Page 2 - 30_PBC to Begg_10-6-16 (3pp)

2
Mrs Hillgarth’s proposed supplier was to be used based on same Schedule of Works as AR Lawrence quoted on.
As regards the replacement communal main Water Tank and the communal TVSky installations, we (MHML) advised all lessees that after a pre-booked scheduled inspection of our Water Tank facility on the roof which just so happened to be during the works in hand, we were advised of its parlous state and a replacement whilst scaffolding was in situ would be the most economical option.
We advised all lessees of the quote we received within 36 hours and we also advised on the health concerns to all lessees and more urgently, their tenants, having due regard to ourselves as MHML with whom the final serious conse- quences would end up. We also made clear we would need 100% agreement from all lessees to proceed without issuing statutory notices etc.
We made it abundantly clear that we could apply to the LVT for a dispensation for an s.20 given the urgency of the situa- tion but that would still entail additional cost, additional delay and possibly some health hazards. With our scaffolding scheduled for dismantling in the following two weeks, time was critical to achieve the most economical new install.
All lessees eventually agreed on all points above and paid their voluntary contributions.
The very same situation was for the communal TVSky installation. An idea mooted by MHML, proposed to all lessees making it abundantly clear that it would require a 100% agreement from all lessees to proceed without need of issuing s20 Notices as that would entail at least a three month delay and the TVSky install could not be installed without scaffold- ing in place.
Again all lessees eventually agreed on all points above and paid their voluntary contributions.
With scaffolding in place, MHML renegotiated and saved £2125.83 off the quoted costs of both installs, which was justifi- cation enough for doing as MHML had advised whilst scaffolding was in place to facilitate the two installs.
It is fully admitted that Mrs Hillgarth, and following her canvassing of one or two other lessees, insisted that lessees did not agree with the £2000 contribution for various reasons, all disproved (despite the fact she initially agreed as we’ve well evidenced0 and she certainly did not agree (initially) to either the Water Tank nor TVSky install being separately costed outside of the agreed £105,019 AR Lawrence budget. She maintained the cost of both should have come from the £2000 contribution (which MHML explained would leave Reserves at zero and was economically and fiscally unacceptable).
Consequently, if by doing all above and gaining 100% voluntary contributions for health and economical reasons MHML have endangered themselves by not seeking LVT dispensation (Water Tank) nor issuing the statutory s.20 for the TVSky install, we offer no defence other that the facts stated - all of which have been fully substantiated to date.
As regards the various accusations from Mrs Hillgarth and again from those she canvassed, that some works done within AR Lawrence’s £105,019 budget (the budget stated on the final s.20 dated 22 June 2014) were executed by others than AR Lawrence, we can safely assure her (and did so numerable times) some were and had to be or else every subcontrac- tor would have required a separate quote, a separate s.20 etc - hardly feasible and the reason why final approved s.20 Notices (such as those supplied by our previous agents) state an overall final budget from the chosen supplier (admittedly usually ex VAT - but we preferred to include VAT as it was far more transparent - hence unequivocally £105,019 including VAT and fees)
As you were well advised in my letter dated: 2b_Works executed which were not included [or as you maintain, required] in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works dated December 2013 but were included in the agreed s.20 budget of £105,000 (finalised at £105,877) as per Lessee expectations and requests, amounted to £31,565.21
To that can be added £10,513 Surveyor’s Fees and costs. Various comments from Mrs Hillgarth and others she can- vassed insisted that only AR Lawrence be permitted to do any workings within their £105,019 budget. They did exactly that save for those workings required, requested by Mrs Hillgarth and those she canvassed) that had not been appropri- ated for in the Schedule of Works, which had Mrs Hillgarth ever read the 4 or five copies she requested she would be fully aware of.
Those additional workings, too many to list here, included items such as Emergency Lighting, Communal Lighting, Communal Electricals, the Lift Car, Cage & Surrounds, mail table, cleaners cupboard heater, multiple other communal interior beautifications, brassworks, locks, door stops etc etc - it’s a very lengthy list with a resultant cost of £31,565.21
It cannot be denied from correspondence you have been supplied with that MHML made very clear the problem of fund- ing the various additional requests/demands from Mrs Hillgarth unless savings could be made from the AR Lawrence £105,019 budget. Those savings were to be attempted in a multitude of ways as advised to lessees initially but most notably because under MHML’s close managing of the works we were able to ensure that only minimal use of the various contingencies within the AR Lawrence budget were utilised, allowing funding for the other cosmetic requests of lessees.