Page 192 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-24-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
ment “bureau” pixs but none to date save for that published/supplied to date, putting a lock on the basement which even a moron could see has been there almost since the building was built in 1933, demanding half a dozen Surveyor’s Schedules of Works claiming each time non receipt, con- sidering the www.mitrehouse.com un-navigable, confusing, an irrelevance, not containing each and every document relevant to the 2014 works (and much more) and including all correspondence be- tween our Surveyor and MHML, and all invoicing including AR Lawrence invoicing and MHML in- voicing etc etc since January 2015, despite which, since your 23 March 2016 letter of demands for exact same being instantly available had you spent less time fretting over plagiarism! How many times were both you and she advised to view all on www.mitrehouse.com -
But seemingly your only interest was in the Seaborne Freight plagiarised Terms & Conditions run- ning to 52 pages in your evidence at the First Tier Tribunal hearing (52 pages!!!) - it was all there, all 13 invoices, whether you like it or not - both you and Mrs Hillgarth had neither the
resolve, the aptitude, the time, the patience, the equipment or more likely the intelligence to source it - true or false? And to cap it all, my workings were allegedly “shoddy” (I’m sure Mrs Hillgarth is qualified to come to that conclusion when I recall from your correspondence she considered the works executed for £31,756.21 weren’t worth a penny over £5000.....despite the electrics alone coming to £10,000 odd.... and her infamous (the only comment received by the way) derisory email of 1 April 2015 (three months after end of works) that in her opinion the decor at Mitre House was “vulgar, cheap and unsuitable”..... and insisting on “no comments
required please?” - so none were given!
You also appear to be under the impression that up until Mitre House Management Company (2017) Limited was established in late 2017 (allowing a legal one vote per leaseholder shareholder) that the leaseholders ran Mitre House.
They did not, but the Head Lease proprietor, MHML and its four Directors certainly did run Mitre House and those Directors included your client Mrs Hillgarth until September 2014. As our
Articles make clear, MHML had a vote system and it was a unanimous vote for making savings as the audio evidences and which both Segar Karupiah and I witnessed her agreement within a yard or two of her in my flat on 23 May 2014 around 6,30pm.
You appear to be confusing the present Mitre House Management Company (2017) Limited which does have a leaseholder vote as all leaseholders (with the notable exception of one of your’s and Mrs Hillgarth’s alleged allies, the offshore Expert Trading Co (Flat 1) declining to
participate but bizarrely well in evidence on all your alleged participants with Mrs Hillgarth (they’ve only visited Mitre House once or twice and one was to my flat) and consequently it could be argued that the eight (not 9) shareholding (Directors?) leaseholders could vote on
certain aspects but even they would have a tough, nay impossible, job of insisting on spending £219,000 (Wade) versus £105,019 (AR Lawrence) for the exact (yes exact) same workings if just one sensible, sane, intelligent lessee disagreed - just one, would deny the majority, if
indeed there was one? That’s democracy or common sense in this instance and that instance was exactly what MHML had to endure with your client’s ridiculous behaviour.
But yes I agree, Mitre House Management Company (2017) Limited’s lessee shareholders could vote for Caribbean Dawn and Waiting Room Green in a democratic vote but these same lessees were NOT shareholders of Mitre House Management Limited, nor Directors and consequently had no democratic right to any voting, simply suggestions/preferences, to which we (MHML) could take notice of in a neighbourly gentlemanly fashion but having no legal obligation to oblige their whims and fancies most especially when they changed every month -
And as regards tenders, again MHML had a legal duty to obtain two or three tenders (we did six) and to oblige any lessees’ personal request of a contractor they wished us to get a tender from (we did, Wade) and to then choose the cheapest - no matter the cost - the cheapest unless for good rea- son etc. That ended the leaseholders concerns and how we (MHML) or equivalent project managed a £105,019 approved budget to include vat and fees, which despite your
dishonest and exaggerated hyperbole could not possibly have been “exclusively & only” to be paid in full to AR Lawrence as it included “fees” to whom we had pay for services including our Surveyor and anybody else we felt obliged to pay including MHML for services rendered and works performed for the benefit of all lessees. Was there a benefit - yes indeed as those works considered unafford- able were progressed and more, and funded from savings made (as per 23 May 2014 Board Meet- ing with your client present and agreeing as the audio & Mr Karupiah can amply attest to) - so
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt