Page 185 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-14-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
tally bemused by no follow up to view accounts seeing as so many observations,
criticisms, demands, innuendos and accusations had emanated from your client along with her usual suspects, Flats 3 and 9 and maybe Flat 8 during the works which were all answered in the same fashion “await publication of the accounts and view whatever you wish to view!”
Nobody did until your letter nine months later demanding exact same (almost) and you received an immediate reply saying, OK, no worry. I’ve attached our covering letter in readiness to
accompany our offer to oblige, which did contain some relevant information but alas, due to your bout of pneumonia and your client running around the Sahara, despite your strict deadlines to com- ply, resulted in a three year ongoing argy-bargy with by all accounts, as per your Particulars of Claim, very substantial costs incurred by your client but amazingly partly donated to by her three [the infamous virtual majority] usual suspects? See below (First Tier Tribunal)
Were queries raised as to MHML’s involvement, we would have referred to the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting where Mrs Hillgarth agreed with her fellow MHML Directors in a unanimous
decision to attempt making savings, in any way possible, including interior workings that could be done more economically than quoted for in all tenders, to be progressed by MHML and/or its per- sonnel progressing only some interior works, from the soon to be approved £105,019 budget to in- clude vat and fees and to use any savings made to progress works initially considered “unaffordable” (ref: Mrs Hillgarth’s two initially sourced Wade quotes in July 2012 and January 2013) and consequently not included in the final Schedule of Works and consequently not to be per- formed by any contractor nor indeed that of the contractor subsequently chosen*** by Mrs Hillgarth, AR Lawrence, as opposed to her preferred contractor, Wade, who had not been
further considered following a tendered cost of £219,000 including vat and fees based on identical workings as all other tenders including that from AR Lawrence for £105,019 including vat and fees.
*** Mrs Hillgarth resisted and indeed canvassed other lessees to do same when MHML
proposed an admittedly, but acceptable as we had allowed Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade tender to have ad- ditional time to supply, late tender from Benitor which at £98,000 including vat and fees was the cheapest tender received. As our s.20 Notice dated 22 June 2014 makes clear, Benitor was not to be considered due to lessee concerns and MHML were content to oblige. The
consequence of which was the preference of AR Lawrence by Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees.
First Tier Tribunal
Your predictable reliance on the First Tier Tribunal’s decision ("that relations between the Applicants and the Landlord have irretrievably broken down”) is misguided in pursuit of your
further accusations as you’ll recall, with no doubt some bemusement, that on behalf of MHML I of- fered no defence to the drivel you had supplied Maunder Taylor with to represent your client’s appli- cation, as the predictable decision was fair and true. We did though establish that your client lied on oath in front of witnesses including your good self and Maunder Taylor personnel present.
MHML consider the First Tier Tribunal affair as no more nor less than facilitating our desire to be rid of Mrs Hillgarth and the Head Lease, both of which were successfully accomplished at no cost to MHML, but by all accounts involved Mrs Hillgarth in substantial costs despite our three or four offers well prior to 26 June 2017 to step aside and donate to her the Head Lease, due to proposed gov- ernment legislation that from 2018 MHML would not be qualified to refer to ourselves as Managing Agents or act as ones without certain professional qualifications over and above common sense. Hence our offers to step aside and “no contest” at the Tribunal.
As I have oft' quoted, this affair is no more than your client’s vendetta against both myself and MHML due to our insistence that whilst a Director of MHML she should fully comply with her
various lease covenants when sub-letting and to desist in signing off her various tenancy agree- ments stating that all consents have been granted. This was further aggravated by our refusal to ac- cede to her financially impossible demand to retain her preferred contractor, Wade, (and she progressed an RTM whilst remaining a director of MHML in an attempt to to enforce Wade’s reten- tion no matter the cost) for initially a £65,000 internals refurbishment as opposed to MHML’s £35,000 proposal which included almost identical workings, and she then was proved conclusively ga-ga when Wade quoted £219,000 for the exact same workings as our retained contractor, AR
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt