Page 587 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

-11-
in THe WesT London CoUnTY CoUrT - Case No: [ ]
Mrs MiCHeLe HiLLGArTH - Claimant
versus
MiTre HoUse MAnAGeMenT LiMiTed - First Defendant and
pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe - Second Defendant
and
seGAr KArUpiAH - Third Defendant
and
JAMiL rAJA - Fourth Defendant __________________________________________________________________________________
pArTiCULArs oF CLAiM
__________________________________________________________________________________
33. Nor was this information apparent from the service charge accounts presented to the lease- holders for 2014. The Third and Fourth Defendants (who are qualified practising accountants) conspired with the Second Defendant to conceal this fraudulent misappropriation of funds by the First Defendant and the Second Defendant.
A Considered response: THis is siMpLe niT-piCKinG And An irreLevAnCe - ALL FinAL FiGUres CArried ForWArd Were 100% ACCUrATe And CorreCT And despiTe A prediCTed (AT sTArT oF WorKs) THAT Approx £11,243 WoULd reMAin in reserves AFTer ALL CosTs FULLY pAid, in FACT £16,201 reMAined in reserves CArried For- WArd To 2015 WiTH ALL CosTs FULLY pAid or ACCoUnTed For in CrediTors iF noT pAid in THe UsUAL MAnner
34. Confronted by the Claimant, acting through her solicitor, the Second Defendant eventually admitted in correspondence that mhml had been paid the sum of £31,765 in respect of the 2014 project, and that he personally had been paid the sum of £7,500, for which he produced invoices. (The actual figures are believed by the Claimant to be considerably more, as to which see appendix a).
A Considered response: THis AGAin is ConTenTioUs HYperBoLe - MHML HAd noT Been pAid THe sUM oF £31,765 And never sAid in AnY CorrespondenCe iT HAd Been pAid or CHArGed £31,765 (AGAin An exAMpLe oF YoU MisqUoTinG For YoUr oWn MisGUided BeneFiT) see BeLoW:
34b. under detailed “cross-examination” in correspondence Paul Brown-Constable eventu- ally admitted in writing that the sum of £31,765.21 had been charged to the leaseholders by mhml in respect of the project. 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 an invoice /00014_0007 dated 31 December 2014 addressed by mhml to the Service Charge account. This sum 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”.
A Considered response: i THinK THis needs HiTTinG inTo THe LonG GrAss For Good As iT’s BorinGLY repeTiTive & UnTrUe - FirsTLY: iT’s proBABLY A TYpo noT A HAnGinG oFFenCe - do YoU WAnT A LisT oF YoUr sTUpidiTies - MisqUoTes, WronG dATes on eMAiL reFerenCes & LeTTers, AsKinG THe sAMe qUesTion A dozen TiMes despiTe HAvinG THe AnsWer - CrediTs on sUrveYor/WATer TAnK/Tv insTALL To nAMe BUT A soUpçon?
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT