Page 469 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

Management have no concerns whatsoever with Wade's capability, ability or credibility. Just that we can't afford £18,000 for a floor clean along with various other items, some of which can be accomplished for less.
And most importantly, we only have £25,000 to spend. Not £65,000 nor £60,000 and not even £50,000....
Those that prefer Wade should simply get them to quote for what is affordable along the lines of Management's list of works for £25,000. If Wade can get close to the identical works for the same approx £25,000 budget/cost - game set and match to you, and everybody's happy.
Management have no objection to Wade cherry picking those items they wish to do within our £25,000 budget and matching or even bettering our published quotes.
As regards the most recent Section 20 Notice (13 Dec 2013) and the second Section 20 now delayed etc - seems Management can do nothing right - due to the inconclusive stalemate as regards a majority decision for spending in excess of £25,000, Management felt that perhaps Flats 1, 4 and 8 might like a little more time to discuss with other Lessees and vice-versa and come to a positive decision one way or another
The alternative was an immediate issue of the second Section 20 Notice with Management's £25,000 budget approved as there was no apparent consensus of opinion one way or another.
Management do not wish to appear overly obstructive nor insensitive to Lessees' wishes by not allowing additional time for Lessees to debate the issues sensibly, so enabling any undecided Lessees to come to their own decision as to spending in excess of £25,000 on Internals entailing substantial additional Reserves' Demands next quarter totalling anywhere between £5000 - £7000 per EACH/ALL Lessees.
As previously stated, the Externals, Survey, final Budget and Quotes will be advised with the second Section 20 Notice, at which time Lessees can request of Management a contractor they wish Management to seek an independent quote from, alongside those quotes Management are sourcing via our Surveyor and Tenders. Or if it pleases you sooner, please advise Management of your preferred contractor's details and we'll add their name to the Tender list.
But I can categorically assure everyone of one fact and that is, if we get away with a £75,000 all in budget for Externals it'll be nothing short of a miracle. So keep your fingers crossed and don't for one minute suspect that Management are exaggerating the Externals' works & costs - I only wish we were.
Mitre House's drab and dull interior (but Management will soon sort that) does not look good, I agree, but hardly the fault of Management seeing as we have now issued four Section 20 Notices since we took over, namely 6 July 2012 (requested by Flat 5 and others to withdraw it), 7th January 2013 and the Second Pt.2 Notice on 21 June 2013 (requested by Flat 5 and others via your solicitors representing the Mitre House RTM Company Limited to withdraw it) and most recently 13 December 2013. That will not be withdrawn under any circumstances.
The cleaning contract was always to be renegotiated once the Internals were completed. Only an idiot would attempt a more frequent schedule than we've experienced for 30 odd years whilst the place looks, as you say, so dirty, Grubby and unloved I prefer to call it rather like some Lessees' front doors, Flat 5 included.
As regards yet again a reference to a virtual majority versus Management's expertise and sensible economies wherever possible to date, it's misguided and ungracious and worse still totally untrue. I think the ill-informed and totally futile RTM affair proved conclusively that some Lessees really are not qualified or indeed capable of deciding good management from bad and have not the first idea of how to spend their own money wisely, let alone the Reserves.
We would remind you, Michele, of your email to all Lessees on 7 April 2011 regarding the commercial aspect of Mitre House being in excess of 25%. You further referred to this 25% in an email of 16 April 2013 to which I replied on 17 April 2013. As you are now most likely well aware, or should be, this 25% had great significance as regards any (successful) application for an RTM (as indeed is well explained on www.mitrehouse.org).
See what we mean by Flat 1 being led down the garden path....?
We would also remind you of correspondence between yourself and Gavin Owen of (a previous) Agents, Haywards, when you made it clear you would NOT agree to the installation of a Communal Sky Dish despite a majority, indeed all other Lessees, agreeing to it. As was explained to you by Gavin Owen, unless 100% agreed to the expense, it could not be paid for via the Service Charge/Reserves. You confirmed you were NOT interested and no way would you accept any debiting of the Service Charge/Reserves. An unfortunate precedent I'm afraid, but in truth, the law, and as such, no Communal Dish was able to be installed and all those who wished a dish had to do so independently and pay for it themselves.
All because you refused to join in. And remember, this decision made by you was ratified not by ourselves as Management, but previous independent well respected Agents, Haywards, and correspondence concerning the whole affair, including your written refusal, is on record if doubted or required.
And maybe in mainland Europe could be it be considered wise for a Director of two opposing companies, Mitre House Management Limited & Mitre House RTM Company Limited to initiate litigation against the other, but