Page 48 - First Tier ALL

-3-
It could be noted that the four other lessees, over and above Mrs Hillgarth, mentioned in the their application, namely Leigh-Pemberton (Flat 9), Leoni-Sceti (Flat 3), Hak (Flat 1), Fortunati (Flat 9) do not reside at Mitre House but sub-let. Save for Mr Leigh-Pemberton’s correct address on the application, the other three will not necessarily receive their copies as they do not reside at Mitre House and in fact the Haks reside in Dubai.
The s22 Notice when initially sent to me in August 2016 contained various alleged documents of proof as noted on the 5th Schedule. It should be noted that none of those documents were attached to the s22 Notice in the bundle I received (or one imagines the bundles that those other lessee mentioned might receive).
I can confirm that all our paperwork, accounts, quarterly demands etc are both correctly worded and (hopefully) up to date legally, and that our annual Accounts have never been issued late nor have we ever had any arrears of Quarterly Demands or indeed a single query re: Accounts ever received, save for Mrs Hillgarth’s tardy request via her Mr Begg on 23 March 2016 requesting documentation from our YE2014 Accounts published 30 May 2015, some 4 months outside of her statutory 6 month allowance, despite her (disproved) insinuation we have.
Queries & Concerns:
Is the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) permitted to disregard the 6 month statutory and order disclosure?
Having sought and received 100% agreement from all 9 lessees to dispense with normal s20 Notices on a replacement Mains Water Tank (for the sake of urgency (health) and substantial cost savings) and by doing so, not having applied to the (LVT/First Tier) for dispensation (a matter I well advised all 9 lessees), am I off to a bad start? I have all required documentation to back up my clear and concise explanations to all lessees regarding a 100% agreement. Just one dissenter would abort the process. In fact I did issue an s20 Notice just in case.
Finally, and the crux of Mrs Hillgarth’s bête-noir. The final s20 Notice stated quite clearly that the various ten- dered total costs from all Contractors included VAT & FEES (I fully appreciate that is not the norm but certainly a far more transparent way of showing TOTAL costs for any lessee to compute as opposed to a figure than can rise spectacularly to the uneducated in the ways of VAT and contingencies). I am the sole Anglo-Saxon here!
The preferred and chosen Contractor (by Mrs Hillgarth...against our recommendation of a cheaper quote) had costed for various items, i.e XYZ, and outlined on the s20 Notice for £105,019 to include VAT & FEES (other Contractor costs were also outlined for exact same works and their costs were down including VAT & FEES).
We received no request nor comment re: FEES, but had we done so, we would have explained that FEES included any fees incurred from Surveyor Fees, CDM Fees, our Project Management Fees, Freeholder’s Surveyor Fees all of which had been carefully computed in to the penny. This was made even more transparent to Mrs Hillgarth (at a board meeting) and all other lessees, that the actual costs quoted by each Contractor (excl Vat & Fees) were posted, as well advised to Mrs Hillgarth and all lessees, on our website for all to peruse.
Mrs Hillgarth refuses to accept that she along with some other lessees (two) sourced quotes for workings from independent Contractors (Wade & Hemi & Greenwood) but those additional works sourced were NOT included in the final approved Schedule of Works as tendered on by all Contractors, but she believed they were.
The reason she believed that was because she never properly perused the final Schedule of Works. When advised by Management (me) that I had managed to do not just those items she had sourced quotes on but far more and far more economically than her initial quotes had implied (which was why those works could not be included in the Schedule of Works due to budget restraints), she accused me of theft etc etc (see above accusa- tions). Made all the worse, in her opinion, because I had done a few things myself and it had not been done by her chosen Contractor! No amount of explanation could convince her that her Contractor had not quoted/costed for those items she had sourced herself and I had made it very clear to all lessees in emailed correspondence that Management (me) would find ways to make savings from the agreed £105,019 budget to fund those items we could not afford initially. This we did to great effect saving well over £25,000 to what Mrs Hillgarth had been quoted for the very same workings. Mrs Hillgarth considers any payment I received for works performed to be theft.
My Achilles Heel is, if indeed (as Mrs Hillgarth accuses me) I was permitted to make savings from the agreed £105,019, but having done so, not passing them on to the lessees as opposed to using them to progress works we all wanted, most especially herself. She had been insisting on using her regular preferred Contractor from day one, namely Wade Partners, for the staggering (and totally unaffordable) cost, including VAT & Fees (as stated on our s20 Notice) of £219,000 - which again did NOT include the additional works she had initially sourced (but she thought it did) but was exactly the same Schedule of Works as all other contractors had quoted from.
Mrs Hillgarth’s gripe is because I had managed to get the works done but had allegedly purloined the savings!