to all 25-5-17 incl. burrow _affair_1

From: Subject: Date: To:
Bcc:
Paul Brown-Constable studio@graffiti.biz
Mitre House - Appoint A Manager Affair
25 May 2017 at 16:52
Aneeza Hak aneezahak@yahoo.com, Karupiah Segar segar_9@hotmail.com, Leoni-Sceti Maria mleonisceti@gmail.com, Riad Samya riadsf@gmail.com, Sigg - Hillgarth Michele mhillgarth@gmail.com, Raja Jamil info@jraja.co.uk, Brown-Constable Paul studio@graffiti.biz, Leigh-Pemberton Christopher clp@sw12group.com, Fortunati Diego & Susanna diegoxfortunati@gmail.com, Bruce R. Maunder Taylor brmt@maundertaylor.co.uk
Brown-Constable Paul Neville studio@graffiti.biz
Dear Aneeza, Segar, Maria, Samya, Michele, Jamil, Christopher and Diego,
I am writing this as a concerned Quarterly paying lessee and NOT as Management so please do not confuse the issues. I do not want to pay higher Quarterly Demands for no reason.
As you are all well aware, Michele has instigated court proceedings against Mitre House Management Limited (“MHML”) but in reality myself (“PBC”) for every conceivable sin imaginable as hopefully you have been kept abreast of in correspondence.
The outcome of these proceedings could be the appointment of a Manager (not, Managing Agents, but something far more costly, sinister and influential).
In this instance, alongside her Solicitor, Mr Begg, Michele is recommending a highly experienced and extremely well qualified firm called Maunder Taylor (Mr Bruce MT as her representative and Mr Michael MT as Manager), both of whom are almost legendary in their expertise both at court and in management. They’re heavyweights in any disputes.
But that experience does come at an understandably heavyweight price and it might be advisable for those lessees, both those who sub-let and wish to keep costs to a minimum and those who reside at Mitre House as home on a relatively average income, request of Michele some details as to the additional costs expected if Mr M Maunder Taylor is appointed in due course?
Michele does have a somewhat cavalier attitude to both procedures and costs as the following examples evidence:
a) she recommended her then solicitors, Forsters, for £9000 plus vat and costs when we were purchasing the Head Lease in 2011 - we used mine (“PBC”) for £2650 all in -
b) she progressed an RTM in June 2013 in the full knowledge that it was doomed to failure due to the 25% ruling - a fact she advised all lessees in an email dated 7 April 2011 - but even more concerning was the fact that her own Solicitors at the time, Emms Gilmore Liberson, did not also advise her of the limitation to proceed, but proceed she did and lost.
c) she insisted in 2012 upon using her preferred contractors, Wade, for the Interior Refurbishment of Mitre House for a quoted cost of £60,000 including vat and fees and this was confirmed by her RTM Solicitors in their letter dated 2 July 2013 stating “The RTM Company's intention is to undertake the redecoration and refurbishment of the common parts appointing Wade Interiors.”
d) she further insisted on having her preferred contractor, Wade, quote alongside our other tenders in 2014, using the correct final approved Surveyor’s Schedule of Works for both Internals and Externals, which they costed at £219,000 including vat and fees. As you will recall, AR Lawrence were subsequently contracted with for £105,000 including vat and fees for the identical same works in every respect that Wade had quoted for. But neither Wade nor AR Lawrence, nor any of the other five contractors who all quoted from the exact same Schedule of Works, included the “additional works” (Lift, Lighting, Emergency Lighting etc) which Michele’s initial July 2012 Wade quote had costed for at £60,000 including vat and fees.
e) had Michele got her way, required contributions from lessees ranged from £6000 each (had the Wade (Interior only) £60,000 been adopted) to £12,000 each had the Wade £219,000 been adopted for both Internals and Externals spread over 2014/2015 as she was insisting. As you will recall, contributions of £2000 were requested for the AR Lawrence budget of £105,000 to include vat and fees, with the proviso that approx £11,243 could remain in Reserves at the end of the works/end of 2014 if no untoward costs materialised.
f) £11,243 was not in Reserves at the end of the works programme, but £16,201 remained in Reserves and was carried forward to 2015.
So I suggest you have Michele advise you personally of her understanding of the additional costs anticipated if a manager of Mr Maunder Taylor’s experience is appointed, because neither you nor I will have the faintest idea, as he is not required to advise his costs until the court hearing on June 27th - by which time it could be too late to “Tango”.