Page 171 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-6-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
xv) Mrs Hillgarth now denies her agreement maintaining she cannot recall any such conversation nor indeed aware of music playing nor recognising her fellow co-director and neighbour of 20 years, Mr Karupiah. Fortuitously and with agreement of all parties present including Mrs Hillgarth, a tape recording of the entire six hour 45 minute meeting was made and Mrs Hillgarth can be clearly heard exclaiming “would be used for something else” (referencing the “unaffordables”) followed by “well then everybody will be happy” (referencing the fact that the savings would be used to progress “unaffordables”).
xvi) Not only does she deny agreeing, she also maintains the tape was “doctored” which is sup- ported by a sound engineer’s report sourced by her Solicitor (ref:Johnny DJ Arthur). MHML sourced two other sound engineer reports disagreeing and maintaining the tape had not been doctored in any way and indeed due to music playing was almost impossible to doctor?
xvii) Consequently substantial savings of £31,756.21 were made by MHML from the final £105,019 including vat and fees budget and used to progress all “unaffordables” and more, using both pro- fessional tradesmen where necessary (electrics/the lift/carpentry) as well as MHML personnel where possible if some works could be performed to an acceptable and good standard, which they were as a perusal some five years later amply evidences.
xviii) For the servicing, arranging, organising, performing and appropriating the savings made of £31,756.21 and spent, MHML invoiced the Service Charge for £15.572.85. All costs, supplies, fit- ments etc incurred, totalling £16,183.36 were all paid directly from the Service Charge Current Ac- count. Mr Brown-Constable subsequently invoiced MHML £7500 for the workings, time and costs he incurred whilst appropriating the £31,756.21 savings, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Service Charge. It was a cost to MHML as any creditor’s invoice would be.
ixx) The above (xviii) was considered in your letter dated 23 March 2016 as “I need hardly point out that once your leaseholders have been informed that contractors have been
appointed to do a fixed job at a fixed cost, it is potentially fraudulent (at least without informing them) to mislead your leaseholders by doing the work yourself, or through others, and then to keep the money which was paid by the leaseholders to get the work done. And this remains the case even if the aggregate cost to the leaseholders is the same as, or less than, they would have paid to the agreed contractor.”
xx) Consequently, we have had three years of you repeating the very same accusations and innuendos as (ixx) above plus various other thoroughly pathetic and “petty” observations, all satis- factorily and comprehensively denied with supporting evidence, and more recently various equally misinformed “financial forensic investigations queries” all answered on the relevant
documents attached, namely Supplementary Report To City Of London Police and to The Insol- vency Service, Particulars of Claim, and anything else relevant to disproving your allegations.
xxi) What cannot be denied is simply that if Mrs Hillgarth did not agree to making savings to progress her Wade & Hemi quoted preferences sourced by her in July 2012 and January 2013, nor indeed wished them to be progressed, nor indeed was aware that Paul Brown-Constable was doing some workings himself (see emails “phoebe” dated 9 September and 13 September 2014) then it is without doubt a necessity to have a court and Judge to decide the truth let alone her sanity given the common sense aspect ?
xxii) If indeed though it is agreed that savings were to be made, in any fashion possible, and were made and spent, and all “unaffordables” were accomplished in a more than satisfactory and ac- ceptable fashion, and were reasonably paid to those who’d organised and performed the “unaffordables” for the benefit of all lessees let alone the interior of Mitre House and its marketability (both sales & renting) then Mrs Hillgarth, as a director of MHML, was as complicit as her co-directors in, as you infer, fraudulently purloining money from leaseholders?
As an example to help Mrs Hillgarth decide whether (xxi) or (xxii) is correct I suggest before I re- spond to your financial forensics and indeed artisan detective work you demand of your client to re- spond to the following email received from her three months after the 23 May Board Meeting (the audio) and ten days before the works’ programme commences with scaffolding going up on Sunday 31 August and remind her that this would probably be the first question her Barrister
will expect a truthful answer to, namely:
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt