Page 185 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

-27-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
In an email reply from Mrs Hillgarth on 28 May
I suggest that you send the email as you have been dealing with that specific job .But I suggest you require the normal service charge and £ 1000 for the reserve and the same in September .
In addition you should give a brief reason for doing so with figures
Followed by another email from Mrs Hillgarth on 28 May
Dear Paul ,
Since you have been dealing with this issue ,you must be the one sending section 20-3 explaining why the company has been chosen and your intention to send the next service charge with the extra.
To which I replied by return:
As regards me sending out, are you quite sure it wouldn't raise yet more questions from your virtual majority? Sans doute, they will immediately email/contact you for clarification..... ? But if it comes from you direct, no contest, you can simply answer their queries/com- plaints/reasons/ etc
I submit that these responses indicate Mrs Hillgarth’s obstinacy and disloy- alty to her fellow Directors in carrying out agreed responsibilities and our good reason to eventually insists she resigns her directorship.
So please no more wittering on about leaseholders rights of this, that and the other, including your constant references to MHML not advising them of what we as Landlord can do without any refer- ence to them whatsoever in our capacity as Landlord, project managing any aspect at Mitre House including major and minor works so long as correct procedures are followed which you’ll have trou- ble disproving any procedures were not followed (see above notifications to lessees) from our is- sued s.20 Notices, including one in preparation for the Water Tank fiasco application to First Tier if needed (it wasn’t) - what you will note is your client refusing to oblige agreements to assist due to typically obstinate and combative reasons as the few examples below well evidence:
1_The Minutes of the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting state:
MH (Mrs Hillgarth) to write to all tenants that the Board of MHML (of which she was a Director) has carried [out] a proper and professional review of the tendering process and MHML will
formally write to all tenants announcing the contractor (A&R Lawrence) to carry out the works.
Please note no “exclusively”, “only”, “solely” as your many accusations erroneously state!
Comment: Mrs Hillgarth will recall she did organise an excellent majority in the correct man- ner requesting lessees to confirm in writing (emails) to rebut MHML’s recommended cheap- est tender from Benitor (£98,000) which MHML accepted purely for some peace and quiet and quite content for Mrs Hillgarth’s majority to vote in retaining AR Lawrence.
Mrs Hillgarth did an excellent job with her template to her preferred lessees and they all loy- ally responded to retaining a contractor costing them £2000 each as opposed to one (Beni- tor) that would have probably cost zero?
As MHML made clear to Mrs Hillgarth that this was the only occasion, despite half a dozen other occasions when MHML had requested exact same from all lessees to
respond in writing individually to alleged majority opinions, most pertinently retaining Wade and entailing substantial (£5000-£7500) contributions to adequately fund their quotes, NOT ONE LESSEE INCLUDING MRS HILLGARTH CONFIRMED THEIR AGREEMENT TO FUND WADE’S COST DESPITE THREE REQUESTS TO DO SO - THEY DID, THOUGH CONFIRM
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt