Dear Dr. Lyons,
We do not wish to get involved in Hall's acts of fantasy or character assassinations. We put Freddie in the Care of the Court in order to have his home and all his properties returned to him. We never expected to meet up with such ruthless opposition in order to have Freddie's basic human rights protected and my father's wishes for his son complied with.
Mr. Hall says I am unable to appreciate the clear distinction which exists in law between contracts or sales which are voidable and those which are void ab initio. How does Mr. Hall know that all sale transactions fall within the former category when he never fully investigated the sales? I insist that all sales are invalid or void ab initio as Mr. Hall prefers because of Freddie's incapacity. Freddie had no bargaining powers and was at their mercy. I do appreciate the clear distinction and would understand more if I was allowed to attend meetings as a committee member authorised by Lord MacDermott.
Why did the Official Solicitor see no reason to challenge the sales of Freddie's properties? The only property brought to the Judge's attention in the Court was 14 Castlehill Road. No other properties were ever mentioned by Mr. Hall or his barrister. We were never at anytime given the opportunity to challenge anything.
No. 3 to 5 Little King Street was bought by a solicitor called Morris. He used the name Dobbin. Mr. Dobbin was interviewed by the Fraud Squad and denied Mr. Morris had the right to use his name.
No's 5 to 21 Winetavern Street was sold for £17,000 by Mr. C. Gilpin and his solicitor according to estate agents Blessington & Faire. £20,000 was offered but the lower price was accepted. Freddie lost out on a £35,000 grant in respect of this property which has no been given to the Laing Group. So Freddie lost £38,000. Mr. Hall wishes to dispose of this as of no consedquence and not even challenge the sale. Where is the money for both these properties?
Is Mr. Hall even at this late stage not aware that according to the Fraud Squad the Rylond Vehicle Group "bought " and paid for Freddie's showroom and ground and apparently Francis Street? Cleaver Fulton & Rankin did not investigate this property either. We consider the fees paid to them by Freddie should be returned as they did nothing to protect Freddie or make any attempt to have his property returned during the three years they were in charge.
According to Detective Constable J. Chambers of the Fraud Squad, the Ryland Group are now taking action against Tughan & Co. How can Mr. Hall say this property was not sold when solicitor Mr. Herbert Wright was given £375,000? Was the Judge given this information? How did Herbert Wright sell property that did not belong to him and accept £375,000 - a very nice handshake?
I had a letter from Mr. Chambers of the Care and Protection Office recently stating that Freddie appeared to have all his properties except his home. Could Mr. Hall explain this? How can they care and protect if they are not given any information?
Sale of 14 Castlehill Road.
Mr. Hall engaged a Mr. Dean of Murdock and Deane to value Freddie's home. The price was disputed but the most relevant and important issue was never mentioned namely the legality of the sale. We are not interested in the price paid and we cannot understand why we were put through an expensive Court Hearing that proved nothing. We hope we can now have a Court Hearing to dispute the legality of the sale. Mr. Deane, Mr. Hall's valuer, valued the house exactly the same as the occupier paid for it, the much higher valuation was ignored. According to Mr. Hall he was satisfied that the price made the sale legal and correct. We consider this sale void ab initio as Freddie would have no knowledge or understanding of legal documents and would not know what he was signing. We were shocked when the Judge remarked that he would not put a man out of his "house". They had no compunction putting Freddie out of 14 Castlehill Road. We cannot understand the Judge's reasoning unless he was given wrong information.
My solicitor at that time, although he had all facts and copious information, sat through this whole hearing with his hands covering his face. He did not speak or allow his Junior Counsel to speak although they were there to support Freddie's interest. Whose instructions were these men working under?
I had a meeting just prior to this Hearing with Senior Counsel. I was not allowed to speak (which appears the norm) and was told in no uncertain terms that the Judge would not like me very much. What was the purpose of meeting in the Law Courts if it were not to intimidate. My mother said two men came into 14 Castlehill Road and told her she hadn't the money to live there, even now at 90 years, she talks about how strangers came and put herself and Freddie out of our family home. She was also told she had to leave all carpets and curtains and a Persian rug at the fireplace at no extra charge. Mr. Deane defended this action in the Courts on behalf of Mr. Hall and his barrister by saying that everyone leaves their old carpets but the fact that my father did not have old carpets was conveniently overlooked. The carpets and curtains belonged to Freddie and should not have been given away.
Why had Freddie to be so generous to Hall's fellow solicitor who now occupies Freddie's home? Was the Judge told all the facts?
Valuable furniture that can never be replaced had to be sold because it would not fit into 4 Norwood Gardens. How could this benefit Freddie? Mr. Deane was not an independent valuer as Mr. Hall had used him before in order to agree with him that Freddie did not own the odd numbers in Francis Street.
Freddie was given the family home years before my father died and none of the family could legally buy it so how could anyone else? We were always aware of my father's wishes. This home was to be an investment for Freddie and to make him secure in the surroundings and comfort he knew and was familiar with since a young boy.
I enclose sale notice of 12 Castlehill Road. My father owned this house at one time and the family had the oportunity to see round it. It was a much inferior house to No. 14 and yet the asking price is £95,000.
Why is Freddie to be compelled to live in 4 Norwood Gardens which was and is in a derelict condition. This is why it was so long on the market. No one wanted to buy it but according to Mr. Hall it is good enough for a mental patient.
Freddie would need to spend over £20,000 on this house but I will never allow him to deplete his income which my father worked hard to provide, by spending one penny on a house that he has no proper title to and does not legally own no matter what Mr. Hall, Cleaver Fulton & Rankin or Tughan & Co say. He would be throwing good money after bad.
