Page 86 - NEW FINAL 616 BIG BAD BEGG

I would like you to amend the first line as I am the one who requested to read the previous board minutes, but I cannot approve them until I have an appropriate amount of time to read through and assess them properly. This of course can only be done once Paul has forwarded them onto me as requested, which I am still awaiting.
A pdf containing EVERY SINGLE COMPANY DOCUMENT including previous MINUTES etc was sent to you on MONDAY 2nd JUNE 2014
On your third paragraph (still under Point 5), you are quite correct in that I requested copies of the notifications that PCB states were sent to me regarding previous board meetings and their dates and times. Again, I am still awaiting these documents – which PCB agreed to do find and forward as they are held at the company’s registered office.
A pdf containing EVERY SINGLE COMPANY DOCUMENT including previous MINUTES etc was sent to you on MONDAY 2nd JUNE 2014 with references to notifications.
Ms Hillgarth was also sent 2 emails on 28th May and one on 29th May re: MARTA (retail sanitary problems). None were acknowledged nor replied to.
In paragraph 5, the question of the fees paid to PBC and SK is raised. As far as I am aware in the initial set-up of MHML there is no clause regarding any payment for director’s time spent in dealing with legal matters that the company is involved in. Any clause that is inserted would have to be agreed and I have never been notified of such a change, or indeed given my approval. Furthermore, as I have previously stated and I will reiterate I object to any money being withdrawn from the company without full approval from all directors.
By UK Law - Re: RTM - each member of the RTM company may be liable for the landlord's reasonable costs arising from service of the notice to exercise the right to manage. (This is to ensure that everyone is aware of the potential financial implications of involvement in a RTM application.)
In paragraph 7, there is an anomaly between the total of £2,300 paid to PBC and SK (mentioned above) and the sum stated here of £2,582.74 . Please clarify this inconsistency.
The additional amount on the invoice issued to you of £2582.74 as opposed to that paid to PBC & SK (£2300) are company expenses, printing, photostats, electricity, phone calls etc etc totalling £282.74
Point 6 (Quotations) –
As far as I am aware, A & R Lawrence & Sons Ltd. have been appointed by management for the contract regarding the interior and exterior works to Mitre House, in line with the obligation by management “to take the lowest quote for the works”. Please confirm that this is the case and has gone ahead.
YES, to obligations, YES, to lowest quote, NOT YET to signing contract as we were still awaiting a reply from you re MINUTES and subsequent emails on 23rd May sent to you by PBC -
Point 7 (Bank Accounts) –
In the second paragraph, you have stated that “PBC has provided details to MH’s satisfaction”. Please amend as they have indeed been provided but I am yet to give my “satisfaction” without time to conduct a thorough review.
NO PROBLEM - ask away or attend to review so long as I'm on £1.71 an hour.
Point 8 (Service Charge) –
Regarding the reduction in the service charge, I would request prove of the notifications I supposedly received from the board to decide on this, because as you are aware I deny that I have ever seen such communications.
You were well advised in various emails, and agreed in various emails - sample of one attached ....to