Page 11 - 81_COURT ORDERS OCR _1-11-16 (from 8-8-16)

furbishment? In other words what was the difference between the £31,765.21 it charged to the lessees and the total amount paid by MHML to its sub-contractors? In his letter dated 7 July 2016, with com- ments superimposed on Mr Begg's letter of the same date (see Item 14) Mr Brown-Constable simply re- sponds to each question: "t don't consider that a valid query". It is believed that the reason for this evasive response is that these questions cannot be answered truthfully without admitting fraud.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - repetitious & explained - We will rely on presentation of all correspondence to date including initial 23 March letter with com- ments attached, Draft Crime Report dated 12 July with comments attached, all with supporting documents to explain or deny as required.
8. False Accounting in the 2014 Service Charge Accounts.
According to Mr Brown-Constable (see Item 11) "the £105,877 figure [this being the "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 shown in the Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014] includes .... £1,590 due to AR Lawrence once final snagging is accomplished". It is unclear why this unpaid re- tention is accounted for as monies paid rather than being charged as a provision. Nor is it clear whether the £105,877 also includes a reserve for other unpaid contractors (of which there is at least one - see the final paragraph of Tony White's Witness Statement).
This is not the only accounting anomaly. The Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014 clearly state that no surveyor's fees were paid or accrued in 2014 (see page 8 which shows a nil entry for 2014 in respect of the line item marked "Surveyor's Fees"). However in a letter dated 10 June 2016 Mr Brown-Constable asserts that surveyor's fees were in fact paid in 2014 and that these were in- cluded in the "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 shown in the line immediately below it.
However these are mere niceties compared with the most obvious and glaring accounting error. It goes without saying that the leaseholders should have been informed in the Service Charge Accounts that out of the aggregate refurbishment figure of £105,877 charged to the leaseholders the sum of £31,765.21 had in fact been paid to MHML, particularly as the leaseholders had been led to expect that all the refurbishment monies would be paid to AR Lawrence - and certainly not to their own landlord.
Mr Brown-Constable claims to have saved the leaseholders money by doing some of the work himself and/or through unapproved contractors, but the leaseholders have never seen the benefit of these al- leged savings. The extent of MHML's deviation from the approved scheme will remain opaque until Mr Brown-Constable grants access to the relevant invoices from suppliers/contractors. This has been re- quested on numerous occasions and by different leaseholders - see para 9 below - but the invoices have still not been produced.
Once it has been formally confirmed to leaseholders that a contractor approved by them has been ap- pointed to do a fixed job to a fixed specification at a fixed cost, it is misleading to the leaseholders (and potentially fraudulent on the part of MHML) to carry out the approved work (or unapproved /previously unspecified work) themselves, or through others, and then to retain and/or pay to non-approved con- tractors the money which had been paid by the leaseholders to have the work done by a single ap- proved contractor. And this remains the case even if the aggregate cost to the leaseholders is the same as, or less than, they would have paid to the agreed contractor.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - repetitious and explained - We will rely on presentation of all correspondence to date including initial 23 March letter with comments attached, Draft Crime Report dated 12 July with comments attached, all with support- ing documents to explain or deny as required.
9. Vote Rigging
In relation to the refurbishment it was clear that 6 out of 9 leaseholders (ie all except the three MHML di- rectors) had a broadly similar view about the appropriate decor.
11