Page 5 - Ready To Send £31,756 etc plus attachments

8. False AccounRng in the 2014 Service Charge Accounts.
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.
l)_ In a le)er from Solicitor Begg to MHML (PBC) dated 23 September 2016 - he writes:
To summarise the financial posiRon 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.
m)_ In a le)er from MHML (PBC) to Solicitor Begg dated 29 September 2016 - he writes:
Wade’s tender costs for exactly what AR Lawrence tendered, was £219,150. 00 versus AR Lawrence costs of £105,019.00 - (neither of which included the above listed works executed by MHML) - I leave it to you to decide what both those quotes would have risen to had both Wade and AR Lawrence been instructed to also include the works listed above, executed
by MHML for £31,756.21 from sensible savings made from the AR Lawrence budget, and all of which only went over budget by £858 to the agreed s20 budget of £105,019
n)_ In a le)er from Solicitor Begg to MHML dated 7 November 2016 (with PBC comments in response on le)er) - he writes:
As the lessees now understand the ma)er, following enquiries made directly of your suppliers, the amount actually paid to AR Lawrence was only £62,010 inclusive, and the budgeted figure of
£105,019.38 included a fee of £10,513.00 inclusive paid to your surveyor. As regards the
sum of £31,765.21, which we had understood from an earlier response to have been retained by/paid to MHML, you now say: "this was not retained by MHML but spent by MHML for the benefit of all lessees from savings made from the SecRon 20
budget of £105,019 on addiRonal works.....and includes all costs incurred." Since much of this so-called "addiRonal" work has apparently been carried out by yourself, l take this to mean that £31,765.21 was actually paid by MHML to you personally and to your subcontractors (if any). You have not yet clarified for the lessees how much of this £31,765.21 was paid to you personally and how much to your subcontractors. Obviously we expect you to do so, and in one sentence, not hundreds of pages.
(comment/reply): As previously explained, MHML made savings of £31,756 from the anRcipated agreed budget of £105,019 so as to fund items NOT in the
Schedule of Works nor in the budget of £105,019 for AR Lawrence.