Page 11 - 67_PBC to Begg Addendum_31-10-16 (24pp)

11
If you want an appointment, make one in the normal way.
And I have just become aware of your misinformed comments in the communal Comments Book - the VERY FIRST RECEIVED.... as ever, you have no idea as to what you're talking about complaining no works in progress or work- ers on site. You obviously meant the interior (which isn't scheduled to commence until mid October (if you bothered to read the works schedule I sent everybody weeks ago) but didn't bother to check the scaffolding or roof where works & workers are in hand, ahead of schedule and on budget.
So, yet again you have proved your total misunderstanding of the processes, schedules etc etc.
As regards the requested key, I attach an invoice along with a Statement all of which is self explanatory.
I did NOT refuse you a key but said I did not have a key yet. A comprehensive fortnightly works update will be sent to all lessees over the w/end which will include your Comments Book observations as I note you consider your com- ments to be also agreed by Flats 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9.
Baloney!
But significantly, the only lessees to have paid their Quarterlies to date are the three who opposed spending addi- tional funds over Reserves in hand. Those lessees like yourself that agreed to spend a small fortune despite Management's numerous warnings, are now on call to oblige.
Paul
(para 37)_Mrs Hillgarth states:
Not only did the lessees actually pay the £2,000 [she neglects to say eventually, in fact some not until mid October, after a great deal of alleged intimidation, abusive language, blackmail etc] Mr Brown-Constable had requested for the reserve (£18,000 in total for the nine flats), but they also paid in addition £867.87 each for the water tank replacement (£7,810 in total), and £593 each for the communal TV installation (£5,337 in total). Which begs the question what has happened to these funds which were paid to MHML on a false premise (ie on the assumption that all the scheduled work would be done) and which have not been refunded? Again this appears, in the absence of a proper explanation, to be fraudulent.
(comment/reply) this is rubbish - is there a communal TV/Sky and new Water Tank - yes - was it free to install, no - what false premise? total rubbish. What exactly does she think happened to the monies? And she goes on: “Again this appears, in the absence of a proper explanation, to be fraudulent.” Begging the question, just how many more proper explanations can Mrs Hillgarth be given?
(para 39)_Mrs Hillgarth states:
On 22 September 2014 Diego Fortunati (Flat 9) wrote to Mr Brown-Constable a very clear and (in the circum- stances) very polite e-mail asking (inter alia) who was actually carrying out the internal and external works? Why had Mr Brown-Constable unilaterally changed the scope of works originally approved, imposing works none of the lessees had agreed (the replacement TV aerial) or which Mr Brown-Constable had originally excluded (the lift), but now asking for additional funds? Why was he disposing of the leaseholders' reserve funds as if those were his own money? As Mr Fortunati correctly stated, Section 20 is there to protect lessees and it cannot be circumvented by changing works and contractors at one's leisure. He told Mr Brown-Constable that he had no authority to dispose of the leaseholders' reserve fund for works outside the scope of the section 20 Notice, unless there were urgent contin- gencies.
My reply by return: Dear Flat 9 -
Thank you for your predicted and anticipated email - all of which has been covered in previous emails and all of which indicate a total ignorance of good management and Landlord & Tenant Act.
I can't work out whether you are totally stupid or just retarded - I suspect both.
Do you really think we can run a company on behalf of Mitre House lessees on the promise of payments from you or anyone else on the basis of when you decide they are needed?
How about if we got lucky and you got run over crossing the road? Or you became bankrupt?
Or you sold up and moved?