Page 4 - ref B_PBC to BEGG COURT ORDER PLUS

comment: reasonable and reasonably incurred - seeing as substantial savings (£31,756) were ac- complished to fund unaffordable items (quoted at £60,000 by Wade) and that lessees are all paying £600 per annum less in Service Charges than they were in 2011 it would seem that MHML were not charging unreasonable fees and costs nor unreasonably incurred costs for lessees with a surplus to accounts 2012 and 2013, 2015 and 2016, with a deficit of £1753 on 2014 due to an £858 overspend on the works’ budget.
5. The consultation regime applies to "qualifying works" (section 20(1)), defined as "works on a building or any other premises” (section 2OZA(4)). Regulations set out the detail of the consultation requirements. Failure to comply with the consultation requirements means that, unless the landlord obtains dispensation from the Tribunal, a landlord can only recover the "appropriate amount" set by the Regulations. This amount is currently £250 per tenant and is referred to below as the "statutory cap".
comment: s.20 regulations. If MHML is guilty of failure to comply, then the audio recording proves Mrs Hillgarth as a Director in 2014 is also guilty as she agreed to savings etc.
(B) Claim for reimbursement consequent upon failure by Defendants to follow procedures required by Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 —- £250 statutory cap on the liability of the leaseholders.
6. In connection with a substantial refurbishment project at Mitre House in 2014 the Defendants failed to follow statutory requirements in respect of a consultation notice approved by the leaseholders (including the Claimant) under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Instead of arranging for all the refurbishment work to be carried out by the approved contractor (a building firm called AR Lawrence and Sons Limited) the Second Defendant covertly carried out much of the work himself, without informing the leaseholders or seeking their approval, and the First and Second Defendants paid themselves for this work, without the authority of the leaseholders, from service charge reserves belonging to the leaseholders. The Third and Fourth Defendants (who are qualified practising accountants) conspired with the Second Defendant to conceal this fraudulent misappropriation.
comment: s.20 regulations. If MHML is guilty of failure to comply, then the audio recording proves Mrs Hillgarth as a Director in 2014 is also guilty as she agreed to savings etc.
7. Nor did the scheme of work as ultimately carried out by the First and Second Defendants comply with the scheme previously agreed with the Claimant and other leaseholders. It involved an entirely different colour scheme, included additional works which had not been approved, and excluded certain works which had been approved.
comment: decor preferences. Please provide proof of any valid majority decision re: decor? You can- not as none exists. Another lie like MHML denying access to 2014 accounts information.
8. In the circumstances (namely that the Defendants were not authorized by the leaseholders to carry out work in respect of the said refurbishment scheme, nor to receive payment for such work from the service charge reserves belonging to the leaseholders) the charges made by the First and Second Defendants to the service charge reserves were neither reasonable nor reasonably incurred within the meaning of Section 19 of the Act. Indeed they were fraudulent. The Claimant therefore seeks reimbursement for her pro rata share of the reserves improperly paid away to the First and Second Defendants. Further, or in the alternative, the Claimant relies on the Regulations to limit the amount recovered by the First and Second Defendants through the service charge reserves to the statutory cap of £250.00 per leaseholder.
comment: s.20 regulations. If MHML is guilty of failure to comply, then the audio recording proves Mrs Hillgarth as a Director in 2014 is also guilty as she agreed to savings etc.
9. The Claimant therefore now seeks reimbursement of the sum of £11,514, being her pro rata (one ninth) proportion of the overall amount of £105,877 charged to the service charge reserves, less £250 in respect of the statutory cap.