Page 300 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-49-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
MHML prepared a costing budget and list of works [no matter traditional/contemporary or belle epoque] including boxing of meters and a mail pigeon table/boxes [signage was an
obvious requirement and misc cost] of initially £25,000, rising to £35,000 both incl. vat which cov- ered all but the most expensive cosmetic items on the wish list, such as a Lift refurb and a total ren- ovation of the aged terrazzo flooring.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
For reasons best known to Mrs Hillgarth, the budget proposed by MHML of initially £25,000 incl.vat to progress the basic interior décor [no matter traditional/contemporary or belle epoque] plus some “wish list” items, rising to £35,000 incl.vat to include additional ‘wish list” items, was considered an insufficient budget to appropriate for the standard/quality of works on her wish list and as early as April/May 2012 she was proposing spending far in excess of £35,000 incl. vat as she considered the internal works should be far more extensive than those proposed by MHML to be funded within available Reserves with no call on lessees for additional funding. Again all was posted on www.mitrehouse.com.
MHML prepared a final (Draft 10) design presentation [traditional/contemporary v belle epoque] alongside a £35,000 incl. vat Schedule of Internal Works and costing for those items considered affordable. A vote for preference of style, traditional/contemporary style or belle epoque style was requested of all lessees (including like or no like variously discussed miscellaneous items/additions mooted by some lessees including MHML, carpets, mirrors, mail pigeon table, meter boxing, topiary, artworks etc) to be received by latest 31st May 2012.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
All lessees obliged by 31st May save for Mrs Hillgarth who apologised for tardiness and initially emailed on 7 June saying “you choose”. MHML had prepared the first required s.20 Notice which was scheduled to go off once the voting was finalised on or around 1st June but was aborted due to Mrs Hillgarth’s late attention.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
The voting from all lessee owners was a 5-4 preference for belle epoque [and included Mrs Hill- garth’s subsequent email voting for traditional/contemporary style as opposed to “you choose’ ini- tially and this rose to 6-4 in favour of belle epoque when including a very long term sitting tenant in Flat 8.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Subsequent to the publication of a 6pp Vote Analysis sent to all lessees on 7 June, it became clear that one lessee, having been canvassed by Mrs Hillgarth, had reversed their voting prefer- ence and one lessee, again canvassed by Mrs Hillgarth did not adequately re-confirm her re- vised preference and consequently MHML were accused by Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees of manipulating the result to suit their preference of belle epoque? Vote rigging scandal
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Consequently, MHML (myself) resigned our involvement as we had performed all our responsibilities in preparing design presentations, budgets, costings and Schedule of Works and told all lessees that from now on Mrs Hillgarth would be their point of contact. Consequently you now appreciate that your recent faux-pas as regards mine or MHML’s involve- ment was zero and neither I nor MHML were responsible for her two initial Wade quotes in July 2012 and January 2013 in any fashion.