Page 168 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?” k) Mrs Hillgarth’s Dividends
quests to view documentation from the year end 2014 Service Charge Accounts
-3-
kk) MHML have never paid a dividend to any director as previously advised and as all year end ac- counts well evidence. Example of your totally erroneous observation as to a alleged £3500 dividend is proved as a untruth, a downright lie, somewhere later in this tŏme. One of many!
l) Information
Despite various requests from your client and other lessees, MHML refused or ignored re-
ll) This was always consistently denied and finally admitted by your client in her Witness Statement (para 73) that neither she nor any lessee requested information within the statutory 6 month window for doing so.
m) Inspection of Invoices
mm) As well documented, your request to peruse was complied with but the offer to courier over by your deadline remained ignored and unacknowledged, (due to your client tripping in the
Sahara (a lie as timings proved) and you in bed with pneumonia (dubious for total incapacity) and subsequently the offer was withdrawn until such time as the above pathetic accusations were admit- ted as lies and malicious innuendoes - none was ever forthcoming and impasse ensued.
That’s the more ridiculous accusations taken care of yet again which haven’t changed one iota from comments originally made to your 23 March 2016 letter but below begins more serious ones evi- dencing your’s and your client’s total fabrication and misunderstanding of events.
It’s quite obvious and easily proved that despite your assertion you have perused your client’s volu- minous file of correspondence you either haven’t or if you have not comprehended it - most espe- cially not having had the due diligence to check the three Wade, one Hemi quotes against the official Surveyors Specifications and final AR Lawrence tender - had you done so, you will have noted savings made from works not required spent on items required which do NOT appear in the final WADE, AR LAWRENCE nor SURVEYOR’s SPECIFICATIONS - note further in this tome how your client can explain her emails requesting information on lighting fitments?
And a further one from Flat 9 (Fortunati) - ask them both how this lighting was to be paid for as no lighting appeared in either the SURVEYOR’s SPECIFICATIONS, WADE’S FINAL TENDER nor in- deed in your client’s preferred contractor’s tender from AR LAWRENCE...?
If they can answer that you might solve whether savings were made and spent on [unaffordable] items or not? Simple question to your client & Flat 9 (Fortunati).... how do you think the lighting units you refer to in your emails to MHML were paid for? Were you or other lessees requested for addi- tional funding to pay for additional items such as lighting/emergency lighting/lift refurbishment etc etc? So how were they funded? Borrowings, loans or from savings made? Easy...!
Once that’s answered game over - your client’s proved a liar on all points with or without audio?
So don’t read any further and skip to your recent new manic tack, financial impropriety and the al- leged misappropriation or as you maintain stealing of £29,000 from lessees - which I split with my fellow directors [and accountant] as they allegedly colluded in the falsification of our year end ac- counts??????? Once that outrageous accusation is disproved, which it is comprehensively later on in this tŏme, you’ve run out of road I would propose, save for you and your client’s libel against my- self and my fellow directors which is undeniable given the stupidity of sending libellous accusations to all lessees and various third parties in emails & letters.
n) Scope of Works/specifications etc - MHML are accused, amongst other crimes, of surrepti- tiously (ie not advising lessees) reducing works without authority or good reason to line their own pockets?
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt