Page 305 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-56-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
everybody will be happy” and indeed considered the tape recording to have been edited to her disadvantage by adding “well then everybody will be happy”, made all the more obtuse when her Solicitor had a report made which substantiated his client’s accusation.
Mrs Hillgarth’s agreement and exclamations were made in the presence of her two fellow directors as witnesses and MHML produced two independent reports totally refuting the accusa- tion that the tape recording had been edited or abused in any way and indeed would be nigh impossible to add edits such as “well then everybody will be happy” over background music which Mrs Hillgarth also denied was playing, and indeed raised a query as to the identity of a man’s voice - namely her fellow co-director Mr Segar Karupiah and neighbour of at least 20 years.
It was noticeable that both at the Tribunal and in all correspondence previously and subsequently,
no mention nor reference was ever made of the obvious comparisons and items listed and costed between Mrs Hillgarth’s initial two Wade quotes (and Hemi’s) and Wade’s final tender based on our Surveyor’s final Schedule of Works which all the other five contractors tendered from so making all workings identical on all tenders including Wade’s.
Put simply, if Mrs Hillgarth’s initial two Wade quotes (and/or Hemi) contained costed items which do NOT appear in Wade’s final tender nor any other contractor’s tender then they could be reliably considered “additional unaffordable items” which was explained to Mrs Hillgarth in the Board Meeting of 23 May 2014 to be capable of being afforded if sensible savings were made from the fi- nally agreed budget (in this case £105,019), in any manner possible, to which she agreed and when advised that no refunds to lessees would take place, she exclaimed “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy”.
She also admits in her own Witness Statement (para 73) that neither she nor any lessee requested of MHML sight of Accounts nor relevant documents pertaining to the 2014 Accounts period within the statutory period outlined in her lease.
I am still awaiting hard copy proof of Leigh Pemberton’s alleged rebuttal of requests since May 2015. As well as Basement Bureau photos?
Yet the raison d’etre for her Solicitor’s initial 23 March 2016 letter was the accusation that MHML had refused to oblige multiple requests from multiple lessees, which was denied with full supporting evidence, and this accusation was also made to various authoritative third parties, requiring further denials.
Indeed a tight deadline for sight of various invoices was demanded by Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor in his initial 23 March 2016 letter and by return MHML offered to courier over the requested items but the offer remained unacknowledged due allegedly to Mrs Hillgarth being in the Sahara and her Solicitor incapacitated with pneumonia. When MHML’s offer was eventually acknowledged some weeks after the demanded deadline, we insisted upon an apology for the various accusations and innuendos, by which time we had also replied with our denials and full supporting evidence to sub- stantiate the denials, and on receipt we would supply the requested documentation, which we were not legally obliged to as the statutory six months had well passed for the period in question, again as well evidenced in Mrs Hillgarth’s own Witness Statement (para 73).
No apology nor withdrawal of proved incorrect accusations has been received to date.
Other miscellaneous petty accusations such as not identifying Surveyor’s fees, or other fees and costs more identifiably on Accounts summary (they were mostly posted in the notes accompanying the Accounts in question), vote-rigging, discharging a long overdue debt due from Mrs Hill- garth to MHML by way of discounting an amount due to her along with all other directors, minimal (and endemic) plagiarism as briefly used on our website and apologised for to the full satisfaction of the abused client [not Seaborne Freight], and multiple pathetic innuendos such as one director utilising the contractor for their own personal benefit, basement office etc
As regards her £67.26 instead of the full whack, stopped cheques, bad credit rating, she got what she deserved for being so disloyal and dishonest towards her fellow Directors (RTM etc)
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt