Page 294 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

-55-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
original works is not determinative in and of itself: In all the circumstances, were leaseholders given sufficient information by the original consultation?
Given the purpose of consultation and the position of other leaseholders who may not object to the changes, would the protection envisaged by the consultation process be materially increased by ob- taining new estimates?
What lessee, except for obviously Mrs Hillgarth, would object to more workings performed than envisaged at no additional cost? We rest our case.
In summary - Mrs Hillgarth wished to spend far more than her MHML co-directors, all of whom considered we should only spend what was in the Reserves which had been saved to date for the proposed workings on a very overdue scheduled Internals and Externals at Mitre House and in serious breach of our Head Lease covenants being two coats of good paint and repairs where and if required.
Mrs Hillgarth claims that she did not request of Wade (or Hemi) certain workings to quote for in her initial two Wade quotes (and Hemi) or indeed requested any quotes whatsoever (as sworn on oath at a First Tier Tribunal hearing on 26th June 2017 with her Solicitor present)), and consid- ered the works listed in the final Surveyor’s Schedule of Works, given to Wade to tender from, to be the only works to be progressed, by Wade or any other tendering contractor, includ- ing the cheapest. And insisting as previously outlined that “lighting” was included in her final Wade tender whereas the other tenders, including AR Lawrence, did not.
Mrs Hillgarth appears not to have properly perused the final Surveyor’s Schedule of Works and de- nies in correspondence having had sight of it to do so. This cannot be true as she was supplied with multiple copies, it was on our website and she required/requested/demanded a copy to pass over to her preferred contractor, Wade, to tender from.
In correspondence from Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor, it was advised that Mrs Hillgarth never agreed to any such proposal to make savings to spend on other items and subsequently denied say- ing “will make everybody happy”. and MHML and her co-directors had ridden roughshod over all Landlord & Tenant Act requirements and had misappropriated funds to the detriment of Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees.
In a First Tier Tribunal hearing on 26 June 2017, Mrs Hillgarth denied on oath that she had sourced quotes from Wade and that she had agreed during the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting to her co-directors’ proposals to make savings to fund items considered unaffordable and therefore were not included in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works to be progressed.
In Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor’s initial letter dated 23 March 2016 various other serious accusations and innuendos were levelled at MHML’s co-directors, all of which were denied or explained or in one very petty instance, apologised for, with supporting documentation and considered totally ma- licious and irrelevant.
It was due to Mrs Hillgarth’s perceived disloyalty, deceitful behaviour and recalcitrant attitude towards her fellow directors that she was requested to resign in September 2014 and has been truc- ulent and litigious ever since including slandering and defaming her fellow directors to third parties to the distinct cost and embarrassment of all her three ex-colleagues.
Despite three offers to Mrs Hillgarth for her to take over the management and Head Lease at nil consideration of Mitre House, as neither MHML nor it’s directors wished to continue in their capacity as Head Lease proprietors (purely for technical reasons as new UK law requirements for managing agents was imminent), Mrs Hillgarth still progressed an application to the First Tier Prop- erty Tribunal at a cost to her allegedly of £15,000 and MHML offered no defence and resigned as in- deed we had previously offered to do on three occasions previously.
Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor accompanied her to the Tribunal hearing on 26th June 2017 and was witness to the exact same accusations levelled again at MHML and its directors as had been levelled in all correspondence since the initial 23 March 2016 letter and been denied with supporting evidence. Her Solicitor also witnessed Mrs Hillgarth on oath denying she had sourced two ini- tial Wade quotes (or indeed any quotes) and also denied she ever exclaimed “well then
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt