Page 143 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

House Management Limited & Mitre House RTM Company Limited to initiate litigation against the other, but failing to sensibly resign from the Defendant company prior to initiating litigation, such as an RTM application.
You can be assured that in the UK that is not a wise or indeed legally acceptable decision to have made. Leaving aside the fact that you were aware of certain legal RTM requirements prior to proceeding but either forgot or neglected to advise your fellow litigants, so involving them in unnecessary expense and seriously jeopardising schedules at Mitre House.
We would therefore ask you and other like minded Lessees to understand that a majority is totally irrelevant unless it is a 100% majority as regards spending Reserve funds on anything over and above that which Management is required to spend on necessary repairs and maintenance within the terms of flat leases and the Head Lease.
Consequently, the works and costs as outlined on the 13 December 2013 Section 20 Notice are the (almost**) minimum works required for both Internals & Externals and as such have be attended to and cannot be queried (as indeed will be the case with the Externals). Valid comments can only be made by Lessees as to the appropriation of higher amounts to be spent for additional works over and above the minimum works required under the terms of the Head Lease, as it requires 100% agreement (all 9 Lessees) to agree to spending more on additional works. I hope that is now quite clear.
** Even Management's £25,000 can be queried as it includes works and items that are not absolutely necessary (such as changing all light fitments). If we were to do just and only the absolute minimum work required, it would be to paint the place in one colour throughout and fix/repair anything that needs fixing - and could all be done for £15,000 incl. vat (which was explained and announced as a possible absolute minimum budget when Management proposed that those Lessees wishing to spend £60,000 simply make up the difference required from their own pockets.)
Consequently if one Lessee insists on only the absolute minimum for £15,000 incl. vat, Management and other Lessees have to accept that. Of course, the other Lessees could simply agree to supplement the amount the non voting Lessee agrees to pay...and the works can go ahead.
Management can, at their discretion, invite Lessees to decide a preference on certain items, such as for example the colours to be used on the internal common parts. It is not a right of Lessees to be consulted, nor is Management obligated to invite opinions, nor accept an opinion, vote or consensus, it is simply a courtesy for the sake of good neighbourliness. And can only be accomplished with common sense and non-combative opinions and within a short period of time.
Also, despite polite requests to desist, you still persist on paying your Service Charge/Reserve Demands with a cheque - great, no problem but it costs you & Service Charge a/c, bank charges, plus a stamp and envelope and a trip to post it, plus time and a visit this end to pay into Bank as opposed to an online payment, but, and here's the complaint...... you continue to STAPLE the cheque (in fact two staples last quarter) to other items - it's annoying, unnecessary and thoroughly non (good manners) productive so please desist unless of course it's done to annoy me.... in which case continue as it does!
And in case it's been overlooked, check your email handle prior to your email address as it reads Michel Hillgarth <Michele@HillgarthArt.com> as opposed to Michele
So the RTM affair, with homework & due diligence totally lacking, resulted in a total waste of time (for all parties involved including Management) and costs incurred by your colleagues (and Management but thankfully to be charged to the RTM Company for full reimbursement), and just as the healthy surplus was demanded back by some Lessees, which would have been a welcome contribution to Reserves as Management advised, some Lessees seem intent on insisting Management are at fault when patently they are not - it's simply that Management will not appoint outside Agents (who would in time be crucified, as have all previous Agents by one Lessee in particular) or discuss Dustbin style prior to purchase or permit ludicrous and unaffordable budgets to be appropriated where cheaper and affordable options are made available.
Management happily admits some Lessees, indeed by all accounts a majority thanks to your politicking and insistence, prefer an outside independent Agent.
The question is why? And after the RTM affair and the fiasco over these Internals, they could now decide who knows what they're doing, and who doesn't?
Obviously it's Management, as indeed the YE 2013 accounts will again amply evidence with yet another surplus (£1,100) due back to Lessees despite a 70% reduction in expenditure since we took over - and before Flat 9 moans about the underfunded Reserves, I would remind them of their request to have the previous surplus repaid from Reserves. We advised against it!
This whole line of constant back and forth of email complaints and accusations from, most especially Flat 5, is identical in every respect to those that Flat 5 exchanged with previous Agents month after month for decades. Identical in every respect and somewhat worrying.
I don't think Management can do more to fully explain the two options re: Internals or make better the availability of all documents available for all to peruse in detail on the website. This email reply adequately