Page 9 - 8_PBC to Begg OCR_8-4-16 (38pp)

she requested other work to be attended to in her flat until I pulled them off which set her off again.
Unbeknown to ourselves, Mrs Hillgarth continued to use our firm of Solicitors for personal affairs culminating, once she had progressed her RTM with another firm, yet still seeking advice from our Solicitors, in our receipt of a letter from our Solicitors [the Senior Partner had insisted] stating they could no longer represent Mitre House Management Limited due to a conflict of interest [with Mrs Hillgarth]. They were also terminating their relationship with Mrs Hillgarth.
I know, Mr. Begg – you couldn’t make this up?
Any Lessee has, as you have previously intoned, the right to complain, either to the statutory bodies LVT First Tier Tribunal etc, or to our Government required complaints body, [PRS in our case], which is well in evidence since October 2014 on all our stationery and documents including our website, or indeed legally as Mrs Hillgarth is doing through your good offices.
Your reference to forfeiture, I am presuming to be, is in probable reference to Mrs Hillgarth’s non compliance to certain of her lease covenants. One of our responsibilities under our Head Lease is to enforce non-compliance where non-compliance exists and you will have noted a letter of non-compliance from our previous agents, KFH dated 29 April 2009 requesting Mrs Hillgarth to comply immediately.
I must admit, I have lost count of the amount of times we have requested same and a bit more, being a requirement to request and get permission to sub-let, which in these troubling and dangerous times is becoming an important part of identification and security not only for Mitre House, but I would surmise, the United Kingdom.
The Website.
I believe you would agree with my contention that a managing agent should have appropriate expertise. I can think of no other reason why, on your Mitre House website at http://www.mitrehouse.com/mitre-house-management-limited.html , you should hold yourself out as having relevant property management experience.
You assert, amongst many other claims, that MHML is “the most used RTM service provider”, “forms over 85% of all RTM companies” and has experience of handling collective freehold enfranchisement applications. These representations are unlikely to be true, given that exactly the same claims are made (and with somewhat greater credibility) by Canonbury – a bona fide property management company whose website you have plagiarised – even to the extent of downloading all of Canonbury’s terms and conditions of business on to your own website. You have simply changed the corporate name, wherever it appears, from Canonbury to MHML. I also doubt that MHML carries (as you assert) £3 million of professional indemnity cover, but if I am wrong in this respect I would be grateful if you would send me the relevant certificate.
No doubt Canonbury will object to this breach of their copyright and will force you to take your website down. However I should emphasise that we have retained copies of the relevant website text for evidential purposes.