Page 17 - 80_Michele Stmt FINAL USE THIS (20pp)

quent letter from Boyce Evans & Carpenter dated 29 January 2015 shows that the final contract price was fur- ther reduced to £53,000 plus VAT (ie £63,600 in total). According to Mr White this was because Mr Brown- Constable said he had no money (which was not true). I also have the receipted "final invoice" from AR Lawrence for this finally negotiated sum of £53,000 plus VAT, (less the retention of £1,325, plus VAT) together with Mr Brown-Constable's e-mail confirming the final payment of £7,418.70.
84 However this retention payment of £1,590 (£1,325 plus VAT of £265) still remains unpaid. I understand from Mr White that the retention payment fell due for payment six months after contract completion and that he submitted an invoice around this time. However in November 2015 Mr Brown-Constable apparently gave AR Lawrence a list of defects to be remedied before he was prepared to make the retention payment. According to Mr White, AR Lawrence then sent two men to carry out the list of defects, and submitted their invoice for the agreed retention of £1,590. Instead of payment, another defect list followed verbally from Mr Brown-Con- stable several days later. Effectively he was saying no work no money. At that stage Tony White (the owner of the AR Lawrence firm) realised he was not going to get paid; it was a game and Mr Brown-Constable plainly had no intention of paying.
85According to Mr White the same scenario happened with an electrician Nigel Brooks who carried out some electrical work at Mitre House in July 2014. He submitted an invoice for £2,095.20, but only got paid £ 1,200, and remains unpaid. I have subsequently been able to verify this information from Mr Brooks himself.
(comment/reply) 79 - 85 all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - at least 8 times... References such as non payment to “an electrician Nigel Brooks” is a proof perfect example of Mrs Hill- garth’s imagination..... I can confirm, for the umpteenth time, that Mr Brooks was paid £1200 on 11th August 2014 and £1200 on 4th September 2014 - this particular accusation has been repeated by you and Mr Begg and in Mr White’s Witness Statement - it’s a lie, it’s not true and as previously made clear I suggest you check with Mr Brooks and refrain from repeating it.
It is noted that Mr White’s initial Witness Statement was edited following my initial comments and re- issued but still contains the Mr Brook’s non payment accusation - just where do you get your informa- tion from and why don’t you check it first prior to repeating it to all and sundry making you look even more devious and untrustworthy that you have been shown to be to date?
A summary of the fraud
86 In summary the leaseholders have been charged £105,877 for the refurbishment work which has been met out of existing reserves. On top of which MHML has received an additional £18,000 which Mr Brown-Consta- ble requested for the reserve, but which remains unaccounted for. Plus £7,810 for the water tank replacement and £5,337 for the communal TV/sky aerial, which also remain unaccounted for. That makes a total of £137,024 received by MHML. But by my calculation the total actually paid by Mr Brown-Constable to AR Lawrence is only £62,010 - that is £63,600 (being £53,000 plus VAT) less £1,590 remaining unpaid in respect of the retention. So Mr Brown-Constable must account to the leaseholders for the missing balance of £75,014 (£137,024 received less £62,010 spent) I would like to understand how much of this ended up in MHML's and/or in Mr Brown-Constable's pocket? Where are the invoices for that? The leaseholders are entitled to know.
87And I would like to know what possible justification Mr Brown-Constable can have for withholding this informa- tion from the leaseholders? This was not his money he was spending. It belonged to the leaseholders. He has a legal duty, both as the manager of the flats and as a director of MHML, to account for how this money has been spent, and the leaseholders are entitled to proper answers.
(comment/reply) There was no reluctance whatsoever to produce the requested documents from our year ended 2014 Accounts despite the request being outside of the statutory 6 month period but our offer to do so on 1st April 2016, in our almost by return reply to your initial 13pp letter dated 23 March 2016, remained unacknowledged. Due to the multiple untruths, slurs, innuendos and accusations in your 13pp 23 March letter (and repeated in subsequent correspondence despite our robust denials with proof), all of which were immediately denied and subsequently proved as untrue with supporting documentation, we withdrew our offer to comply until such time as we received confirmation that we had adequately disproved all accusations. None was forthcoming despite multiple requests to do so.
17