Page 3 - 42_PBC to Macfarlanes_20-6-16 (4pp)

3 allegations of the directors improperly charging the leaseholders via the service charge for their own time spent managing the Building;
3
(reply) This was first raised in Mr. Begg’s 23 March 2016 letter on which we took advice. We were advised that we were totally entitled to charge our time and costs in managing Mitre House via (the "Company") which appears in our lease, in statute and as always, since 2012, outlined as a cost in the Budget we supply to all lessees well prior to the next year’s intended expenditure. I personally live at Mitre House and attend to all Company matters as similar to a live-in Concierge/Porter 24/7 for which I charge £10 per day.
Yes £10 a day. Our Management Fees total £4950 of which £3650 are my fees, the balance being accounting costs, paper, toner, postage, couriers, etc etc. Hardly excessive nor unreasonable for 24/7.
4 use of the common parts at Mitre House for office purposes; and
(reply) This is not true. My address (Flat 7 Mitre House) is our (the "Company") correspondence address, emergency contact telephone, on-site 24/7 etc and consists of a computer and printer [for obvious secretarial requirements, letterwriting, Quarterly Demands, instructions to suppliers etc).
Most likely this is a reference to our basement which is not demised to lessees as well explained to Mrs Hillgarth, and not a particularly habitable area due to it’s age, dampness and most especially the giant signs attached to it’s door following our health and safety reports, KEEP OUT - ASBESTOS - let alone vermin! And I can safely assure you as we attempted to do with Mrs Hillgarth, that we are not running an office from the basement! It’s used for Lift maintenance, mains water supply, mains gas supply, mains electricity supply for both Mitre House and neighbouring commercial premises and attended by those personnel who check same, maintain same and take readings etc. It is as one would assume an area to avoid save for storage of our cleaners equipment and some regularly used maintenance items, Lift safety enclosures etc.
This a proof-perfect example of Mrs Hillgarth ongoing vendetta against (the "Company") and many others have been proved in correspondence with Mr. Begg.
5 allegations of inappropriate, intimidating and threatening behaviour towards the lessees.
(reply) This I regret is partly true. Without doubt some inappropriate vernacular was used by me in one or two emails to certain lessees in mid 2014 which, if I hadn’t known them personally for years, would be considered far worse than it sounds. I think, I hope that I have proved to Mr. Begg that despite the language being inappropriate and apologised for, there were some very pertinent extenuating circum- stances, which would get me the benefit of the doubt from anybody fully perusing the reams and reams of correspondence involved. Leaving aside some of the ridiculous accusations levied by Mrs Hillgarth.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink, especially Mrs Hillgarth.
As regards “threatening and intimidating” it is not true unless one believes Mrs Hillgarth’s various accounts including when she arrived with a Policemen to collect some keys! Probably best you follow up the threat- ening and intimidating accusations for her to substantiate further as it’s too bizarre for disprove?.
Finally, my letter to Mr Begg on 17 June 2016 [same date as your letter] made the following statement which is exactly the situation on 17 June 2016 and is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth....
“As far as I’m concerned, Mr Begg, this affair has reached its low point conclusion. What with offers being made and nefariously ignored (pneumonia and trips to the Sahara), UK law statutes being stubbornly ignored as to Landlord & Tenant Act s22 etc, totally erroneous Witness Statements fabricated to suit the purpose, non disclosure to me of same for obviously nefarious reasons, mammoth reams of correspondence being totally ignored for weeks prior to one line acknowledgements:” I acknowledge receipt of your letters dated 18,25, 27 and 28 May, and your latest etter dated 10 June.”, referrals to RBK&C with totally false and erroneous paperwork attempting to establish your client’s assertion that other lessees had requested documents from the year ended 2014 Accounts’ summary dated 30 May 2015 which was not only very quickly disproved but which then proved that your client’s request of 17 December 2015 was not only the only request ever received in 5 years, but was received 17 days outside of the permitted 6 months as laid down in your client’s lease, and as stated on the reverse of all her Quarterly Demands, and as stated in the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Section 22. Have you even bothered to look at the documents posted on our maligned website?”
As regards your final paragraphs: “With reference to the Company's obligations under the lease dated 19 May 1984 and made between Westminster & Country Properties (King Street) Limited (1); Lintsbrook Developments Limited (2); and Darrington Investment PLC (3) (the "head lease") and the leases of each of the flats in the Building our client strongly recommends that the Company utilises its discretion to appoint professional managing agents to administer the service charge and management of the common parts of the Building and to conduct a proper reconciliation of the service charge accounts to date.”