Page 3 - ref B_PBC to BEGG COURT ORDER PLUS

more disagreements and arguments as it is quite obvious that two or three lessees have no confidence in our ability to properly manage Mitre House to their total satisfaction and wish us to be replaced by independent outside Agents of their choice.
They will only have that independent choice if our proposal to offer them the Head Lease is accepted.
A last ditch attempt was again made direct to Mrs Hillgarth dated 15 June 2017:- Dearest Michele,
This affair has now reached yet another ridiculous situation and you must know in your heart of heart that you did know and you did agree that by making savings we could do the other things we all wanted but couldn’t afford.
You were simply annoyed in the three months after the meeting because we were insisting you pay the RTM invoice and request permission to sub-let etc and worst of all requesting you resign as a Director.
And don’t forget, we only asked you to resign because you were causing so much trouble over things we had agreed at the meeting, the additional funds of £2000 etc, me doing some works to save money exactly as we agreed at the meeting etc... If I had said to you that you had agreed at the meeting you would have asked me for proof which I didn’t have until a few days ago regrettably.
But you know I haven’t forged or doctored this audio of the meeting. That’s a very silly accusation.
Surely now would be an opportune time to settle our petty differences and bring this affair to a close for both our sakes and for Mitre House.
I am quite happy to engage Agents (you can choose them so long as we can afford them) from 1 January 2018 (ie end of this year), and I’ll personally repay you your RTM payment of £2582.74.
And thats it - we stop all this legal nonsense and get back to enjoying life hopefully as friends and put everything said or done to date behind us.
Good idea or not. Please let me know. Love and luck, Paul
2. Each of the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants are 25% shareholders of the First Defendant and are or have been the controlling minds behind the First Defendant. The Second Defendant is a director of the First Defendant who took upon himself sole responsibility for the Mitre House management activity undertaken by the First Defendant. The Third Defendant was at all material times a director of the First Defendant but resigned on 29 September 2016. The Fourth Defendant was at all material times (and remains) a shadow director of the First Defendant and has exercised managerial control of the First Defendant through a company called Dima international Limited (of which he is the sole shareholder and sole director) which is a corporate director of the First Defendant. However since the Order of the First-Tier Property Tribunal the Fourth Defendant claims to be (in his personal capacity) the Managing Director of the First Defendant, and has given instructions that no communications are to take place with the First Defendant through the Second Defendant.
3. For so long as the First Defendant managed Mitre House it was for all practical purposes the creature and alter ego of the Second Defendant, since the other directors of the First Defendant had abdicated all responsibility for the operational management activity conducted by the First Defendant.
comment: alter ego etc inflammatory and erroneous observation to infer that my duties and responsi- bility to both Mitre House lessees/residents, of which all four initial Directors are, and MHML were not performed to the best of my ability and my success is evidenced by the low running costs to date and an exemplary works’ programme in 2014 despite the lies and obstructiveness of your client, Mrs Hill- garth - as well evidenced on the audio recording.
4. Sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ("the Act") give tenants statutory protection from excessive service charge costs. By section 19, service charges must be "reasonable and reason- ably incurred" to be recoverable. In addition there is a consultation regime in sections 20 and 20ZA of the Act whose primary purpose is to ensure that tenants do not pay for poor services, or
for more than they should.