Page 55 - D-Day 6-6-17

Hillgarth’s Solicitors in a lejer dated 2 July 2013 (a8ached: RTM_affair 2-7- 13.pdf) to not only withdraw our s.20 NoKce but to also desist from making any further demands of lessees or making any expenditures save for emergencies as her applicaKon 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 lejer of 14 August 2013 requesKng situaKon as everything remained on hold decor works’ wise? You will also note in a lejer from my Solicitors of 45 years dated 7 October 2013 that Mrs Hillgarth engineered a successful coup d’etat, admijedly a somewhat pyrrhic victory as she too was dismissed. And again, with direct relevance to this present situaKon, my lejer to her Solicitors dated 16 October 2013 referencing their “not cricket” trickery and misinformaKon somewhat mirroring this present affair.
And finally their email to me of 26 March 2014 staKng “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 accusaKon of MHML Director’s mismanagement because we wouldn’t agree to spending more than was available in Reserves without requesKng funds from lessees for basically cosmeKc items! Whereas the present applicaKon simply makes accusaKons of “indecent exposure, requiring Police protecKon to collect keys; purloining lessees' window monies despite cheques wrijen 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 accusaKons of non payment to suppliers and most annoyingly, refuKng accusaKons for six months (Mr Begg’s 23 March 2016 lejer unKl 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 quesKon of just exactly what we have done badly or wrong? Oh yes, blackmail, rudeness, abuse and website plagiarism? All pejy 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 idenKcal situaKons of intensely extenuaKng circumstances of MHML ajempKng to fund the works’ programme from funds agreed and due to Mrs Hillgarth’s prompKng, funds refused.