a ruling by District Judge Greenwood, on the evidence before him, confirming that Sleight’s entitlement was no more than £71,000 and that ‘costs are reserved.’

          Sleight has married his objectionable assistant, Mrs Forsyth, who was like his shadow and always at meetings even though she made no contribution. She was at pains to remind me that her time was also charged at £175 an hour, (no doubt saving for her bottom drawer!) No wonder she sucked up to him and helped his efforts to cheat me. They have both slunk away to Spain with their loot, beyond easy reach.         Sleight’s partners having accepted responsibility for the Trusteeship, now refuse to pay the amount by which the creditors have officially been judged to have been overcharged. 

There is no justice here.    I’ve fought in vain against a blatantly unfair legal and insolvency system      which is stacked in favour of unscrupulous lawyers and members of the court and I feel sick to death after thirteen years of mental hell. I’m also, at the age of 80 physically sick because of all the villainy I’ve had to face on behalf of the cheated creditors. All I can do now, is publish our sordid treatment as widely as possible, in the hope that it may alert other innocent people to such a prevalence of deception inside the whole rotten system.    It may also encourage the repeal of wicked laws which make creditors have to pay twice;       (the private Trustee plus the Official Receiver) and who have their interest seized, seditiously, by the State.  

Everything I have alleged     can be backed by corroboration   and tangible evidence both written and recorded.        Amongst other exhibits, a complete transcription of the eight weeks trial of Barlow is also available.       Fellow creditor, Mr Timothy Ingham will testify as to the truth of all the above.    My Solicitor, John Letts has read and approved everything I have alleged, in full. 

(The language used throughout has been moderated on my solicitor’s advice.)