Addison Madden Solicitors - Portsmouth

THE ABOVE FIRM CEASED TRADING ON 2 SEPTEMBER 2009.  SO TAKE HEART THAT IF YOU ARE AS DETERMINED AS I AM YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  THE OTHER PARTNER, WHO AT THIS STAGE I AM NOT NAMING, CHOSE NOT TO RENEW HIS PRACTISING CERTIFICATE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 OCTOBER 2004.
 
In 2003 This firm were acting for my company in a private loan to another company. I was advised my security in the loan would be behind a bank and that the rent from the property the borrower was purchasing would be sufficient to service both of the loans.

What I was not told was that the bank did not lend the money in the first loan and that the two partners in the firm of Addison Madden had lent the money at significantly higher rates than the bank would have done and so from the very first day of these loans, which totalled £2,145,000, would not be fully serviced, leading to problems.  Addison Madden were also supposed to have secured second charges in favour of my company on twelve other properties, with available equity of in excess of £500,000.  What I did not discovered until over a year later was that these charges had not been registered, that some of the properties promised were not ever owned by the borrower or any of its associated companies and most of the others had been sold, without my knowledge.  So very little equity there for me to recover by those means.

I also discovered at of the properties over which my charge was eventually registered, Peter Madden had registered a charge, with a much later date than mine, ahead of my charge, so when this property was sold, the first approximately £30,000 was paid the parties who should have come behind me (so they received what was rightfully mine).
 
The borrowing company was eventually put into receivership by another creditor and I then discovered that a bank had lent to the borrower in December 2003, £915,000 the purpose of which was to repay my company's loan, which was at a higher interest rate than the Peter Madden (and Partner) loan.   What in fact happened was that Peter Madden took the money for himself and used it to reduce his loan and, therefore, his exposure to a loss.
 
I also discovered that the bank and Peter Madden had entered into a Deed of Priority, which meant that in terms of ranking, the bank became first, my company second and Peter Madden (and Partner) were third.
 
In due course the bank sold the property at market value (which was not sufficient to cover all the loans) and were going to pay to my company all that it was owed by the borrower. This would have meant that it was certain that Peter Madden would loose a very large amount of money and so he argued with the bank that it was my company which came last.  The bank decided that it was not prepared to adjudicate in this and so took the matter to the High Court.  As there was a delay of over a year before this matter was heard at court and because of the way priorities work, both the bank and Peter Madden were going to loose huge amounts of money and my company would probably not  suffer any loss.  For this reason the bank and with the support of Peter Madden stated in court that under the law of subrogation, the bank and Peter Madden were both first  (i.e. 1a and 1b), with my company ranking second and likely to receive only a very small amount of money from the sale proceeds.
 
After this trial the solicitor acting for my company Mathew Barker of Clarke Wilmott and barrister Rachel Sleeman of 5 Paper resigned.  I was then free to take up my argument directly with the bank in a way that my legal team had refused so to do. Eventually this produced from the bank the letters between the bank and Peter Madden (and partner) which clearly demonstrated that the bank's money had been lent for the purpose of repaying my loan. They were asking for the DS1 from my company as they believed that I had been repaid, and of course they had asked for and had been given a Deed of Priority from Peter Madden and his Partner.
 
So it is clear that both the bank and Peter Madden and Partner lied in court.  What is also very interesting is that subsequent to their loan, the bank pursued Peter Madden for my DS1 for several months in enforcement of the undertaking of Peter Madden (and Partner) so to do. However, Peter Madden (and partner) proposed to the bank that they would try to obtain from my company a Deed of Priority in favour of the bank. A clear case of my own solicitor wishing to place me in a position of certain massive loss for his (their) personal gain.  Although, at the time I did not now why I had been asked to agree to a Deed of Priority, I declined to do so.
 
This also raises the question as to whether the bank and Peter Madden (and Partner) conspired to defraud my company?
 
I pursued Addison Madden at mediation in "negligence" in 2009 and a settlement was agreed, which they insisted be the subject of a confidentiality clause.

I am currently pursuing the bank via the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Partner of Peter Madden in other lawful ways, which are ongoing.

Incredibly, the Law Society, despite my complaints, allow Peter Madden to continue to practice as a solicitor and  he is employed as a solicitor by another Portsmouth law firm, which, to my knowledge is otherwise of good repute.
 
 
 

Rate this Solicitor:
Addison Madden Solicitors - Portsmouth

Have you had a problem with Addison Madden Solicitors - Portsmouth or Peter Madden? Please let others know here:

User Rating:  / 17

| Print Version | Warn a friend |