Page 3 - 67_PBC to Begg Addendum_31-10-16 (24pp)

3
would also refer you to multiple rebuttals of this statement and multiple supporting documents sent previously.
A further example of relevant and significance is the comment made by you in your Draft Crime Report dated 12 July 2016 (Item 23), which was the first time it was mentioned as not in your initial letter of 23 March 2016. You referenced my (Item 8) in the 14 June letter but it was not 8 (viii) which was: “all published Section 20 Notices, including those withdrawn, aborted and finally approved were posted on our website having all been sent to lessees as hard copies previously”, but 20 (xx) on my 14 June letter which allegedly (it didn’t) stated:
“By way of explanation to the leaseholders Mr Brown-Constable has asserted in correspondence that the leaseholders, and in particular Mrs Hillgarth, were insisting that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other improvements outside of the Schedule of Works could be included.” This was entirely untrue. For her part Mrs Hillgarth has confirmed in a Witness Statement (attached as Item 9)) that she never requested anything but the work which was agreed in the Section 20 Notice issued on 22 June 2014.
It actually stated: (xx) “as can now be appreciated, and hopefully not still denied, all the various other improve- ments requested by lessees including most notably, Mrs Hillgarth, had zero funding unless of course some of which was to be appropriated from the emergency Reserves of £11,243.75, an idea MHML considered econom- ically and fiscally unacceptable by leaving Reserves too underfunded for unforeseen external workings.”
Hardly, I would propose, anything even resembling your interpretation of my (xx) in the 14th June letter or indeed Mrs Hillgarth’s repeated quote in her Witness Statement dated 10 August some 2 months later and obvi- ously totally disregarding my denials and requests for proof in my subsequent letters 1st and 8th August.
Anyway, I replied accordingly to your’s and Mrs Hillgarth’s interpretation:
(reply) you are 100% totally correct - it is totally untrue and if you can show me evidence where I have said any- thing remotely like that I deserve to be jailed - See my letters dated 1 and 8 August with same requests?
I actually said exactly the opposite that to fund those items NOT in the Schedule of Works which were request- ed/required by Mrs Hillgarth (reference her Hemi & Wade x2 initial quotes), we had to make savings from the AR Lawrence works’ budget to fund them, which is exactly what we did very successfully and competently with “skilled workers” where required, including myself, certified NICEIC electricians where required and MHML charging for doing the works, plus the costs of buying in the supplies and fitments as required, all of which totalled £31,756 including fees, costs, expenses etc.
The relevant significance of this particular erroneous accusation is that, if true, then any accounting of the costs of £31,756.21 made from savings from the agreed budget of £105,019 to include vat and fees for the additional works not in the Schedule of Works would indeed be as Mrs Hillgarth is claiming, that no works outside of the Schedule of Works was requested/expected/required and consequently there was no reason whatsoever to have done the works and the full £105,019 budget should have been paid to AR Lawrence to do all and only what they had quoted for which did not include any additional works, as they were never considered required/expected.
Hence the importance of confirming if “By way of explanation to the leaseholders Mr Brown-Constable has asserted in correspondence that the leaseholders, and in particular Mrs Hillgarth, were insisting that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other improvements outside of the Schedule of Works could be included.” - is true or not?
To facilitate your decision and to remind Mrs Hillgarth, I attach an email dated 2 December 2012 (Ref B) - and would also refer you to multiple rebuttals of this statement and multiple supporting documents sent.
A further example of relevant and significance is the comment made by you in your Draft Crime Report dated 12 July 2016 (Item 15) which I appreciate has recently not been repeated but not yet confirmed as untrue!
(15) “.....Christopher Lee Pemberton from Flat 8 (since May 2015) ....pressed Mr Brown-Constable, without success, to provide relevant details of the refurbishment work carried out and a proper breakdown of the "reserves utilised" figure”. (Your reference to Mr Fortunati was denied and disproved with evidence).
The relevant significance of this particular erroneous accusation is that, if true, Mr Leigh Pemberton’s request “for a proper breakdown of the "reserves utilised" figure”, must by definition (“figure”) be referencing the year ended 2014 Accounts and as such an entitlement within the statutory 6 months as opposed to Mrs Hillgarth’s admitted tardy request?
Hence the importance of confirming if he did “press Mr Brown-Constable, without success” - or not?