Page 589 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-12-
in THe WesT London CoUnTY CoUrT - Case No: [ ]
Mrs MiCHeLe HiLLGArTH - Claimant
versus
MiTre HoUse MAnAGeMenT LiMiTed - First Defendant and
pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe - Second Defendant
and
seGAr KArUpiAH - Third Defendant
and
JAMiL rAJA - Fourth Defendant __________________________________________________________________________________
pArTiCULArs oF CLAiM
__________________________________________________________________________________
MHML invoiCed THe serviCe CHArGe ACCoUnT For £15,572.85 For WorKs And Fees. £16,183.36 WAs THe AGGreGATe CosT oF ALL oTHer CosTs And sUppLies And FiTMenTs pAid direCTLY FroM MHML’s ACCoUnT no: 23433668 (THe “priCepLAn xs ACCoUnT”) eqUATinG To £31,756.21 in ToTo oF sAvinGs MAde And sAvinGs spenT.
THere WAs no “detailed “cross-examination” in correspondence” nor indeed is iT TrUe THAT “Paul Brown-Constable eventually admitted in writing that the sum of £31,765.21 had been “charged to the leaseholders by mhml in respect of the project” yet another misquote to suit your purposes? AS EVER YOU ARE AMBIGUOUSLY REFERENCING AN HONEST ANSWER TO AN AMBIGUOUS QUERY, NAMELY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR 21 JUNE 2016 LETTER:
You requested: and since you insist repeatedly that you have nothing to hide, please will you now specify, in respect of each of these items {as well as any included within your final "a lot more" sweeper item):
(a) the specific lessee who requested that the work be done; and
mrs hillgarth (see attached Wade & hemi quotes - and source graNgeWooD quote. and
Comment: ambiguous and irrelevant simply in pursuit of your shaky argument - i should have answered as is obvious from previous and subsequent correspondence “Mrs Hillgarth had re- quested of Wade, Hemi & Grangewood specific workings which could not be progressed as they were “unaffordable” but were all eventually progressed from savings of £31,756.21 made as agreed by Mrs Hillgarth to be attempted to be made (savings) at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting” TrUe oF FALse?
(b) the specific contractor who carried out the work; and mhml and their various sub-contractors.
Comment: ambiguous and irrelevant simply in pursuit of your shaky argument - i should have answered as is obvious from previous and subsequent correspondence “MHML with various sub-contractors progressed all the “unaffordables” from savings of £31,756.21 made as agreed by Mrs Hillgarth to be attempted to be made (savings) at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting” TrUe oF FALse?
(c) the amount charged by that contractor (including yourself where relevant). £31,765.21
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT