Page 2 - Begg All In One Email Pem Claim 12-6-17

was the only contractor and therefore I personally (or MHML) received the overall
total £31,756.21. As so o_en explained ad nauseam in any correspondence with her and certainly in all correspondence with you since your 23 March 2016 le)er, we stated and again do so, that we simply made savings from the Schedule of Works and consequent full budget of £105,019 and used those savings to progress works which were NOT in the Schedule of Works, and were the same works which Mrs Hillgarth had requested be quoted for from her own preferred contractors, Wade (for £60,000). Those “addi+onal works” were funded from savings made amoun+ng to £31,756.21 from which, due to MHML having project managed, arranged, organised and actually performed works, issued an invoice for £15, 572.85 leaving £16,183. 36 of supply and other contractor costs paid directly from the savings made which remained in Reserves un+l spent via the Current Account! And yes, even within the MHML invoice of £15,572.85 were some costs including paying any workers such as myself.
You may recall my ini+al comment as first raised in your 23 March 2016 le)er, (referencing two emails of 11 and 13 September 2014) when I replied: (and indeed repeated this same email at least 6 +mes subsequently.... promp+ng you to complain of 4 +mes in one reply)
(Your comment): “I have, though, done the li0, which is NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifica=ons, as advised to you in a previous email a0er your visit (I a@ach the quote (£11,602 incl. vat) to do what I have succeeded in doing for under £200 of spray paint. In fact I've actually done more than their quote specified, considerably more!)
True and I did an exemplary job; a job I might add which does not appear on any tender from any contractor as not on the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works. Mrs Fortuna= checked the final result very carefully and was able to find far less areas requiring snagging than had it been done for the quoted £11, 000 plus vat odd....but s=ll informed Mrs Hillgarth who turned a molehill into a mountain overnight and so the Li0 works became an issue [but s=ll Mrs Hillgarth would not accept the fact the the Schedule of Works did not include any works whatsoever on the li0, the li0 car nor the surrounding cage. I do recall a mee=ng when I did explain this fact and in fact escorted around the roof and indeed the li0 cage – I was of the understanding she approved – un=l I saw her email to all lessees that evening!
Since the scaffolding commenced installa=on on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, Management have already saved Lessees exactly £1177.56 OFF the budgeted £105,019.
This has been accomplished by Management stepping in and doing various workings which we knew could be done at a more economical cost (in brief, shop signage (COSTED BY A.R. LAWRENCE FOR £800 plus vat which Management have produced for £125.......and =dying up visible wiring and making Meter Cupboards which A.R.Lawrence costed at £922 plus Vat for 3 meter cupboards and Management have produced same for £648 TO ALSO INCLUDE BOXING IN THE LOOSE WIRING).
This ini=al saving of £1177.56 will not however be reimbursed to lessees at the end of the works, as Management will u=lise this first of many savings, to progress works on the interior NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifica=ons (such as the li0 workings).”
(you le(er con,nues) I need hardly point out that once your leaseholders have been informed that contractors have been appointed to do a fixed job at a fixed cost, it is
poten:ally fraudulent (at least without informing them) to mislead your leaseholders