Page 454 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

This is a total fallacious and inaccurate observation and a total twisting of the truth to satisfy your greed for need! For the very last time, MHML charged the Service Charge account £15,572.85 on 31 December 2014 at cessation of main works. This invoiced amount was for the workings that MHML performed on behalf of all lessees, namely progressing all [and more] of the “unaffordable” items plus any other workings that we could do cheaper and better than that quoted. This £15,572.85 was funded from savings made from the main initial budget of £105,019.
The £15,572.85 was for works progressed only. The costs and supplies totalled £16,183.36 and was ALL paid from Reserves as were all other costs, supplies and contractor/surveyor fees including vat.
Consequently will you desist in maintaining that MHML charged £31,756.21 to the lessees.
By now you should appreciate that savings were made totalling £31,756.21, of which MHML charged £15,572.85 for their workings contribution which cost in total to accomplish, £16,183.36 which was paid from Reserves. Understood?
Mind you, we could just as simply have charged the Service Charge account £31, 756.21 and it would all have come from Reserves, but then, as is quite normal, we could have “loaded” all the supplier costs by 10,20,30% making the cost/savings far less economic. By paying all supplier costs from Reserves, all relevant invoices show no loading, all at cost. Fair, transparent and I would proffer, pretty honest.
14. A “justification” for these charges totalling £31,756.21 (oddly not totalling £31,765.21, which was the figure previously notified to us) subsequently appeared in your invoice /00014_0007 dated 31 December 2014 addressed by MHML to the Service Charge Account. This invoice comprised: (a) £15,572.85 for itemised work carried out between July 2011 and 31 December 2014 and (b) £16,183.36 for “supplies costs [which curiously are not itemised] for MHML additional works paid from Service Charge”. The total of these two figures was classified in the heading to the invoice as “the £31,756.21 savings made from the 22 June 2014 s 20 approved budget of £105,019”. You have supplied no evidence as to who commissioned those items, nor as to who commissioned them to be carried out by you. Nor have you explained why a budget approved on 22 June 2014 should include charges relating to work carried out in the previous three years. Please do so now.
This is ruddy confusing? Don’t understand the references to £31,756.21 - £31,765.21 – maybe a typo, or dyslexia?
All suppliers invoices were indeed fully itemised or else how could they be charged to the Service Charge account without any? I commissioned all items obviously as MHML were progressing the “unaffordable” works. Charges relating to works carried out in the previous three years were exactly that. You seem to still be unaware that had Mrs Hillgarth been a team player, sensible and competent the internals were scheduled for mid 2012 with externals scheduled for 2013.