Page 20 - 67_PBC to Begg Addendum_31-10-16 (24pp)

ed yet worryingly derided www.mitrehouse.org before you make a fool of yourself.
20
And finally re: the flurry of emails, is this on 29 September to Flat 9 (now one month into the works’ schedule and funding issues becoming critical as per “extenuating circumstances” for some flowery and possibly inappropriate language at times):
Diego,
If you really want to see the consequences of yours and Michele's actions to date - read this -
We should point out that in the event you should decide to sell your property Management will be furnished with a list of questions from the proposed purchaser's solicitors, which include amongst others:
a) are there any arrears (yes)
b) please list arrears and reasons for (£2000/dispute over Section 20)
c) are there any disputes between Lessees and or/Managing Agent (yes to both) d) advise reasons for dispute (too numerous to mention)
Etc etc
When Management decides to take legal action against defaulting lessees over the agreed but withheld £2000 whether you are selling or not, your mortgage company (if relevant) will also be advised. As indeed will they be over any beach of your lease.
As is well documented, three lessees fully paid the September 2014 Quarter's Demands, whereas three lessees declined to and withheld the agreed £2000 (Section 20 Notice, dated 22 June 2014), resulting in Management required to refund three lessees and advise the three (to date) non-paid up lessees to refrain from paying their £2000 due solely to transparency and fairness.
The result being notification to all lessees that the scheduled works were to be seriously curtailed to match funds in reserves.
Don't say you weren't warned. All payments in by week-end or we go the alternative route. Capisce
(para 61)_Mrs Hillgarth states:
That then was the distinctly unattractive state of the conversation when I called on Mr Brown-Constable the follow- ing day, on 30 September 2014, accompanied by a police officer. The police officer witnessed this demand for "out- standing bills", but would not have understood precisely what was being referred to. I did hand over in the course of that conversation a cheque for £867.87, which was my share of the payment for the water tank. Mr Brown- Constable accepted that cheque at the time although he subsequently demanded that I should pay the money by bank transfer, because his bank allegedly ---I did not believe him - could not read my writing on the cheque. I have kept the cheque and one can see that the writing on it is no different from any other cheques I write.
(my comment/reply) Mrs Hillgarth’s memory yet again at fault.... she did indeed make two Bacs transfers, £2643 on 6 October 2014 (being the £2000 contribution, the £593 TV/Sky contribution and £50 for keys), and a fur- ther £1117.87 for the Water Tank and a £250 additional charge for removing her tenant’s illegally installed satellite dish) She is quite correct that she offered her cheque for £867.87 in payment for her contribution to the Water Tank, but strained relationships and more pertinently timings/deadlines, required she make a Bacs transfer so there could be no changes of mind or further mischief.
She is as ever somewhat confused as to which supplied cheque was refused due to it being illegible (I attached this offending cheque for £250 along with a copy of her more legible usual handwritten cheque - the difference is instantly apparent and that is why we requested she do a Bacs.
(para 73)_Mrs Hillgarth states:
This was vintage Paul Brown-Constable --- but to his usual mix of sneering, intimidating, abusive, unprofessional communications, full of half-truths and innuendos, he had now added a new and most unwelcome dimension of blackmail. His threatening manner had precisely the effect he hoped it would have. It shook me and upset me very deeply. I think many of the lessees, including myself, were so completely exasperated and exhausted with dealing with him that we failed to take advantage, within the prescribed period of six months from the date of the service charge accounts, of section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to inspect the invoices support- ing MHML's service charge accounts summary.
My reply to that “we were so completely exasperated and exhausted with dealing with him that we failed to take advantage, within the prescribed period of six months”