Page 3 - 11_PBC to Begg Cover Letter_16-4-16 (4pp)

Mrs Hillgarth is a congenital complainer and mischief maker as is evidenced by the various correspondence we have supplied you between herself and previous Agents. Add to those the 1600 odd emails between MHML and Mrs Hillgarth since July 2011 which again identifies email after email of complaints, requests, threats and innuendos ad nauseum.
-3-
I would, as an example of Mrs Hillgarth’s fragile understanding of good, sensible, considered, professional and common sense procedures quote in the first instance her abortive application for an RTM, progressed quite reasonably in normal circumstances, but Mrs Hillgarth had advised all lessees in 2011 that she [and
others if interested] could not proceed with the purchase of the freehold of Mitre House as the commercial element was in excess of 25% [a 25% requisite to also avoid of a successful RTM]. Yet she still proceeded.
Knowing this fact [or one presumes she knew] she embroiled other innocent lessees at Mitre to join her in the application, doomed as it was from day one. Even our freeholder refused to get involved [despite her efforts] as they knew it was not a valid application. Mrs Hillgarth also appeared to be unaware that costs were legally allowed to be charged by MHML [and our Solicitors] in defending our position despite our’s [and our Solicitor’s] notification that she was wasting everybody’s time as indeed she continues to do today in this present affair.
Mrs Hillgarth seemed totally oblivious to the fact of forming a company for the RTM application with her as a Director and then to attempt invalidating another company to which she was also a Director and Shareholder, simply defies description. One wonders the competence of not only Mrs Hillgarth but also that of her Solicitors.
Mrs Hillgarth had also approached our own MHML Solicitors for private work which eventually resulted in our Solicitors announcing that they could no longer represent MHML due to a conflict of interest caused by Mrs Hillgarth’s unprofessionalism in her dealings with both MHML and in pursuit of her own private proceedings (RTM etc). As such my own personal Solicitor and friend of 45 years was obliged to let me know by his senior partner of the situation. Mrs Hillgarth was also advised that she was no longer to be represented fortunately, but the collateral damage which ensued continues as she attempts to cause same upset at Mitre House.
I am not suggesting that Mrs Hillgarth purposefully approached and retained my personal Solicitor’s company to cause MHML nor myself grief. She used them because they were 75% cheaper than her other previous contacts [Solicitors], such as Forsters. As regards the RTM firm of Solicitors she briefed, as we were advised, also decided to part company with her and refused to accept further notifications, stating non representation.
It cannot therefore be denied that if our management skills were capable of retaining good value Solicitors which Mrs Hillgarth subsequently used to her advantage and our distinct disadvantage, Mrs Hillgarth can hardly claim, as she appears to do, that MHML are unfit to manage. It proves almost exactly the opposite.
Comments as regards our Management Fees are also obtuse. For the sake of argument, our £4320 held for three years [2012-2014] worked out at £11.83 per day or £1.32 per flat per day. In 2015 our fees rose to £4850 costing £13.28 per day or £1.48 per flat per day, and in 2016 (£4995), computes to £13.68 per day or £1.52 per day per flat/lessee. Hardly excessive for 24/7 attendance?
Hardly, we would protest, either excessive nor anywhere near approaching your accusation of us extorting
a higher than market charge, nor indeed putting any lessees, to our knowledge, under any duress whatsoever to have paid the stated and requested fees once published pre-annual draft budgets were approved.
My own 24/7 daily stipend (paid by MHML and not the Service Charge despite yet another false accusation by Mrs Hillgarth), and presently £10 per day for 2016 works out at 42p per hour. Almost criminal when compared to UK minimum wage legislation.
On re-consideration, we feel we are very much undercharging for the services provided on a 24/7/365 basis.
The evidence we have on file, too numerous to recall here, can be used to insist Mrs Hillgarth finally desists in her attempts to undermine and vilify both MHML and myself and proves conclusively and irrefutably that although she considers herself a competent and professional individual she is in fact exactly the opposite and considers everybody else to be as incompetent and unprofessional as she has been proved to be.