Page 3 - 49_PBC to Begg_7-7-16 OCR (4pp)

Not including vat and fees is a totally open ended contract with far less control over costs as indeed it is in the interest of any fee earner to maximise costs not minimise them as all fees are charged on totals spent not totals saved!
You may wish to explain how these inaccurate and highly misleading entries were squared with your auditor. At the appropriate time I shall of course be putting these same questions to your co- directors and to the auditor himself.
(reply) Our Auditors are as bemused by your innuendos as we are.
Meanwhile please do not ask me for additional time to answer the two very simple questions I have asked you on the first page above. It will not be granted. As I have said before I am indifferent as to whether you answer these questions to me or to the relevant authorities. But if you choose not to sort out this matter transparently and openly in the way we first proposed, you will have only yourself to blame if the next communication you receive on this matter is from the police.
(reply) Had you had the courtesy to reply to our April 1st 2016 letter offering to bike over the requested invoices which obviously would have included our MHML invoice for £31,756 we would not have wasted now nearly four months of you accusing and me disproving each and every point raised, including as is now well established some downright lies.
You might also recall our request for confirmations that our denials with supporting evidence are acknowledged as such. None has been received.
The attached emails from your client again evidences her expectations! Or at least what is considered normal business practice. Were I to demand of you a breakdown of an invoice from you regarding to whom you actually paid and how much you paid exactly for paper, toner, couriers and the like, and what is your profit margin, I can well imagine the reply!
Your impertinent innuendos and requests again fall under the six month rule and as previ- ously stated:“It is totally discreditable to be arguing over the semantics of the 2014 works’ a year
after they were finished (your client’s request for invoices on 17 December 2015). If these innuendos and accusations had any reason to be raised they should have been made within weeks of the fin- ished works, or within days or weeks of the published year end accounts which all MHML’s replies to requests made as you infer, during the works, made abundantly clear would/could be answered once the accounts were published? Why wait six months and 17 days if so important, so disturbing, so very suspicious, so mistrusting of MHML and most notably, me?”
And finally: I cannot and will not continue to advise you of references answered in previous corre- spondence to previous queries and accusations made, and unless we are subsequently legally obliged by you, RBK&C or indeed our Freeholders to consider your client’s tardy, out of time,
17 December 2015, request to view documents from our year ended 2014 Accounts dated 30 May 2015, as legally binding within the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 s.22 to s24, I do not consider further correspondence to be useful.
And certainly no references to the Police which does seem pretty obtuse. I think, I hope, we’ve proved no frauds committed (unless saving a small fortune for the benefit of your client and all other lessees is a crime), hence no referral to the Fraud Squad either.
See my attached letter for further references.
Yours sincerely,
P.F.C.Begg Solicitor