Page 12 - 37_PBC to Segar_16-6-16 (1pp)

for an RTM, progressed quite reasonably in normal circumstances, but Mrs Hillgarth had advised all lessees in 2011 that she [and
others if interested] could not proceed with the purchase of the freehold of Mitre House as the commercial
element was in excess of 25% [a requisite also of a successful RTM]. Yet she still proceeded.
Knowing this fact [or one presumes she knew] she embroiled other innocent lessees at Mitre to join her in the application doomed as it was from day one. Even our freeholder refused to get involved [despite her efforts] as they knew it was not a valid application. Mrs Hillgarth also appeared to be unaware that costs were legally allowed to be charged by MHML [and our Solicitors] in defending our position despite ours [and our Solicitor’s] notification that she was wasting everybody’s time as indeed she continues to do today in this present affair.
Mrs Hillgarth seemed totally oblivious to the fact of forming a company for the RTM application with her as a Director and then to attempt invalidating another company to which she was also a Director and Shareholder, simply defies description. One wonders the competence of not only Mrs Hillgarth but also that of her Solicitors. Mrs Hillgarth had also surreptitiously approached our Solicitors for private work which eventually resulted in our Solicitors announcing that they could no longer represent MHML due to a conflict of interest caused by Mrs Hillgarth’s unprofessionalism in her dealings with both MHML and in pursuit of her own private proceedings (RTM etc). As such my own personal Solicitor and friend of 45 years was obliged to let me know by his senior partner of the situation. Mrs Hillgarth was also advised that she was no longer to be represented fortunately, but the collateral damage ensued as indeed she has caused and continues to cause same at Mitre House.
I am not suggesting that Mrs Hillgarth purposefully approached and retained my personal Solicitor’s company to cause MHML nor myself grief. She used them because they were probably 75% cheaper than her other
previous [contacts] Solicitors [such as Forsters] whom, as regards the RTM firm she briefed, as we were advised, wanted no more to with her. We can certainly appreciate that fact.
It cannot therefore be denied that if our management skills were capable of retaining good value Solicitors which Mrs Hillgarth subsequently used to her advantage and our distinct disadvantage, Mrs Hillgarth can
hardly claim, as she appears to do, that MHML are unfit to manage. It proves almost exactly the opposite.