LAM/WLL
3rd October, 2002
STRICILY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

P. Bowman Esq.,
PricewaterhouseCoopers,
1 Embankment Place,
London WC2N 6RH.

Dear Mr Boorman

Trustee in Bankruptcy N J Vooght – estate of J M E Hoath

Brandon Gough has given me your name as being the appropriate person in PricewaterhouseCoopers to whom I should write. I wish to complain about the activities of a member of your staff and ask that you should critically investigite all aspects of this affair and have due regard to paragraph 9(1) of the Disciplinary Bye-laws of the institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

I was unwittingly drawn into this case by my son who informed me on the afternoon the 12th July 2001 that he had been instructed by three armed police officers wearing bullet proof jackets that he was to be evicted from his premises and had to be removed 5pm that day. As he had legitimately been occupying the premises since at least April 1997 and they contained his plant and customers' equipment valued in excess of £150,000 he naturally objected but was told that force could and would be used (to) remove him. At this point he had not received any notification that an eviction was to be carried out nor were any of the bailiffs or other representatives aware of his name or existence on the premises. This despite the fact that his business has a world-wide reputation and was listed as resident at the premises is the Yellow Pages and numerous other publications.

It transpired that the instructions had been given by Brachers, a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of N. J. Vooght the trustee in bankruptcy of J. M. E. Hoath. No representative of Brachers or of those giving the instructions wore present on site so I had to immediately fax Brachers advising them that my son was not a party to any dispute that they may have had with Mr Hoath and that we would hold them jointly and severally liable together with anyone giving instructions to them for any damage done to my son's property and for any consequential damages arising as a result of their actions.

Mr. Lambeth makes formal complaint to PricewaterhouseCoopers outlining very pertinent facts, inter alia, armed intimidation of his son to leave his workshop without notice by Sussex Police against his son who was a lawful tenant on the property known as Summersales Farm.

The criminal intention to use armed police officers to intimidate lawful tenants into leaving by PricewaterhouseCoopers is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The criminal intention by Sussex Police to act in support of such conduct seriously brings the integrity of the police into doubt.

The complaint “high lights” the serious fact that PricewaterhouseCoopers are prepared to procure an armed robbery by Sussex Police to suit their fraudulent purpose as any court action would have brought their fraud to light and into the public domain.

( continued overleaf [2] )