I strongly object to the inference and I quote, " ... stems from reflection that the former family home 14 Castlehill Road would now provide Freddie, Mrs. Andrews and Mr. and Mrs. wright with a spacious and comfortable home if only the clock could be put back." Freddie should never have been put out of his comfortable home. Why does Mr. Hall appear to object to my mother and Freddie living in comfort and in the home my father gave to him and with plenty of money to live there?
Mr. Hall's remarks are now very much reversed when he allowed his agent Mr. Deane to run down this house in the Courts to protect the solicitor living there. He inferred that no one would want to buy it. It was disposed of in less than a week!
Why was Freddie put through an expensive bridging loan which cost him £800 in order to have him quickly removed from his home - why the urgency? Why was the family not informed?
Will Mr. Hall not recognise the fact that Mr. C. Gilpin and his solicitor had no mandate to act for Freddie? How did Mr. Gilpin get access to Freddie's affairs? Should his affairs, or anyone elses for that matter, not be totally private to any solicitor?
I never at any time thought about myself with regard to Castlehill Road. My husband and I bought a new bungalow in Bangor on my husband's retirement. I never thought I would be forced to give up my home in order to protect Freddie from the powers that be and look after my mother too.
My mother suffered a stroke and had to go into hospital. My elder brother Billy and I arranged a meeting with Mr. Davis (former Master) in the Law Courts. Mr. Drennan was to be at the meeting but he never turned up. Mr. Davis phoned Mr. Drennan to find out why he had not kept the appointment. All Mr. Davis was told was that Mr. Drennan sent his clerk Mr. Doherty to 4 Norwood Gardens in order to close the house up, inform the Police and put Freddie in a home. Mr. Davis or ourselves were never forewarned about this. Would Mr. Hall call this unwarranted act Care and Protection?
We had no idea what home they had in mind. Of course we would never have allowed Freddie to go into any home.
Mr. Davis told us to rush up to the house and stop this action. When we arrived Mr. Doherty was lounging in an armchair phoning someone. We made no comment to see what he would say, but he gave no explanation whatsoever and my brother Billy and I sat until he was forced to leave.
Mr. Drennan gave his clerk wide powers and a licence to do whatever he liked. Mr. Rankin was never involved in our case. He only took over when Mr. Drennan had a stroke and we had already approached the Fraud Squad. We never met Mr. Rankin or ever spoke to him at any time about Freddie's case. Why does Mr. Hall want Mr. Rankin to appear as if he was involved and take a prominent position and not mention the clerk Mr. Doherty who was allowed wide powers in our case.
Detective Constable M. Patterson was not only amember of the R.U.C. for some years but was seven years in the Fraud Squad. He was present at all Court Hearings and I understand he gave a strong report into Police Headquarters about the injustices to Freddie in the Courts. My sister and I told Mr. Hall in the Law Courts exactly what we thought of the Hearings.
Why does Mr. Hall feel the Chancery Master can do better than an experienced Fraud Officer? Did the Chancery Master question all concerned in this conspiracy to rob Freddie of all his valuable estate? Why is Mr. Hall able to speak for the Police? I am sure they are quite capable of making their own judgement and do not need Mr. Hall's protection.
Detective Constable Patterson spent almost four years on our case and did a very thorough and searching investigation which the family are very thankful for as no-one else cared. Why does Mr. Hall wish to conveniently dispose of him and make little of his Report?
Is Mr. Hall not aware that the Fraud Squad are still active? If Mr. Hall had satisfied the Police as he appears to believe why are investigations continuing?
Detective Constable J. Chambers of the Fraud Squad called with me about a month ago. He told me he interviewed the Ryland Group. It was D.C. Chambers who told me that Mr. C. Gilpin took one million pounds to Jersey to his son and daughter-in-law who, incidently, cannot come home to Northern Ireland or they will be lifted by the Police for taxes etc, and £375,000 to solicitor Herbert Wright who met the Ryland Group and showed them round the propeties.
I did not know, as Mr. Hall states in his letter, that the Police had been denied access to all relevant records. I am quite sure they had all access long before Mr. Hall was appointed. D.C. Patterson, according to his report, had plenty of access. I worked closely with him for almost four years.
D.C. Patterson was told by Senior Officers to set our case aside over two years ago but under continual pressure from us, work started again. D.C. Patterson wanted to interview Mr. C. Gilpin and solicitor Mr. Herbert Wright but was refused at that time. I would imagine that the Fraud Squad would be experienced enough to be aware of criminal acts and Fraud.
Who collected Freddie by car at 4 Norwood Gardens and took him to a solicitor's office where he was given a silver pen to sign his name on documents. This took place when my brother was already a Patient in Care. Who was present in that office at that time and witnessed his signature?
D.C. Chambers called on my older brother two weeks ago and he was shown signatures supposed to be Freddies. He noticed some were in pencil and overwritten in ink and one was signed Freddy. This spelling was never used by the family or Freddie.
Mr. Hall states that it is unfortunate that I appear to attach much more significance to the potentially criminal implications of those transactions than has been shown (so far) by Police Officers conducting the investigations and by the D.P.P. Where did Mr. Hall get this information from as we were never allowed to speak to him? I don't think the Police Officers or the D.P.P. need any further protection from Mr. Hall. Are the Police and D.P.P. aware of Mr. Hall's remarks? If not, they should be.
Who occupied Freddie's show-room and ground over a number of years? Who was this property leased to? What agent was involved in collection of rents etc? Who are the "squatters" in Freddie's property all this time and why was this property used as an investment for someone other than Freddie? Who got the money? Could these acounts be made available?
Why was the D.O.E. allowed to park their Porta-cabins for over three years in Francis Street? Did they pay Freddie for this privilege? Are these accounts also available?
(Mrs) Eileen Wright.