Page 7 - Ready To Send £31,756 etc plus attachments

Constable as opposed to Joe Bloggs, I do not qualify for reimbursement for works done or that
I am not permihed by £10 per day sPpend for 24/7 on-site ahendance? Ridiculous and yet another example of Mrs Hillgarth’s vindicPve and pathological jealousy myself and MHML)
and
(e) that there was an unauthorised overspend of £858; (unauthorised by who? MHML
manages the block, the works, the day to day running and unless a parPcular single works is to cost more than £250 per lessee, any amount can be sancPoned if valid and required with no reference to any lessee - as you well know!!!
p)_ In an email from MHML (PBC) to Mr Bruce Maunder Taylor dated 22 May 2017 - he writes:
It is also confirmed in previous correspondence that by making savings and spending those savings on “initially unaffordable additional works” which Mrs Hillgarth had sought quotes on and therefore it would seen logical by definition that she and her other lessees wished to have those workings (and she did progress an abortive RTM stating that - in bundles) ihad she got her way and funds could be appropriated - thankfully they eventually were due the savings made by MHML from the £105,019 agreed budget - and for Mrs Hillgarth to claim that she didn’t want any “additional works” over and above the AR Lawrence specifications is nonsense as they included items such as Emergency Lighting that would have been an additional charge to the service charge anyway as they were a necessity even had no savings or “additional works” attempted. it’s quite simple - she never read the Schedule of Works with due diligence and was convinced those “additional works” were in the remit of the AR Lawrence quote as indeed she pointed out in her email of 6 June 2014 that her equivalent Wade quote included “additional works”. It didn’t and neither did AR Lawrence or any other. Only her July 2012 and January 2013 Wade quotes did. Had anybody else done what MHML (PBC) did, Mrs Hillgarth would have been ecstatic - her animosity to the whole situation was because MHML (PBC) accomplished it and to deny MHML a fair fee for doing so flies in the face of logic by suggesting that MHML only made savings to line their own pockets - we could have done that quite simply by charging a normal 15% fee like any agent does and indeed could also then have also charged for the work we did as well using, if dishonest, phoney supplier invoices set up for the purpose....but we did not and we did a great deal of workings far cheaper than our outside contractors had quoted (the lift for £11,602 as an example - in bundle and nowhere near as comprehensively as PBC did it) and saved lessees a great deal of money as Wade quoted £60,000 including vat and fees, and MHML made savings of £31,756 from the agreed budget of £105,019 and used all those savings to do Wade’s £60,000 of “additional works” plus some, and including MHML's actual works’ costs and their fees for doing so which totalled £15,572 with the remaining £16.184 as actual physical costs (including 2 x£1200 to our electrician - in bundle) and supplies (light fitments, handrails, brasswares etc etc- all of which came direct from the Reserves into the Current account as that is where the savings remained until spent. No, I have not advised these figures in error but to make quite certain that all parties are singing from the same hymn sheet prior to the Tribunal to prove conclusively that all erroneous innuendos are crystal clearly on the table and not still being twisted to suit Mrs Hillgarth’s fantasies and repeated accusation that MHML invoiced the service charge for £31,756 as opposed to what we keep repeating,
that MHML spent the savings of £31,756 on behalf of all lessees