Page 7 - 81_COURT ORDERS OCR _1-11-16 (from 8-8-16)

Thus the management of the Property is, and needs to be run as, a proper business. It is not inci- dental administrative and/or secretarial work of a kind which many, if not most, leaseholders will en- gage in at home from time to time.
Under the terms of the Head Lease, the Head Lessee is not permitted to run a business at Mitre House. Nor are the directors permitted to run a business under the terms of their individual leases. (The leaseholders also 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).
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - MHML comply with all above - 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.
5. Lack of professional safeguards
MHML does not provide any of the safeguards for leaseholders/tenants which would be available from a professionally qualified and appropriately regulated managing agent, (such as separate client/trust accounts, a formal complaints procedure and professional indemnity insurance). In multi- ple respects MHML fails to meet the terms of the Code of Practice approved by the Secretary of State under Section 87, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 - see in par- ticular the Service Charge Residential Management Code - some of these breaches being listed in Schedule Three below.
In the absence of such safeguards the leaseholders/tenants see no reason why they should pay the same sort of charge as they would have to pay for a properly regulated and indemnified agent meet- ing all its required professional obligations.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - MHML have all required - 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.
6. Rates of Management Charges
Section 8.1 of the Code of Practice approved under Section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 requires service charges to be no more than are reasonable. MHML is abusing its position as head lessee by imposing management charges on the leasehold- ers/tenants at market rates comparable with or exceeding those which would be charged by an ap- propriately qualified and regulated managing agent offering relevant safeguards.
Mr Brown-Constable invoices MHML for his personal "consultancy" at daily rate fees of £10 a day for 365 days per annum. That is a total of £3,650 per annum and is charged by MHML to the Service Charge Account. MHML, of which Mr Brown-Constable is a 25% owner, charged the leaseholders £4,320 each for the three years 2012-2014, £4,850 for 2015 and is projecting £4,995 for 2016. These charges are not reasonable. The leaseholders are paying £54 per annum more today than they were paying in 2011 (the year before MHML took over the management of the Property) to Kin- leigh Folkard & Hayward, a reputable firm and one of the largest independent property services groups in London. By contrast with MHML, which has no office costs to cover, no personnel costs, no professional indemnity or fidelity insurance, and no relevant expertise, KFH has to defray all of these substantial costs out of revenue received.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - nothing untoward - 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.
7