Page 3 - Ready To Send £31,756 etc plus attachments

directors, approximately £18,000 + most likely.
You will no doubt appreciate that the above informaRon is to negate any further queries over and above that which you are now predictably requesRng, namely details of works’ costs within the MHML "invoice" (my error, should say expenditure) of £31,756.21, which we consider an invalid request for reasons stated.
If they are considered by her or her advisors to be not worth £31,756.21 then she must do her homework and re-cost or re-quote for all items present and visible at Mitre House (and environs), internally and externally and present her evidence. A cost for all I might add to include vat and fees, as previously she simply refused to follow form and do as directed which we explained was not the way we were wishing to present a totally transparent budget and simple total expenditure anRcipated, understandable to all lessees, some of which could be unfamiliar with vat and fees?
i)_ In the Dra_ Crime Report from Solicitor Begg to MHML (PBC) dated 12 July 2016 - he writes:
However these are mere niceRes compared with the most obvious and glaring accounRng error. It goes without saying that the leaseholders should have been informed in the Service Charge Accounts that out of the aggregate refurbishment figure of £105,877 charged to the leaseholders the sum of £31,765.21 had in fact been paid to MHML, parRcularly as the leaseholders had been led to expect that all the refurbishment monies would be paid to AR Lawrence - and certainly not to their own landlord.
j)_ In a le)er from MHML (PBC) to Solicitor Begg dated 20 July 2016 - he writes:
It would appear that your claims of possible fraud and other misfeasances can be
summarised as follows:
a) the fact that our 2014 Accounts do not differenRate between our Surveyor’s fees and Works’ costs, nor indeed did the s.20 dated 22 June 2014 - but did state all costs including vat and fees.
b) the fact that all the major works’ agreed budget (plus £858 overspend) is logged as Reserves URlised on our 2014 Accounts
c) the fact that two items within the Reserves URlised were in fact not paid but were listed as Creditors on our 2014 Accounts
d) the fact that lessees were not saRsfactorily advised that the AR Lawrence full amount on the s.20 NoRce also included the Surveyor’s fees
e) the fact that the major works’ agreed budget (plus £858) overspend of £105,877 listed under Reserves URlised also consisted of MHML’s "invoice costs” (my error, should say
spent costs) of £31,756
f) the fact that lessees were not saRsfactorily advised that £31,756 was "paid to" (my error, should say "spent by") MHML for works done outside of the Surveyor’s Schedule
of Works