Page 12 - 81_COURT ORDERS OCR _1-11-16 (from 8-8-16)

12
On 7 June 2012 Mr Brown-Constable wrote in an e-mail to Susanna Gnecco: "If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times. It doesn't matter what you or I want - its what the majority want". However he was unwilling, in practice, to respect the wishes of the majority. When alternative scenarios were put to them, 6 out of 9 flats voted for a "classic" look (as opposed to the "Belle Epoque" look favoured by Mr Brown-Constable himself). However Mr Brown-Constable engineered the vote by claiming that Samya Riad (Flat 4) had voted for "Belle Epoque" (she hadn't) and by consulting Christopher Leigh- Pemberton's tenant (Flat 8) rather than Mr Leigh-Pemberton himself.
Mr Brown-Constable actually admitted this in writing on 11 June 2012 when he wrote to Susanna Gnecco and other tenants: "I admit to everything, including unsuccessfully trying to fiddle the vote Guilty as charged." And then he simply proceeded to ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority by arranging for the premises to be decorated in the style and colour scheme which he had favoured from the outset.
It had been agreed by a majority of the tenants as part of the Section 20 process for the refurbish- ment that the common parts would be painted white and taupe. (Mr Brown-Constable disputes that there was a majority for this decor, but there was certainly no majority for the alternative "Belle Epoque" scheme favoured by Mr Brown-Constable). Be that as it may, the leaseholders had every reason to suppose that the "classic" scheme (involving white and taupe) would be adopted, since this was consistent with the clear indication Mr Brown-Constable had already given to Mr Diego Fortunati on 13 August 2014. In an e-mail of that date Mr Brown-Constable confirmed to Mr Fortunati that Mr Fortunati's choice of white (for the ceilings and dado rail) and taupe (for above and below the dado rail) could be expected to reproduce as expected without testing.
However Mr Brown-Constable subsequently had the common parts of Mitre House painted green and red, which had never been approved by the leaseholders. It was the "funky/edgy" colour scheme Mr Brown-Constable had wanted from the outset, but which was absolutely unacceptable to the ma- jority. Again it is potentially fraudulent, in the absence of a proper explanation, to take the leasehold- ers' money on the pretext that it will be used for a purpose they have approved, and then to use it for a purpose they have not approved, to suit one's own taste.
Apparently the money saved by no longer proceeding with a third colour (cost approx £1,875 as ad- vised) had been used to pay the annual insurance premium. But an insurance premium is a regular predictable expense which in any well-run management regime should come out of the regular serv- ice charge. MHML's unorthodox methodology, using the alleged savings from a one off project to pay a predictable and recurring charge, begs the question whether Mitre House would have been insured at all if no savings had been generated on the project.
(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 sup- porting documents to explain or deny as required.
10. Other failures to provide information
During the course of the scheduled refurbishment work a number of additional items were under- taken opportunistically, outside the remit of the scope of works approved under Section 20 - specifi- cally a new water tank, a communal Sky TV aerial, window repairs etc. In an e-mail to Mrs Hillgarth dated 23 March 2015, in response to her numerous requests to see supplier invoices relating to these items, Mr Brown-Constable said: "Those invoices you are now requesting ..... will be available to view once the annual accounts are finalised. They weren't. He insisted on supplying his own MHML invoices.
In particular a "Special lnvoice" from MHML dated 7 October 2014 "to re-cable and re-install your Flat 5 existing Sky dish to Mitre House Communal system" does not say (as one might reasonably have expected): "as carried out and invoiced by [named] installers" but rather "as quoted/costed by [un- named] installers". It reads as though Mr Brown-Constable obtained a quote for doing this work but then either did the work himself, or through another cheaper contractor, for the price quoted by a third party. This point remains unexplained.