Page 5 - ref B_PBC to BEGG COURT ORDER PLUS

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.
(C) Claim for misappropriation and/or conversion of monies belonging to the Claimant
10. Although the Claimant had initially been a director of the First Defendant, and was (and remains) a 25% shareholder in it, the company was not under her control and she became alarmed at the way things were turning out. Thus in June 2013, notwithstanding that she was still a director of the First Defendant, she attempted to orchestrate a ”Right to Manage" application on behalf of herself and a majority of the other leaseholders of Mitre House, the purpose of which was to try and remove the management of Mitre House away from the Defendants. However the application failed because
the property was "non-qualifying" in terms of the relevant legislation (there was too much commercial space in relation to the residential space).
comment: non-qualifying. A fact she advised lessees in 2011 but still progressed an RTM.
11. The Second Third and Fourth Defendants removed the Claimant (without the proper process required by law) as a director of the First Defendant on 18 September 2014. Having done so, the Second Defendant initially sought to impose, through the First Defendant, charges amounting to £2,582.74 for the time spent by himself and other directors in dealing with this "Right to Manage” application. The invoice was initially submitted to a company called Mitre House RTM Company Limited (“the RTM company"), this being a special purpose company which had been set up by the Claimant and others, to pursue the RTM application. However the RTM company had not agreed to pay any such charges, and did not do so. Nor had it been ordered to do so by a court.
12. The Claimant had not agreed to pay those charges herself in substitution for the RTM Company. Nor did she have any legal obligation to do so. However for the convenience of the Defendants, the Second Defendant offset these charges against a dividend which would or should have been payable to the Claimant by the First Defendant. Specifically, on 6 October 2014 the Second Defendant sent
to the Claimant a cheque for £67.26, having offset, against an MHML dividend of £2,650 properly payable to her by the First Defendant, the sum of £2,582.74 in respect of the fees improperly charged to the RTM Company.
13. The Claimant (being unwilling to accept an unlawful offset) did not cash the cheque for £67.26 which the Second Defendant had sent her. Following the Order of the First-Tier Property Tribunal the Second Defendant wrote a cheque for £2,650 in favour of the Claimant. However the cheque was stopped and dishonoured by the Second Defendant on the instructions of the Third Defendant. The Claimant now sues on the cheque, seeking reimbursement in full of the sum of £2,650 unlawfully misappropriated and/or converted by the Defendants.
comment_RTM invoice. Your client caused MHML time and costs and expenses in dealing with her abortive RTM application and should be grateful that our costs were not greatly inflated yet further had we utilised legal representation as opposed to managing the whole lengthy process ourselves. Her RTM application also delayed the works’ programme by 12 months costing all lessees additional costs and inconvenience. This became a long standing debt which your client ignored and was thus debited to her Director’s account in a perfectly normal way. Mrs Hillgarth was previously indebted to MHML (£285) and was again debited for that debt in the same fashion. Her credit rating is zero.
(D) Claim for damages for deceit
14. As a consequence of the fraudulent actions of the Defendants the Claimant has incurred substantial legal fees as well as experts fees in order to investigate and expose the fraud and in pursuit of her successful management order in the First-Tier Property Tribunal and otherwise as referred to above. The extent of those fees is continuing and will be assessed at the date of trial.
comment_expenses - you state “ Mrs Hillgarth has devoted an immense amount of her time over the best part of three years to expose and put a stop to this corrupt activity etc...”