Page 8 - 1_Letter from Begg 23-3-16 (13pp)

He also asked about the status of the electricity and telephone wiring at the building, and for certification that it was compliant with relevant regulations. This was something which Mrs Hillgarth had been requesting, without success, for some two years. As Mr Fortunati pointed out, fixing and properly testing the electricity and telephone lines should have been the first thing carried out by any professional management team. He wanted to know how it was possible that (despite a surveyor apparently having been instructed before the works started) major liabilities such as the electrics and the water tank should have been discovered in the middle of the works rather than before starting.
Even today the chaos continues, caused by your failure to plan and/or by your failure to give appropriate instructions to your surveyor. In your letter to leaseholders dated 15 March 2016, enclosing your second quarter demand for 2016, you have advised the leaseholders that further electrical work/electrical metering replacement is to be done, and that further engineering work is to be carried out on the lift. This was not planned expenditure and ought to have been encompassed within the refurbishment project. This is the last straw. The entire process has been utterly chaotic from beginning to end and demonstrates that you are not competent to handle the role of managing the property.
Mr Fortunati complained that, having initially told the leaseholders that refurbishment of the lift could not be afforded/included in the scope of the work, you had unilaterally chosen to paint the lift gold – a scheme you had proposed two years earlier and which the majority had already rejected. (The majority had voted for it to be painted dark grey or black). Apparently you did this work yourself, without any notice to the leaseholders, and before the actual works had started. Not surprisingly Mr Fortunati wanted to know who would be paying for the paint and for this unwanted/unapproved job. That question remains unanswered.
Like the other leaseholders, Mr Fortunati struggled to understand how you could be generating savings without changing the scope of the works or changing the contractor. He enquired of you whether AR Lawrence had agreed to do the same works for less. He wanted you to share with the leaseholders a detailed schedule indicating exactly what works were being carried out, by whom, and at what cost, and how payment for those works was to be made over time. Not only did you fail to answer those questions but you went so far as to block AR Lawrence from speaking to any of the leaseholders. These questions need to be answered now.
Rudeness
Your response to Mr Fortunati’s considered , reasonable and well-reasoned e-mail speaks for itself. On 22 September 2014 you replied to Diego and Susanna Fortunati (copying a number of other leaseholders): “Thank you for your predicted and anticipated email – all of which has been covered in previous emails [actually it hadn’t] and all of which indicate a total ignorance of good management and Landlord & Tenant Act. [Actually the opposite is true; Mr Fortunati’s e-mail demonstrates a good grasp of both]. I can’t work out whether you are totally stupid or just retarded – I suspect both”....... “How about if we got lucky and you got run over crossing the road?”...... “Which word don’t you understand in Pay up or Shut up....?”
In a separate response to Mrs Hillgarth’s e-mail of 29 September 2014 (also copied to other lessees) you wrote: “In truth I couldn’t give a rats arse whether the water tank gets replaced”. Your belligerence was such that on 30 September 2014 Mrs Hillgarth felt the need to be