Page 33 - ref B_PBC to BEGG COURT ORDER PLUS

2
I am reliably informed that you agreed that you would change your vote quite voluntarily to Preference B, but due to a busy schedule, would be unable to do immediately. I believe Paul also sent an email to you to double check you were still happy with your change of vote before he presented his Voting results. You agreed, yes OK, and you would attend the meeting and confirm why etc.
Michele actually told Paul to vote on her behalf, whichever way he wanted, but he told her that was not correct and would she please decide herself. She did eventually, and voted Preference A, despite her choice of Tiffany Lights as opposed to Preference A and Brass Lanterns, or indeed a black painted lift and doors, which she also did not want.
Paul then presented the final Voting results, which were quite simply: a) Preference A was voted by Flats 1, 3, 5 and 9
b) Preference B was voted by Flats 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8
Meaning there was a majority in favour of Preference B (Belle Epoque) - and although Susanna had said that Lisa's opinions (and a vote from her) was unacceptable, which Paul told her was a most unfair comment to make as Lisa has lived her for many years and has as much right to decide on the decor as anyone else, Lisa would have voted for Preference B, making the overall majority 6-4 to Preference B (Belle Epoque). As you will appreciate, Lisa's vote was kept well separated from those of the Lessees, which was a very fair and correct way for Paul to have presented her preferences, whether Susanna liked it or not. I think you also insisted that Lisa has a say in the new decor.
This 5-4 vote, rising to 6-4 to include Lisa, for Preference B (Belle Epoque) is exactly the result which Paul presented in his Voting Results Analysis, a copy of which you were sent and indeed Michele included with her Quotes the other day.
Regrettably, the day AFTER Paul's Voting Results Analysis was presented, Mr Leigh Pemberton changed his vote to not liking either A or B. He was therefore, undecided.
Also regrettably, it would appear that at the meeting you attended on July 13 to discuss the voting etc, neither Mr Leigh Pemberton nor you, made clear to those present, your decisions which you had made and indicated to Paul in emails, BEFORE the Voting Results Analysis was finally presented. The consequence of which, as I think you are now well aware of, is that Paul was accused of having altered the vote to suit Preference B. This accusation was made by Susanna, and regrettably advised to everybody else and is still Susanna's and Michele's and other Lessees' belief to be a true outcome of his Voting Analysis.
The outcome of this accusation was that the Vote was declared void, or worse, Susanna insisted Preference A was the preferred choice by the majority and as you are now well aware, that majority included both you and Leigh Pemberton. As such, and in the face of such ridicule, both Paul and I made clear that our work was now completed as our responsibilities were to set a budget (£35,000), set a schedule of works to done, get three quotes for all items to be done, advise, collate, take comment and instruction, ideas and preferences from all concerned and distribute these ideas to everyone over the course of 6 months or more and then finally to organise a vote on a preferred style to be followed, Preference A or B.
We therefore handed the responsibility to progress the Internals as they see fit to Michele to liase with Susanna, both of whom then organised a meeting which Flats 3,4,5,8,and 9 attended to discuss further. You well know the situation from that point, discussions made and preferences chosen and decided. And we are aware that as far as you are concerned no vote was taken as you recall, but Susanna makes clear in various emails that indeed a vote was taken at the meeting and indeed you are part of what they consider to be a majority of Lessees arranging and advising various things required at Mitre House. Indeed also as a majority attempting to advise Mitre House Management of what it can, or cannot do without their consent, or worse still, thinking they can insist of Mitre House Management to hire Agents (Best Gapp Cassells as an example).
We are aware that you, too, prefer to have Agents, but not Best Gapp, which does make your position somewhat uncomfortable as regards Michele's and the various other's preference. I would also point out that if we had Agents, Service Charge and Reserves Demands would double from at present (and do remember we did reduce them by 25% from what KFH were charging), even without the Internals/Externals which, if you add those in, the sky is the limit if we employ Agents.