Page 3 - 1_Letter from Begg 23-3-16 (13pp)

The Website.
I believe you would agree with my contention that a managing agent should have appropriate expertise. I can think of no other reason why, on your Mitre House website at http://www.mitrehouse.com/mitre-house-management-limited.html , you should hold yourself out as having relevant property management experience.
You assert, amongst many other claims, that MHML is “the most used RTM service provider”, “forms over 85% of all RTM companies” and has experience of handling collective freehold enfranchisement applications. These representations are unlikely to be true, given that exactly the same claims are made (and with somewhat greater credibility) by Canonbury – a bona fide property management company whose website you have plagiarised – even to the extent of downloading all of Canonbury’s terms and conditions of business on to your own website. You have simply changed the corporate name, wherever it appears, from Canonbury to MHML. I also doubt that MHML carries (as you assert) £3 million of professional indemnity cover, but if I am wrong in this respect I would be grateful if you would send me the relevant certificate.
No doubt Canonbury will object to this breach of their copyright and will force you to take your website down. However I should emphasise that we have retained copies of the relevant website text for evidential purposes.
I repeat that to describe yourself as a managing agent does not make you one. Nor do you become one by plagiarising the website of a bona fide property management company like Canonbury. You become one by authentic qualifications and experience. A graphic designer has no business to hold himself out as having relevant experience. Indeed the unfortunate history of Mitre House since MHML acquired the head lease provides conclusive proof that you are wholly unsuitable and incompetent to do so. Let me provide examples in relation to the recent Section 20 process and the subsequent project for the refurbishment of Mitre House.
Vote Rigging
As you know the refurbishment work which ultimately started in September 2014 was preceded by some two years of detailed, intensive and frequently acrimonious correspondence. There was a wide divergence of opinion within the block about the appropriate extent, cost, style and timing of the work to be done. However it was clear that 6 out of 9 leaseholders (ie all except the three MHML directors) had a broadly similar view about the appropriate décor.
On 7 June 2012 you wrote in an e-mail to Susanna [Gnecco]: “If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a dozen times. It doesn’t matter what you or I want – its what the majority want”. However it seems you were unwilling, in practice, to respect the wishes of the majority. When alternative scenarios were put to them, 6 out of 9 flats voted for a “classic” look (as opposed to the “Belle Epoque” look favoured by yourself). However you engineered the vote by claiming that Samya Riad had voted for “Belle Epoque” (she hadn’t) and by consulting Christopher Leigh-Pemberton’s tenant rather than Mr Leigh-Pemberton himself.
You actually admitted this in writing on 11 June 2012 when you wrote to Susanna [Gnecco] and other tenants: “I admit to everything, including unsuccessfully trying to fiddle the vote.........Guilty as charged.” And then you simply proceeded to ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority