Page 301 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-52-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
contractor, Benitor (£98,000) and insisted that AR Lawrence be retained which MHML happily agreed to on the proviso that, as Mrs Hillgarth was again made aware of, there were a number of items within ALL tenders, including Wade and AR Lawrence, that with a bit of common sense could be dropped (as our Surveyor agreed), or done far cheaper by using an independent supplier (as initially sourced way back in 2011/2012) or by MHML's competent personnel, and any savings made by doing so could be used to fund those items that were NOT in the final Surveyor’s Schedule of Works, but did appear in Mrs Hillgarth’s initial two Wade quotes (2012 & 2013) and indeed in part in MHML’s £35,000 budget.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Mrs Hillgarth agreed with both Mr Karupiah and myself to the above suggestion of making savings, any way we could, and using them for items considered unaffordable. This is exactly what was accomplished but subsequently Mrs Hillgarth denied making any such observation/agree- ment and in fact accused MHML (myself) of adding her agreement to an audio recording of the en- tire 7 hour meeting?
It is noted that whilst you pursue your “investigations” into various personnel etc as referenced in your recent 2019 correspondence, that despite my multiple if not innumerable if not interminable ref- erences to Mr Segar Karupiah’s attendance at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting when your client agreed to making savings, anyway we could, including MHML progressing works, to spend on works considered unaffordable, that you have never once requested of him if indeed he was present, indeed did he witness your client making the now infamous outbursts of “will be spent on something else” and “well then everybody will be happy”....? Any reason why not?
Mind you, had she said “I did say that because that’s what they wanted to hear” or “I did say that but I changed my mind as Paul bet I would” (yes on tape) ,she’d be off the hook? What a shame she can’t now after your email stating she never said it and the tape must be doctored? not forgetting her denial on oath [yes i know it’s not actually on oath, but on her honour to tell the truth, expected to tell the truth], and made all the worse by ‘ole Johnny “DJ” arthur’s erroneous error...and finally if i had a dollar for every time you’ve mentioned “doctored” in your correspondence - i’d chip in on your postage costs. Big lie, big costs - there is a god?
I’m actually thankful she even admitted she was at the meeting!
One pertinent point from this 23 May 2014 Board meeting was that Mrs Hillgarth was insistent on comparing the Wade tender quote with that of all others to ascertain they were all quoted from the same Surveyor’s Schedule of Works and consequently identical [despite all having been on the website www.mitrehouse.com for weeks]. obviously, a perusal of the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works listed each and every working to be performed for both External & internal [with an individual cost- ing for each item from the relevant tenderer, Wade or ar Lawrence or Benitor, or any of the other five].
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Mrs Hillgarth both perused the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works with costings from Wade and indeed AR Lawrence if not others, and was satisfied all were 100% identical and consequently Wade’s £219,000 quote was for exact same works as that quoted for by ar Lawrence for £105,000 with both including vat and fees.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Subsequent to the meeting on 23 May we received an email from Mrs Hillgarth on 6 June 2014 @ 18.21 stating [amongst other idiocies] “The acknowledgement that the instructions given to the Surveyor by PBC were verbal. I would like it registered that the estimates provided are not “like for like” in my opinion, for example Wade has included several things such as lighting etc, which are not provided in some of the other quotes including the quote from AR Lawrence”
This statement evidences without a shadow of doubt that, along with your recent references to PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt