Page 285 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-45-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
on the Mitre House Management Limited website, but that website (as he knows) is designed to keep us in a state of confusion and is completely unusable.”
As such I consider these Witness Statements to be as contrary and contrived and as erroneous as Mrs Hillgarth’s own 92 para Witness Statement which, exactly as your correspondence has done since your 23 March 2016 thirteen page diatribe, simply repeated the same banal and disproved ac- cusations with the one added “rabbit out of the hat” admission that neither she nor any lessee re- quested nor were denied access to our YE2014 accounts documentation.
Tell that to Mr Leigh Pemberton who accused in his Statement: “Mitre House Management Limited, acting through its director Paul Brown-Constable, has proved the most unreliable and un- satisfactory manager of the property. In particular I have found it deeply unsatisfactory that I have been completely unable, despite a number of attempts, to obtain a proper understanding of who has been paid how much, and for doing what, in relation to a substantial refurbishment of the property that was carried out in the autumn of 2014. This information was not available from the service charge accounts and nor have we been able to discover it subsequently from Mr Brown-Constable.” (Sounds a bit scripted by you I propse and a lie!)
I doubt whether Mr Leigh-Pemberton, nor indeed Mrs Hillgarth’s virtual majority consider an increase of a 333% increase in annual outgoings from £3000 to £10,000 within twelve months to be worth having a professional Agent as opposed to “the most unreliable and unsatisfactory manager of the property.”
I’d go with “the most unreliable and unsatisfactory manager” anytime if untrue?
This accusation that we had denied access to our YE2014 accounts documentation was advised to our Freeholder’s who requested their Solicitor’s, Macfarlanes, to contact us, as well as you advising RBK&C (Royal Borough of kensington & Chelsea) whose letter dated 22 April 2016 (one month after we denied this accusation in response to your 23 March 2016 letter) in direct response to your downright lie replied to MHML, stating in no uncertain terms we were guilty as their letter overleaf evidences”
See following page
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt