Page 4 - 38_PBC to Jamil_16-6-16 (1pp)

xix) The balance of £11,243.75 was to remain in Reserves for unforeseen works within the AR Lawrence quote (there usually are as our Surveyor advised) and for any out of the blue emergencies, the lift requiring repairs (quite usual), and any other repairs etc etc
xx) as can now be appreciated, and hopefully not still denied, all the various other improvements requested by lessees including most notably, Mrs Hillgarth, had zero funding unless of course some of which was to be appropriated from the emergency Reserves of £11,243.75, an idea MHML considered economically and fiscally unacceptable by leaving Reserves too underfunded for unforeseen external workings.
xxi) the only way that all the various lessee additional requirements over and above the works as costed for within the Schedule of Works could be funded (without further contributions from lessees (a total 1000% impossibility given the trouble in ever getting the £2000 per lessee organised) was to make sensible savings from the AR Lawrence total costs of £91,321
xxii) any savings from any source could then be directed towards funding the lessee requirements.
xxiii) references made to the main Water Tank and TVSky installations being either costed within AR Lawrence’s budget (the Water Tank was NOT and neither was the SkyTV) or they were to be paid for from the £18000 collected to fund the works and have zero funding in Reserves is totally refuted – they were, by the time it was eventually agreed (most pertinently the TVSky install) and paid for by voluntary agreement, individually by lessees, but only on the understanding that a 100% agreement to pay was required by MHML and no s.20 Notices be required to be issued if no lessee objected – one single objection to either the Water Tank or TVSky installations without an s.20 or indeed a basic rejection of either Tank or SkyTV would have aborted the two processes in toto.
xxiv) The Water Tank had health issues and had there been an objection, MHML made clear we could apply to LVT for dispensation but would take time and costs etc.
xxv) as regards the initial approved expenditure of £105,019 to include VAT & Fees (a totally transparent, well documented and easily computable figure as all costings, analysis, surveyor’s letters, s.20 Notices, alternative quotes and costings etc, all as explained to lessees and fully available on our website) exactly that was spent with only an £858 overspend resulting in a final outlay of £105,877 in the year ended 2014 accounts summary dated 30 May 2015
xxvi) AR Lawrence final costings (as per Tony White’s Witness Statement) totalled £63,600
xxvii) add to that the final account from our Surveyor of £10,513
xxviii) making a total spent from the £105,019 approved s.20 budget of £74,113
xxix) leaving the balance saved for the works required to be done by the lessees’
requests/demands, electrics, lighting, emergency lighting etc etc of £31,765
xxx) if any of the above has not been fully indicated, explained, with corresponding irrefutable
emailed evidence in previous correspondence not only to all lessees including Mrs Hillgarth innumerable times but also to you in all correspondence since my comments made on your 13pp 23 March 2016 letter, please advise (as indeed I have requested you do in all my correspondence to date).
As you are well aware, Mrs Hillgarth and other leaseholders have been asking, since September 2014, for basic details relating to the 2014 refurbishment. Specifically who was paid, and how much, for doing what. This should be very simple to explain. What have you got to hide?
(reply) I have made it clear that no request for documents from our year ended Service Charge accounts’ summaries has ever been received since 1st January 2012 until Mrs Hillgarth’s email request