Page 3 - 81_COURT ORDERS OCR _1-11-16 (from 8-8-16)

5 MHML does not provide any of the safeguards for leaseholders/tenants which would be available from a proper professionally qualified managing agent, (such as a formal complaints procedure and profes- sional indemnity insurance).
(comment/reply) MHML has ALL required safeguards for running 9 flats of which 3 are owned by its Directors with an annual budget of £17,500 - we are NOT Knight Frank running vast property empires!
6 MHML is abusing its position as head lessee by imposing management charges on the leaseholders/tenants at market rates comparable with or exceeding those which would be charged by an appropriately qualified and regulated managing agent offering relevant safeguards.
comment/reply) if abusing is holding annual Service Charge/Reserve costs to Lessees over a five year period since we took the reins, to only £54 more being paid annually in 2016 by each lessee than they were paying our previous Agents (KFH) in 2011, then guilty, abusing our position.
Our fees include 24/7 on site attention and includes far more than any outside Agent could pos- sibly offer as we only maintain Mitre House (24/7) and no other properties - and our fees are still cheaper than outside Agents despite your client’s insistence they are not and without doubt, our Annual Service Charges/Reserves would rise considerably if we employed outside Agents - the exact reason that we decided to maintain the building ourselves was to make the annual outgo- ings as economic as possible - this we have done since 2012 with, as stated, each lessee only paying £54 more this year than they were paying Agents KFH in 2011....
7 MHML has failed to follow statutory requirements following receipt of consultation notices pursuant to Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and MHML (and/or Mr Paul Brown-Constable, one of MHML's directors) have fraudulently remunerated themselves out of monies made available by the leaseholders to pay an agreed contractor engaged pursuant to the Section 20 procedure.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - and still totally untrue - please supply evidence of failing to follow statutory requirements on Section 20 Notices - you cannot as none exists and you have been well versed in the what’s and whyfores of all s.20 No- tices including one that was issued for the Water Tank.... how can you simply repeat ad nau- seam the same erroneous accusations having had comprehensive evidence in support of our denials -
8 MHML has presented inadequate and/or false service charge accounts to the leaseholders containing incorrect and/or misleading information.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence “inadequate and/or false service charge accounts” because we didn’t split Surveyor’s Costs from other costs and placed one item in Creditors which is where any sane person would put it! And we supplied identical Accounts from both KFH and Knight Frank/Wellcome Trust showing they did same in their end of year Ac- counts Summaries?
9 MHML (on the admission of one of its directors, Mr Brown-Constable) falsified records of voting inten- tions in connection with statutory consultation procedures.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - Vote Rigging - if ever the Tri- bunal needed an excuse to throw this application out for wasting its time - this will do it.
10 MHML has refused to comply with reasonable requests for information relating to expenses (allegedly) incurred in connection with a recent refurbishment of the Property.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - the only request ever re- ceived was made outside of the statutory 6 months for documents from our 2014 Accounts
3