Page 36 - D-Day 6-6-17

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.
Even your local Bank Manager might also use inappropriate vernacular under similar circumstances if agreements are broken.
And hopefully the Tribunal will concur that due to Mrs Hillgarth’s duplicity in making statements and agreements reached but an hour later totally denying them and communica>ng same to all lessees, it was reasonable that I insisted on any conversa>on or mee>ng with her be in the presence of a third party to protect my health and welfare, not hers! She could have accused me of serious offences to which i would have had no witness and no defence. Subsequently, she then arrives with a Policeman in tow sta>ng, "for her safety...!" You just could not make this up! I daren’t even men>on Vote Rigging and her insistence to me in an email saying “you choose!” - leaving aside a le=er wri=en to Flat 4 Dr Samya Riad dated 8 July 2012 from Mr Karupiah (a8ached: Vote Rigging_affair 8-7- 12.pdf)making clear the error of Mrs Hillgarth’s ridiculous accusa>on. Dr Riad is also on record three >mes denying any knowledge of any vote taken nor of any majority decision on any subject taken at any mee>ng she a=ended or in emails she received and replied to. And yes all thrice explained to Mr Begg and yes all in our bundle but s>ll appearing in the s.22 No>ce!
All above explained to Mr Begg in correspondence and appears in our bundle deluge folders for the Tribunal’s perusal. Which does infer Mr Begg’s representa>on of Mrs Hillgarth to also be suspect having received not only denials but also firm hard copy proof of those denials not once or twice but again and again thanks to his habit of simply copying and pas>ng the same accusa>ons le=er azer le=er including his ini>al 23 March, his Draz Crime report, his s.22 and yet again in Mrs Hillgarth’s Witness Statement. And why an apparent inability or probably incapability of using page numbers so making referencing back his various points an almost impossibility, requiring me to OCR his correspondence and add my comments?
If either you or Mr Begg had bothered to visit Mitre House you’d appreciate that once the Tribunal Members make their inspec>on at 10.00am on 26 June that Mrs Hillgarth’s game is up as it is inconceivable that the place could be considered unmanaged or unkempt or unloved and so obvious that money has been spent - the only query could be, whether wisely and economically which our paperwork amply evidences, or whether Mrs Hillgarth had sourced quotes for those same works, which again our paperwork amply evidences.
My apologies if indeed you have visited, but if that’s true, your con>nuing representa>on of Mrs Hillgarth, given our answers and hard copy evidence to date, is no be=er than that she received from her RTM crew. She should have been taken aside and had it explained to her that her accusa>ons and innuendos were all totally contradicted with evidence and that her quest for alterna>ve independent Agents and insis>ng on unaffordable, to some lessees, workings and budgets was, just as in the decision in LON/00AG/LAM/2013/0010 that the applicant had acted vexa>ously, abusively and unreasonably (I would add frivolously in place of abusively) in pursuit of her own agenda which as you quite rightly point out in your
excellent report, is something that the Tribunal Members are alive to applicants who want