Page 10 - APPENDIX_00_PREFIX 1-17

-10-
18_MHML made clear that we were therefore short of approx. £7000 and it would be not be advis- able to have zero funds in reserves to cover unanticipated additional (exterior) works (as is usual in these situations) as well as we should have accessible funds available for unexpected emergencies, the lift or urgent repairs etc. Consequently MHML proposed, and subsequently received 100% agreement (eventually) for a £2000 per lessee (9x £2000) contribution to cover all and any contin- gency. Mrs Hillgarth, having agreed, then began canvassing other lessees as to why and not pay etc. (Folder_00 Item_43)
(e) in the letter dated 10 June 2016, from “mH’s” Solicitor sent to only my two fellow direc- tors, messrs Karupiah & raja as well as our auditors, (but not “PBC”) he writes: In summary the leaseholders have been charged £105,877 for the refurbishment work at Mitre House which has been met out of existing Reserves. On top of which MHML has received an additional £18,000 (an additional £2000 surcharge, requested in September 2014, on each of the nine flats) which remains unaccounted for. But according to Mr Wite’s [Witness] statement the total actually paid by MHML to AR Lawrence was only £62,010 - that is £63,600 (being £53,000 plus vat) less £1590 remaining un- paid in respect of retention. So MHML and/or its Auditors must account to the leaseholders for the missing balance of £61,867 (ie £43,867 plus the additional £18,000). Where has this gone? (Folder_00 Item_44)
(f) in a letter from “PBC” to “mH’s” Solicitor on 14 June 2016 he states: I have just been advised of correspondence you have sent to my fellow directors, Mr. Karupiah and Dima International Limited, sent by all accounts Recorded on 10 June 2016 (but somewhat dubiously dated given your previous record). (Folder_00 Item_45)
(g) in a letter from “PBC” to “mH’s” Solicitor on 14 June 2016 with full comments with reference to correspondence received he states: (reply) If my 200 odd pages of reply correspon- dence with supporting evidence hasn’t convinced you we have not misused leaseholder’s funds, nothing will, including your requested perusal of the relevant invoices which total £105,877.
ix) it was never disputed that savings were made (and had to be made) from AR Lawrence’s (or any other chosen contractor) initial tender cost (indeed a perusal of our Surveyor’s cor respondence makes clear funding issues)
x) savings made were used, not abused nor misappropriated, to do those additional items NOT included in the Schedule of Works and therefore NOT costed to be done by AR Lawrence within their costed schedule of works
xi) if AR Lawrence had carried out exactly all that they had quoted from the Schedule of Works their final cost would have amounted to (as in Tony White’s Witness Statement) £91,321 including VAT
xii) to that we had to add our Surveyor’s fees of approximately £13,698 (which eventually only totalled £10,513)
xiii) adding AR Lawrence and our Surveyor fees the amount totals £105,019
xiv) the 22nd June 2014 final approved s.20 indicated AR Lawrence as £105,019 incl. vat &
fees
xv) this same 22nd June 2014 approved s.20 made clear we had £98,262.75 in Reserves
xvi) consequently we were £6756.25 short of funds and none expected in until January 2015
some 7 months away
xvii) MHML therefore requested (seeing as MHML’s advice had not been taken to source
cheaper alternative workings) a £2000 contribution from all 9 lessees (including MHML’s
three directors)
xviii) Initially all was agreed until Mrs Hillgarth began querying and complaining but eventually all nine lessees contributed their £2000 so leaving 98,262.75 plus £18000 in Reserves to
cover an agreed outlay of £105,019
xix) The balance of £11,243.75 was to remain in Reserves for unforeseen works within the AR
Lawrence quote (there usually are as our Surveyor advised) and for any out of the blue emergencies, the lift requiring repairs (quite usual), and any other repairs etc etc