Page 3 - 57_PBC to Begg_8-8-16 (3pp)

3
Further confirmations of above statements are attached to my comments on your Draft (Crime) Report once received.
I also and again take umbrage at yet another scattergun comment, namely: “You really owe it to the leaseholders to show them who was paid what for doing what in relation to the refurbishment and they’ve been asking you this for a very long time.”
Please show me just one example from any lessee, any single request whatsoever from anybody for details of “who was paid what for doing what in relation to the refurbishment”, subsequent to the finished workings in late December 2014 (*) and more relevantly with due regard to statute, subsequent to our 2014 published accounts’s summary of 30 May 2015, save for Mrs Hillgarth’s request of 17 December 2015 and yours of 23 March 2016.
(*) suggest you refer to the attached (ref C) being the covering letter dated 9 March 2015 (3 months after works were completed) sent to all lessees with the March 2015 quarterly demands stating “Amazingly all quiet and peaceful at Mitre House. Not one single comment on any subject from any Lessee?”
As with the fabricated statements made in your paras (23) & (15) on your Draft (Crime) Report of 12 July, you cannot supply me one single example of any lessee requesting “who was paid what for doing what in relation to the refurbish- ment” as none exists. Just how many more accusations am I expected to deny and disprove?
And I somewhat doubt you would have accepted my explanation above over a telephone conversation if I did not have the supporting (ref C) evidence of the 9 March 2015 letter to substantiate it as no doubt you would have requested.
As previously stated, your client’s pathological jealousy over MHML (myself) making £1 from Mitre House is at the root of this affair, not as you infer, fraud. Were she to have her way, our £1 expenditure would become £2 as she would prefer exterior suppliers, Agents etc no matter the cost - in fact anybody as long as it was not MHML or myself.
Your client’s requests for invoices from our 2014 accounts’ summary, initially offered but ignored, have been subse- quently more than adequately discussed in correspondence to a degree far in excess of what we were statutorily required to do. It is patently obvious at Mitre House [locus in quo] that additional workings were done, were done profi- ciently and professionally where required to be, were required to be done and were considered included, incorrectly by your client and other lessees which was not the fault of MHML, within the Schedule of Works as to be done and required to be done and costed in to be done. Who did them and how much they were paid for doing so is irrelevant to your innuendo of fraud, as it’s palpably obvious they were done, can be seen to have been done, and were all done within the agreed works’ budget of £105,019 plus £858 overspend, none of which your client can deny.
Whether or not I personally made a penny or a pound from doing some of the additional workings, or MHML made a penny or a pound for organising, arranging, overseeing and project managing the three year gestation period includ- ing the five months of the works’ schedule is as obtuse as requesting same information from any supplier/contractor.
The question is, were additional works expected to be done (yes) were those works done (yes), were they done eco- nomically (yes), were they done within approved budget (almost), were they done proficiently and professionally where required to be (yes), were they done by AR Lawrence (no) because AR Lawrence had not been asked to cost them in, as a perusal of the Schedule of Works evidences. They were, though, costed by the independently sourced quotes your client arranged from Wade (x2) & Hemi and presented to MHML for consideration - in fact demanded.
The additional works were done and financed under the supervision of and with the professional business acumen of MHML for the benefit of all lessees including the three lessee directors of MHML from common sense savings to be made [as advised to all lessees] from the works’ budget of £105,019 to include vat and fees.
Somewhat akin to the old adage, “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” If that’s considered fraud, as you are inferring, to the detriment of all lessees, including we three director lessees, I beg to differ!
Yours sincerely,
Paul Brown-Constable
cc Segar Karupiah/Dima International Ltd Encl. Refs A, B & C