Page 404 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

Inspection of Invoices
-2-
Finally, we are also confused by your multitude of offers and demands to placate your client’s vendetta against both MHML and most notably myself, namely the following examples:
In your initial letter dated 23 March 2016 you request/demand:
Under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Mrs Hillgarth has the right to inspect accounts, receipts, and other documents supporting the accounts summary, and you are obliged to afford her reasonable facilities to do so, including the ability to take copies or extracts. Since you have consistently denied her this information she has asked me to undertake this on her behalf. In summary I am now asking you to take the following actions:
(comment reply) I think it very well established that despite various references from you in multiple corre- spondence that your client and indeed other named lessees were denied access to Accounts is untrue and is well evidenced in your own client’s Witness Statement (Item 73) as follows:
“....I think many of the lessees, including myself, were so completely exasperated and exhausted with dealing with him that we failed to take advantage, within the prescribed period of six months from the date of the service charge accounts, of section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to inspect the invoices supporting MHML's service charge accounts summary.”
(comment cont.) I would remind you that this accusation of denying your client and other lessees access to the Accounts was reported to third parties by you on behalf of your client, namely RBK&C (Royal Borough Of Chelsea & Kensington legal dept), our freeholders and their Solicitors, Macfarlanes. Meetings and denials with supporting evidence (the exact same you were supplied with @@@ multiple times) was given to all parties and no further action was deemed appropriate nor progressed. In other words it was untrue.
1. Please let me know a suitable time and place where I may inspect the relevant invoices referred to in questions (a) to (d) above. I repeat that I expect to see the original invoices from suppliers. Not copies, and not invoices pre- pared by MHML. I have advised Mrs Hillgarth that to the extent you fail to produce invoices from A&R Lawrence totalling £105,877, she and other lessees are entitled to recover the shortfall from MHML and/or its directors.
(comment reply) I think it well established that in a reply letter to you dated 1 April 2016 in direct response to your above item 1, we wrote:
We have all original invoices referred to in your 23 March 2016 letter available for inspection. We also have photocopies of all invoices. I suggest we have both originals and copies couriered over to your office requiring only the originals to be returned after satisfaction.
(comment cont.) I would remind you that this offer and indeed letter was totally ignored and remained unac- knowledged despite a strict deadline to comply, due allegedly because your client was in the Sahara and you were in bed with pneumonia. When finally acknowledged some weeks later we withdrew the offer until such time as the various other multitude of accusations and innuendos first mentioned in your thirteen page 23 March 2016 letter, which we had replied to, with our denials with supporting documentary evidence in comprehensive support of our denials, were confirmed by your client as totally untrue. None were offered?
2. Please pay to Mrs Hillgarth in full, and within 14 days of the date of this letter, a dividend equal in amount to any and all dividends or other distributions paid to the other three shareholders of MHML since the formation of the com- pany (after deduction of any sums already paid to her on account of dividend by MHML).
(comment reply) Your client, Mrs Hillgarth was in debt to MHML whilst a Director of MHML following an abortive RTM application she foolishly progressed in full knowledge of legal restrictions and was invoiced accordingly for costs and expenses in defending her claims and accusations against MHML.
3. Please arrange for all “managing agents’ fees” (totaling £17,810 over the last four years 2012 – 2015) charged to leaseholders as part of their service charge expenditure to be reimbursed promptly to the lessees. Please also return any other money paid by lessees in respect of the 2014 refurbishment (including the supplemental work on water tank, Sky aerial, window repairs and so on) and which has been received into the bank accounts of (a) MHML or (b) any of its directors or (c) any other persons, firms or companies associated with any of those directors for work or services carried out (or alleged to have been carried out) either by MHML itself, or by any of its directors, or by
any such other persons, firms or companies. No such work was authorized by the leaseholders under the Section 20 process and therefore no such work may be charged to them.
(comment reply) You will appreciate this has no basis in fact as the audio recording of the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting well evidences when your client exclaims “will be used for something else” followed by “well then everybody will be happy”. Co-Director, Segar Karupiah was present and can also confirm comments made.