Page 6 - ref B_PBC to BEGG COURT ORDER PLUS

Seeing as neither myself nor MHML were ever advised of demands nor accusations prior to your letter of 23 March 2016 (and responded to by return with our agreement to comply in supplying documents requested) it seems obtuse to suggest Mrs Hillgarth is claiming “three years”. It is already well estab- lished she lied when saying that she and other lessees had made requests for documents from our 2014 accounts which were ignored by MHML.
Mrs Hillgarth and all lessees were advised on multiple occasions (9 September 2014, 3rd January 2015 to name but two) to await publication of our 2014 accounts and to then request and peruse all and any documentation at their leisure. No request was forthcoming until the demands made in your letter of 23 March 2016 some nine months after the 2014 accounts were published - and we agreed to comply by return.
Had Mrs Hillgarth simply availed herself of our Property Redress Scheme (PRS) to further her com- plaint(s) against MHML, be that bad management, or access to documents, her costs would have been £90. It is hardly the fault of either myself, MHML or its members if Mrs Hillgarth has incurred consider- able costs based on a pack of lies as is well evidenced firstly in her accusation of being denied access to documents and secondly her full knowledge and agreement as evidenced on the audio recording of the six hour 45 minute Board Meeting on 23 May 2017 with the immortal words “well then everybody will be happy”. Indeed they all would have been if she had told the truth initially.
(E) Piercing of the corporate veil - Personal liability of the Second Third and Fourth Defendants
15. The Claimant asserts that the Second Third and Fourth Defendants, having acted in bad faith and for an unlawful purpose as set out below, are not entitled to rely on the privilege of limited liability
and on the separate legal personality of the First Defendant.
16. The Second Defendant fraudulently and/or in breach of his statutory duties as a director of the First Defendant misappropriated service charge monies to himself which he had agreed with the Claimant and others would be paid to a building firm called AR Lawrence and Sons Limited. The Third and Fourth Defendants (who are qualified practising accountants) fraudulently and/or negligently and/or in breach of their statutory duties as directors of the First Defendant conspired with the Second Defendant to conceal from the Claimant and other leaseholders the fact that such service charge monies had unlawfully been paid away to the First and Second Defendants.
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 and those savings could be made and works could be accomplished “anyway we want and no money will be returned to the lease- holders”. Lengthier portions of the audio well evidence lengthy discussion as to what the addi- tional works are, where they originated from (Mrs Hillgarth’s two Wade quotes) and how best to accomplish doing them if any savings could be accomplished to fully cover the cost - ie as stated on the audio.....”“anyway we want” - and that included making substantial savings for actually doing the additional works, the cost of labour etc - “anyway we want” - meaning any works that could be done by anybody including MHML so saving lessees £30,000 off the quoted two Wade quotes she sourced both averaging £60,000. MHML did all and more for only £31,756
It is inconceivable to not have attempted savings to fund items considered unaffordable and make a saving of almost £30,000 which would have been required as additional funding by lessees.
17. The Claimant understands that the Second Third and Fourth Defendants intend to wind up the First Defendant in order to avoid the liabilities incurred by the First Defendant to the Claimant and other leaseholders. The Defendants having acted deceitfully and in bad faith, the Claimant claims compensation and/or reimbursement as itemised in Sections (B) and (C) above and damages in tort as referred to in Section (C) above against the Second Third and Fourth Defendants in their personal capacities (and in such proportions as the Court may determine) based on deceit and/or fraudulent misrepresentation and/or negligence, and/or misfeasance and/or breach of statutory duty.
comment: deceit and/or fraudulent misrepresentation and/or negligence, and/or misfeasance and/or breach of statutory duty. The audio recording (as well as email correspondence as outlined on multiple occasions in correspondence) totally refutes the above slanders.
If you or Mrs Hillgarth continue to maintain that our 6 hour 45 minute recording of the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting has in any way been “tampered with”, “doctored”, “faked” or comments made were made “out of context”, or that no music was playing and one “accent” was considered unrecognisable and Mrs Hillgarth was not informed a recording was to be made for sake of record, then we’ll see you in court.
Full supporting PDF References attached.