Page 3 - Begg All In One Email Pem Claim 12-6-17

poten:ally fraudulent (at least without informing them) to mislead your leaseholders
by doing the work yourself, or through others, and then to keep the money which was paid by the leaseholders to get the work done. And this remains the case even if the aggregate cost to the leaseholders is the same as, or less than, they would have paid to the agreed contractor. I would like to have your comment on this please.
(my con+nued comment) Not too sure if it’s fraud or common sense – but any savings did not go anywhere else other back into more works not on the Schedule of Works – I think I can be 100% certain that nobody but the contractor, the Surveyor and myself actually read the full specs – a point I made probably a dozen :mes to Mrs Hillgarth to do....again I can find example emails if needed. (and my goodness, didn’t I...?) (end comment/reply)
Your email con:nues....
I understand that the amount paid to AR Lawrence was ul:mately £53,000 plus VAT. However by 9 July 2014, without informing your leaseholders, you had already substan:ally reduced the scope and value of the work to be undertaken by AR Lawrence to £63,828.00 plus VAT. Nevertheless as late as 11 September 2014 you were s:ll reassuring my client in wri:ng that the works were being carried out by AR Lawrence for the agreed sum of £105,019.
(comment/reply) True on both accounts - AR Lawrence were doing their scheduled works WITHIN the £105,019 budget and nobody to my knowledge was doing any of their works outside of the £105,019 budget. Any reduc:ons in their schedule of works, (most notably a close eye on con:ngencies to be appropriated or not) was discussed with our Surveyor, myself and AR Lawrence and agreed prior to their commencement, and indeed further reduc:ons were made during the works as regards non use of con:ngencies and or/cheaper ways of doing some works, which is where further savings were made to be used for items Mrs Hillgarth had sourced from her Wade people but were not in the final Schedule of Works as they were unaffordable. By using the savings, those unaffordable “addi:onal works” could be a<empted which as Mrs Hillgarth would no doubt agree, "would make everybody happy". Everybody in this instance being the lessees at Mitre House, her virtual majority, her coterie of complainants etc. (end comment/reply)
Your further comment: It certainly seems surprising, to put it no stronger than that, that you should have prepared such a (very) detailed invoice on 31 December 2014 when you seemingly had no inten:on of showing it to the leaseholders whose money you were using to pay it. No doubt you will explain this to the Tribunal in due course.
(comment/reply) Whilst you explain Mrs Hillgarth’s comments made on the a<ached audio clip no doubt - should be a fascina:ng exchange of opinions as to whos’s been telling the truth all along and who’s been not! And in your case repea:ng “ not”. The other bizarre observa:on is we now appear to be presen:ng a too overly comprehensive invoice but pails into insignificance when you also add "when you seemingly had no inten:on of showing it to the leaseholders whose money you were using to pay it.” If we have said it once we’ve said it a dozen :mes that all lessees were advised on at least three occasions in emails, namely: 9th September 2014 we wrote in an email to all lessees...I really must insist you refrain from imper:nent emails reques:ng details you are not party to un:l such :me as the annual accounts are
published when all details, contractors, sub-contractors, costs, expenses, con:ngencies