Page 9 - to ALL Lessees incl. Ms.B 27-5-17_affair 2

evidence:
a) she recommended her then solicitors, Forsters, for £9000 plus vat and costs when we were purchasing the Head Lease in 2011 - we used mine (“PBC”) for £2650 all in -
b) she progressed an RTM in June 2013 in the full knowledge that it was doomed to failure due to the 25% ruling - a fact she advised all lessees in an email dated 7 April 2011 - but even more concerning was the fact that her own Solicitors at the time, Emms Gilmore Liberson, did not also advise her of the limitation to proceed, but proceed she did and lost.
c) she insisted in 2012 upon using her preferred contractors, Wade, for the Interior Refurbishment of Mitre House for a quoted cost of £60,000 including vat and fees and this was confirmed by her RTM Solicitors in their letter dated 2 July 2013 stating “The RTM Company's intention is to undertake the redecoration and refurbishment of the common parts appointing Wade Interiors.”
d) she further insisted on having her preferred contractor, Wade, quote alongside our other tenders in 2014, using the correct final approved Surveyor’s Schedule of Works for both Internals and Externals, which they costed at £219,000 including vat and fees. As you will recall, AR Lawrence were subsequently contracted with for £105,000 including vat and fees for the identical same works in every respect that Wade had quoted for. But neither Wade nor AR Lawrence, nor any of the other five contractors who all quoted from the exact same Schedule of Works, included the “additional works” (Lift, Lighting, Emergency Lighting etc) which Michele’s initial July 2012 Wade quote had costed for at £60,000 including vat and fees.
e) had Michele got her way, required contributions from lessees ranged from £6000 each (had the Wade (Interior only) £60,000 been adopted) to £12,000 each had the Wade £219,000 been adopted for both Internals and Externals spread over 2014/2015 as she was insisting. As you will recall, contributions of £2000 were requested for the AR Lawrence budget of £105,000 to include vat and fees, with the proviso that approx £11,243 could remain in Reserves at the end of the works/end of 2014 if no untoward costs materialised.
f) £11,243 was not in Reserves at the end of the works programme, but £16,201 remained in Reserves and was carried forward to 2015.
So I suggest you have Michele advise you personally of her understanding of the additional costs anticipated if a manager of Mr Maunder Taylor’s experience is appointed, because neither you nor I will have the faintest idea, as he is not required to advise his costs until the court hearing on June 27th - by which time it could be too late to “Tango”.
At present we are all paying £800 per annum less than we all were paying in 2011 (£950 per quarter in 2011) but the presently charged Quarterlies of £750 will, from previous cases Mr Maunder Taylor has been involved in, most likely rise to nearer £2000 per quarter as his fees, as confirmed as reasonable by the court, are substantial and heavyweight, as indeed are all his permitted additional costs and allowances for such items as taking lessees to task over breaches of lease covenants (which will have Michele at his throat in 5 minutes flat) , late payment of monies due and dealing with day-to-day maintenance or major works’ issues, all of which entail substantial additional fees, let alone a very watchful eye on each and every Health & Safety issue imaginable, or worst still, (and in truth Michele’s raison d’etre for hiring Agents) selfish requests from some sub-letting lessees for all kinds of additional improvements and repairs, no matter the cost, in pursuit of their better marketability and incomes!
But does she know the difference between hiring Agents you can dispose of if not performing to her satisfaction (none do) and a court appointed Manager whom only the court can dismiss - bet you a lunch she hasn’t got the faintest idea, nor of their costs nor of their authority in insisting upon or overriding requests from lessees including herself,
Don’t say you haven’t all been warned of the consequences of replacing present Management with a Manager of Mr M. Maunder Taylor's qualifications and resultant costs. It does though beg the question to do exactly what for additional costs? What exactly will he do that we have not been doing to date with such economical outgoings for all concerned?
That’s of course if I (or “MHML") lose? But best you know the cost to all of us if I do, so ask her to oblige (which she probably won’t) - but please, one of you copy me in as she won’t....!
Yours sincerely, “Better Red Than Dead - but surely Michele’s not seriously going to triple Quarterly Demands just because the walls are Caribbean Sunset instead of wishy-washy taupe grey and whitewash bland?” - c’est la vie!
Paul