Page 3 - 47_PBC to Begg_30-6-16 (9pp)

Paul Brown-Constable Esq; Flat 7, Mitre House
124 King's Road,
London SW3 4TP
9th Floor
Metro Building
1, Butterwick Hammersmith London W6 8DL Tel: 02088462705
21June 2016
Dear Mr Brown-Constable,
Mitre House Management Limited
Thank you for your letters dated 14,17 and 20 June 2016 and attachments. At last we seem to be getting a little closer to what has actually happened here.
As in your previous correspondence you continue to insist that you have answered all our questions. In your letter of 17 June you say: "We have nothing to hide, we never had anything to hide (exactly what could we be hiding given the replies we've supplied to date to all queries and accusations?)" And now again in your letter of 20 June you insist: "t have answered each and every query raised by you to date in our very lengthy comprehensive correspondence .... "
You must be aware that this is patently untrue. Since September 2014 individual leaseholders have been asking you who (in addition to AR Lawrence) was being paid for doing what in relation to the refurbishment work at Mitre House, and I have been asking you the same ques- tion since 23 March 2016. We still do not have an answer.
It is not untrue. All emails September 2014 - end of works December 2014 were promptly answered with relevant replies. Most of which in mid September and early October were simply attempting to get previously agreed funding received for the previously agreed £2000 per lessee, and the Water Tank & TVSky installs despite Mrs Hillgarth’s continu- ing attempts to thwart the process and continuing ad finitum to misinform other lessees.
I cannot see the relevance or indeed the alleged lessees’ reasons for requesting or indeed a reason to advise if indeed even was known, which in truth it obviously wasn’t so early into the process “who (in addition to AR Lawrence) was being paid for doing what” until such time as the full works’ schedule was completed.
Lessees including Mrs Hillgarth had been well advised of savings being made and the intended use to be made of those savings as is well established - seems pretty obtuse to request “who (in addition to AR Lawrence) was being paid for doing what”
The simple reply could have been “whoever does the work that refers to the savings?”
I think it pretty well established that Mrs Hillgarth was again simply being contrary and spreading her contrariness to one or two other lessees.
PFC Begg
Solicitor