Page 5 - 38_PBC to Jamil_16-6-16 (1pp)

to me on 17 December 2015 to see relevant invoices from our year ended 2014 Accounts summary dated 30 May 2015. As explained, and due entirely to the salacious and malicious innuendos and accusations in your initial letter of 23 March 2016, we were obliged to answer those accusations and prove them totally untrue. This we have done with comprehensive and extensive supporting evidence (and have done so yet again above on all points including now answering Witness Statement anomalies).
I’ll leave aside our initial offer to comply, despite the request for documents being invalid by statute, which remained totally ignored and unacknowledged for somewhat nefarious reasons!
I cannot comprehend yours or any lessees’ request as you state: 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?
Everything, anything that any lessees required to view, compute, analyse, query was either sent to them on request or posted on our website for easy viewing, computing, analyzing, querying?
After approval of the 22nd June 2014 Section 20 Notice what possible reason could any lessee have to then query “who was paid, and how much, for doing what?” in September 2014 some few days into the contract period.
You have sent me copy emails of my explanation to lessees of savings made just days into the project with specific comment that any savings made would not be returned to lessees (it was MHML that were making the savings, not AR Lawrence) but utilized for the additional works outside of the Schedule of Works.
As has been so very well established, Mrs Hillgarth has not got the foggiest idea of what the Schedule of Works included or didn’t include and that ignorance was regrettably communicated to some other lessees.
Again, to repeat myself yet again, does the Schedule of Works include electrics/lighting/emergency lighting etc etc (you have been previously advised of a pretty long list – in fact a very very long list).
That list of works, whether by MHML operatives or professionals, electricians etc, was funded from savings made from the agreed budget of £105,019, with no detriment whatsoever to the original schedule of required necessary repair works or else our Surveyor and the freeholder’s Surveyor also on site would have intervened. Unused, not required contingencies were the main stay of the savings due entirely to MHML’s close attention to detail – ask any builder how contingencies get easily used.
We have nothing to hide. But we have been seriously maligned by your client and despite all being denied and proved as untrue, no comment, confirmation nor even a rebuttal has been forthcoming.
As previously stated, you seem intent on wanting to get your way with no regard whatsoever to our situation following the slurs and innuendos, all totally denied and disproved, as indeed yet again, do all our comments above disprove the innuendos.
Leaving aside the statutes as laid down in the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, most specifically Section 22 which in your client’s case leaves her 17 days outside the limit allowed – unless you think otherwise? How many more times do we have to repeat that?