Page 3 - 14_PBC to Begg_27-4-16 (9pp)

-3-
2q_namely: MHML [or myself] were re-charging my £7.50 per day stipend also to the service charge account as well as to MHML [ie charging it twice as accused]
2r_namely: I utilised AR Lawrence for any works whatsoever to do with my own personal flat [or briefed, discussed, took money from at anytime, prior to, during or post Mitre House workings] And please do not repeat again my reply to Mrs Hillgarth stating I was, and also using
Benitor, but both after hours and at week-ends because if either you or she consider that to be remotely true, then so be it and I’ll rely on a Judge to make clear his opinion of the validity of your premise in this and indeed other ludicrous accusations. Simply another absurd query.
As we are managers we hardly needed reminding of RBK&C workings out of hours restric- tions, as indeed can be verified by Mrs Hillgarth as her workmen have previously on occasions been advised/requested/ordered to cease noisy workings out of hours [as evidenced in email correspondence and like all other references to email responses etc in all our correspondence to date, are all easily available to fully substantiate on request].
If proof perfect were ever needed as to Mrs Hillgarth’s mischief, this particular innuendo is a prime example, as not only did she firstly not request of me personally prior to contacting other lessees with her suspicions and ill informed observations, but she then did not accept the denials made by me to those other lessees, but persisted in her malicious observations which she was determined to prove to my gross discomfort and disbelief. Hence the absurd reply she was given to an absurd query which she appears to have turned into yet another conspiracy.
And if further proof were needed, she repeated the same slur to you for my further comment.
2s_namely: I fiddled the voting of the internal decor preferences by unscrupulous gerrymandering.
As above [and indeed also when requested for my qualifications as a painter?], the accusation was so silly it deserved a silly answer and received one. You will recall we have already touched on this particular subject of vote rigging, as your 13pp letter of 23 March 2016 devot- ed almost a page to it’s significance and was well explained away in my reply. Namely one or two lessees changed their vote once canvassed by Mrs Hillgarth (who also change her vote...!) between advising me of their preferences in emails prior to the meeting for discussion and then subsequently at the meeting rescinding their preference in favour of another. Although we have also established [in email] that there was no actual vote taken to actually have any pre or post [changed] vote ratified. So please no more references to vote rigging. It’s another fantasy.
If anybody gerrymandered any voting at anytime over anything it was Mrs Hillgarth, not MHML.
2t_namely: A third colour. Had Mrs Hillgarth done her due diligence prior to contacting your goodself and yet again raising ill-conceived and ill-informed irrelevant accusations to discredit both myself and MHML she would have noticed that indeed there are three colours utilised at Mitre House - namely the Caribbean Sunset [the red to which you refer] and Eau De Nil (green in your parlance) and Gold Metallic Paint on visible pipeworks throughout Mitre House.
As a Designer I would be the first to admit that Caribbean Sunset is a most unfortunate and somewhat misleading description for the [red] colour, but along with the green and gold utilised, plus the bronze on the various lift exteriors, all are very close matches to many 1920s style interior colours of the day, and when Mitre House celebrates its 100th Anniversary
next year, most of it’s original inhabitants would most likely, were they to attend, consider the decor as being very possibly very close to its original 1917 decor ... if not slightly better.
And before you again raise Mrs Hillgarth’s virtual but thoroughly disputed majority [which happened to include not only herself as a non resident [sub-letting], but two or three others also non resident [sub-letting], whom she claimed [rightly] as being in agreement with her, we again repeat, that due to the constant referrals back and forth and a distinct absence of a firm commitment, nor any authoritative firm confirmation to requests for funding, decisions, consensus etc and most urgently a requirement by MHML to comply with our Head Lease obligations, we [MHML} simply proceeded to finish the works both required to be done as
per our Head Lease and those works requested to be done by lessees, all within budget.