Page 10 - Pemberton traffic

for, say, scaffolding, it was very very simple to do so.
vii) other relevant analyses were also posted with relevance to some independently
sourced quotes by Mrs Hillgarth
viii) all published Section 20 Notices, including those withdrawn, aborted and finally
approved were posted on our website having all been sent to lessees as hard copies
previously
ix) it was never disputed that savings were made (and had to be made) from AR
Lawrence’s (or any other chosen contractor) initial tender cost (indeed a perusal of
our Surveyor’s correspondence makes clear funding issues)
x) savings made were used, not abused nor misappropriated, to do those additional
items NOT included in the Schedule of Works and therefore NOT costed to be done
by AR Lawrence within their costed schedule of works
xi) if AR Lawrence had carried out exactly all that they had quoted from the Schedule of
Works their final cost would have amounted to (as in Tony White’s Witness
Statement) £91,321 including VAT
xii) to that we had to add our Surveyor’s fees of approximately £13,698 (which eventually
only totalled £10,513)
xiii) adding AR Lawrence and our Surveyor fees the amount totals £105,019
xiv) the 22nd June 2014 final approved s.20 indicated AR Lawrence as £105,019 incl. vat
& fees
xv) this same 22nd June 2014 approved s.20 made clear we had £98,262.75 in Reserves
xvi) consequently we were £6756.25 short of funds and none expected in until January
2015 some 7 months away
xvii) MHML therefore requested (seeing as MHML’s advice had not been taken to source
cheaper alternative workings) a £2000 contribution from all 9 lessees (including
MHML’s three directors)
xviii) Initially all was agreed until Mrs Hillgarth began querying and complaining but
eventually all nine lessees contributed their £2000 so leaving 98,262.75 plus £18000
in Reserves to cover an agreed outlay of £105,019
xix) The balance of £11,243.75 was to remain in Reserves for unforeseen works within
the AR Lawrence quote (there usually are as our Surveyor advised) and for any out of the blue emergencies, the lift requiring repairs (quite usual), and any other repairs etc etc
xx) as can now be appreciated, and hopefully not still denied, all the various other improvements requested by lessees including most notably, Mrs Hillgarth, had zero funding unless of course some of which was to be appropriated from the emergency Reserves of £11,243.75, an idea MHML considered economically and fiscally unacceptable by leaving Reserves too underfunded for unforeseen external workings.
xxi) the only way that all the various lessee additional requirements over and above the works as costed for within the Schedule of Works could be funded (without further contributions from lessees (a total 1000% impossibility given the trouble in ever getting the £2000 per lessee organised) was to make sensible savings from the AR Lawrence total costs of £91,321
xxii) any savings from any source could then be directed towards funding the lessee requirements.
xxiii) references made to the main Water Tank and TVSky installations being either costed within AR Lawrence’s budget (the Water Tank was NOT and neither was the SkyTV) or they were to be paid for from the £18000 collected to fund the works and have zero funding in Reserves is totally refuted – they were, by the time it was eventually agreed (most pertinently the TVSky install) and paid for by voluntary agreement, individually by lessees, but only on the understanding that a 100% agreement to pay was required by MHML and no s.20 Notices be required to be issued if no lessee objected – one single objection to either the Water Tank or TVSky installations