Page 14 - APPENDIX_00_PREFIX 1-17

-14-
Because those lessees who did not pay, in fact refused to pay in some cases, their agreed £2000 contributions when requested to, on schedule, MHML did not have adequate Reserves for emergen- cies, contingencies etc. This non payment was also the reason the TVSky install was required to be paid by voluntary contributions as opposed to possibly coming from Reserves as previously indicated as a good possibility/probability.
Collateral damage again caused by Mrs Hillgarth’s intransigence, misinformation etc. (Folder_00 Item_51)
(m) in a letter from “mH’s” Solicitor to “PBC” dated 23 September 2016 he requests:
To summarise the financial position as the leaseholders currently understand it, MHML appears to have paid itself, without informing the leaseholders or obtaining their consent, (at least) £31,765.21 out of monies which the leaseholders had intended and made available to pay AR Lawrence. Furthermore MHML has still failed to account for a further £25,121.54 which
(according to the Service Charge accounts) has been paid away,
to whom. This is set out in tabular form below:
money appropriated and/or collected by mHml
£
98,262.75 18,000
13,147.00 129,409.75
72,523.00
56,886.75
Available reserves (per PB-C) Additional contributions collected Additional “voluntary" contributions paid
Water Tank Communal TV
Total monies collected by MHML: Less:
money accounted for by mHml Actually paid to AR Lawrence Actually paid to surveyor
Total monies accounted for by MHML:
7,810 5,337
62,010.00 10,513.00
but the leaseholders still do not know
Total monies still remaining unaccounted for:
Of this total remaining unaccounted for, you have admitted that £31,765.21 has been paid to “MHML and its sub-contractors", but (despite providing an ostensibly impressive list) you have failed to identify any work carried out by MHML or its sub-contractors that could possibly justify such a substantial pay- ment. The remaining balance of £25,121.54 (£56,886.75 less £31,765.21) simply remains unex- plained. Even if one assumes that £13,147 was properly spent on the new water tank and the communal TV aerial, that still leaves £11,974.54 (£25,121.54 less £13,147) which has simply "disap- peared". (Folder_00 Item_51)
(n) in reply to “mH’s” Solicitor from “PBC” on 29 September 2016 by he states:
As regards the query raised in your recent 23 September letter, any funds that were not required in year ended 2014 period (your reference being £11,974.54) “disappeared” into Reserves. A fact men- tioned on multiple occasions in various emails to Lessees pre and during the Works, outlined in some detail in my 14 June 2016 letter of reply to you, and stated on the covering letter sent to all Lessees with the year ended 2014 Accounts Summary. (Folder_00 Item_52)
(o) in a letter from “mH’s” Solicitor to “PBC” dated 23 September enclosing the 10 august s22 Notice which states (7. The 2014 refurbishment, failure to follow Section 20 consultation pro-