Page 7 - to ALL Lessees incl. Ms.B 27-5-17_affair 2

20. An additional charge for dealing with solicitors’ enquiries on transfer will be made in the sum not
to exceed £150 plus VAT payable by the outgoing Lessee.
21. The undertaking of further tasks which fall outside those duties described above are to be charged separately at a rate of between £150 to £300 plus VAT (depending on seniority) or such
other rate as shall be agreed.
22. The Manager is entitled to be reimbursed in respect of reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the fees of Counsel, solicitors and expert witnesses) of and incidental to any application or proceedings (including these proceedings) whether in the Court or L\/T, to enforce the terms of the Leases. For the avoidance of doubt, the Manager is directed to use reasonable efforts to recover any such costs etc directly from the party concerned in the first instance and will only be entitled to recover the same as part of the service charges in default of recovery thereof.
Hence my warning that Quarterly Demands could rise from £750 presently to approx £2000 if anything like the above additional fees and costs are charged, which they will be if a Manager of Mr M Maunder Taylor’s experience and qualifications is court appointed.
I would also bring to yours, your Solicitor Mr Begg and Maunder Taylor, the case no: LON/00AG/LAM/2013/0010 to which MT refer to in some detail, namely:
A Word of Caution
In the case of Hillside Court, 409 Finchley Road, London NW3 6HG
(LON / OOAG/ LAM / 2013 / 0010), the freehold was owned by a lessee~controlled company.
One of the lessees had resigned as a Director, she was in dispute with the Board of Directors and applied to the Tribunal for the management to be put in the hands of a Manager appointed by Order. The Tribunal determined that the Applicant had acted vexatiously, abusively and unreasonably, and ordered her to pay £500 in costs.
The Tribunal said that they had no doubt that the Applicant would seek to influence any appointed
Manager with a view. tp resurrecting her ‘fiefdom’ (Paragraph 17). There have been other cases in which
the applicants did not appreciate that they do not control the Manager. The Manager, if appointed, is independent and impartial. Tribunals are alive to applicants who want control as distinct from applicants
who want to restore good management to a badly managed block.
As ever with any reply made by myself I attach hard copy reference to fully substantiate the facts stated - please review the attached pdf being the court’s final rulings on the above stating "The Tribunal determined that the Applicant had acted vexatiously, abusively and unreasonably, and ordered her to pay £500 in costs.”
No doubt you do not need reminding of your previous threats and demands made to our previous Agents in again reams of correspondence (copies in our bundle) which does indicate your antipathy towards both Agents and authority and indeed as is well proven in your relationship with ourselves at Mitre House and most especially your application for an RTM whilst remaining a director of MHML and subsequent well documented in reams of correspondence your contrariness and dishonesty in canvassing other lessees with innuendo and malicious gossip. I dare not even mention your stubborn refusal to comply with your lease covenants and desist in signing off your Tenancy Agreements stating that all consents have been received. I can confirm categorically they have not as no request for consents has ever been received.
It does raise the issue, in direct reference to Mrs Hillgarth’s appalling legal representation during her doomed to failure RTM application, of requesting of her present Solicitor Mr Begg and Maunder Taylor if they have properly advised their client of "vexatious and frivolous" given the information supplied by myself on behalf of MHML and the queries and accusations answered with hard copy evidence to disprove where appropriate - most of which are quite obviously "vexatious and frivolous”.
But I do fully appreciate the query raised over “were savings made of £31,756 and were savings advised as being made, and were those savings of £31,756 spent on items considered unaffordable (“additional works”) as evidenced in two Wade quotes, and was MHML permitted to execute some of the “additional works” for maximum economy (and yes, was MHML’s work of an incompetent and unprofessional standard?) and how much did MHML charge for orchestrating and succeeding in managing both savings of £31,756 and expenditure of £31,756 and how much did Mr Brown-Constable charge Mitre House Management Limited for the “additional works” he personally performed for the benefit and economy for all lessees?
Items also raised re: not splitting Surveyor’s Fees, non paid amounts in Creditors etc re: our 2014 Accounts are purely semantics and as well explained in the year ended 2014 Accounts, which also show, had you bothered to
properly peruse, total Reserves of £16,201 which was 50% more than lessees had been advised, in multiple