Page 6 - 80_Michele Stmt FINAL USE THIS (20pp)

6
21 The Section 20 Notice dated 22nd June 2014 stated that "all estimates obtained are online @www.mitrehouse.org" (this presumably by way of response to the statutory obligation to make copies of the estimates available for inspection). However they were not available online. There had been no way for leaseholders to compare one quotation with another on a like with like basis. In fact all the ma- terial on-line was irrelevant, incoherent, inaccurate and incomprehensible (and accompanied by loud rock music).
(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - everything was on our website within hours of it being received, published, of interest etc
22 I am only now beginning to understand that Mr Brown-Constable was using his website to keep us in a state of bewilderment, allowing us to assume he was proceeding as required by the Section 20 process, but in fact leading us along to achieve the outcome that he wanted personally. I have had a number of e-rnails from him to the effect that, as an owner/occupier in residence at Mitre House (as op- posed to an absentee landlord like myself) he was more entitled to determine the decor than I was. This is not the approach to be expected of management and demonstrates his unprofessional behav- iour.
(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - it’s true, but what Mrs Hillgarth has left out is that I made clear that those lessees who actually resided at Mitre House as home as opposed to those like her with a business relationship by sub-letting, should have more attention made to their preferences. Nothing unprofessional, but more neighbourly!
Appointment of AR lawrence
23 Nevertheless it was finally agreed by the Mitre House leaseholders, pursuant to the Section 20 notice dated 22 June 2014, that AR Lawrence & Sons Ltd would carry out full external and internal redecora- tion works at Mitre House at the tendered price of £105,019.38 (being £81,487.62 for external works and £23,531.76 for internal works). It was also explicitly stated in the board minutes of MHML of 23 May 2014 that AR Lawrence had been appointed to carry out both the external and internal refurbish- ments.
(comment/reply) Mrs Hillgarth neglects to mention she wished to employ her preferred contrac- tor Wade for £219,000. That would have been adopted had her canvassing of other lessees suc- ceeded but it failed when they realised it would entail an additional contribution per lessee of £5000 - £7500 each to fund. Despite MHML sourcing a cheaper quote from a company called Benitor for £98,000, Mrs Hillgarth insisted on contracting with AR Lawrence for £105,019 which still entailed a £2000 contribution from all lessees to adequately fund £105,019 from Reserves of £98,262 and leave some funds in Reserves for emergencies.
24Thus it was clearly understood by all the leaseholders that the refurbishment work was to be carried out by AR Lawrence (and AR Lawrence alone) for £105,019.38. That was what had been agreed under the Section 20 process. And once a specification /schedule of work has been approved by the leaseholders under the Section 20 process, and contractors approved to carry it out, (as was the case here), it is not open to MHML/Mr Brown-Constable, except with the consent of his leaseholders, to deviate unilatera lIy from the approved scheme of work, or to decide that he will use different contractors, or do the work himself and claim the fees that were to have been paid to AR Lawrence. But this is precisely what has happened.
(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - MHML used funds made from sensible economies from the AR Lawrence budget to fund items not affordable in their Schedule of Works - works which Mrs Hillgarth thought was in the Schedule of Works and was certainly expecting them to be done as reference to her independently sourced quotes from Wade, Hemi & Grangewood well evidences.