Page 18 - 81_COURT ORDERS OCR _1-11-16 (from 8-8-16)

18
No statutory lift inspections undertaken on an annual basis as required.
The Code of Practice requires service charges to be no more than reasonable (the tenants believe the service charges have been and are unreasonable). No long-term planned maintenance programme in place.
Money in reserve funds and advance payments not held on trust. No investment of client/tenant monies as required.
Code of Practice requires that summaries provided in response to a request for information must cover all costs incurred by the landlord for works and services. This has not been respected.
Obligation to make accounts, receipts and supporting documents available for inspection has not been ful- filled.
Obligation to reply to request for inspection within one month not fulfilled. Managing agents and landlords should only undertake property-related repairs where they are competent to do so. This has not been re- spected.
Obligation to declare interests with contractors not fulfilled.
Obligation to define duties of contractors not fulfilled.
Harassment of tenants is not permitted by law or the Code of Practice Obligation to ensure all contractors have appropriate public liability insurance not undertaken
Not all contractors have issued appropriately detailed invoices as required. No programme of cyclical main- tenance has been undertaken.
No procedures for handling disputes.
No complaints/ grievance procedures.
Finally it is clear that the relationship between Mr Brown-Constable and certain of the leaseholders (includ- ing Mrs Hillgarth) has become "toxic", and therefore it is just and convenient to remedy this irrevocable breakdown in the relationship by removing the management function from MHML and appointing an inde- pendent managing agent who can take a dispassionate view.
Given that the current management and service charge arrangements pit the interests of three of the direc- tors (who are directors and shareholders of MHML, as well as leaseholders) against the interests of the re- maining six leaseholders, the owner of the freehold of Mitre House Royal London Insurance Limited (acting through their solicitors Macfarlanes) has recently recommended the directors of MHML to issue shares to those leaseholders at Mitre House who do not presently hold shares in MHML.
(comment/reply) NOT substantially already well covered in previous correspondence - BUT 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.
I suppose after what we’ve put up with to date you’d want to throw in everything including the “kitchen sink!” Surely this has to be the definition of vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of process.