Page 6 - 14_PBC to Begg_27-4-16 (9pp)

-6-
independent person [Mr Belafonte] and a certain fact that once we have obliged her with the requested 14 invoices which will yet again substantiate and disprove these works’ invoices queries, we will remain, in the absence of required confirmations and apologies, tarnished and guilty as charged which is not acceptable.
We doubt Mrs Hillgarth will oblige our demands, nor desist complaining further, having perused invoices.
It cannot be denied that had Mrs Hillgarth requested the documents she wished to peruse within the nor- mal period, indeed the statutory period as stated in hers and everyone else’s lease, without the necessity of her vilification of both myself and MHML, there would not now be this impasse and unpleasantness. She did not request these works invoices within the statutory period, and she has pre, during and post the peri- od maligned, accused and made maliciously untrue statements to the detriment of not only MHML, but all lessees at Mitre House, not to mention also to professional advisors such as your goodself and now it would appear, Mr. Belafonte, Tenancy Relations Office at RBK&C.
As such and please for the last time requesting, we would welcome her confirmations and apologies for the ill-informed and erroneous opinions and accusations made in items [1]_1a-2t as listed above or her supporting evidence to the contrary. We also require her confirmation to comply with her lease covenants.
In your parlance, she cannot simply slough off her responsibilities whilst continuing to sub-let, can she?
Our time costs to date amount to 37.75 hours since receipt of your 23 March 2016 letter and we fully appreciate your’s will be similar if not a great deal more - plus your costs - as indeed will ours also have miscellaneous costs [postage, toner, paper, couriers etc]. As stated in Mrs Hillgarth’s lease, if we are oblig- ed to retain our own legal team to defend our position, despite it not needing defending as Mrs Hillgarth’s accusations are not only invalid but untrue [save for, we admit, your professional opinion as to some points of law, Principal/Agent etc which we will be required to defend in court if need be], their costs are charge- able to the Service Charge, which once Mrs Hillgarth advises other lessees, which does include myself and my two co-directors, will not be very popular and is thoroughly unacceptable on her part.
We suggest she confirms her full understanding of that fact, as previous evidence suggests her ignorance of what her actions in previous failed actions [RTM] can cost both her and other lessees.
And finally, we understand the basis, leaving aside the slurs now disproved awaiting confirmation as such, of your involvement with Mrs Hillgarth, and the reason for your 13pp, 23 March 2016 letter, was to estab- lish the veracity of the £105,877 spent on the Internals/Externals by viewing the relevant invoices [offered to comply in our letter dated 1 April 2016 but not obliged by reply from either you nor Mrs Hillgarth]. Other items include the aforementioned Principal/Agents still to be resolved, and why Red instead of the disputed virtual majority’s white and taupe? All answered competently, completely and comprehensively above.
There would therefore appear to be no other business to discuss and once we receive the apologies and confirmations we require to clear our names{s) of the erroneous and disproved accusations made by Mrs Hillgarth and documented in your correspondence to date, and Mrs Hillgarth’s compliance with her lease covenants, we will issue both originals and copies of the 14 outstanding invoices you require to peruse.
Further apologies will then be also due, plus payment of ours and your fees by Mrs Hillgarth for the time she has again wasted by her continuing obsessive dislike and distrust of myself and MHML which, like her description of Mitre House’s new interior, are in our opinion, also cheap, vulgar and unsuitable, too.
And if any of my replies to date have included extraneous irrelevant “chaff” to which you initially referred and of which I am also accused of employing to intentionally not answer valid queries, please advise.
In the light of Mr. Belafonte’s letter of 22 April 2016 [which we fully appreciate was your latest threat carried out as you warned you would do, despite our comprehensive reasons for you not attempting [and following references to the Fraud Squad etc in previous correspondence] unless we again complied [having done so but ignored], but despite all facts we supplied to disprove Mrs Hillgarth’s accusations you are still ignoring our requirements to further comply and leaving the slurs and untruths levied against us totally valid on file.
Mr. Belafonte should be made aware of the following facts which cannot be disputed:
a) we complied with the demand/request for invoices to be perused and offered to courier over to your office in our letter dated 1 April 2016.
b) that letter was never acknowledged and neither was our bundle of other documents dated 8 April 2016 c) the reason being was your incapacity due to pneumonia, but we requested why Mrs Hillgarth could not have been advised of your pneumonia and we could have sent the same documents to her?