Page 11 - APPENDIX_00_PREFIX 1-17

xxii) any savings from any source could then be directed towards funding the lessee requirements.
-11-
xx) as can now be appreciated, and hopefully not still denied, all the various other improve ments requested by lessees including most notably, Mrs Hillgarth, had zero funding unless of course some of which was to be appropriated from the emergency Reserves of £11,243.75, an idea MHML considered economically and fiscally unacceptable by leaving Reserves too underfunded for unforeseen external workings.
xxi) the only way that all the various lessee additional requirements over and above the works as costed for within the Schedule of Works could be funded (without further contributions from lessees (a total 1000% impossibility given the trouble in ever getting the £2000 per lessee organised) was to make sensible savings from the AR Lawrence total costs of £91,321
xxiii) references made to the main Water Tank and TVSky installations being either costed within AR Lawrence’s budget (the Water Tank was NOT and neither was the SkyTV) or they were to be paid for from the £18000 collected to fund the works and have zero funding in Reserves is totally refuted – they were, by the time it was eventually agreed (most perti nently the TVSky install) and paid for by voluntary agreement to pay was required by MHML and no s.20 Notices be required to be issued if no lessee objected – one single ob- jection to either the Water Tank or TVSky installations without an s.20 or indeed a basic re- jection of either Tank or SkyTV would have aborted the two processes in toto.
xxiv) The Water Tank had health issues and had there been an objection, MHML made clear we could apply to LVT for dispensation but would take time and costs etc.
xxv) as regards the 22nd June 2014 s.20 approved expenditure of £105,019 to include VAT & Fees for the Internals/Externals workings in toto (an initially totally transparent, well docu- mented and easily computable figure as all costings, analysis, surveyor’s letters, s.20 Notices, alternative quotes and costings etc, all as explained to lessees and fully posted and available on our website) was the amount to be spent in toto from Reserves (with an acceptably small £858 overspend) resulting in a total final outlay of all works and fees invoices of £105,877 as indicated in the year ended 2014 accounts summary dated 30 May 2015 – the breakdown of which was as follows:
xxvi) AR Lawrence final total costings amounted to £63,600
xxvii) add to that the final total costings from our Surveyor of £10,513
xxviii) making a total spent from the £105,019 approved s.20 budget of £74,113
xxix) leaving the balance (saved) for the works required to be done by the lessees’ requests/de
mands, electrics, lighting, emergency lighting etc etc of £31,765
xxx) I’m not too sure where your figure of a missing (discrepancy) £61, 867 originates from but
I’m sure you’ll advise by return? Does the interior of Mitre House look untouched or does it appear to have had a major overhaul on almost every conceivable level from top to bottom and actually came in under the initially mooted budget of £37k from 2012...?
xxxi) if any of the above has not been fully indicated, explained, with corresponding irrefutable emailed evidence in previous correspondence not only to all lessees including Mrs Hillgarth innumerable times but also to you in all correspondence since my comments made on your 13pp 23 March 2016 letter, please advise (as indeed I have requested you do in all my correspondence to date). (Folder_00 Item_46)
(h) In an email from “PBC” to lessee Fortunati (Flat 9) dated 9 September 2014 he advised:
We have (as on Section 20) £98, 262.75 in Reserves which, as made clear on the Section 20,