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

16
Either Mr Brown-Constable was decorating his flat himself, or it was being done (whether wholly or partly) by contractors. It is not possible that both of these statements were true. Mr Brown-Constable has yet to answer Mr Leigh-Pemberton's (perfectly appropriate) enquiry as to whether there has been any element of personal benefit to him.
(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 at- tached, Draft Crime Report dated 12 July with comments attached, all with supporting documents to explain or deny as required.
15. Use of Common Parts for office space
The leaseholders have photographic evidence to show that Mr Brown-Constable has (or had) abrogated to himself certain of the common parts at Mitre House to serve as his office, or one of his offices at the Property. This is contrary to the terms of his lease.
(comment/reply) “photographic evidence?”one photo of a store cupboard - are you kidding? - 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 supporting documents to explain or deny as required.
16. The RTM application and fraudulent conversion of Mrs Hillgarth's dividends
Although Mrs Hillgarth had initially been a director of MHML, the company was not under her control and Mrs Hillgarth became concerned at the way things were turning out. Thus in June 2013, while she was still a di- rector of MHML, she attempted to orchestrate a "Right to Manage" application on behalf of herself and other lessees of Mitre House. However the application failed because the property was "non-qualifying" in terms of the relevant legislation (ie there was too much commercial space in relation to the residential space).
Subsequently (and in spite of all the on-going difficulties described above) Mr Brown-Constable and his co-di- rectors found time to remove Mrs Hillgarth as a director of MHML on 18 September 2014. Having done so, Mr Brown-Constable initially sought to impose, through MHML, charges amounting to £2,582.74 for the time spent by himself and other directors in dealing with this "Right to Manage" application. The invoice was ini- tially submitted to a company called Mitre House RTM Company Limited (this being a special purpose com- pany, set up by Mrs Hillgarth and others, to pursue the RTM application). The RTM company had not agreed to pay those charges, and did not do so.
Mrs Hillgarth had also not agreed to pay those charges. Nor did she have any legal obligation to do so. On 6 October 2014 Mr Brown-Constable sent to Mrs Hillgarth a cheque for £67.26, having offset, against an MHML dividend of £2,650 properly payable to her, the sum of £2,582.74 in respect of the MHML charge to the RTM Company. For MHML's convenience, Mr Brown-Constable had simply chosen to offset this arbitrary sum against a dividend which should have been payable to Mrs Hillgarth by MHML.
Mrs Hillgarth did not cash the cheque for £67.26 which Mr Brown-Constable sent her. That would have been to accept an unlawful offset, which she was not prepared to do. The amount offset against her dividend has never been repaid to her.
(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 at- tached, Draft Crime Report dated 12 July with comments attached, all with supporting documents to explain or deny as required.