EMAIL From: Mike Chitty, To: James Kersh
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 8:59 AM

Dear Mr Kersh,

I read out your Statement at last week's meeting of the Wavertree Society's Executive Committee. However, members of the Committee did not find it 'reassuring', nor did they regard it as an adequate response to the concerns previously expressed. The specific questions to which we would like answers are as follows:

1. Who are the 'vendors' in the case of the Wavertree Garden Suburb land parcels, from whom we should be seeking further information?

2. What is the relationship between Kersh Auctions, Merchant Estate Ltd and Nigel Bone?

3. Who was responsible for setting the 'guide prices' published in the catalogues for the Kersh auctions held in Liverpool on 6th April and 1st June 2005?

4. On what basis were these 'guide prices' determined?

5. What would be the fair market price of a piece of land subject to a 999-year lease (905 years unexpired) yielding a fixed £8 per annum to the freeholder?

6. Why was the lease affecting part of Lot 14 on 1st June 2005 - i.e. the lease of the side garden of 26 Fieldway, which I told you about on 16th May - not specifically mentioned in the Addendum Report issued to bidders?

7. What steps have you taken to check the Land Registry's index plan, to ascertain whether any of the other lots in your auction catalogue are subject to similar leases?

8. What would be the legal situation if, having purchased a piece of land at one of your auctions - described as 'not subject to a lease' - a householder discovers that, in fact, they already owned a 999-year lease on that land?

Yours sincerely,

Mike Chitty (Newsletter Editor, The Wavertree Society)