Page 5 - 37_PBC to Segar_16-6-16 (1pp)

MHML and no s.20 Notices be required to be issued if no lessee objected – one single objection to either the Water Tank or TVSky installations without an s.20 or indeed a basic rejection of either Tank or SkyTV would have aborted the two processes in toto.
xxiv) The Water Tank had health issues and had there been an objection, MHML made clear we could apply to LVT for dispensation but would take time and costs etc.
xxv) as regards the i22nd June 2014 s.20 approved expenditure of £105,019 to include VAT & Fees for the Internals/Externals workings in toto (an initially totally transparent, well documented and easily computable figure as all costings, analysis, surveyor’s letters, s.20 Notices, alternative quotes and costings etc, all as explained to lessees and fully posted and available on our website) was the amount to be spent in toto from Reserves (with an acceptably small £858 overspend) resulting in a total final outlay of all works and fees invoices of £105,877 as indicated in the year ended 2014 accounts summary dated 30 May 2015 – the breakdown of which was as follows:
xxvi) AR Lawrence final total costings amounted to £63,600
xxvii) add to that the final total costings from our Surveyor of £10,513
xxviii) making a total spent from the £105,019 approved s.20 budget of £74,113
xxix) leaving the balance (saved) for the works required to be done by the lessees’
requests/demands, electrics, lighting, emergency lighting etc etc of £31,765
xxx) I’m not too sure where your figure of a missing (discrepancy) £61, 867 originates from but
I’m sure you’ll advise by return? Does the interior of Mitre House look untouched or does it appear to have had a major overhaul on almost every conceivable level from top to bottom and actually came in under the initially mooted budget of £37k from 2012...?
xxxi) if any of the above has not been fully indicated, explained, with corresponding irrefutable emailed evidence in previous correspondence not only to all lessees including Mrs Hillgarth innumerable times but also to you in all correspondence since my comments made on your 13pp 23 March 2016 letter, please advise (as indeed I have requested you do in all my correspondence to date).
As you are well aware, Mrs Hillgarth and other leaseholders have been asking, since September 2014, for basic details relating to the 2014 refurbishment. Specifically who was paid, and how much, for doing what. This should be very simple to explain. What have you got to hide?
(reply) I have made it clear that no request for Service Charge documents (as well as those to which you refer: who was paid, and how much, for doing what.) was made re: our year ended Service Charge accounts’ summaries since 1st January 2012 until Mrs Hillgarth’s email request to me on 17 December 2015 to see relevant invoices from our year ended 2014 Accounts summary dated 30 May 2015. As explained, and due entirely to the salacious and malicious innuendos and accusations in your initial letter of 23 March 2016, we were obliged to answer those accusations and prove them totally untrue. This we have done with comprehensive and extensive supporting evidence (and have done so yet again above on all points including now answering Witness Statement anomalies).
I’ll leave aside our initial offer to comply, despite the request for documents being invalid by statute, which remained totally ignored and unacknowledged for somewhat nefarious reasons!
I cannot comprehend yours or any lessees’ request as you state: As you are well aware, Mrs Hillgarth and other leaseholders have been asking, since September 2014, for basic details relating to the 2014 refurbishment. Specifically who was paid, and how much, for doing what. This should be very simple to explain. What have you got to hide?