Page 6 - 44_PBC to Begg_21-6-16 OCR (8pp)

Main contractor vs. several sub-contractors
· In my experience of managing property for 25 years, employing individual sub-contractors rather than 1 main con- tractor does not work in large scale buildings. (comment) I personally alone could paint Mitre House’s interior, two coats in seven days or in three with a pal! It’s hardly the Oxo Tower - it’s a tiny building easily managed.
· The benefit of having a Main Contractor is that here is a schedule of works to be followed logically, this will be the responsibility of the Project Manager for the Main Contractor who will ensure that the work is done in the right order and in accordance with the specification. If one of the sub-contractors damages another sub-contractor’s work,
it is then down to the Project Manager to sort out. (comment) Her logic couldn’t comprehend some works come first!
· If separate contractors were employed, and say during the work the electrician damages plaster or paintwork
or woodwork there is a huge problem with who is liable for rectifying the damage. By having a main contractor this removes the problem.(comment) In my experience of managing property for 25 years....I don’t think so, Michele!
You had of course already admitted that some of the work was done by yourself and/or through unapproved contractors. In response to my letter to you dated 23 March 2016 you specifically mentioned the following items:
Boxing of meters
Boxing of interior messy wiring
The lift interior and exterior (this was never part of the approved specification) Artifacts grills
The handrails
The flooring
The BT wiring
The various interior woodworks
Replacing all brassworks.throughout the building
Changing the rear locks
Buttoning on interior cupboards
Installation of signage throughout the building
The lighting and electrics [by qualified NICIEC electrician]
"And [per your letter] probably a lot more"
Many of these items are curiously vague. Please can you state with greater precision exactly what work was involved in relation to the handrails, the flooring, the wiring, the woodworks and the brassworks?
A very comprehensive list was included in my letter dated 10 May 2016 (p8 point (r))
I suggest you peruse the two initial Wade quotes or the Hemi quote sourced by your client, or indeed relevant passages from the main Schedule of Works (Wade’s in this in- stance) for full and comprehensive “greater precision exactly what work was involved in rela- tion to...?” (all as attached)
And if available, check out the mystery [never presented] GRANGEWOOD quote.
And since you insist repeatedly that you have nothing to hide, please will you now specify, in re- spect of each of these items {as well as any included within your final "a lot more" sweeper item):
(a) the specific lessee who requested that the work be done; and
Mrs Hillgarth (see attached Wade & Hemi quotes - and source GRANGEWOOD quote.
(b) the specific contractor who carried out the work; and
MHML and their various sub-contractors.
(c) the amount charged by that contractor (including yourself where relevant).
£31,765.21
Assuming the total expenditure figure of £105,877 per the Service Charge Accounts is correct, the total amounts paid to contractors other than the surveyor and AR Lawrence should add up to £33,354. If they do not, please explain why not.
The £105,877 figure includes (your Witness Statement anomaly of non payment/refusing to pay) £1590 due to AR Lawrence once final snagging is accomplished, plus £31,765.21 additional workings funded from savings made as described. Again, full transparency of total cost of all works and fees to all lessees including myself and my fellow directors.