Page 441 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

Mr Brown-Constable claims to have saved the leaseholders money by doing some of the work himself and/or through unapproved contractors, but the leaseholders have never seen the benefit of these alleged savings. Nor have they been told how the balance of their money (ie the difference between the amount appropriated and/or collected by MHML and the money actuallypaidtoARLawrence)hasbeendisposedof. WhileMrBrown-Constablehasrecently admitted that £31,765.21 of this money has been paid to MHML or its sub-contractors, we still do not know who these sub-contractors are and we still do not know how the balance of £25,121.54 has been spent. Even if one assumes that £13,147 of this money was legitimately spent on the water tank replacement and the communal TV Aerial, that still leaves £11,974.54 unaccounted for. The extent of MHML’s deviation from the approved scheme will remain opaque until Mr Brown-Constable grants access to the relevant invoices from suppliers/contractors. This has been requested on numerous occasions and by different leaseholders – see para 6 below – but the invoices have still not been produced.
Reply: Surely the above repetitions evidence a constant demand for information, explanations and figures previously supplied ad nauseam:
Reply: As advised on multiple occasions in multiple correspondence, £16,201 was in Reserves at end 2014 as advised in a covering letter dated 8 June 2015 to all lessees with a copy of the 2014 Accounts Summary stating “Reserves NOT utilised for YE2014 amount to £16,201 carried forward for this 2015 year”
Reply: In an email to Mr Brown-Constable from Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor dated 8 June 2017 (eighteen months ago), he states: “It certainly seems surprising, to put it no stronger than that, that you should have prepared such a (very) detailed invoice on 31 December 2014 ....” [ie what I charged personally for the work I performed]
Reply: In Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor’s initial letter dated 23 March 2016 letter was the accusation that MHML had refused to oblige multiple requests from multiple lessees, which was denied with full supporting evidence, and this accusation was also made to various authoritative third parties, requiring further denials.
A very tight deadline for sight of various invoices was demanded by Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor in his initial 23 March 2016 letter and, by return, MHML offered to courier over the requested items but the offer remained unacknowledged due allegedly to Mrs Hillgarth being in the Sahara and her Solicitor incapacitated with pneumonia. When MHML’s offer was eventually acknowledge some weeks after the demanded deadline, we insisted upon an apology for the various accusations and innuendos [all as well described in this tome], by which time we had also replied with our denials and full supporting evidence to substantiate the denials, and on receipt we would supply the requested documentation, which we were not legally obliged to as the statutory six months had well passed for the period in question, again as well evidenced in Mrs Hillgarth’s own Witness Statement (para 73).
No apology nor admission that the various multiple accusations were indeed proved untrue was ever received nor even acknowledged as having been fairly responded to. The requested/demanded documents/invoices were not forwarded but made clear they would be once other untrue accusations were withdrawn but yet more accusations, innuendos and malicious opinions followed.
Once it has been formally confirmed to leaseholders that a contractor approved by them has been appointed to do a fixed job to a fixed specification at a fixed cost, it is misleading to the