Page 7 - 47_PBC to Begg_30-6-16 (9pp)

Having answered [disproved] all your queries re: s.20 Notices, proper use of Reserve funds and additional voluntary agreed contributions, with supporting paperwork, all for the benefit of all lessees and the works’ budget, I consider your threat to be somewhat vacuous.
However for the time being I would like to focus only on how you have managed to spend the sum of £33,354 (this being your aggregate expenditure of £105,877 according to the Service Charge Accounts, less your actual expenditure on items within the reduced Schedule of Works
totalling £72,523) on improvements which the leaseholders allegedly wanted you to make outside the Schedule of Works. Where has this money gone? To whom has it been paid?
The former: Monies have gone to the betterment of Mitre House, the latter: to various suppliers, sub-contractors, costs, expenses and fees invoiced in toto by MHML
From the e-mail from Derek Isaacs to Richard Lawrence dated 17 December 2014 which was en- closed with your letter of 14 June 2016, I can see how some of these reductions/savings were to be made. I see that (per Item 2) "the remaining work to the main entrance doors, including re-fitting of the ironmongery, will be carried out by Paul Brown-Constable". And then (per Item 5) "Paul Brown- Constable will finish the painting of the dado rails and pipes within the internal common parts". This e-mail does not appear to suggest that you were to do the work as a subcontractor of AR Lawrence or (as you have claimed) under their supervision. Nor did AR Lawrence charge MHML for supervis- ing /approving your work. Did you do this work on a pro bono basis, for love of your fellow lease- holders, or did you pay yourself from their service charge
account? If the latter, how much?
I would hardly have sent you Derek Isaacs letter [which was to yet further rubbish your infa- mous Witness Statement] if indeed I did not wish you to know both AR Lawrence and our Surveyor were fully aware of my input, my competence and my involvement in all aspects of the internals/externals workings. And yes, plenty of pro-bono too.
If yet further proof were needed as to our [MHML] competence, we did avoid any additional loading by any company, including AR Lawrence, by arranging, organising, buying in required supplies, and in certain respects actually doing workings ourselves. Proof perfect of what we had advised Mrs Hillgarth three years earlier how Main Single Contractors load sub-contractors workings by as much as 50% or more (see attached WADE v Marbleshine documents)* as well described in email correspondence with Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees. All as well explained in my comments on your 23 March letter as indeed are many other references to your recent queries. Please revisit and peruse again.
We had a limited budget, we had a lot to accomplish within that limited budget, we had to make every possible economy and I personally am of the opinion that if you want a job done properly, do it yourself. Any normal right thinking lessee would be more than appreciative.
The only works that I entertained were works I have personally been doing for 40 years or more, all accomplished to a perfectly acceptable level, if not better, as I am a designer and know and expect a good finish. Specialist workings required, such as electrics etc were re- quired to have specialist qualified attendees which we arranged - but even they need a third hand which I was able to provide as well as making sure all workings were executed in an exemplary fashion - and they were - using, in the main, all required supplies which MHML purchased from respectable outlets at maximum respectable economical cost.
* A perusal of either of Wade’s initial Internals Only sourced quotes by Mrs Hillgarth well evidences a normal loading of a subcontractor’s account - you will note the exact same wording in Marbleshine’s flooring quote to that as described word for word in both Wade’s quotes - all as explained to Mrs Hillgarth in late 2011 and early 2012 as a perfect reason to not contract with a main Contractor but to employ individual suppliers....
Mrs Hillgarth’s reply was as follows: