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

-4-
And before you again raise [or Mrs Hillgarth or her two or three other cohorts do] why MHML did not paint the lift doors black or dark grey, the walls white and taupe as opposed to what they were painted, the answer is quite simply as you have already stated.... the lift doors Black or Dark Grey - at that stage still no decision? No majority, no consensus.
If Mrs Hillgarth and her virtual majority have still not decided by your letter of 23 March 2016 on whether the lift doors should be Black or Dark Grey, we rest our case for the non- consensus, confusion, non virtual majority etc we were faced with and had to solve quickly. We did and made our decisions based on the design, colours and architectural artifacts of the locality, the building and the period required [and that cannot be contested and can be fully substantiated with impeccable references from some very respectable sources] and
to honour our commitments to our Head Lease and get the place finished before a letter from our Freeholder’s solicitors querying our tardiness in complying.
Tardiness laid at the door of Mrs Hillgarth without a shadow of a doubt and very easily evidenced, using as just one example her failed but time consuming RTM affair which resulted, amongst other obstructive moves, in her Solicitors demanding MHML invalidate our [second] issued s.20 Notice resulting in yet further delays for the planned works and requiring both Internals/Externals to run concurrently which Mrs Hillgarth then blamed on MHML for our supposed incompetence which was simply the result of her intransigence.
Please note: it has been admitted by MHML that our website contained inappropriate and copyrighted mater- ial which should not have been used, has been removed and full apologies made and accepted. It has also been admitted that some flowery language used in a few replies to a few lessees was inappropriate and has been sincerely apologised for despite some exacting extenuating circumstances as described previously.
* these are totally contradictory statements for the following reasons:
(a) if the answer to (2l) is NO....which it is, then:
(b) obviously the works must have been required, and:
(c) why would our main contractor execute works NOT in the schedule of works they tendered for without enlarging the initially agreed s.20 budget of £105,019 - unless you consider
the additional works could have been accomplished for the overspend of £858
In truth, Mrs Hillgarth did not have the faintest idea of what works were scheduled to be done as per the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works and what works were not in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works; nor works which were requested to be done by her and other lessees [but not in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works]; nor works understood and required by her and other lessees to be done [but not in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works] and how they were going to be financed?
These additionally required works were not comprehended by her as not being included in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works, because she had not perused it with due diligence, despite at least four requests for copies and indeed passing one over to her preferred supplier, Wade, for them to tender alongside, like-for-like, our other tenders, all of whom’s final costs and itemised costings were published in detail on our website and supplied to her and other lessees whenever requested by anybody to be supplied. All Mrs Hillgarth did was to canvass other lessees with misinformation.
The sourced tenders by our Surveyor plus Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade tender culminated eventually with one agreed total spend budget of £105,019 to include all costs, vat and fees, using her and a few other lessees’ preferred contractor, despite a suggested and cheaper option presented by MHML, neither of which differed one dot from the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works and neither of which included the additional various items requested to be done; were thought to be being done; but without doubt [by Mrs Hillgarth and some other lessees] all to be done within the agreed budget of £105,019, which MHML somewhat competently managed with only a very insignificant £858 over spend. And your [her] assertion that no work could be done [legally] by anybody other than our con- tractor to facilitate savings and the funding of additional required workings, beggars belief.
I suggest Mrs Hillgarth now do her due diligence and list every item she can view at Mitre House which has been done but does not appear on the (INTERNALS Section) of the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works nor is listed to be done in her preferred contractor’s (Wade) tender.
And please, do not reply stating that is not her responsibility to check what works have been done outside of the Schedule of Works etc. It certainly is based on her accusations to date and can