Page 6 - D-Day 6-6-17

From: Subject: Date: To: Cc:
Paul Brown-Constable studio@graffiti.biz
MITRE HOUSE SW3 LON/00AW/LAM/2017/0011 BRMT / CHC
6 June 2017 at 11:30
Bruce R. Maunder Taylor brmt@maundertaylor.co.uk
Burrow Jillian Jillian.Burrow@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk, Leoni-Sceti Maria mleonisceti@gmail.com, Leigh-Pemberton Christopher clp@sw12group.com
Dear Mr. Maunder Taylor,
Thank you for your two emails this morning.
You do seem intent on prolonging the situation with somewhat unfair innuendos and threats. We have not refused to comply with requests as is well established to date. We have only “objected” to your application for disclosure for accounts information etc for 2014 to date (ie 2014, 2015, 2016 and to June 2017). As explained in our letter to Ms Burrow of 4 June your s22 Notice makes quite clear the 2014 Accounts are contested, queried etc and indeed the initially requested invoices (which we offered to send) only refer to the 2014 works’ programme. Surely we are entitled to make those observations as fair comment, as expecting us to also supply all accounts 2014 to date was not and never was an issue raised in the s22 Notice. Can’t we simply get on with points raised in the s22 Notice and get those out of the way before enlarging the paperwork in an unfair attempt at discrediting ourselves yet further. We’re in enough trouble as it is!
As regards the Management Plan comments. To be fair, we are only expecting the CV & Fees as outlined on the initial directions. Surely no Management Plan re: clean sheet or whatever can be drawn up until such time as the Tribunal makes an appointment at which time quite obviously you will have everything we have to draw up your plan. In the meantime I think, I hope, we are entitled to have an idea of fees etc.
You seem somewhat reticent in acknowledging the various documents already supplied to you which do evidence in detail our objections and reasons to unfair irrelevant requests and demands which would appear you are attempting to take an unfair advantage over our admittedly limited experience of the Tribunal’s protocols - but no admittance of poor management. We’ve more than disproved that alleged misdemeanour.
Thank you for confirming re: our bundle etc.
And whilst replying to your emails I would welcome your kind advice on the following situation which I make with memories of Mrs Hillgarth’s previous RTM application.
Normally at his time 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-emptive or nefarious, as indeed during the RTM fiasco, we were sternly advised by Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitors in a letter dated 2 July 2013 (attached: RTM_affair 2-7-13.pdf) to not only withdraw our s.20 Notice but to also desist from making any further demands of lessees or making any expenditures save for emergencies as her application 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 letter of 14 August 2013 requesting situation as everything remained on hold decor works’ wise? You will also note in a letter from my Solicitors of 45 years dated 7 October 2013 that Mrs Hillgarth engineered a successful coup d’etat, admittedly a somewhat pyrrhic victory as she too was dismissed. And again, with direct relevance to this present situation, my letter to her Solicitors dated 16 October 2013 referencing their “not cricket” trickery and misinformation somewhat mirroring this present affair.
And finally their email to me of 26 March 2014 stating “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 accusation of MHML Director’s mismanagement because we wouldn’t agree to spending more than was available in Reserves without requesting funds from lessees for basically cosmetic items! Whereas the present application simply makes accusations of “indecent exposure, requiring Police protection to collect keys; purloining lessees' window monies despite cheques written 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 accusations of non payment to suppliers and most annoyingly, refuting accusations for six months (Mr Begg’s 23 March 2016 letter until Mrs Hillgarth’s
signed Witness Statement dated 10 August 2016) of ignoring lessees' requests to view documents from our