Page 2 - 61_PBC to Begg _29-9-16 (2pp)

Records to hand from our various previous Agents over the years have never ever ended a Works programme (either Interior every 7 years or Exterior every 5 years) with a credit to accounts, in fact records show a deficit requiring future Quarter Reserve Demands to amply balance.
As previously stated, had AR Lawrence executed exactly what they (and all other tenders as outlined on the 22 June 2014 approved s20 Notice) quoted for, we would have spent £105,019 (and probably more) leaving Mitre House with none of the additional workings MHML managed to accomplish, such as Emergency Lighting through- out including the exterior, new and additional light fitments throughout, new electrics and auto sensors throughout, a totally renovated Lift car and surrounds, a totally refurbished brass/buttoning/fitments throughout, mail table with pigeon boxes, boxed in cabling and meter cupboards, new brass signage and information fitments throughout etc
2
“By way of explanation to the leaseholders Mr Brown-Constable has asserted in correspondence that the lease- holders, and in particular Mrs Hillgarth, were insisting that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other improvements outside of the Schedule of Works could be included.”
(this too is untrue) Please supply any references in any email to substantiate Mrs Hillgarth’s statement.
“.....Christopher Lee Pemberton from Flat 8 (since May 2015) ....pressed Mr Brown-Constable, without success, to provide relevant details of the refurbishment work carried out and a proper breakdown of the "reserves utilised" figure”. (Your same type reference to Mr Fortunati’s alleged request was also denied and dis- proved with evidence as being totally false, in previous correspondence).
(this too is untrue) Please supply any references in any email to substantiate Mrs Hillgarth’s statement.
You will have my full reply to your Preliminary Notice by 21 October latest which yet again will contain our perfectly reasonable request for written confirmation that statements and accusations as exampled above are in fact totally fictitious and simply maliciously made to further progress what any right minded person would consider an oppor- tunistic, vexatious and frivolous attempt, yet again by Mrs Hillgarth, to discredit MHML and myself most notably.
The alternative to MHML, as Mrs Hillgarth is insisting on, is a minimum doubling of Service Charges, and if she had succeeded in getting her way during the 2014 Works an almost tripling of costs to include all the additional work- ings which were not included in the Schedule of Works issued by her preferred contractor, Wade, but which MHML succeeded in doing in toto, professionally, competently and adequately with only an £858 overspend over the agreed s20 Notice budget of £105,019 with intelligent common sense savings and very careful husbandry of avail- able funds which resulted in not only an exemplary and unique interior in keeping with the age, period and locale of Mitre House but also still retaining a very healthy amount in Reserves as is well evidenced on the year ended 2014 Accounts Summary.
Wade’s tender costs for exactly what AR Lawrence tendered, was £219,150. 00 versus AR Lawrence costs of £105,019.00 - (neither of which included the above listed works executed by MHML) - I leave it to you to decide what both those quotes would have risen to had both Wade and AR Lawrence been instructed to also include the works listed above, executed by MHML for £31,756.21 from sensible savings made from the AR Lawrence budget, and all of which only went over budget by £858 to the agreed s20 budget of £105,019
If I am to believe comments made in your correspondence that Mrs Hillgarth did NOT request nor expect any addi- tional workings outside of the Schedule of Works, then I suggest you re-confirm having canvassed other Lessees and I will personally professionally and competently return the interior of Mitre House to it’s original state!
Before you do though, I suggest you remind her of her various meetings to discuss her initial 2012 Wade and Hemi quotes, which I think you’ll find include most if not all of what, firstly, was not included in our Schedule of Works due solely to budget constraints and secondly, almost exactly as MHML managed to accomplish within the agreed £105,019 budget but most regrettably with a pitiful overspend of £858 which admittedly blotted our copybook!
Accusations of fraudulently misleading lessees by not splitting Contractor costs/Surveyor’s costs/additional works costs by MHML under the usual generic Reserves Utilised is nit-picking as any Lessee was entitled within the statutory 6 months allowed to request sight of any invoice/receipt etc and as such hardly a hidden fraud?
And finally, it appears that Mrs Hillgarth has recently issued a Tenancy Agreement and sub-let her Flat 5 in direct contravention to her lease covenants and one might presume, yet again, fraudulently signed off any new Tenancy Agreement without having sought, nor received Landlord’s permission nor properly carpeted her flooring as required to do so prior to sub-letting. Correspondence has been exchanged with Mrs Hillgarth regarding same.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Brown-Constable
cc Segar Karupiah/Dima International Ltd/Chelsea & Belgravia Investments Ltd