Page 7 - D-Day 6-6-17

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 question of just exactly what we have done badly or wrong? Oh yes, blackmail, rudeness, abuse and website plagiarism? All petty 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 identical situations of intensely extenuating circumstances of MHML attempting to fund the works’ programme from funds agreed and due to Mrs Hillgarth’s prompting, 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 communicating same to all lessees, it was reasonable that I insisted on any conversation or meeting 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 stating, "for her safety...!" You just could not make this up! I daren’t even mention Vote Rigging and her insistence to me in an email saying “you choose!” - leaving aside a letter written to Flat 4 Dr Samya Riad dated 8 July 2012 from Mr Karupiah (attached: Vote Rigging_affair 8-7-12.pdf)making clear the error of Mrs Hillgarth’s ridiculous accusation. Dr Riad is also on record three times denying any knowledge of any vote taken nor of any majority decision on any subject taken at any meeting she attended or in emails she received and replied to. And yes all thrice explained to Mr Begg and yes all in our bundle but still appearing in the s.22 Notice!
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 representation 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 pasting the same accusations letter after letter including his initial 23 March, his Draft 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 inspection 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 continuing representation of Mrs Hillgarth, given our answers and hard copy evidence to date, is no better than that she received from her RTM crew. She should have been taken aside and had it explained to her that her accusations and innuendos were all totally contradicted with evidence and that her quest for alternative independent Agents and insisting 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 vexatiously, 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 control as distinct from applicants who want to restore good management to a badly managed block. No way could the Tribunal consider Mitre House to be badly managed given the evidence of firstly a viewing and secondly the economics as evidenced in Annual costs to all lessees of, as an example, paying £800 per annum less in 2017 than they were all paying in 2011 - to our then Agents, KFH.
Now you see what I mean by "had Mr Begg simply requested the invoices and nothing else, accusations etc in his 23 March 2016 letter, and got out of bed to receive them following our offer (like with the RTM) to comply by return, we’d all be on easy street and enjoying the Election instead of bickering over silly items of insignificance relating to Mrs Hillgarth’s petty jealousies and animosities towards MHML and most notably myself. My fault most likely for having insisted on her performing her directorial duties and comply with her lease covenants or how else could we expect other lessees to conform? Makes sense doesn’t it? But alas she refused and she’ll refuse with a new Manager so watch out!
As such, what would you prefer? We follow form and issue £750 requests or desist until the outcome of the Tribunal as I fully appreciate any order for the Appointment of a Manager would entail an immediate, if not before, demand that MHML desist in any further financial dealings and pass everything including all bank funds over to the new Manager, who will decide and issue June Quarterly Demands.
One further request. If the Tribunal agrees (if indeed it is even permitted or has wi-fi capability) would you object to we having a small laptop computer in court for the benefit of both parties as references made by either sides could be very promptly indicated as to content, veracity, date and time etc
I will request of Ms. Burrow if it is acceptable and if wi-fi is available in court but no doubt the Tribunal will require your prior kind agreement and hence my request.