Page 2 - 49_PBC to Begg_7-7-16 OCR (4pp)

stances of what you have been previously advised. Why add yet further irrelevancies?
According to your commentary on my letter of 21 June 2016 “the £105,877 figure [this being the "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 shown in the Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014] includes .... £1,590 due to AR Lawrence once final snagging is accom- plished". I fail to understand why this unpaid retention is accounted for as monies paid rather than being charged as a provision. Nor do I understand whether the £105,877 also includes a reserve for other unpaid contractors. Whatever the answer may be, it seems to me that July would be a suitable month, given that weather is apparently a factor, to deal with any remain- ing snagging issues and to pay over to AR Lawrence the £1,590 you have already charged the leaseholders in respect of the retention.
(reply) Our 2014 accounts show Creditors of £10,032 (which includes the anticipated final AR Lawrence £1590 and indeed their penultimate £7418.70). The figure of £105,877 did not contain any other provisions. Simply a final amount of all works invoiced and paid, or to be, from Reserves. What can be more simple, more transparent than that?
Further to your perjured Witness Statement, arrangements are in hand for doing as you suggest once the weather is stabilised. I suggest you also do what Tony, myself and his crew are keeping an eye on, namely the short to long-term weather forecast for a guar- anteed few consecutive dry days. During Wimbledon is always precarious!
This is not the only accounting anomaly. The Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 De- cember 2014 clearly state that no surveyor's fees were paid or accrued in 2014 (see page 8 which shows a nil entry for 2014 in respect of the line item marked "Surveyor's Fees"). How- ever in your letter of 10 June 2016 you assert that surveyor's fees were in fact paid in 2014 and that these were included in your "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 shown in the line immediately below it.
(reply) oh dear, purely semantics again. We could just as easily have entered £10,513 under Surveyor’s fees and £95,364 under Major Works, still totalling £105,877 spent.
In fact the Surveyor’s Fees item on our accounts had previously been used in previous years or indeed again in future years if the services of a Surveyor is required for any reason other than, as in the present example, where one transparent total agreed budget includes fees [which I note you make no mention of from my previous corre- spondences’ explanation re including vat and fees].
However these are mere niceties compared with the most obvious and glaring accounting error. It goes without saying that the leaseholders should have been informed in the Service Charge Accounts that out of the aggregate refurbishment figure of £105,877 charged to the leaseholders the sum of £31,765.21 had been paid to MHML, particularly as the leaseholders had been led to expect that all the refurbishment monies would be paid to AR Lawrence - and certainly not to their own landlord.
(reply) As totally established to date, far better, far cheaper to MHML than an outside contractor. Reference to “landlord” is simply inflamatory. Our landlord could have been AR Lawrence or Wimpy, who no doubt would have done the works (s.20 obviously).
I think not, as indeed previous workings by our previous Agent(s) and their s.20 No- tices, again made clear, plus vat and fees [ours stated including vat and fees].
As such, I think we can agree that all Agents charge fees within their s.20 Notice, along with any other fees required to be paid, be that Surveyor’s fees, project fees etc etc.
Your client was more than aware of fees charged over and above actual physical works (see attached) and fees charged by Agents over and above physical works.
Again I refer to our very straightforward and totally transparent TOTAL AGREED BUDGET of £105,019 to include vat and fees - meaning there were no hidden extras to surprise or disappoint lessees (including myself and my fellow directors), which has so often happened on previous occasions using Agents.