Page 1 - BEGG NEW ALL IN ONE 12-6-17

From: Subject: Date: To: Bcc:
Paul B_C studio@graffiti.biz Re: Mitre House Litigation 12 June 2017 at 17:50
Brown-Constable Paul Neville studio@graffiti.biz
Dear Mr. Begg -
Thank you for your as ever unwelcome contribution to the situation. My reply and attachments hopefully answer your usual innuendos.
Please note (4) PDF attachments and (1) audio file
On 8 Jun 2017, at 18:24, Peter Begg <pbegg@tarsus.co.uk> wrote: For the a)en+on of Paul Brown-Constable
Dear Mr Brown-Constable,
I refer to our previous communica:ons in this ma<er.
I have now received through Mr Bruce Maunder Taylor your file of invoices rela:ng to the 2014 refurbishment project at Mitre House.
(comment/reply) Would be more correct to add that had you not been malingering with alleged pneumonia on 1st April 2016 or indeed doing as suggested and referencing our website, you’d have had exactly the same 15 months ago! (end comment/reply)
I noted from the MHML invoice dated 31 December 2014 that the sum of £31,756.21 charged by MHML comprised £15,572.85 “due to MHML for works performed” and £16,183.36 paid to suppliers for various pieces of hardware and other materials. You had previously informed me in correspondence that this sum had been paid to “MHML and its contractors”, which conveyed the misleading impression that other contractors (besides AR Lawrence) had been engaged by MHML to carry out the refurbishment work. It certainly seems surprising, to put it no stronger than that, that you should have prepared such a (very) detailed invoice on 31 December 2014 when you seemingly had no inten:on of showing it to the leaseholders whose money you were using to pay it. No doubt you will explain this to the Tribunal in due course.
(comment/reply) Would be more correct to refer to the MHML invoice dated 31 December 2014 as amoun+ng to £15,572.85 and having nothing whatsoever to do with the costs of £16,183.36 spent from the Service Charge account (that’s what we meant by “spent” when referring to your ambiguous accusa+ons of MHML “charging”. Yet another accusa+on being "You had previously informed me in correspondence that this sum had been paid to “MHML and its contractors”, which conveyed the misleading impression that other contractors (besides AR Lawrence) had been engaged by MHML to carry out the refurbishment work”. I don’t understand “conveyed the misleading informa+on” as obviously other contractors besides AR Lawrence were employed (you’ve already accused me of not paying our Electrician which one presumes to be “another contractor”). Perhaps you are referencing Mrs Hillgarth’s accusa+on that I personally was doing all the works and consequently I was the only contractor and therefore I personally (or MHML) received the overall