Page 3 - 17_Begg 11-5-16 to PBC to Begg OCR_11-5-16 (5pp)

Like all other offences you accused us of in your 13pp of 23 March 2016, since disproved?
I think the answer to that is “yes, totally disproved” so please no more innuendos.
For all I know there is a perfectly plausible and innocent explanation for all this. But if by the end of this month we remain in the dark, you will leave us no alternative but to report our reasonable suspicions to the relevant authorities, and invite them to investigate. It is up to you, but I sug- gest you discuss the matter with your fellow directors first before reaching a conclusion, as (if an offence has been committed) they are party to it.
It’s quite simple and exactly as explained in our correspondence 16 April, 27 April and
May 10 - confirm the accusations in your 13pp 23 March 2016 letter as disproven and are ad- mitted as such, confirm Mrs Hillgarth did not request the requested documentation within the statutory 6 month period (or deny with legal justification), confirm that Mrs Hillgarth will comply with her lease covenants and the 13 documents/invoices will be considered by MHML to be sent over for her and your perusal.
If though, you reply stating you disagree for stated, valid, indisputable legal reasons and are content at your client’s further cost to have your disagreement perused by our solicitor, [or in deed the courts] and if our solicitor agrees with your evaluation, we will have the documents sent over. If though he does not, you will be further advised and as you rightly point out almost certainly heading for arbitration in court, again at further cost to your client, Mrs Hillgarth.
Finally I would simply repeat the point I have already made. You are not entitled to operate a business at Mitre House. And just because your position as head lessor puts you in a position (absent a suc- cessful application by the leaseholders) to determine who should provide management services for Mitre House does not mean that you are the appropriate person to provide those services. Given that the leaseholders do not want to receive management services from you, (and your recent correspon- dence provides fresh insight, if any were needed, why that is the case), it is improper for you and your colleagues to abuse your position by charging them for those services.
This as previously discussed is simply nit-picking and further innuendo in an attempt to further dis- credit MHML. If our copy correspondence to date is insufficient for your needs or ours in defending our record, we have well over 1000 pages ready to send over to further establish our credibility, profes- sional expertise and how your client tried unsuccessfully to hinder and abort each and every process.
I hope we can resolve these difficulties without litigation, and/or recourse to the authorities, and/or fur- ther threat to the world's forestry reserves. It is up to you.
No, Mr. Begg, it’s up to you. Either put up or shut up if you’ll excuse my French.
Yours sincerely, PFC Begg