Page 189 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-16-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
ued to insist, along with one or two other allies, but never a proved majority, of MHML’s incompetence, inefficiency and intransigence in not respecting her demand to retain her’s and her allies preferred contractor Wade.
Due to the now (October 2013) serious delay in progressing the Internals, MHML were obliged to now fund both Internals and Externals concurrently (or be in very serious arrears on our Head Lease covenants) during 2014.
Mrs Hillgarth insisted that funds were adequate without a call on lessees to fund her proposed Wade Internals budget of £60-£65,000 (as opposed to MHML’s £35,000) and to delay the
Externals until 2015. Mrs Hillgarth again claimed she had the support and confidence of a
majority of lessees but despite attempts by MHML to have those alleged agreements confirmed in writing (email) to retain Wade with a required call on lessees for substantial (£7000+) contribution to adequately fund, not one, including Mrs Hillgarth, was ever received save for a
confirmation to retain Wade? But not to fund? And certainly not to contribute £7000 odd
Consequently, in late 2013 MHML retained our previous Surveyor (from our previous Agents and fully conversant with previous refurbishments at Mitre House) to draw up a Schedule of Works for both Internals and Externals for a max budget (of anticipated available Reserves) of £70,000 plus vat and fees (approx £96,600 in toto). He advised funds/works were optimistic
Due to the £96,600 anticipated overall cost, it was not possible to include many if not all of what both MHML had originally costed into their £35,000 budget in 2012, nor indeed those items that Mrs Hillgarth had requested of her preferred contractor, Wade, to quote for totalling £65,000.
Our Surveyor arranged six tenders including one from Wade, all based on the exact same specifications in his Schedule of Works for both Internals and Externals and all six were notified to lessees in MHML’s Section 20 Notice dated 22 June 2014. Total costs to include vat and fees ranged from £219,000 from Wade to £105,000 from AR Lawrence.
Consequently AR Lawrence being the cheapest would no doubt be retained requiring a call on lessees of £2000 to adequately fund a £105,019 budget with only £98,262 in Reserves resulting in a hoped for £11,243 remaining in Reserves for emergencies or carried forward to 2015.
During a MHML Board Meeting on 23 May 2014 attended by Mrs Hillgarth and two co-Directors, Segar Karupiah and Paul Brown-Constable, it was explained again to Mrs Hillgarth that none of the six tenders, including her Wade tender, included items she had initially sourced from Wade (July 2012 and January 2013) nor indeed what MHML had included (partially) in their revised budget of £35,000 in 2012 as they were all simply “unaffordable” given the anticipated funds available in Re- serves of now approx £98,000.
These “unaffordable” items consisted of new Lighting fitments, new emergency lighting, additional electrical points and auto sensors throughout the communal areas, a total Lift Car and surrounds refurbishment, and various other cosmetic improvements.
It was explained to Mrs Hillgarth that MHML could make “savings” from any approved tender, includ- ing AR Lawrence’s overall total tender to include vat and fees of £105,000 and use those “savings”, to be made from deleting certain items our Surveyor considered non-essential, and from substantial contingencies if not required and from progressing certain Internals’ [only] items that MHML consid- ered could be done more economically than tendered, any way possible to include MHML personnel progressing some workings if more economical than other individual contractor’s quotes. Email ref- erences from Mrs Hillgarth well evidence her knowledge of MHML and Mr Brown-Constable to at- tempt workings wherever possible.
It was both Segar Karupiah’s and Paul Brown-Constable’s understanding that Mrs Hillgarth fully agreed to this sensible proposal to make “savings” wherever possible from items not considered es- sential or could be done more economically to spend on, initially considered “unaffordable’, items not included nor costed for in the Schedule of Works, and which Mrs Hillgarth and her
fellow allies had all made previous requests for progressing as the initial two Wade quotes way back in July 2012 and January 2013 well evidences.
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt