10. In the evening of 25th July 1995 the landlady and I visited the Plaintiff to deliver a letter and a statement of account showing the amount due and owing as had been the basis upon which the Landlady applied for Default Summons. I spoke to the Plaintiff and explained to him that if indeed he had received no funds no Housing Benefit over the period March through to July 1996 he should contact his solicitor upon service of the Default Summons and to ask his solicitor to serve Third Party Notice on the Local Authority; I also told him that he might be able to Claim damages arising out of the failures if its staff to deal with his application if what he had been stating to us was true and factual. I further explained that the Landlady and myself had been patient and understanding whilst we believed every word he asserted to us; I informed the Plaintiff that his failures to act after given notice and after the landlady and I had received letters from the Chief Executive's office the situation had somewhat changed. True copy of the letter dated 25 July 1996 (evincing unchecked spelling before printing) and the attached statement of account as was delivered to the Plaintiff in the evening on the date appear on pages 14 and 15 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit.

11. In the mid-afternoon of Wednesday 29th August 1996 the Landlady received a telephone call from the wife of the Plaintiff; she stated that she had gone to the Local Authority and that Housing Benefit staff told her their Landlady was wrong to issue the Summons because they had paid the rents due. The Landlady informed her that the letters received from the Local Authority established a catalogue of errors and mistakes and that in any event the cheques allegedly sent to the wrong address hardly represented half of what was due and owing to her at the time. As a result of their telephone conversation it was agreed that the Plaintiff and his wife would secure proof of Housing Benefit remittances banked and the Landlady should telephone them Saturday evening to arrange to call on them at the premises on Sunday 4th August when and the Plaintiff would adduce the documented evidence and issue a cheque for the balance in order to settle the Plaintiff's liability and to avoid entering judgement in the case before the Court.

12. In the afternoon of Saturday 3rd August 1996 I received a telephone call from the Landlady. She herself had received a telephone call and was informed that the tenants on the first floor at 68 Rathcoole Gardens were busy moving out and that over the previous three nights they had been seen moving boxes and other items out of the premises. I proceeded to collect the Landlady from her mother's address where she had been staying since leaving the matrimonial home in Ilford. We went to The Premises, rung the bell and the brother-in-law of the Plaintiff opened the door for us. I followed him to the first floor while the Landlady dropped in to the front room at the ground floor to see the old lady living there. I enquired of the guest of the Plaintiff where his sister and brother-in-law were; I was told his sister had got her own flat and moved away and he was packing some of her things to be collected; he said he did not have an address to give me; asked if he knew where the Plaintiff was he stated he did not know where his brother-in-law was. The guest took me to the kitchen where I noted he had and was busy packing kitchenware in boxes; the side and wall kitchen cabinets were empty already. I asked if I could have a look in the other rooms and I was taken to the front room; the Landlady joined us there; in her presence I asked again where the Plaintiff and his wife were; the guest repeated what he had already stated to me; the Landlady asked him if his sister had separated from the Plaintiff; his reply was "I don' t know my sister has got her own flat now". I then informed the Landlady that the guest was busy packing items in the kitchen; she followed me there with the guest accompanying us. I enquired again of him if he knew where the Plaintiff was; again he stated he did not know. I enquired of the landlady what she thought of the situation; she said it was obvious the tenants were 'skiving off', disappearing to destinations unknown in their efforts to evade meeting their rent liabilities. She then told the Plaintiff's guest that it was not a nice thing to do; asking her to wait until Saturday, to telephone that evening to arrange a meeting the following day when the idea was to disappear without meeting their rent liabilities. I asked him if he knew of the Plaintiff and or his sister having entered any appearance at Edmonton County Court; he said he did not know; they had told him nothing about such things; he said he was only asked to pack items for his sister because she got her own flat; he added that he was going to stay on until he moved to Windsor in a few weeks time. I informed him that the Landlady and I had made no issue of his presence in the Premises for well over a year, because we looked upon him only as a guest of those who had secured a tenancy agreement; however, because of the fact the contracted parties had been and were moving away changed the situation; he was not party to the tenancy agreement and as such he could not stay on even if he offered to pay rents in advance, because as far as the landlady and I were concerned he was party to organised deceptions; I told him that he would be treated as a trespasser if he was to attempt to stay on. The Landlady and I decided that we should take action in order to jolt the Plaintiff and his wife to recognise that they could not simply walk out of their contractual obligations in the manner they had elected. The Tenants knew of both our telephone numbers and our addresses; they knew how and where to get in touch with us; there was only one possible action for us to take to safeguard the interests of the landlady. I told the guest that in the circumstances the Landlady and I had no option but to take possession of the luxuries the Plaintiff and his wife could afford to pay while ignoring their rent liabilities which they had allowed to built up through the unemployment claims and the redundancy negotiation assertions. I emphasised that the luxuries we were to remove would be held on lien until such time as the rents owing were paid to the Landlady; the said luxuries are a new television set, a new Video, a stack of Hi Fi equipment with speakers, and a satellite receiver. The guest stated he did not wish to get involved with and in police matters and that he had nothing to do with the situation. The items were placed on the back seat of my car and I handed to the guest two sheets of A4 paper. I had listed the items taken possession of and I qualified the reason, the causes and the terms under which the items would be returned to the Plaintiff and or his wife. As evidence the tenants had been caught in the act of moving the landlady and I took into the car also two small boxes of packed (as wrapped by the guest) kitchenware, which it is quite possible I did not list on the paper I gave to the guest. The Landlady was about to enter the car when the guest called out the Plaintiff wished to speak to us on the telephone; apparently he had contacted the Plaintiff with the mobile phone he was holding; the Landlady remarked it was odd he knew how to contact the Plaintiff considering he was stating earlier he did not know where the Plaintiff was; she told the guest of the Plaintiff that the time for talking was over; she stated she would rather have a letter from the Plaintiff; it should be posted to the address he had known for months and the Plaintiff should also quote the address where the Landlady and I were to respond. As she attempted to get in the car the Plaintiff, his wife, their child and a friend of theirs emerged from the corner of the road and hurried towards the car.

