Says Tony Barnett

THE POINTS I HAVE RAISED ARE THE APPLICATION MADE BY YOUR MR.CLUB.

THESE ARE REGARDING THE APPLICATION TO PINS BY RUPERT CLUB, ON BEHALF OF BECKY SHAW, OBVIOUSLY WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH YOUR OFFICE THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD BE WATER TIGHT AND LAWFUL.

MR CLUB CLAIMED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR WORKS WAS WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH THE "OWNER-S", AS CHAILEY COMMON IS A SECTION 45, THAT WOULD IMPOSSIBLE.

HOWEVER, IF MR.CLUB IS SERIOUS WITH HIS APPLICATION, THERE WILL/WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM IN IDENTIFYING THE OWNER OR OWNERS SO THAT PRE REGISTRATION OF TITLES OR COPIES OF CAN BE DISCLOSED.

MY "CONCERNS" AS YOU INFER IS THAT FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO PINS HAS BEEN MADE, BEING A SOLICITOR YOU WILL BE AWARE THAT THIS IS FRAUD, THERE IS ALSO MORTGAGE FRAUD AS THIS APPLICATION WAS TO OBTAIN HLS, IN ESSENCE BECKY SHAW AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE IS USING AS COLLATERAL PROPERTY THAT IS NOT OWNED BY ESCC.

MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS THAT ALL OF THE WORKS BE REMOVED AND THE COMMON REINSTATED, THE HLS SHOULD ALSO BE RETURNED.