Page 170 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?” Subsequently these same workings (vii) were subsequently referred to as the “unaffordables”
along with quite a few others, again which Mrs Hillgarth requested of Wade & Hemi to quote for.
ix) Consequently your email dated 13 February 2019 is totally denied as being proof that neither you nor your client are telling the truth or are both totally ignorant of the truth, by stating:
-5-
“Thank you for your various e-mails of 7 February in which you berate me for asserting that “Neither Mrs Hillgarth, nor anyone else, requested METER CUPBOARDS, PIGEON HOLES, SIGNAGE”. You seek to demonstrate that there were a number of items in the Wade quote (which you say – incorrectly - that Mrs Hillgarth sourced) which she was effectively insisting on, and with which you felt some obligation to comply. That, as you are well aware, is a misrepresentation of what actu- ally took place. Mrs Hillgarth introduced Wade as a good contractor, and that is all. She never re- quested any particular work to be done by them. The Wade quote (as also the one supplied by Hemi) were based on information which you gave to the individual suppliers. Mrs Hillgarth never worked on any of these schedules. You were in charge of the project and you were (exclusively) dealing with that process.
x) Neither myself nor Mrs Hillgarth’s MHML’s co-Directors had any reference to, nor were party to, nor even advised of Mrs Hillgarth’s approach to Wade & Hemi and indeed one other quote which was never presented. Subsequent to the “vote rigging” scandal after the 13 June 2012 meeting, or- ganised by Mrs Hillgarth for some lessees but not attended by her co-directors, we, me, MHML made clear we, me, were stepping aside from the “works’ programme and requesting that lessees only liase with Mrs Hillgarth. (email references on file if required).
xi) This can further be evidenced by Mrs Hillgarth’s RTM application, whilst a director of MHML, in mid 2013 due entirely to her MHML co-directors voting against her insistence on using Wade for the internals refurbishment at a cost of £60 - £65,000 as opposed to her co-directors far more reason- able, affordable budget of initially £25,000 rising to £35,000 in an effort to compromise.
xii) Mrs Hillgarth’s RTM Solicitors wrote a letter dated 2 July 2013 stating: “The RTM company’s intention is to undertake the redecoration and refurbishment of the common parts [Mitre House] appointing Wade Interiors.”
The RTM application failed as both Mrs Hillgarth (despite having advised all lessees in 2011) and her Solicitors failed to take notice of the 25% commercial footprint ruling.
xiii) Subsequent to the failure of the RTM application, relationships between Mrs Hillgarth and her co-directors had indeed “irretrievably broken down” most especially when MHML took back the re- sponsibility for progressing the now very delayed workings and now necessitating a
concurrent schedule for both internals & externals without doubt with no further comment during 2014 which Mrs Hillgarth predictably disagreed with doing and still insisting on allocating far more funds than available in reserves without very substantial calls on lessees for contributions.
xiv) Now refer back to (i) as that was the exact process that subsequently transpired commencing December 2013 until the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting when it was explained to Mrs Hillgarth that “savings” could be made from any approved contractor’s budget in all sorts of ways
including MHML personnel (PBC) doing some workings which were either not included in the Speci- fications (our Surveyor’s Schedule of Works) due to they being “unaffordable” (reference (viii) above) or could be done more economically than quoted to date by either independent individual contractors or MHML personnel or a combination of both.
Mrs Hillgarth was finally convinced with various examples of 35% loadings on many sub-contrac- tor’s costs included in all tenders (most especially the final and third quote (tender) from her pre- ferred contractor, Wade, totalling £219,000 incl. vat and fees versus that from AR Lawrence quoting for identical workings but costing £105,000 including vat and fees) and finally agreed with her two co-directors present, Segar Karupiah and Paul Brown-Constable, that if savings could be made they would not be refunded to lessees but as she exclaimed “would be used for something else” (ref- erencing the “unaffordables”) followed by “well then everybody will be happy” (referencing the fact that the savings would be used to progress “unaffordables”)
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt