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

Were we to adopt our Freeholder’s suggestion, I think the above three years could be considered “quick”
4
(reply) Mrs Hillgarth initially wanted to, and agreed to, ourselves (including her) running the place. For various reasons, most notably not getting her own way in spending money we didn’t have and insisting on works costing £219,000 being progressed with her own preferred contractor with only £98,000 in Reserves (works were eventually progressed for £105,877 which included far more items required), she found every excuse to demean, accuse, and denigrate present management, most notably myself - accusing us (me) of every conceivable trickery, misfeasance and misappropriation of funds, non compliance with statutory notices etc etc - it’s a very long list!
All of which, unless Mr Begg confirms as untrue, has been answered in full with supporting evidence time after time after time but to little or no avail as this latest attempt at yet again referencing our Freeholder’s well evidences.
Our record to date in running, managing, Mitre House to the letter of our Head Lease is exemplary in every respect but not to Mrs Hillgarth’s satisfaction obviously. As stated previously and well documented to Mr. Begg, our previous Agents faced same threats and innuendos as we are receiving today and any new Agent, believe me, would soon face same too.... it’s all documented in reams of correspondence if further proof were needed.
As regards: “The freeholder further recommends the Company considers issuing shares in the Company to each of the long leaseholders in the building to further aid the decision-making process within the Building.”
(reply) The situation to date is because of an almost three long years gestation period of argument over how much to spend on Internals/Externals with Management [ourselves] attempting to maintain economies [the raison d’etre of us buying the Head Lease in the first place] and Mrs Hillgarth wishing to spend more and regrettably misinforming other lessees with variously (disproved) facts and figures, comment and observations. All disproved to Mr. Begg in detail.
As regards: Our client reserves its position under the head lease including the right to take enforcement action for breaches of the head lease if these issues have not been resolved satisfactorily for all concerned.
(reply) Fully understood.
As regards: Copies of this letter have been sent to each director's solicitors and to the Company's auditors,
Pemberton Professionals Limited.
(reply) Whilst I fully appreciate your legal responsibilitys to direct correspondence to the relevant parties, our Registered Office etc it does seem somewhat unfair that all and sundry are advised of what would appear to be in your letter a fait accompli. Mrs Hillgarth’s (or via Mr. Begg) accusations seem almost to be taken and accepted as true and as such we are seemingly guilty till proved innocent?
No doubt you will let me know! Yours sincerely,
Paul Brown-Constable
cc Segar Karupiah; Dima International Limited PFC Begg Esq/Solicitor
I do hope that my explanations above on all points and more especially everything we have supplied to date with supporting paperwork to both Mrs Hillgarth for 25 years, Mr Begg since 23 March 2016 and RBK&C’s Mr Belafonte since 22 April 2016 are confirmed as truthful, and disprove the multitude of slurs, innuendos and accusations Mrs Hillgarth has levied against Mitre House Management Limited, almost since day one when we purchased the Head Lease in July 2011.