Page 5 - 36_PBC to Begg OCR_14-6-16 (6pp)

computing, analyzing, querying? We hid nothing from any lessee including Mrs Hillgarth but to little or no avail.
After approval of the 22nd June 2014 Section 20 Notice what possible reason could any lessee have to then query “who was paid, and how much, for doing what?” in September 2014 some few days into the contract period.
You have sent me copy emails of my explanation to lessees of savings made just days into the project with specific comment that any savings made would not be returned to lessees (it was MHML that were making the savings, not AR Lawrence) but utilized for the additional works outside of the Schedule of Works.
As has been so very well established, Mrs Hillgarth has not got the foggiest idea of what the Schedule of Works included or didn’t include and that ignorance was regrettably communicated to some other lessees resulting in delay after delay, additional unnecessary costs and an atmosphere you could cut with a blunt knife.
Again, to repeat myself yet again, does the Schedule of Works include electrics/lighting/emergency lighting etc etc (you have been previously advised of a pretty long list – in fact a very very long list).
That list of works, whether by MHML operatives or professionals, electricians etc, was funded from savings made from the agreed budget of £105,019, with no detriment whatsoever to the original schedule of required necessary repair works or else our Surveyor and the freeholder’s Surveyor also on site would have intervened. Unused, not required contingencies were the main stay of the savings due entirely to MHML’s close attention to detail – ask any builder how contingencies get easily used.
We were even chastised by Mrs Hillgarth for commencing some internal workings (some electrics) prior to the main works commencing. Despite our assurances that some works had to be done prior to the main works as they were not in the Schedule of Works and some works have to be done before others (like chasing in the new wiring etc) before decorating as an example.... But no, Mrs Hillgarth then accused me (MHML) of doing works outside of the main contractor’s duties etc – she simply could not comprehend the works outside of the Schedule of Works – nor gave any indication of comprehending how her requests/demands were to be funded as she kept insisting all works be done by our main contractor within their approved £105,019 budget – once told they were not listed for funding within the £105,019 budget, the canvassing of others, querying and complaining commenced.
We still have nothing to hide. But we have been seriously maligned by your client and despite all being denied and proved as untrue, no comment, confirmation nor even a rebuttal has been forthcoming.
As previously stated, you seem intent on wanting to get your way, your demands met, with no regard whatsoever to our situation following the slurs and innuendos, all totally denied and disproved, as indeed yet again, do all our comments above disprove the most recent innuendos.
Leaving aside the statutes as laid down in the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, most specifically Section 22 which in your client’s case leaves her 17 days outside the limit allowed – unless you think otherwise? How many more times do we have to repeat that?