Page 8 - BEGG NEW ALL IN ONE 12-6-17

Mrs MICHELE HILLGARTH versus
MITRE HOUSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED and
PAUL BROWN-CONSTABLE
Claimant
First Defendant
Second Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
Relevant Background information
The Claimant is one of nine leaseholders in a block of flats at Mitre House, King's Road, London SW3.
The First Defendant is both the Head Landlord and the company currently responsible for managing Mitre House on behalf of the leaseholders. The Second Defendant is a director and shareholder of the First Defendant who has taken upon himself sole responsibility for the said management activity.
The First Defendant is for all practical purposes the creature and alter ego of the Second Defendant, since the other directors of the First Defendant have abdicated all responsibility for its management and operations.
(comment/reply) It is quite true that no blame can or should be attributed to Directors, Segar Karupiah and Jamil Raja of Dima Intl., of Mitre House Management Limited other than Mr Brown-Constable (Second Defendant) for any proven misdemeanor as he accepts full responsibility for all and any alleged errors and illegalities if proved but all are denied. It should be noted that Mrs Hillgarth was a Director until requested to resign on 18 September 2014 and was fully aware and conversant with most significantly the 2014 works’ programme details and agreements despite her protestations to the contrary as correspon- dence to date has amply evidenced and if that same correspondence is still considered insufficient I would refer you to the attached audio recording of a comment made by Mrs Hillgarth during a Board Meeting on 23 May 2014 being a short clip from a 6hr 45mins and one of several on file further substanti- ating conversations and agreements made by Mrs Hillgarth to Mr Brown-Constable over a period of 5 years. (end comment/reply)
Sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") give tenants statutory protection from excessive service charge costs. By section 19, service charges must be "reasonable and reasonably incurred" to be recoverable. In addition there is a consultation regime in sections 20 and 2OZA of the Act whose primary purpose is to ensure that tenants do not pay for poor services, or for more than they should.
(comment/reply) No doubt the Court will require some evidence, as would we, in your assertion that our service charge costs were allegedly “excessive, unreasonable and unreasonably incurred” as it is already well established that lessees are paying £800 per annum less in 2017 than they were paying in 2011 for identical services and maintenance. (end comment/reply)
The consultation regime applies to "qualifying works" (section 20(1)), defined as "works on a building or any other premises” (section 2OZA(4)). Regulations set out the detail of the consultation requirements. Failure to comply with the consultation requirements means that, unless the landlord obtains dispensation from the Tribunal, a landlord can only recover the "appropriate amount" set by the regulations. This amount is currently £250 per tenant and is referred to below as the "statutory cap".