Page 6 - APPENDIX_00_PREFIX 1-17

-6-
to verify this information from Mr Brooks himself.” (Folder_00 Item_24)
(e)_Consequently i, (“PBC”) was again required to confirm: (comment/reply) para 85 - all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - References such as non payment to “an electrician Nigel Brooks” is a proof perfect example of Mrs Hillgarth’s imagination..... I can confirm, for the umpteenth time, that Mr Brooks was paid £1200 on 11th August 2014 and £1200 on 4th September 2014 - this particular accusation has been repeated by you and Mr Begg and in Mr White’s Witness Statement - it’s a lie, it’s not true and as previously made clear I suggest you check with Mr Brooks and refrain from repeating it.
But of course she has, adding? “I have subsequently been able to verify this information from Mr Brooks himself.”
Indicating somebody is lying? But who? And as below states, even Mr White’s edited Statement now dated 8th July 2016 still carries the accusation despite now being 3 weeks after my rebuttal on your 14 June letter?
The relevant significance of this particular erroneous accusation is that, if true, then any accounting of the costs of £31,756.21 made from savings from the agreed budget of £105,019 to include vat and fees for the additional works not in the Schedule of Works would be £1200 short? This would therefore have resulted in further accusations of MHML (me) falsifying actual costs incurred. Yes or No?
Hence the importance of confirming if BES/Nigel Brooks was paid £1200 on 11th August 2014 and £1200 on 4th September 2014 - or not? (Folder_00 Item_25)
(f)_in a letter dated 7 November 2016, “mH’s” Solicitor writes: (inter alia) Forget all the periph- eral details, such as whether or not a minor creditor has been paid in full, whether l really had pneumonia, which director Mrs Hillgarth had lunch with, whether you were wearing your longjohns or your underpants and so on. You need to wake up and acknowledge the fact that you stand ac- cused of two very serious criminal offences — namely blackmail and fraud. (Folder_00 Item_26)
(g)_to which “PBC” replied on 16 November 2016 with comments on the 7 November received letter: (comment/reply) ...by sending me hundreds of pages... might I remind you that your initial letter of 23 March 2016 was 13 pages, subsequent individual letters from you total 66 pages, but not including those required to be responded to by me from both our Freeholders and RBK&C, and most especially your Draft Crime Report dated 12 July 2016 running to 9 pages and your Preliminary Notice Bundle dated [10 August but sent] 23 September 2016 running to a stag- gering amount consisting of a two page covering letter, an 18pp Preliminary Notice, 14pp of itemised documents, with one running to 53pp and the others averaging 5pp each, and a 20pp Witness Statement from Mrs Hillgarth -
If, as it would appear, you are suggesting that replies were firstly not required, or secondly the replies were of such banality and irrelevance as to be useless, or thirdly and most pertinently, you considered the multitude of accusations and innuendos in each and every one of your listed corre- spondence above did not invite nor indeed expect comment, explanation, apology, agreement or denial, then you have my apologies and regret for having done so. But I would propose that any third party perusing your correspondence to me would confirm they all do indeed request and ex- pect detailed responses save for those agreed as outside of the statutory period but some, rele- vant to queries, has been been supplied despite no obligation to do so.
As regards: ...Forget all the peripheral details, such as whether or not a minor creditor has been paid in full, whether l really had pneumonia, which director Mrs Hillgarth had lunch with, whether you were wearing your longjohns or your underpants and so on...