Page 335 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

expense of the other tenants at Mitre House. Thus on 13 August 2014 Christopher Leigh- Pemberton wrote to ask for your confirmation that there was no element of personal benefit arising from the use of AR Lawrence as the contractors for the overall Mitre House project.
In your response of the same date, timed at 10.35, you wrote: “even if I was using A&R Lawrence (which I am not) its none of anybody’s business save mine”. This was consistent with an e-mail timed at 7.45 on the same date to Diego Fortunati , when you wrote: “I am doing the works in the flat myself”. However both of these e-mails appeared directly to contradict your earlier e-mail to Mrs Hillgarth on 12 August 2014, timed at 5.54 pm, in which you had written: “My flat is being done by Benitor and AR Lawrence after hours and weekends” (this notwithstanding that work is not allowed after 6pm).
Either you were decorating your flat yourself, or it was being done (whether wholly or partly) by contractors. It is not possible that both of these statements were true. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify which is correct, and to answer Mr Leigh-Pemberton’s (perfectly appropriate) enquiry as to whether there has been any element of personal benefit.
Again petty jealousies, innuendo and malicious gossip perpetrated by Mrs Hillgarth. If I had planned to defraud the lessees by contracting with AR Lawrence for either a brown envelope or a reduced cost to do my flat I took one helluva risk recommending our other known contractor Benitor for being considerably cheaper which to a lessee, thanks again to Mrs Hillgarth they bizarrely turned down stating various reasons, unknown, not on internet, no qualifications etc
Admittedly they were of Eastern European hereditary but were well respected and talented. C’est la vie.
The Issue of Competence
It is apparent from the correspondence that you have proved wholly incompetent in managing the project as well as the budget. At no time was this more apparent than in the course of September 2014. In a flurry of some 20 e-mails over as many days you moved the lessees from a statement to the effect that no additional funding would be required, to a request for additional funds, both for additional service charge and for one off reserves, coupled with a statement that certain approved and funded works were to be cancelled.
An opinion I do not recognise as either true nor accurate as hopefully these replies evidence.
In your e-mail dated 2 September 2014 you said: “The cost [for the TV aerial] will be met from future reserves during 2015 at a rate per flat over 4 quarters of £96 each lessee meaning no one has to pay any additional sums whatsoever.”
Indeed you went on to indicate, in an e-mail dated 13 September 2014, that you were somehow generating savings on the project. You said: “Since the scaffolding commenced installation on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, dead on schedule, Management have already saved Lessees £1177.56 OFF the agreed and budgeted £105,019.”