Page 4 - 1_Letter from Begg 23-3-16 (13pp)

by arranging for the premises to be decorated in the style and colour scheme which you had favoured from the outset.
Scope of works/ specification
The objective of the Section 20 process is to ensure that the scope and specification of the works, and the contractors to carry it out, are duly approved by a majority of the leaseholders. However despite repeated requests the leaseholders never saw a properly drawn scope of works or specification.
Furthermore you have constantly declined to give details of the instructions which were given to your surveyor (Boyce Evens & Carpenter). An “Invitation to Tender” dated December 2013 was drawn up, but most of this seemed irrelevant and/or incomprehensible. In their letter to you dated 13 December 2013 Boyce, Evens & Carpenter made reference to a draft specification they had prepared, but this draft specification was never communicated to the leaseholders. It is true that the leaseholders saw a number of different quotations from different contractors, but it was not clear to the leaseholders what scope/specification these contractors were quoting against. Hence leaseholders were never able to compare like with like. Seemingly some or all the tendering contractors had different instructions.
In the Service Charge Annual Accounts which you sent to leaseholders on 8 June 2015 you say: “As regards the recent external/internal works, Reserves utilised amounted to £105,877 against the agreed Works (Exterior & Interior) budget of £105,019 set [out] in the Section 20 Notice dated 22nd June 2014 – copy attached”. However the Section 20 Notice dated 22nd June 2014 to which you refer contains no indication of the “agreed Works” against which the named contractors were quoting. In relation to the “Internals Only” quote from MHML for £25,000 you say, with studied ambiguity: “This internals (only) quote does not include some items of others, but is still adequately extensive”.
The Section 20 Notice dated 22nd June 2014 to which you refer states that “all estimates obtained are online @www.mitrehouse.org” (this presumably by way of response to the statutory obligation to make copies of the estimates available for inspection). However they were not available online. There was no way for leaseholders to compare like with like.
Contractors used for the internal work
Eventually a way forward was found. In a letter from MHML dated 22 June 2014 you finally confirmed that all leaseholders had voted for both the internal and the external work to be carried out by A&R Lawrence, at a cost of £105,019, of which £81,487 for the externals and £23,532 for the internals. This formally confirmed what had already been agreed in the minutes of an MHML board meeting dated 23 May 2014, which had been attended by Mrs Hillgarth.
However it subsequently transpired, in the course of a visit to Mitre House by Mrs Hillgarth in early September 2014, that A&R Lawrence did not appear to be doing the whole job themselves; that some of it at least was being done by yourself. That was not what had been agreed at the 23 May 2014 board meeting or by the leaseholders on 22 June 2014. Thus on 11 September 2014 Mrs Hillgarth wrote to you to enquire what was going on and to request a breakdown of