Page 438 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

Easy for you to say hiding behind the backup of privilege but Mrs Hillgarth does not have that same protection, does she? There could be no right for you either given all previous denials if proven again?
-2-
I propose we convene a meeting to finally resolve this whole “he said this, she said that” affair, hopefully at minimum further expense to your client, which has to be with me, as I’ve confirmed and you’ve acknowledged, that both Messrs Raja & Karupiah have no culpability nor knowledge of, to properly comment (save for the audio recording) re: the various scurrilous accusations and innuendos levelled at me personally, and none relevant to MHML, despite petty attempts, by your client, Mrs Hillgarth.
My proposal is for you and I to meet face to face at a venue of your choosing, with or without Mrs Hillgarth in attendance, to review solely physical, indisputable, non-contestable evidence, with no opinions or gossip hearsay and no unsubstantiated accusations and innuendos unless fully substantiated with emails, correspondence and physical documents?
Examples of which are included with this letter, which no doubt you will attempt to dismiss as being dated 2012 and consequently not relevant to 2014. That would be yet another error on your part as I would remind you that your client, Mrs Hillgarth, maintains firstly that no “additional works” were discussed/envisaged/wanted/requested (the attached proves conclusively they were and known to her coterie of allied complainants, Flats 3, 8 and 9), and secondly, all were then requested of Wade in their initial two quotes? But you’ll note, had you bothered (or Mrs Hillgarth or indeed Flat 3, 8 and 9) to peruse the December 2013 Schedule of Works prepared by our Surveyor (supplied to you by me) that some (heavy weights such as Lift, Lighting etc in toto, not minimal miscellaneous), not do not appear in their final tender? Nor indeed in AR Lawrence’s tender nor indeed in any other contractor’s tender? And don’t forget, it was always agreed by Mrs Hillgarth (audio remember) we would do some miscellaneous items cheaper than quoted for!
My definition of solely physical, indisputable, non-contestable evidence, with no opinions or gossip hearsay and no unsubstantiated petty accusations and innuendos unless fully substantiated with emails, correspondence and physical documents, is exactly as those supplied with this letter and indeed the two emails dated 18th December 2018, the five dated 19th December 2018 and the two dated 2 January 2019 which if your curiosity was not awoken, I suggest you check your “junk” folder for clarification/verification - and no I will not resend.
Consequently, any additions you make to my proposed agenda below will require your notification to me so I can adequately prepare the relevant denials/explanations in physical formats as those supplied with this letter. I hope that is abundantly clear.
I also suggest we do not waste time on the more petty accusations, as surely most if not all, have already been proved nonsense BUT if there are any that you still consider unproven and need further explanation or further proof of error then add them to my agenda below, but please advise me so I can prepare the relevant paperwork such as those examples sent to you recently?
I am including in “petty” your references to the 2014 Accounts being not to your liking as to the way they were presented. In brief, (I fully appreciate you might yet again raise issues to add to the agenda) references of the dozen or more financial computations as to where funds have allegedly “disappeared “ to, are “unaccounted” for, or been “misappropriated” or simply “stolen”.
As previously advised on each and every occasion queried by both yourself and Mrs Hillgarth, you received the same answer; they resided in Reserves, amounting to £16,201 at year end 2014 as opposed to the £11,243 predicted. You also raised the issue, again interminably, of exactly how the additional TV/Tank contributions of £13,147 were appropriated and/or actually spent/cost, most recently yet again in your 2 January 2019 letter to the Registrar (along with a repeat of many other previously answered and proved comprehensively untruths) despite having had sight months ago of the actual original supplier’s invoices, including references to my invoice (which you continue to maintain, including to the Registrar remains “unclear”) - I don’t think so... and in truth I’m not sure whether you’re disorganised, dishonest or on the edge of being disbarred for telling a pack of lies to the Registrar in your letter 2 January 2019 - if sent?