13. The Plaintiff came over to the driver's door and begun to call the Landlady and myself thieves; challenged if he had put in any Defence to the Default Summons he said he had passed it to his solicitor and that I should get in touch with him; I informed him that his solicitor should either submit a Defence and Serve Notice on the Local Authority as I had recommended, provided that it was their fault no rents had been received by the landlady, the party he had contracted with, or they write to state how their client intended to make good his liabilities after advancing many an unsubstantiated yarn. There was only one action for the Landlady and I, as her agent would advise her to take, if his solicitor failed to act as was essential and deemed proper in the circumstances; it was to apply for Judgement when the time for entering a defence had lapsed. Thereafter it would be a matter of public records with the credit standing of both, him and his wife adversely affected. I told him that it was a matter for him and his solicitor to secure evidence that any of the stated Housing Benefit remittances posted to the Landlady to the address he had given to the Local Authority had in fact been received and banked by her. I emphasised that IF the local Authority had been at fault his solicitor would have written to the Landlady in the first instance and proceeded to serve Third Party Notice. His landlady and I would be prepared to discuss the balances due from The Plaintiff AFTER the Local Authority had made good their remittances stated to have been posted to the wrong address, cancelled and reissued but never received at the correct address. It was therefore imperative at that point in time for him to secure either remittances for Housing Benefit and his own remittance to clear the rent liabilities or an application for Judgement failing satisfaction of the debt. The Plaintiff ignored my statements carried on calling the Landlady and my person thieves and demanding the return of the luxuries we had taken possession of. He threatened to call the police because we stole his hi fi and television and I told him that indeed it was his right to call upon the police but he should first read the two papers I gave to his brother-in-law earlier; he walked away and his friend came over to renew the allegations that the Landlady and I were thieves. I informed him to read the very two papers the Plaintiff had been asked to read; there followed a long conversation as to how the matters unfolded over the previous three months; the many questions that arose in respect of statements by the Plaintiff and staff at the Local Authority. I heard the Plaintiff calling out to me as he approached the car while he was crushing the papers his guest gave him; he threw them down on the road. I told his friend that he should speak to a solicitor because theft implied taking illegally, without due cause and or reason; taking in order to benefit, to pass on as ones own, to sell, to profit from. I then informed him that what the Landlady and I had done was to take possession of, to hold onto on lien, until such time as the debtors met their liabilities; the notes I had given to the guest, earlier on, were clear; the luxuries would were to be returned as collected upon satisfaction of the outstanding debt. The friend moved away and the Plaintiff took over his position by the door which he first hit hard with his knee and then begun to kick at while banging hard at the window. He started shouting to me to get out and to fight him like a man. I told him I had no intention to lower myself to his level; I preferred to act and deal within the law; I pointed out that my notes were clear and he ought not to discard them as he did if he intended to rely on either a solicitor or the police they would be referred to the said notes. The Plaintiff became more aggressive as I repeatedly refused to open the car and get out (I had used the electric central locking system to stop him opening the doors). His guest walked over by the driver's door and the two of them begun to bang on the door and the window. At that point I shouted at the Landlady to call the police; she called out that both she and the others had spoken to the police and both had been told it was civil matter; I told the Landlady to go to the police station up the road and to explain personally that matters had by then developed into criminal damages to property because of the kicking and the banging of my car.

14. The Landlady walked away and the attackers begun to bang with all four hands on the window; it shattered glass falling inside all over. The Plaintiff grubbed my right arm which I had stretched out in an effort to switch the engine on; he pulled it up and over the shattered window and his brother-in-law went for the keys in the steering column. With my left arm I attempted to stop the repetitious efforts to grub the keys; in the process the attacker caused the wiper mechanism to switch on; the wiper hit his right arm which he was resting on the windscreen; he pushed the wiper back with force; later I discovered the mechanism was damaged and has to be replaced. By then I noticed that my hand was bleeding badly above the wrist; I demanded of the Plaintiff to let go of my arm so that I could got to hospital to have the haemorrhage seen to; he ignored my pleas and demands; blood was coming out of the cut at force indicating either an artery or a vein had been punctured or cut. The friend who had been standing in front of the car moved out of the way; the brother-in-law of the Plaintiff refused to return the keys he had managed to pull away from the steering - ignition lock. Luckily the ignition key had broken in the lock itself and I was able to start the car. I drove with my right hand holding the steering wheel and with my left holding down with the pressure the vein that was bleeding badly. I called at a friend's on the way to Whittington Hospital because I was concerned for the safety of the properties taken on lien and knew I would be responsible for, if something happened to them.

15. I was taken straight in to the emergency rooms because of the bleeding; a nurse attended to it immediately and a doctor saw me soon thereafter; he dealt with my injuries; I was told not to worry about the swelling in my wrist for it was blood that had accumulated under the skin from the punctured vein. When I was asked to take off my top and shirt I found out that my right top arm area was very painful as I stretched it out; the pain got incruciatingly high as I tried to lift my arm up and outwards; the best I could manage was about 45 degrees; I could not stand the pain beyond that position; on proper investigation I was told it was not a dislocation or fracture; I had pin-pointed the centre of the pain in the muscle; I was told if the pain did not subside over the next week or so I should see my doctor; I was prescribed tablets for the pain after X-rays of my arm. I am presently to attend physiotherapy at my local hospital because the pain persists. The damage to the vein has healed, but I cannot use my right arm freely and I am restricted from carrying on with the usual work that I can get nowadays as a pattern cutter / grader.

16. From the hospital I made my way to the Premises; there was nobody there and I asked the old lady on the ground floor if she had seen the Landlady; I was told she had gone to her mother's. I went there and I explained what happened to me, why my arm was in a sling, and why I had not been in touch earlier. I explained that I needed for her to go with me to the local police station, at Wood Green; I wished to give a statement to the police in respect of that afternoon's events. As we walked to the police station I was told the police who attended the scene after I drove away had ignored the shattered glass on the street and her statements whilst they concerned themselves with the properties taken on lien; also the bandaged forearm of the guest which the police invited him to have seen to and recorded at the Hospital, but he refused to do as he was invited. The police at Wood Green took details of the events that afternoon leading to the attack and issued a Victims of Crime leaflet to me and told me to contact Hornsey Police station on Monday. True copy of the Victims of Crime leaflet front page appears on page 18 of the Exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit.

17. In the morning of Sunday, 4th August 1996, I arranged for a professional photographer to visit the place where my car was parked in the afternoon of the previous day and to take photographs of the shattered glass on the road which the police ignored; also of the car damages as were caused by the attackers. I also arranged through my insurance company for Autoglass to supply and fit a new glass to the driver's door; I also obtained a replacement second hand door mirror and casing in order to make the car road worthy. I wrote also a hand-written letter to the police which I asked the landlady to deliver to the police at Wood Green stating the crime reference number. True copy of the said letter dated 4th August 1996 appears on page 17 of the Exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit.

18. On Monday morning, 5th August 1996 I telephoned the police at Hornsey and left a message for the Crime Desk to telephone me in respect of the events the previous Saturday. I received a call back later and it was arranged that I should call there at 10 am when an officer would write down my statement. I telephoned the landlady's solicitor; the landlady had telephoned him at home the previous day and informed him of the threats to arrest and imprison both of us unless we returned to the Plaintiff the luxuries taken in possession and held on lien. He was aware of the issues and we arranged for him to attend with me the meeting with the police for I wanted to clear up any misunderstandings and or misinterpretation of any fact and or statement as had arisen out of the dishonest activities of the Plaintiff. I arranged thereafter to visit the premises with the Landlady and to inspect these. We were informed by the old lady on the ground floor that the tenants on the first floor had been busy all night Saturday moving staff out of the premises including the fringe and the cooker. Inspection of the kitchen and the bathroom (which were open) confirmed her statements to us; we could not access the other two rooms and it was decided to change the barrel lock of the front door and to issue keys to the new lock to the other tenants in the event the guest of the Plaintiff elected to stay behind and in occupation of the premises.

19. In the morning of Tuesday 5th August 1996 I arrived at Hornsey police station five minutes earlier and was waiting outside; the Plaintiff arrived within a couple of minutes and walked past me straight into the police station; a police constable came outside and begun to assert that I was in a lot of trouble; that the landlady and I would go to prison for five years because we stole the properties of the Plaintiff and his family. I pointed out to the constable that we had never met, that he ought not to address me as he was doing because it was not up to him to declare and or determine judgement through by accepting and or relying on the statements of one party whilst ignoring the statements of another; I enquired of him if he was by any chance the person who had ignored the shattered glass on the road and the fact that one of the assailants had refused to take him up on his invitation to go to hospital; I told him that the refusal by the party indicated enough and he should look at my arm in the sling and the cut vein records at the Hospital; enquire of me how that was so and cease intimidating and threatening me for I was not as naive in law as the landlady; if he wished to repeat his threats he should do so in the presence of the solicitor I was waiting for.

20. With the solicitor I attended inside the police officer who had invited me to attend there in order to take my statement in respect of the injuries I had sustained in the course of the assault on my car and my person. I was asked what the position was with the items taken on lien and I stated that they had been left with a friend in safe keeping on Saturday. I re-iterated that the Plaintiff's agent (guest) was handed with written details and conditions on Saturday; that the Plaintiff may had thrown them on the road but my information was that the police had seen the papers because the landlady had picked them and passed them to the police. I emphasised that the Plaintiff had received the Default Summons, that he failed to enter any Defence and had indulged in moonlight flights, in Houdini acts. The landlady and I had merely taken steps to ensure the Plaintiff either met his liabilities, or justified his failures to do so and or entered an appearance in Court where he could then be caused to give his new address and place of work. I emphasised that one was speaking of luxuries and not of essentials and the Plaintiff would be hard pressed to justify acquiring such possessions while failing to meet his rents. I stressed that as soon as the Plaintiff met his liabilities to the landlady, his luxuries would be delivered unto him, as and in the state these were when taken possession of on lien. The police and the solicitor discussed the implications and the police officer went to meet with the Plaintiff; he returned and announced that the Plaintiff had told the police he had borrowed £ 2,000.00 (two thousand pounds but had spent £ 500 in moving; he was proposing to remit to the landlady the £ 1500 in hand and would like to have his properties back; I stated that it would be up to the landlady to accept his offer and that I was prepared at the time to recommend acceptance of the offer if the Housing Benefit remittances were to reach her as had been promised by the Local Authority and in particular the Chief Executive's office. It was agreed there and then that I should collect the properties and meet with the Plaintiff outside the police station on Thursday 8th August 1996 at 11 am where exchange could take place; I asked of the police to tell the Plaintiff that he should bring the keys to the two rooms he had taken away when he and his family left late Saturday night, because it was essential that the premises be inspected, photographed and arrangements made as to repairs arising during and out of the occupation of the premises by the Plaintiff and his extended family and guests. The police then took down my statement which I was left to read and sign; I had to make a few changes and add a number of pertinent points missed and or overlooked by the officer who took my statement. I signed the document and initialled all changes, amendments and additions; I told the officer of the changes and the reasons why I had acted as I did.

21. On Thursday morning 8th August 1996 I prepared an appropriate document which I headed acknowledgements and went to the police station at Hornsey as arranged after collecting the luxuries held on lien; true copy of the acknowledgements document appears on page 20 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit. The Plaintiff was already there; he had given to the police two computer print-outs. Both carried the word REPLACE in a prominent place; one was endorsed with remittances as had been allegedly posted to the Landlady at the wrong address as given to the Local Authority by the Plaintiff and included the replacement remittance which officers and staff of the Local Authority had stated was posted on 29th August 1996 to the Landlady and to the right address; that remittance had not reached the Landlady by that morning I informed the police. The other print-out was endorsed with what was meant to be the correct address for the Landlady; it was wrong but I did not inform the police of that 'mistake'. The Plaintiff sought to and relied upon the printouts to assert that the two printouts were proof the Landlady had received all the rents as printed thereon and as someone had added the entries to a total which was well above the Landlady's claim as issued out of Edmonton County Court. I informed the police that the Landlady had not received a single remittance and in the circumstances it was their duty to investigate the validity of and to satisfy himself the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff was relying upon to assert that he owed nothing to the Landlady, the person he had contracted with. True copies of the two computer print-outs as advanced by the Plaintiff on 8th August 1996 appear on pages 21 and 22 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit.

22. I asked for copies of the two print-outs and proceeded to call upon the secretary of the Chief Executive, asked her to make copies of both, pointed out the new 'mistake' as evinced in the wrong address where the replacement cheque allegedly had been posted; worse I informed her their staff had allowed someone to make misrepresentations to allege that all listed remittances had actually been received and banked and that was grossly insulting the Landlady's and my integrity as well as our honesty; their staff and she knew no such remittances had been received and or banked by the Landlady; even worse I pointed out, the wrong address as used indicated that someone was deliberately causing problems all round. Following that visit the Landlady and I went to the Housing Benefit department where we demanded a meeting with those responsible and demanded tat they correct the errors of their ways; they also took copies of the two print-outs and promised to look into the 'complaints'. We were informed that the police had also paid them a visit in respect of the very same issues.

23. Resting on the very erratic printouts the Plaintiff and his wife entered appearances at Court in respect of the Default Summons, proceeded to assert no liability to the Landlady and to allege Counterclaims in respect of and arising out of the alleged value of the luxuries held on lien (their guest had stated a much lower value on 3rd August 1996); and on reliance of the erratic printouts they were seeking to make a claim and the return of their deposit which was only £ 480 and not as they remembered it to be £ 960, which included the first four weeks rent in advance. True copy of the Defence and Counterclaim statements of the Plaintiff appears on page 21 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit. I proceeded to prepare a Reply to Defence for the Landlady which she signed on 10th September 1996 and it was posted to Edmonton County Court with copy of the Schedule of charges and remittances in support thereof. The Schedule as attached evinced the fact that Housing Benefit was not remitted to the Landlady until 19th August 1996 when it was received at the correct address and banked by her on the day. True copy of the Reply to Defence appears on pages 21, 22, and 23; True copies of the Schedule as attached appears on pages 24, 25 and 26. The last document is a true statement of the account in respect of the premises occupied by the Plaintiff and his family; all remittances, including the only remittance received and banked by the Landlady from the Local Authority. The balance shown as due and outstanding is in the sum of £ 3,067.67p. The Landlady posted to the Plaintiff and his wife a Recorded Delivery letter dated 23 September 1996 to which she attached copies of the Reply to Defence and the Schedule as should have been received from the Court; The last paragraph of the aforesaid letter was clearly endorsed with Notice that the landlady will apply for Judgement unless the Plaintiff and his wife meet the outstanding rents and or submit grounds upon which they wished to challenge the outstanding balance as shown in the Schedule document. The Plaintiff and his wife have failed to respond to the Reply to Defence as should have been served by the Court and since same have been delivered by Royal Mail. True copy of the letter dated 23 September from the Landlady to the Plaintiff and his wife appears on page 27 of the exhibit marked "A.Y.1" as attached to this my affidavit.

24. The landlady and I were served with bundles of documents in respect of liberties indulged into by the Plaintiff. If indeed the Plaintiff in this action had been Legally represented at any time as he had been asserting then his solicitor, if the party who took it upon himself to endorse and apply for Legal Aid in support of the allegations made by the Plaintiff, that person grossly erred. At no time prior to the service of the bundles of documents had the firm of solicitors acting for the Plaintiff contacted either the Landlady and or my person. In the premises I personally was not surprised that the Court and in particular District Judge Morley refused to entertain the application as entered by the Plaintiff's solicitor. In the bundle of documents as served by the Plaintiff' solicitor the Plaintiff included copy of the tenancy agreement which the Plaintiff and his wife entered into signed with the Landlady on 20th May 1996; that document was and is clearly endorsed with the Landlady's address at the time which fact qualifies that the Plaintiff had with intent been furnishing wrong information to the Local Authority in order to create and generate confusion and delays until such time he and his extended family had made their escape as indeed they did in the instance at hand. In a letter to the solicitor representing the Plaintiff in this action I challenged the manner with which he rushed into Court action without ever bothering to get information from those he and his client were keen to assert false allegations about. Indeed had the solicitor written to either the Landlady and or myself he would have been informed of the outstanding balance and a copy of the Schedule as served on the Court and the Plaintiff and his wife at their new address. The said solicitor would have been informed of the facts deposed of in this my affidavit and that the Plaintiff and his family were given an undertaking in writing; the goods held on lien will be returned on settlement of the outstanding balance due with the additional condition since and after the violence and the assault on my car and my person; the latter part being of course conditional on what action the police have taken and how this will progress through the Court. In the premises an appropriate Defence and Counterclaim has been served and filed at the Court.

25. I respectfully submit to this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff's case and action is ill founded, frivolous unjustified and an inexcusable abuse of the Court's process. In consideration of the original cause of action arising out of the failures to meet rents due the Default Summons, I humbly request of the Court to consider that the Plaintiff having applied for Housing Benefit he DID ask for remittances to be sent to him and or his wife direct. The Plaintiff has submitted to the Court and is relying on the Tenancy agreement entered into and signed on 20 May 1996; yet the Plaintiff gave a wrong address to the Local Authority in full knowledge that he was doing so with intent to cause delays and bring about confusion in order to gain time and make his escape from the premises he abandoned after service of the Default Summons. The Plaintiff's allegations that he and his family were locked out in no way represents fact. The Plaintiff's friend upon whom the Plaintiff relies to support his assertions admitted that he disconnected and removed the cooker, the washing machine for the Plaintiff and his family.

Sworn this the ......................day of ......................1996    )

at     ..............................................................................    )

       ...............................................................................    )

       ...............................................................................    )