Page 2 - 15_PBC to Begg_10-5-16 (11pp)

-2-
2_The TVSky affair (namely Mrs Hillgarth’s accusations of being the only lessee charged for extra work)
Please find attached MHML invoice to Flat 4 for extra work charged at same rate as to her. (ref B)
3_The Vote affair (namely Mrs Hillgarth’s accusations of vote rigging) (refs OO,PP,QQ,H,MM)
Please find attached copy emails from Flats 4, 5 and 8 indicating a preference (and neutrality) prior to the analysis, our email to Mrs Hillgarth dated 27 October 2014 listing contrariness of opinions made and changed and notably a letter sent to Flat 4 by Mr Karupiah dated 8 July 2012
4_The Window Repairs affair (namely Mrs Hillgarth’s accusations of MHML using and banking funds)
Please find attached various relevant email correspondence which not only verifies what you have previously been informed (that we did not use nor bank funds received, but individual lessees were invoiced directly by our contractor (and were sent their individual invoices for payment, by myself,
on receipt from our contractor/surveyor - and I collected their cheques in readiness to pass over to our contractor/surveyor - all as well evidenced in the attached copy emails). How Mrs Hillgarth could have made such ridiculous claims is very suspicious and fully indicative of her documented malice
towards MHML, as she was in receipt of her invoice(s), wrote her required cheques directly to our con- tractor and delivered same to me for forwarding onto our surveyor/contractor, as indeed did every other lessee requiring window repairs. In her email dated 29 September 2014 at 15.31h she states:
By paying the windows individually gave you an extra few thousand pounds for additional expenses...”
You will note extensive and very comprehensive email correspondence to lessees which included MHML’s proposal to possibly include individual lessees’ window repairs within the £105,019 works’ budget but thankfully that proposal was not taken up as some individual lessees made clear a prefer- ence to pay individually. I think it quite obvious from the correspondence why they preferred that route. It certainly suited myself as my windows required no workings (and so I would have actually lost out if included in the works’ budget) as my windows were all brand new having been replaced by The Sash Window Co., (and yes, I have their invoice to hand) whilst scaffolding was in place. Hence Mrs Hillgarth’s impertinent gossiping to other lessees of me utilising our works’ contractors to refurbish my own flat during the Internals/Externals schedule, despite my denials to the contrary. As is now well established she still continues to raise the issue as well evidenced in your 23 March 2016 letter and again well denied as per my comments made in my reply. (refs G,S,T,V,W,X,Y,Z,AA,BB,EE,DD,CC)
And before you raise the benefit in kind of using the scaffolding, I would remind her of an email sent to all lessees inviting any of them considering window repairs/new installations etc to consider doing so whilst scaffolding was in place. And yes, I had permission, and yes my windows are wooden sash not pvc, and yes are FENSA approved/certified. One presumes Mrs Hillgarth’s flat workings to date have also been the recipient of both freeholder’s permission and local planning and building regulations, both of which are a requirement if plumbing is in any way resited or flooring changed. (ref JJ)
2_The Abusive Emails affair (namely Mrs Hillgarth’s accusations of abusive and inappropriate language) Mea culpa as previously indicated as indeed the bundle of worst examples are attached, and indeed have been previously been apologised for, with the proviso of exacting extenuating circumstances.
As can be seen from the examples in the bundle, MHML were obliged to constantly repeat the same information, send the same documents, make the same requests, field a consortium of identical queries from some (and only some, namely Flats 5 and 9 mostly) lessees who were being fed totally erroneous and mischievous information by Mrs Hillgarth which resulted in a 30 month delay in attend- ing to the urgent business of commencing the required works on an urgently required schedule and more importantly to an affordable budget with sufficient funding in place to adequately pay for the agreed budget and have sufficient funds in Reserves for emergency workings as and when they might arise. Note that the Water Tank & TVSky were never ever mooted in any email or correspondence as such as an emergency covered by the voluntary £2000 per lessee as both came well after any refer- ence to the requirement of the £2000 to cover the budget and allow some leeway (ref: refer A-ZZZ)
Despite comments in your 23 March 2016 letter and indeed further perpetrated by Mrs Hillgarth in previous correspondence with other lessees, I was by now at my wits end just a few days into the works which commenced (scaffolding on Sunday 31 August 2014) and thanks to Mrs Hillgarth’s con- stant bickering, canvassing and totally misleading some lessees, most notably over pre-agreed items, costs, contributions, in fact everything, I was engaged 24/7 (at £7.50 per day) fielding query after query, complaint after complaint, innuendo after innuendo instead of getting to grips with the works in hand. Hence my frustration and unacceptable language towards two lessees, Mrs Hillgarth and her only ally and equally misguided lessee, Flat 9’s owner, or more accurately Flat 9’s owner’s wife!