Page 467 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

Due to Mrs Hillgarth insisting on a ludicrously extensive, unaffordable budget for internals [reference her Wade quote for £60-65,000] the arguments commenced resulting in her RTM application in 2013 insisting her Wade quote and Wade contractor be retained?
15. In addition we have now seen your own invoice/2014_00012 to MHML (also dated 31 December 2014) indicating that you charged £7,500 to MHML in respect of exactly the same work for which MHML had charged over double (£15,572.85) to the lessees. When all these invoices were actually prepared is not known, but the transposition errors suggest that they were prepared in some haste.
This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Are you actually inferring that my company [or anybody’s] puts in an invoice for workings [be that an accountancy practice, a firm of lawyers, Seaborne Freight or even HMRC] and pops it straight into a Swiss Bank and that’s it?
What about the flunkies that did the work, the accounts, the legal eagle footwork, the madman who pinched T&C for Seaborne Freight or even the poor ‘ole taxman?
Are they not permitted to put in an invoice for their particular input, time, costs etc?
Your aggregated hourly charges [hope she’s not paying by pages] for Mrs Hillgarth would no doubt end up as “representing you against MHML etc etc including disbursements” £100
But surely, had you had a flunky [I doubt it as nobody could write like we do?], he or she would surely invoice you, PFC Begg/Solicitor, along the lines of “work involved on the Hillgarth v MHML case including disbursements” £25
Et voila, you’ve profited by £75 but of course you’re paying the rent/rates/tel/gas/insurance and god knows what else, meaning you’ve probably lost money!
Really this is simply a retarded query/accusation/innuendo – unless I’m missing something? Seeing as I do all the invoicing and payments for MHML/Service Charge and the bookkeeping it’s hardly surprising I cut and paste as both invoices are basically identical. MHML is simply invoicing the Service Charge for its listed works and I’m invoicing MHML for my workings – they are both identical? Can’t believe this?
16. According to the audited service charge accounts for 2014 and 2015 “reserves utilised” on the major works refurbishment in 2014 (meaning monies actually spent) totalled £136,735 and comprised three elements - £105,877 (the original budget plus a small overspend), £18,000 (the £2,000 per flat you called up to supplement reserves) and £13,147 (the “voluntary” contribution called upon for the communal TV/Sky and Water Tank). These last items could and should have been included in the original specification (if the water tank was so defective why was it not picked up by Isaacs in his survey?) but they were not included because this way you were able to hold onto the money in reserves.