Page 147 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

VAT).
In your response to Mrs Hillgarth of 11 September 2014 you continued: “I have, though, done the lift, which is NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifications, as advised to you in a previous email after your visit (I attach the quote (£11,602 incl. vat) to do what I have succeeded in doing for under £200 of spray paint. In fact I've actually done more than their quote specified, considerably more!).
You continued: “Since the scaffolding commenced installation on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, Management have already saved Lessees exactly £1177.56 OFF the budgeted £105,019. This has been accomplished by Management stepping in and doing various workings which we knew could be done at a more economical cost (in brief, shop signage (COSTED BY A.R. LAWRENCE FOR £800 plus vat which Management have produced for £125.......and tidying up visible wiring and making Meter Cupboards which A.R.Lawrence costed at £922 plus Vat for 3 meter cupboards and Management have produced same for £648 TO ALSO INCLUDE BOXING IN THE LOOSE WIRING).This initial saving of £1177.56 will not however be reimbursed to lessees at the end of the works, as Management will utilise this first of many savings, to progress works on the interior NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifications (such as the lift workings).”
Why did you need to explain all this on 11 September 2014 if you had already made clear at the 23 May 2014 meeting that you were going to take these steps and Mrs Hillgarth had agreed to it? Why didn’t you just say: “Michele, don’t you remember our meeting of 23 May when you agreed to all this?”
The truth is that Mrs HIllgarth never requested or authorised MHML or yourself to do any work in relation to the refurbishment. She believed (and once the Section 20 notice had been agreed on 22 June 2014 was entitled to believe) that all the work was going to be done by AR Lawrence.
If you listen carefully there is some music at the very beginning of your recording . Mrs Hillgarth does not recall any music in your flat; this was after all a board meeting . You were doing all the talking – and very quickly - with someone whose accent Mrs Hillgarth does not recognise. You say at one point: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”. Mrs Hillgarth certainly has no recollection of that conversation and believes it is a fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context.
We are all too well aware of your skill as a forger as you have boasted, for example, of your credentials from the “Dakota Wesleyan University” and/or the “University of Massachussets”. If this audio clip was genuine, why have you taken so long to bring it to our attention? And why would Mrs Hillgarth have insisted on making sure the minute of your 23 May meeting would stipulate that the refurbishment for the inside and outside should be carried out by AR Lawrence only? Please explain.
The normal rules on disclosure apply if you wish to admit this tape in evidence, but before you apply to admit it in evidence you might wish to discuss with your co-directors (to whom I am copying this note) whether this might not expose you to serious criminal charges for unlawful recording, not to mention perjury (if the clip is shown to have been “doctored”) and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Your “open” (ie disclosable) e-mail of 13 June 2017 contains the following admission: “And yes, even within the MHML invoice of £15,572.85 were some costs including paying any workers such as myself”. I look forward to seeing your invoice to MHML for this work, which thus far you have been rather slow to disclose.
With respect I think you would be wise to revert to a serious discussion about the possibility of settlement before you dig yourself into an even deeper hole.