Page 186 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-15-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Lawrence, quoted £105,019. This was finally aggravated when MHML insisted on her resignation as a Director in September 2014.
The more recent financial queries would now imply a “witch hunt” seeing as the audio recording of the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting has, whether you believe its contents or not, totally decimated your client’s lies and poor memory and appears to have taken a back seat whilst you now progress claims of financial impropriety on my part in purloining £29,000 from leaseholders, so making the initial scurrilous accusations outlined in your 23 March 2016 letter as irrelevant and untrue as I origi- nally suggested they all were and proved they were, recording or no recording. Mr Karupiah re- mains suspiciously off your radar in requesting his confirmation of the
veracity of the audio tape? Any reason WHY? If he drops dead or goes on the lamb I’m ?>&^..!
It’s also noted that since our new Agents, Maunder Taylor, took the reins, your client has made no query/comment/complaint on any subject concerning the like of which she constantly complained/queried/commented upon when MHML were in charge - and Maunder Taylor have progressed to date all processes which MHML progressed under fire from Mrs Hillgarth - just an observation to prove yet again Mrs Hillgarth’s malevolence, contrariness, obstinacy and dis- loyalty towards me and MHML as examples outlined in this tome well evidence?
Had MHML raised annual outgoings by 333% she’d have suffered a stroke and accused me of at- tempted murder. We raised annual outgoings by 33% in 2015 (from £2600 to £3600) and she organ- ised a strike and refused to pay along with her allies, Flats 3, 8 and 9 refusing to pay and were all in receipt of a Solicitor’s letter costing the Service Charge £540
I’ll bet you a decent lunch neither she nor her allies have queried Maunder Taylor’s 333%.....
Please Note: Might I take this opportunity to advise those people with less interest in this affair than your good self to read no further, but in the interest of fact over fiction (as recently there has been much fiction in your correspondence; Meter Cupboards/Pigeon Boxes/Wade/PRS etc) I have pre- pared both a short summary (below) followed by a far more comprehensive account of what actually transpired at Mitre House since 2011 as opposed to the fictitious account
relayed to you by your client so that both you and Mrs Hillgarth and indeed MHML and myself are all
singin’ from the same song book!
For anybody unfamiliar, or indeed too familiar with this affair, here is a very brief history:
Following the purchase of the Head Lease of Mitre House in July 2011 by four lessees including Mrs Hillgarth, Mitre House Management Limited (MHML) was formed and acted as Management to run and maintain Mitre House economically (Mrs Hillgarth maintains it was only to
protect our Reserves!). MHML immediately set a budget of £25,000, a Surveyor’ Schedule of Internals’ Works for a mid 2012 date to progress an Internals refurbishment (well overdue along with Externals as per Head Lease covenants) and set about gathering two or three quotes from each of various individual contractors as opposed to one main contractor in the interest of maximum econ- omy. MHML designed Alternative Decor Notifications and took notice of observations and prefer- ences from lessees, which resulted in a vote for preferred style.
Initially the vote indicated a preference for “Belle Epoque” as opposed to “Traditional Elegance”, but this was subsequently contested (“vote rigging scandal’) by some lessees including MHML’s co-Di- rector, Mrs Hillgarth, who by now was insisting upon spending far more than MHML’s
initial £25,000 incl. vat budget and seriously expanding the scope of the works. MHML
attempted to oblige and raised their proposed maximum budget to £35,000 to include vat but were advised that a majority of lessees, including our co-Director, Mrs Hillgarth, wished to
remove MHML and hire Agents, and to retain their preferred single contractor Wade (as opposed to MHML’s various individual) and in 2013 progressed an RTM application to remove MHML and retain their preferred contractor Wade, from whom they had sourced two quotes (July 2012 and January 2013).
The RTM did not progress due to a legal anomaly, but Mrs Hillgarth (still a director of MHML) contin- PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt