Page 5 - 14_PBC to Begg_27-4-16 (9pp)

-5-
hardly be expected of us to again advise Mrs Hillgarth. We did, we have, a dozen times, but to little or no avail. If indeed we do supply that information she will without doubt find yet more reasons to contest it based on her now well documented distrust of MHML and our valid and relevant obser- vations made comprehensively above and in previous correspondence with you.
Once she has progressed her validation of works done inside and out of the Schedule of Works, then the relevant 10 [originals, not copies] invoices pertaining to the full works can be supplied, verified as being both originals and correct, in support of everything stated above plus the 4 miscel- laneous ones requested. We cannot possibly be expected, subsequent to our supplying the rele- vant invoices, then spend hours reiterating and again explaining the various misunderstandings and misinformation blamed on MHML by Mrs Hillgarth [and outlined comprehensively in this and other correspondence] due entirely to her misunderstanding of the process and procedures [checking Works’ Schedules]. She would also be aware of the surreptitiously sourced Grangewood tender.
The 10 invoices for all the works done will then be a matter of simply confirming an overall cost of £105,877 to include all costs, vat and fees as stated in the 2014 accounts under Reserves Utilised. There can therefore be no further argument as to what or was not required to be done as Mrs Hillgarth will be, by then, fully conversant with all facts, Schedule of Works, what was in and what was not etc and all executed professionally, competently, on budget [almost] and on schedule, and all managed by MHML in an exemplary fashion. And we’ll expect due retribution for time wasted.
In brief: as explained to all lessees, most especially Mrs Hillgarth, Reserves amounted to approx. £98,262 [as per 22 June 2014 s.20]. Our Head Lease obligation was for repair and renovation to Internal and Externals only. Our Surveyor was briefed in that respect [and had anyway been the Surveyor on the previous major works at Mitre House under our Agents so knew the routine well]. Our Surveyor warned of the limited budget for the brief [namely our Head Lease obligation for repair and renovation to Internal and Externals only] but would proceed with seeking tenders
and we [MHML] could then, on receipt of all, make decisions as regards available [or not] funds.
The lessees’ final preferred contractor, A R Lawrence’s tender amounted to £105,019 to include vat and fees and covered all Head Lease obligations plus a few very minimal miscellaneous items, but as explained previously, none of the other requirements of Mrs Hillgarth and some other lessees and indeed some already scheduled and in hand other requirements, Emergency Lighting etc.
MHML, due to some very careful project management [or as you have objected to “rabbits out the hats etc”] and making well documented savings [as advised to Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees as you well know] wherever possible, were able to accommodate the various wishes and requirements of Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees’ whilst remaining within the agreed budget of £105,019 [almost].
I hope it is now abundantly crystal clear of the situation which, had Mrs Hillgarth done as we directed she do [read the Schedule of Works on which the tenders were based, like for like etc], on numerous occasions, but as can now be appreciated to no avail, as she obviously did not, with the resulting erroneous and ill-informed accusations she is presently still employing against MHML as is well documented in your correspondence to date. And we have evidenced all as erroneous.
Had she perused the Schedule of Works, her only valid query would be quite simply, how were you [MHML] able to do the works required [as per Head Lease] in the Schedule of Works, for the agreed budget of £105,019 [+£858] but managed also to do all the other works we [Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees] had requested and required to be done [Emergency Lighting etc].
Answer: good management of both available funds and sensible, common sense economies. All of which we [MHML] had advised to Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees on numerous occasions.
We would draw your attention to the 75 odd paragraphs in your initial 13pp letter of 23 April 2016 which contained paragraph after paragraph of innuendos, complaints, observations and accusations which, see- ing as you [Mrs Hillgarth] have raised them we are fully entitled to comment on, deny or admit to, for no other reason than to protect our integrity and maintain our professional and personal credibility.
Whilst these accusations, proved conclusively untrue and unsubstantiated, remain unacknowledged as such, both myself, my co-Directors and MHML remain tarnished and guilty as charged in the eyes of any