Page 591 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

-15-
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
__________________________________________________________________________________
(c) that the Defendants were not authorized by the leaseholders to carry out works in respect of the 2014 project, and
(d) that the Defendants were not authorized to receive payment for carrying out such works from the service charge reserves belonging to the leaseholders, and
(e) that the internal scheme of decoration as effected in the 2014 project was not consistent with the scheme approved by the leaseholders, and
(f) that certain important elements of the scheme of work approved by the leaseholders for the 2014 project were not carried out to the required standard or at all, and
(g) that certain elements of the scheme of works carried out by the Defendants and/or their sub- contractors were carried out shoddily and not to the standard which the leaseholders were enti- tled to expect from professional craftsmen and contractors, the charges made by the First and Second Defendants to the service charge reserves were neither “reasonable” nor “reasonably incurred” within the meaning of Section 19 of the act. moreover they were fraudulent, and con- stituted a serious abuse of the fiduciary position of trust occupied by the Defendants in relation to the Claimant and other leaseholders at mitre house.
A Considered response: ALL desCriBed And AnsWered ABove & ALL denied
iF FUrTHer prooF oF deniALs is reqUired i sUGGesT YoU reFer To oTHer pAGes in THis CoMpreHensive LeTTer BoTH ABove And BeLoW inCLUdinG exTensive previoUs LeGACY CorrespondenCe And pHoToGrApHs And noTe THAT ALL AnsWers To THese pArTiCULArs oF CLAiM Are idenTiCAL To THose iniTiALLY Given on reCeipT oF YoUr 23 MArCH 2016 THirTeen pAGe LeTTer And in ALL CorrespondenCe sUBseqUenTLY
pArTiCULArs oF Loss And reiMBUrseMenT CLAiMed
36. The Claimant therefore seeks reimbursement for her pro rata share of the reserves improp- erly paid away to the First and Second Defendants. Further, or in the alternative, the Claimant relies on the regulations to limit the amount recovered by the First and Second Defendants through the service charge reserves to the statutory cap of £250.00 per leaseholder.
37. accordingly the Claimant now seeks reimbursement of her pro rata (one ninth) proportion of the overall amount charged to the service charge reserves, less £250 in respect of the statutory cap, as follows:
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT