Page 8 - 75_EMAIL 2017 CORRESPONDENCE to 7-4-17

v) were those same few lessees aware of the costs as quoted by the one or more quotes organised by you and did MHML advise all lessees of the various quotes, costs and budgets received by you?
vi) were all lessees including you made aware that savings were to be attempted by MHML from the agreed, by all lessees including you, budget of
£105, 019 (incl. vat and fees with only £98,262 plus an eventually agreed £2000 per all 9 lessees) in Reserves?
vii) were most if not all lessees including you aware that savings were being made and that the additional workings were proceeding with no additional funding requests from lessees?
viii) were all lessees advised that following the £18000 (£2k x 9 lessees) approx. £11,243 would remain in Reserves so long as no additional costs were unexpectedly incurred on the budgeted Schedule of Works of £105,019 or other unexpected maintenance costs.
ix) did in excess of £11,243 remain in Reserves at end of Works?
x) were all the additional workings as described in the various quotes organised by you executed from savings made from the £105,019 with no further request of lessees for additional funding save for a small overspend of £858 taken from available Reserves of £11,243 and were those additional workings eventually executed under MHML's supervision for approx 50% less than that quoted by the contractors sourced by you which you and some other lessees following your ridiculous economics considered as an affordable budget.
The answer to all items (i) to (x) above is "yes" and any independent sane and reasonable person would therefore consider your various nit-picking and innuendos made in your correspondence to date to be both vexatious and frivolous, as well evidenced in the reams of copy documents, emails and statistics supplied to date in response to your very lengthy correspondence.
And, no, I have not forgotten the various other pathetic complaints, examples of which being (a) not having informed lessees including you of a need for a Surveyor - you'll recall you wished to employ your own indicating it's obvious one was needed and our s.20 made clear vat and fees were included in the final approved budget and fees meant all fees from any quarter including Surveyor Fees and one would have expected you to comprehend especially as a Director of MHML, as it was discussed during an EGM meeting in my flat in 23 May 2014 and (b) the £18000 additional funding was never expected to be used for the out of the blue emergency replacement of the Water Tank (which had nothing whatsoever to do with our Surveyor who by definition was neither briefed nor qualified to inspect for such defects and (c) the same goes for the TV/Sky installation which was agreed by all 9 lessees to be funded individually (most especially because of your canvassing of lessees to withhold their £2000 contributions!) The prompt receipt of those monies could possibly have contributed to this voluntary install but in the absence of funds, it was necessary to request individual fully agreed contributions.
And vis-a-vis your recent bête-noire being an Audit of MHML accounts, I can safely assure you that as a 25% shareholder you have no right in law to insist on anything if outvoted which I can again safely advise you that you are by 75% - and if indeed we did agree (and we have no objection) to you having the 2017 MHML accounts audited once finalised in early mid 2018, the full cost of which, estimated at three to four thousand pounds or even more, will be charged to you and not the company nor indeed, obviously, the service charge account - your badgering of Jamil Raja is, as ever, in error as he understood you were insisting on an audit of the Service Charge account, which of course, would be a substantial additional cost to the Service Charge account - and if you needed proof perfect of Mr Raja’s comment, you will note he mentioned these substantial additional costs would be made clear on the 2018 Budget....
If proof were ever needed of your contrariness, then the above reference to Budget was all you required to appreciate Mr Raja was referencing the Service Charge account and not MHMLimited accounts. As ever, your correspondence leads to total confusion as one minute you're lambasting the service charge accounting and then in the same breath, referencing the company accounts - it’s one thing after another with you, constant, repetitive innuendo day after day, month after month, year after year! We have already supplied copies of your threatening correspondence with our previous Agents...!
But no more - you will be ignored from this date onwards save for legitimate queries re: Mitre House post 1st January 2017 but only once you have fully complied with your lease covenants. Suggest you forward this to all other lessees to whom you initially sent your 23 January letter - or I will if indeed I receive any comment from any of them - which I doubt as I don’t think you have a leg to stand on as regards your accusations to date.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Brown-Constable / +44 207 589 7502 Mbl: +44 798 33 33 543
on behalf of the Directors of
MITRE HOUSE MANAGEMENT LIMITED