Page 4 - 47_PBC to Begg_30-6-16 (9pp)

If indeed I had replied to: who (in addition to AR Lawrence) was being paid for doing what” that in order to pay for Emergency Lighting, new communal light fitments, a lift refurb we have to use some of the spare capacity contingencies in the Schedule of Works...
Reply: why aren’t they in the Schedule of Works? And all hell would break loose again.
I do attach (Ref 13) some relevant emails 29 September 2014
You say you would appreciate a stay of execution from the National Fraud Crime Reporting Centre. Given that you have nothing to hide, I am content to defer that report for a further 72 hours if you will now supply the answer to that question.
It seems clear that the original budget was £105,019 and you now say this was made up as to £91,321 (the anticipated bill from AR Lawrence) and £13,698 (the anticipated bill from the surveyors).
Let us leave to one side the question of whether any of the lessees actually understood that the surveyor's bill was included in the £105,019 budget. I for one had not, misled perhaps by the terms of your Section 20 letter of 22 June 2014 and (amongst others) your e-mail of 11 September 2014 to Mrs Hillgarth in which you confirmed that the works "are being done by your preferred contractor A&R Lawrence for the agreed budget of £115,019".
The Section 20 [22 June 2014] made clear that all amounts included vat and fees. Our previous Agents’ Section 20 (attached Ref: 7) preferred the more industrial, plus vat plus fees, but we felt it more appropriate to let everyone know a total outlay required.
The wrong figure of £115,019 is/was just a typo one presumes on my email -
Are you able to show me correspondence with any of the leaseholders where you actually mentioned the cost of the surveyor being included in the AR Lawrence quote?
None to my knowledge, but why should any reference have been advised to lessees, as indeed it would have been to our advantage, not disadvantage, to have advised?
What can be clearer, more transparent, more honest than: incl. VAT & Fees
Bizarrely, no lessee requested [certainly as I did from our previous agents] what fees?
And was this the same surveyor who advised you that Mitre House did not qualify for an RTM on the basis that the commercial element represented more than 25% of the whole? If so, please would you confirm that the cost of measuring the floor plan of Mitre House for that pur- pose has not been included in this figure of £10,513 charged to (all) the leaseholders?
No to both queries - Mrs Hillgarth advised me “that Mitre House did not qualify for a freehold purchase attempt [read an RTM] on the basis that the commercial element rep- resented more than 25% of the whole?” and I can confirm that our main works’ Surveyor or indeed any Surveyor, did not draw up any plans. No plans were needed save for my homework just in case. Another typical Hillgarthesque query?
I suggest you refer to my previous letter dated 16 April 2016 (p3, para 2) and obviously my letter dated 27 June 2016 with proof perfect notification dated 7 April 2011
You say the service charge reserves at that time amounted to only £98,262.75 to meet this budget of £105,019. Accordingly you collected in a further £18,000 (£2,000 per flat) to meet the expected shortfall of £6,756.25. The surplus of £11,243.75 was for "unforeseen works within the AR Lawrence quote ..... and for any out of the blue emergencies, the lift requiring
repairs (quite usual) and any other repairs etc etc". In other words for contingencies.