Page 188 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-17-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Mrs Hillgarth can be very clearly heard on a pre-advised tape recording of the meeting (“good idea”, she said) agreeing to this sensible proposal to making savings, exclaiming, “will be used for something else” (as opposed to refunding lessees), followed by “well then everybody will be happy”.
Mrs Hillgarth adamantly denies being pre-advised and denies the content of the recording maintain- ing it had been “doctored” as she has no recollection of conversations, or of music playing nor recognising “a man’s voice”, being that of her co-Director, Segar Karupiah?
Three engineer’s reports were ascertained as to the veracity of one, five minute clip, resulting in Mrs Hillgarth’s report agreeing it had been “doctored/edited”, and two from MHML insisting it hadn’t been “doctored/edited”. Common sense would indicate its veracity as why would anybody refuse to make savings on items not required to spend on those you do require?
Nevertheless, works commenced 31 August 2014, savings were made and notified to all lessees and appropriated to all the various “unaffordables” to good effect, which included some works per- formed by MHML’s Paul Brown-Constable.
Due to some urgent works coming to light on a fortuitously scheduled inspection, a new roof Water Tank was required and could be installed at a considerable saving if done whilst scaffolding in situ (which it was). Lessees were given two choices - to agree (or not) to voluntarily making their fare share contribution and do without the normal, legally required s.20 Notice (so missing the benefit of scaffolding in situ and therefore costing more) or quite within their rights to insist on a normal, legally required s.20 Notice. MHML made very clear that to do without an s.20 would require 100% ap- proval. Just one objection would entail an s.20 process.
A similar proposal was also made to all lessees regarding the installation whilst scaffolding in situ (or else impossible), to install a communal TV/Sky. Again MHML made clear it needed 100% approval from all lessees to proceed and to pay their fair share. Just one objection would abort the whole pro- posal as the TV/Sky was not a requirement like the failing Water Tank.
Mrs Hillgarth continued her disruptive and disloyal relationship with her fellow Directors insisting that the £2000 contribution to adequately fund the £105,000 works’ budget should be used to fund both the Water Tank and TV/Sky installs. She canvassed other lessees to withhold their £2000 resulting in MHML having to refund those that had paid and reduce the work’s to be progressed. Fortuitously, all lessees did eventually all pay both their £2000 and contributions for the Water Tank and TV/Sky installs but not until mid October causing delays and schedules.
Mrs Hillgarth and her three allies (ie 4 out of 9 flats) were not impressed with the final internals’ decor considering it “vulgar, cheap and unsuitable” and the works performed by MHML/Paul Brown- Constable was “shoddy” and unprofessional.
The raison d’etre for this observation was because MHML had managerially disregarded the various muddled, conflicting, and totally unsuitable suggestions, observations and preferences having no basis of “majority” nor “consistency” from Mrs Hillgarth and her allies and proceeded in refurbishing the interior communal areas [almost] on budget, on [almost] schedule to include all the wishes and items considered initially “unaffordable” with only a small £858 overspend on the £105,000 ap- proved budget but leaving £16,201 in Reserves as opposed to the predicted £11,243 following the £2000 contributions from all nine lessees.
Various unwelcome and irrelevant requests and innumerable petty accusations were made by Mrs Hillgarth and her allies during the works for financial information over and above that to which they were entitled but that relevant to their requests was advised that all was available on our website www.mitrehouse.com if indeed not previously sent to them, which it all had been.
Nevertheless, all lessees including most especially Mrs Hillgarth and her allies, were advised in replies by return to enquiries/requests to await publication of the YE2014 Accounts and peruse and inspect all documentation as was their right.
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt