Despite all of the safe guards afforded by the defunct Agreement, three professionals Mr Abrol (Meridian), Mr Mitchell (No 5 Barristers), Mr Young (Thomas & Young) whose bodies require professional ethical provisions were broken. In addition to the defunct Agreement, CP 35 and RICS Standards They followed an unqualified valuers MAF (Fell Estates)for money and Mathew Fell (Fell Estates) who Fraudulently valued the Properties. JPQF (a Jehovah's Witness who would not lie, did for money) also an unqualifies valuer. TDSF also approved the values but you cannot agree a fraud. The last three MAF, Mathew Fell, & JPQF stood to gain hundreds of thousands of pounds. TDSF is in the same category, but to save himself £150,000 He knew the values were low. Mathew Fell played a significant part in this Fraud. He had more to gain than anybody else.

TDSF also took part. Although he was threatened and coerced in the belief he would escape all the cost, he did his deal. Consequently CJWF was put with all the costs on six of May. At the next hearing TDSF was included, jointly responsible for the costs.

Mr Abrol was clearly aware of these factors and probably Mr. Mitchell was also aware. It was in the papers on 6 May unless all the blame and costs were switched to CJWF. Mr. Abrol deceived Mr. Mitchell as well. Later on as usual as usual MAF reneged on his deal (not the other way around) and charged TDSF £150,000

Under any circumstances it is always better to get an Indepentent Valuation by a QUALIFIED EXPERT expecially for Court purposes. Most if not all members of Professional Bodies cover this point. Solicitors, Barristers, Accountants, Surveyors (RICS)

So Mr David Mitchel from No5 BARRISTERS CHAMBERS BIRMINGHAM and Mr Abrol from MERIDIAN PRIVATE CLIENTS SOLICITORS WARWICKSHIRE wrote the contract and broke it within weeks of writing it. (The agreement in the Court papers were not even dated - because the agreement was never fully finalised and there was no letter). There was also the deception of including a previously undated signed agreement (from the first previous case) to make it look that the documents had been signed at the same time. Without dates and letters the documents were part of the fraud.

They took Section 15 Out Completely

Even the provision safeguarding the Independent Valuation was ignored. Victor Young Accountant did the same. In fact he was appointed by MAF (althogh he says by TDSF). MAF describes him as 'his' accountant and thanked him and Mathew Fell for helping in doing the valuations. i.e. Both were also part of the fraud.

So even given the rules under CP 35 (Court Proceeding 35) were ignored. CPR 35 outlines rules on expert evidence, stating that experts serve the court, not the instructing party.

Civil Procedure Rules (Part 35): Experts & Assessors

• Overriding Duty: Experts must help the court, overriding their duty to the instructing party.

• Permission Needed: Courts must grant permission to call an expert or use their report.

• Report Requirements: Must include facts, instructions, and a statement of truth; address issues like disrepair causes in relevant cases.

• Single Joint Experts: Have an equal duty to all parties, requiring independence.

MAF and MATHEW FELL FRAUD

Although MAF and his son are not RICS qualified valuers they were holding themselves out to be such. At other times they went to court they always appointed a RICS valuer.

A valuer regulated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) is prohibited from valuing their own property for a third party.

This scenario presents a clear own-interest conflict that threatens the valuer's independence and objectivity, which are core ethical principles of the RICS.

Actual Bias; where there is a direct (pecuniary) interest.

‘In such a case the presence of bias is taken for granted and results in automatic disqualification.’

In this instance the temptation of undervaluing presented itself. The amounted to fraud of hundreds of thousands of pounds. TDSF cannot agree fraudulent figures.

JPQF knew the valuations were fraudulent but said nothing. TDSF was coerced. He is not an expert but knew the values were low. Some of the figures were TDSF not CJWF's and other valuations were suggested by him (MAF 'cannot complain they are higher than his.' In addition property in TDSF area of expertise MAF auctioned the property at tens of thousands lower.

RICS regulations on valuing are primarily governed by the RICS Valuation – Global Standards, known as the "Red Book," which sets mandatory rules and best practice for RICS members globally, incorporating the international IVS standards and focusing on ethics, transparency, competence, and consistency, ensuring high-quality, reliable valuations for diverse assets like property and development projects, with recent updates addressing ESG and technology.

Key Components of RICS Valuation Standards (The Red Book)

• Mandatory Rules: Specific requirements for RICS members and firms on how valuations must be conducted.

• International Alignment: Fully integrates the International Valuation Standards (IVS) for a global framework, with recent updates reflecting new IVS changes and ESG focus.

• Ethical Conduct: Rules of conduct and ethical standards to ensure integrity, independence, and client confidence.

• Best Practice Guidance: Advisory guidelines on technical aspects, property types (like development), and emerging areas like sustainability (ESG).

• Valuer Registration: A system for RICS to regulate and ensure competence in valuation practice.

Core Principles & Focus Areas

• Competence: Valuers must have the necessary knowledge, skills, and behaviors (competencies) for the task.

• Transparency & Reporting: Clear terms of engagement, reporting frameworks, and documented processes are required.

• Market-Based Value: Valuations are based on a willing buyer/seller scenario, considering location, size, condition, and current market trends.

• Technology & ESG: Standards are updated to incorporate technology (modelling) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors.

How it Works in Practice

• For Clients: Provides assurance that valuations meet rigorous, ethical, and technical standards, reducing risk.

• For Valuers: Guides them on mandatory requirements, professional conduct, and technical application for all asset types.

In essence, the Red Book ensures that RICS valuations are credible, consistent, and globally recognized, supported by strong regulation and ethical frameworks.

RICS STANDARDS. (Exerts)

PAGE 1 RICS professional standards and guidance

[MAF is not a RICS valuer however, he is well aware of RICS rules of best practice.

As MAF regards himself as an expert (or at least passes himself off as one) he must also recognize that the best practice RICS standards of behavioral competence are applicable to him.]

Page 1. ‘Application of these provisions in legal or disciplinary proceedings…’

‘It is also likely that during any legal proceedings a judge, adjudicator or equivalent will take RICS guidance notes into account.’

Page 3. GLOSSARY - BIAS and conflict of interest

Page 6. 2 The overriding principle

Actual Bias; where there is a direct (pecuniary) interest.

‘In such a case the presence of bias is taken for granted and results in automatic disqualification.’

Under the agreement of 3 February 2022 a RICS valuer, (or a RICS independent valuer) should have been appointed and by

Para.15 after 4pm 18 March 2022 then by default the President of RICS nominates the valuer.

No values were required. The independent RICS valuer appointed by the President would have done so and come up with the values for the company.

Automatic disqualification is exactly that. He cannot value under any circumstance and must stand down i.e. He cannot do any figures and there is nothing to agree or they should be thrown out.

This rule is there for a purpose so valuers are not in a position to be able to commit a fraud as the respondent MA Fell has done in this case MA Fell.

Any letters after 18th March 2022 regarding values and valuers is wrong. Any letter or statements after this date referring to these letters are false

Specifically 11 April 2022, 19 April 2022, 20 April 2022(Mr Abrol Solicitor), 20 April 2022 Particulars of Claim (Mr. Mitchell Barrister, M A FELLl), 26 April 2022 (M A Fell) Values, Thomas and Young (Mr V Young) fraudulent draft accounts and figures as well as being automatically disqualified as the respondents’ accountants who took their direction and explanations from the MAF.

NB. Any confirmation by Jonathan who is also a valuer of Freehold Ground rents is part of this fraud for his own (and Mathew, R son) benefit and would profit from these fraudulent valuations. He would also be aware of RICS conflict of interest. Any confirmation by Timothy would have been by fraudulent misrepresentation by R. Timothy had little choice if he wanted to keep his house.

Based on the legal principle nemo iudex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), a direct pecuniary (financial) interest in the outcome of a case results in automatic disqualification of the judge or decision-maker.

Key aspects of this rule include:

• Presumed Bias: In such cases, the law assumes bias exists, meaning it is not necessary to prove that the decision-maker was actually influenced by the interest.

• Irrelevance of Size: Even a small or minor pecuniary interest can disqualify a person from acting as a judge.

• Automatic Disqualification: The presence of a direct interest is taken for granted and results in automatic disqualification.

• Distinction from Apparent Bias: This is a stricter rule than "apparent bias" (where a reasonable person might apprehend bias), as it applies regardless of whether a reasonable observer would perceive bias.

This rule is traditionally associated with English law, famously illustrated in Dimes v Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852), where a judge holding shares in a company involved in the litigation was automatically disqualified.

Criminal Prosecution: Deliberate misrepresentation of value for profit is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006.