Page 9 - 2-6-17 Disclosure & Reply 3-6-17

-4- and further on in the same letter “PBC” repeated:
And yes, the renegotiated saving of £2125.83 for the Water Tank & TVSky installations was also utilised as indeed were other savings made, including workings that I personally executed to the concern and discomfort of Mrs Hillgarth (and her canvassed few), but all my work was done with approval and under supervision by both AR Lawrence and our Surveyor. (items 14a, 14b):
In a letter of reply to Macfarlanes (our Freeholder’s Solicitors) from “PBC” and copied to “MH’s” Solicitor dated 20 June 2016, “PBC” wrote, We saved £2153 which adds credence to our statement. (item 15a):
13_ Please note that “PBC’s” letter to Macfarlanes was also copied to “MH’s” Solicitor meaning he had three confirmations of savings made on the Water Tank & TV/Sky installs and was fully aware of the initial quotes communicated to Lessees and the exact voluntary contributions, as he often referred to these costs of Water Tank & TV/Sky installs querying actual cost, probable cost, what exact cost etc.
In this 7 November 2016 letter, 5 months after the first two references to £2153 savings on 10 June 2016, and distributed to all lessees by (“MH”), it continues to infer our reluctance to confirm actual costs of these two installations. As “MH” knew (as did all lessees) the actual quoted costs as paid voluntarily by all lessees it was not too difficult to do the maths had “MH” taken notice of facts supplied in correspondence re: £2153 savings as opposed to repeating accusations of misappropriation of funds by MHML (“PBC”) including the £2000 contribu- tions - all of which once spent on the “works” programme were predicted to leave £11,243 in Reserves but actu- ally left £16,201, being £4958 more than expected.
14_ Over the course of multiple letters from “MH’s” Solicitor, including email requests from “MH” which she copied to all Lessees, various computations of missing funds were presented for our explanation.
15_ The year ended 2014 Accounts (included in their “bundle” of Statement of Case, as indeed are same references in this letter including: “PBC’s” letter of 14 June 2016 (referencing the £11,243) and letter of 10 June 2016 (referencing the saving of £2125.83 for the Water Tank & TVSky installations) indicate clearly that “Cash at Bank” totals £21,105 (item 16): from which both debtors and creditors be added/deducted and the final tally is £16,201in Reserves carried forward to 2015
Neither “MH” nor her Solicitor nor indeed it would appear Mr Maunder Taylor appear to have appreciated the 2014 Accounts’ final figures as it seems unlikely that funds are missing or misappropriated if the predicted £11,243 is not only in Reserves as predicted but £4958 more - and despite having advised all lessees that once 2014 Accounts were published any Lessee was welcome to examine the books. None did as indeed our cover- ing letter with the March 2015 Quarterly Demands made clear: “Amazingly all quiet and peaceful at Mitre House. Not one single comment on any subject from any Lessee?” (item 17): and this letter and comment was three months after the works programme had finished in December 2014.
16_ Somewhat predictably, this calm was soon followed up in a letter from “MH” dated 1 April 2015 stating: “Now that the refurbishment of Mitre House has been completed, I would like register my concern regarding the vulgar, cheap and unsuitable decor chosen by Mitre House Management Limited for the communal area (no comment required please). (item 23): And indeed no comment was extended.
But most pertinently “MH” made no mention of inspecting documents as she and all lessees had been advised to do when raising queries during the works’ programme. (items 10, 11,18): and no mention of those concerns and queries presently in contention and outstanding, namely savings made by MHML (“PBC”) from the agreed s.20 budget of £105,019 (items 19 & 20): to fund items considered unaffordable to include in the agreed Schedule of Works as quoted on by six separate contractors. The savings made (£31,756) were used to fund “additional works outside of the Schedule of Works” based notably on items that “MH” and other lessees (1) had independently sourced for a cost of £60,000 (hence their unaffordability). Nevertheless, MHML (“PBC”) man- aged to accomplish all these “initially unaffordable” items plus others for £31,756 utilising the savings made from the £105,019 budget and consequently remaining within budget save for a small £858 overspend.
“MH” disputes any “additional works”, any savings made and accuses MHML (“PBC”) of progressing works which only our main contractor was entitled to do and certainly no works should have been executed by “PBC” as “MH” considers it lacked competency. This is disputed as all lessees were well advised including “MH” in various emails (item 21): Correspondence between “MH”, her Solicitor and “PBC” since 7 July 2016 focused on various queries ranging from how much was charged by “PBC” for his workings and how much profit was made by MHML for arranging/managing the works (item 22): which “PBC” considered somewhat impertinent.