Page 183 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

-25-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
please no more wittering on about MHML not informing lessees as we were not obliged to so long as all the necessary works were progressed (they were) and any works capable of being cancelled due their non urgency or need (as per our Surveyor’s extensive and comprehensive analysis men- tioned elsewhere in this tôme) were cancelled and the quoted costs of which were better used on the unaffordables - ie more workings were accomplished than less works which you’d have to be re- tarded not to appreciate and applaud -
You will note from correspondence from our previous Agents, KFH, in their letter dated 11 February 2005 to Mrs Hillgarth they state: “Any instructions relating to significant tasks (ie major works - internal and external decoration ) are firstly cleared and approved by the Landlord prior to implementation. The Residents’ Association alone do not have sufficient authority to instruct on such tasks.”
For Residents’ Association (“internal management” in your parlance) you can interpret as leasehold- ers including Mrs Hillgarth who despite prompting to liase with the RA by previous Agents she stub- bornly refused - why? Because of me, that’s why!! See addenda for full details.
You will also note in a recent email to me dated 6 March 2019 from our present agents, they state:
“Leaseholders will be given the opportunity to comment on the specification once prepared so that our client can take their observations into consideration.”
This response was in answer to a query I made to our Agents on 6 March 2019 which was: “Just one further thought? On your quarterly visits have you ever noticed any shoddy works or in- deed any deterioration of any newly or renovated installed items in 2014.
I am actually amazed that after five years there is not a mark, nor damage, nor deterioration to be seen anywhere? I cannot recall a similar situation from previous refurbs.”
I received the following response by return: “Generally we are satisfied with the condition of Mitre House together with the workmanship that is undertaken around site.”
No mention of works needing attention, now or in next works’ schedule so if MHML (my) works were shoddy, as Mrs Hillgarth and you consider, Maunder Taylor, obviously don’t concur or missed it”?
As such might I remind you again that observations etc from leaseholders are taken note of but in no way are they legally binding on MHML or any other landlord whose job it is to manage on behalf of all lessees not simply those that consider themselves a majority (which Mrs Hillgarth never had) and the only legal requirement of MHML or equivalent is to follow all
required statutes and regulations in advising leaseholders of their rights and obligations which does not include them deciding on colour schemes but only on expenditures outside those that are statu- torily required as laid out in the Head Lease and in individual leases.
In our case at Mitre House re: internals - a lick of paint and fix anything broken every 7 years - and nothing else and re: externals: whatever needs doing to maintain integrity and structure of building - and nothing else. Indeed there is no legal reason to retain a Surveyor.
In other words, anything considered a replacement, a non essential, anything cosmetic must have the approval of all lessees, not a majority but all lessees, for MHML or equivalent to
proceed with funding. As was explained to Mrs Hillgarth, not all lessees at Mitre House were sublet- ting for £600 per week and claiming a tax credit on the Service Charges and MHML as landlord had a duty of care and attention for those lessees with shallower pockets!
I suggest you re-visit Mrs Hillgarth’s voluminous file to ascertain the following notifications both to her and all lessees regarding our due diligence in following those rules to the letter as a
majority of the proposed internal works were exactly that: replacements, non essentials and cosmetic and required 100% agreement, namely:
In an email from Paul Brown-Constable following the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting to Mrs Hillgarth dated 24 May:
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt