Page 31 - D-Day 6-6-17

And whilst replying to your emails I would welcome your kind advice on the following situa>on which I make with memories of Mrs Hillgarth’s previous RTM applica>on.
Normally at his >me we would be issuing the June Quarterly Demands (due 25 June 2017) for £750 for each lessee.
Due to the impending Tribunal hearing on 26 and 27 June, I do not wish to appear to be doing anything that might be considered pre-emp>ve or nefarious, as indeed during the RTM fiasco, we were sternly advised by Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitors in a le=er dated 2 July 2013 (a8ached: RTM_affair 2-7-13.pdf) to not only withdraw our s.20 No>ce but to also desist from making any further demands of lessees or making any expenditures save for emergencies as her applica>on was considered to be (as they stated exactly) a fait accompli.
You (and the court) will note our reply by return on 4 July 2013 fully complying. You will also note our le=er of 14 August 2013 reques>ng situa>on as everything remained on hold decor works’ wise? You will also note in a le=er from my Solicitors of 45 years dated 7 October 2013 that Mrs Hillgarth engineered a successful coup d’etat, admi=edly a somewhat pyrrhic victory as she too was dismissed. And again, with direct relevance to this present situa>on, my le=er to her Solicitors dated 16 October 2013 referencing their “not cricket” trickery and misinforma>on somewhat mirroring this present affair.
And finally their email to me of 26 March 2014 sta>ng “Please be advised we have ceased to represent the company (Mitre House RTM Co. Ltd) and no longer have any contact with them.” In other words just one more of Mrs Hillgarth’s legions of advisers off the hook or though, she no doubt sued them and refused to pay their fees (and I don’t blame her under the circumstances of the 25% footprint which they obviously did not do due diligence on her behalf).
You will no doubt appreciate the only difference between her raison d’etre for an RTM in 2013 and the Appointment of a Manager in 2017, is the RTM was solely based on decor contractor (Wade); budget (£60,000 &/or £219,000) and accusa>on of MHML Director’s mismanagement because we wouldn’t agree to spending more than was available in Reserves without reques>ng funds from lessees for basically cosme>c items! Whereas the present applica>on simply makes accusa>ons of “indecent exposure, requiring Police protec>on to collect keys; purloining lessees' window monies despite cheques wri=en to contractors; having £16,201 in Reserves as opposed to only the promised £11,243; placing creditors in creditors; arranging savings of £31,756 to execute the same works, and more, that Mrs Hillgarth arranged quotes for totalling £60,000 from Wade and others. Not to forget savings made as predicted if scaffolding remained in situ for Water Tank & TV/Sky installs. And fielding accusa>ons of non payment to suppliers and most annoyingly, refu>ng accusa>ons for six months (Mr Begg’s 23 March 2016 le=er un>l Mrs Hillgarth’s signed Witness Statement dated 10 August 2016) of ignoring lessees' requests to view documents from our 2014 accounts which Mrs Hillgarth then admits was untrue in her own Witness Statement (para 73).
Does beg the ques>on of just exactly what we have done badly or wrong? Oh yes, blackmail, rudeness, abuse and website plagiarism? All pe=y bete-noires of Mrs Hillgarth and hardly hanging offences most especially seeing as the plagiarism was instantly forgiven, and the blackmail, abuse and rudeness are all iden>cal situa>ons of intensely extenua>ng circumstances of MHML a=emp>ng to fund the works’ programme from funds agreed and due to Mrs Hillgarth’s promp>ng, funds refused.