Page 5 - 47_PBC to Begg_30-6-16 (9pp)

So far so good. But this is where I start to lose you. You refer somewhat vaguely to the necessity to spend money on: "the various other improvements requested by lessees including most notably, Mrs Hillgarth", and you allege that: "the only way that all the various lessee additional require- ments over and above the works as costed for within the Schedule of Works could be funded was to make sensible savings from the AR Lawrence total costs of £91,321."
This is a new one. I am aware that at that time some of the lessees were requesting information from you individually (the specifications provided to the surveyor, details of the work being carried out, details of the payments being made) but from the correspondence I was not aware of the leaseholders ever asking (far less agreeing) that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other items outside the Schedule of Works could be
Please refer to my letter dated 10 May 2016 (p9 para 3)
included.
MHML’s responsibility was make best use of the approved s.20 budget and to satisfy as many requests/requirements of lessees as feasibly financially possible. This we did.
You keep referring to Mrs Hillgarth, but for her part she has confirmed that she never requested anything but the work which was agreed in the Section 20 Notice issued on 22 June 2014. So I think it is important that you provide evidence of these alleged requests for improvements from Mrs Hillgarth, and that you clarify what other improvements "over and above the works as casted for within the Schedule of Works" were requested by other lessees (and specifically which lessees requested which improvements). Are you talking about requests for improvements made by your- self and/or by other MHML directors?
The attached quote documents (Ref: WADE_(2), WADE_(3), HEMI (5), MHML (10/11)) totally disprove.
It’s another downright lie isn’t it? “she has confirmed that she never requested anything but the work which was agreed in the Section 20 Notice issued on 22 June 2014”
As advised to MHML in an email from Mrs Hillgarth “The costs and breakdown provided by Hemi and Wade Design were based on the scope of works provided by Suzanna [Flat 9 - Fortunati] and agreed by the majority at the meeting on the 13th June 2012.”
It has already been established without doubt that Mrs Hillgarth has never ever read the Schedule of Works (made all the more indicative by the fact that you are requesting yet another copy as opposed to simply requesting one of her half dozen pdf copies or indeed simply downloading the initially posted from our website which is what I have simply done for you and then printing it off.... in this respect, her Wade quotation, which was, as previ- ously advised, well posted on our website, with full analysis against all other tenders.
If she didn’t request anything outside of the Schedule of Works, but has knowingly received a great deal more than what is in the Schedule of Works [as per her now estab- lished complaints] doesn’t it beg the question from her to me or via you, as to where did the funding originate from? Please refer to my letter dated 10 May 2016 (p9 para 3)
Pro-bono....yes, in fact one helluva lot if the truth be known but that’s another story.
In order to demonstrate to me that these requested improvements were indeed "over and above the works as costed for within the Schedule of Works" please send me a copy of the Schedule of Works you are talking about. You say that "all tenders were made from the exact same Schedule of Works dated December 2013 drawn up by our Surveyor". Please do not tell me this has already been sent to Mrs Hillgarth umpteen times or was available on your website for any fool to see. Just indulge me, for the avoidance of any further doubt or confusion, and send me the document you are talking about.