Page 33 - APPENDIX_00_PREFIX 1-17

-33-
On 6 June 2014, two weeks after the board meeting, “MH” sends an email to co-director Segar Karupiah:
Dear Segar,
Thank you very much for sending the copy of the minutes for the meeting that was held on 23rd May 2014 at 12.00pm.
Firstly, please add into the minutes the below points:
Paul charges a fee of £7.00 per day for his attendance at Mitre House. As far as I am aware
this has never been approved at a board meeting [it had but “MH” not present as abroad], and there is no record or documentation to state otherwise [there is in the Minutes of meeting 25 August 2011 on company formation]. Until this has been agreed this charge should be suspended.
The acknowledgement that the instructions given to the surveyor by PBC were verbal.
I would like it registered that the estimates provided are not “like for like” in my opinion, for example Wade has included several things such as lighting etc. which are not provided in some of the other quotes including the quote from A&R Lawrence.
“PBC” comment: if proof were needed that Mrs Hillgarth had not understood the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works from which all tenders referred, including her Wade final quote (of three), this is it as none of the tenders including Wade could have costed in lighting etc as none existed in the Schedule of Works drawn up by our Surveyor in December 2013 and which “MH” requested and received at least four copies (pdf) and requested one from our Surveyor (despite her insistence that no lessee, including her, were made aware of a Surveyor involved requiring fees to be paid) - and then requesting of “PBC” as stated above: The acknowledgement that the instructions given to the surveyor by PBC were verbal.
She is confused because the lighting etc was at her suggestion and requirement when she initially sought quotes from Wade in July 2012 and again in January 2013, as well as the Hemi quote - all of which we have since referred to in all correspondence to date (July 2012 - 2017) as “the additional works which “MH” considered a requirement for the interior decoration of the communal parts at Mitre House” but due to budget constraints could not be included in the main works programme as is made quite clear in both Wade’s final costings at £219,000 and AR Lawrence’s £105,019 both incl. vat and fees. Wade’s and Hemi’s quotes for the “wished for” additional works averaged £60,000 to incl. vat and fees and by some clever economies, MHML and “PBC” managed to make savings from the approved 22 June 2014 s20 budget of £105,015 of £31,756.21 with which all Wade’s & Hemi’s additional works were executed professionally and competently - so saving £28,000 and indeed more, as more additional works were performed than in the Wade and Hemi quotes - and if proof were further needed, Reserves carried forward totalled £16,201 at the finale of the works, whereas budgets indicated only £11,243 as a probability.....but.....
If we were not permitted in law to use common sense savings wherever feasible to fund items that most if not all lessees, but without doubt Mrs Hillgarth, wished for but couldn’t afford, and used those savings to progress those same additional works which Mrs Hillgarth had sourced quotes for, but at a significant lesser cost, with no lack of professionalism or competency, then we stand corrected. We do, though, deny and have proved those denials of all the other non-sen- sical accusations that Mrs Hillgarth deemed fit to raise with her Solicitor. As has been made clear to her Solicitor, she has an unhealthy attitude to authority, criticism or advice as well evidenced in previous correspondence with previous Agents and most notably a cavalier attitude to her lease covenants which, despite multiple warnings, remain in arrears of compliance to the detri- ment of national security and neighbourly satisfaction.
Her vitriol levelled against “PBC” is, as pointed out to her Solicitor, no less than a “vendetta” due solely to her aforementioned disrespect of authority which regrettably is one part of management that obviously entails not being able to please all of the people all of the time - in Mrs Hillgarth’s case it’s never, again as previous correspondence amply indicates with threat after threat thrown back when she cannot get her way, somewhat childishly but to the distinct detriment of all con- cerned including fellow lessees and neighbours as has been well proved in the points raised above, ad nauseam, despite best efforts to oblige her demands.