Page 2 - BEGG_ALL_MASTER flipped

-2-
times does not render your position legitimate, nor your explanation acceptable. I have got the point that you were using the money saved by part cancellation of the A&R Lawrence contract to carry out additional work (within the aggregate budget) which you regarded as necessary to satisfy the expectations of the various leaseholders, including Mrs Hillgarth. You don’t need to repeat that any more.
Well my apologies but it is repeated again in this tôme ad nauseam as, leaving aside your more re- cent financial shenanigans broadside, these “unaffordables/savings/audio” lies at the heart of your diatribes since 23 March 2016 and your 2019 correspondence evidences you have not “got it”.
Your 21 January 2019 email evidences my observation above: “But neither you nor MHML ever quoted for this job. You misled the leaseholders into thinking all the work was to be done by A&R Lawrence. You never told the leaseholders you had cancelled a very substantial part of the A&R Lawrence contract. You never asked the leaseholders whether you could be paid for doing this work instead of A&R Lawrence. When you were caught doing the work, you deliberately misled the leaseholders into thinking there were going to be “savings”. You re- fused to supply straightforward explanations of who had been paid how much for doing what. You tried to cover up what you had done in the service charge accounts. Are you re- ally trying to claim all this was transparent, honest and acceptable behaviour? If you gen- uinely believe this is the way a person in your position (landlord/ manager) was entitled to behave, I fear you are simply deluding yourself.”
Your client Mrs Hillgarth, whilst a Director of MHML, attended the Board Meeting on 23 May 2014, where all above was discussed (as evidenced on a 6hr 45 minute audio recording) and agreed with her fellow Directors present by exclaiming “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy”, again as evidenced on the NON DOCTORED audio!
As Management we had no obligation whatsoever to discuss anything with any lessee save for issuing correct and valid s.20 Notices which we did and finalising an agreed budget which we did and overseeing the agreed works which we did and as had been discussed and agreed at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting with your client in attendance we made sensible common sense savings wherever and however possible to fund items that ALL lessees including your client and MHML also wished to progress but could NOT be included in the agreed budget as they were unaffordable - un- less savings could be made to fund them which is what we did successfully - and ALL lessees were well advised of savings in progress to fund items outside of the agreed budget and that advising them in various emails did not come about or become necessary because “I HAD BEEN CAUGHT OUT DOING SOME WORKS...!!! An accusation typical of the rubbish your client has been telling you from day one...or 23 March 2016.
As regards: “But neither you nor MHML ever quoted for this job. I suggest you view the multiple quotes, costings, surveyor’s specs, design manuals later in this tôme that thoroughly and compre- hensively refutes yet another pathetic erroneous observation as all of which were not only emailed to all lessees, advised to all lessees in subsequent correspondence but also ALL were posted on our much maligned website under guess what “QUOTES?”
As regards another of your bête-noires, namely our use of our RESERVES UTILISED stating one figure as opposed to a breakdown. Firstly, that is a common occurrence as indeed I supplied you with other companies accounts, including our previous Agents, and secondly, there is no break- down for GENERAL REPAIRS or many other generic items as listed on year end accounts but a re- quest for a breakdown (within the statutory period) will advise that information.
All lessees were advised on multiple occasions to await publication of our Accounts and make their requests for any information they wished to see. Not one ever made a request 2011-2014
You will note after this covering letter (which includes various update edits subsequent to 1 March 2019 as and when appropriate) a very lengthy comprehensive response to all your recent corre- spondence and includes various pictorial references, a comprehensive reply to your Supplementary Report to the City Of London Police (identical in many respects to your previous initial Report to City Of London Police) and a comprehensive response to your Insolvency Service diatribe, which includes various pdf references and finally a comprehensive response to your (third or fourth) Par- ticulars Of Claim, which again references various pdfs.