Page 8 - Ready To Send £31,756 etc plus attachments

that MHML spent the savings of £31,756 on behalf of all lessees
carefully and very economically to do all the “additional works” at half the price quoted by Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade costings. All Mrs Hillgarth wants to know now is how much PBC invoiced MHML for his workings which one can presume to be whatever fees were charged by MHML for their project management within the MHML £15,572 invoice.
It’s still a thoroughly impertinent question but as indicated on multiple occasions in correspondence with Mr Begg, on receipt of confirmation that every other slur and accusation, including acknowledgement of stated final reserves of £16,201, is withdrawn and agreed as untrue, we will oblige her.
Despite my admitted errors of grammar (due solely to responding carelessly and not accurately to comments made by Mr Begg in his letters of 7th and 20th July) I made very clear in subsequent correspondence the correct situation being that MHML made savings and spent those savings and that no invoice was raised by MHML for the amount of the savings, £31,756, and invoiced from MHML to the Service Charge, as my replies in correspondence previous to 7th July and subsequently to 20th July amply evidence.
In my reply to Mr Begg’s 7 November letter I wrote : Why would £31,765 be paid to me or MHML? and It was “used” to pay for all addiRonal works, the supplies needed, the labour, the Rme, the various electricians, specialists etc including MHML and my goodself and Nothing was charged to MHML - MHML saved £31,756 and spent £31,756 - and references made by Mr Begg regarding MHML having taken £31,756 themselves is both inflammatory and ambiguous as he is inferring that MHML saved £31,756 for their own benefit and none of the savings of £31,756 was used for any "addiRonal works” as he stated in his le)er of 9 December "namely that you were saving money for the lessees. In reality the objecRve was to make money for yourself.” and "We say the extra work you claim to have done is irrelevant. It was neither requested, nor was it necessary, and you carried it out in a very poor way (photographs will be available in due course).
Any further references to MHML having invoiced the Service Charge the savings made of £31,756 to progress the “additional works” is simply mischievous taking into consideration specific denials and explanations since 7 November 2016. Add to that the references made and the bank statements supplied to thoroughly disprove the accusation that our Electrician was not fully paid as first stated in Mrs Hillgarth’s badly tutored effort for Mr Tony White’s Witness Statement as presented 10 June 2016. And fully disproved with accompanying bank statements in our letter of 14 June 2016.
Consequently just how could MHML invoice the Service Charge for £31,756 when bank statements prove payments were made via the Reserves and Current Account as indeed were all other payments made including the invoice raised by MHML for its work, costs, labour and fees, which did not total £31,756 but £15,572?
And please no accusation of attempting to hide anything or deceive anybody as