Page 438 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

Just how many more times are we to be asked the exact same question, with the exact same innuendo of fraud and to make the exact same reply with exact same references to the 2014 Accounts and covering letter?
4. False Accounting in the 2014 Service Charge Accounts.
According to Mr Brown-Constable (see Item 11 of the Second Schedule) “the £105,877 figure [this being the “Reserves utilised” figure of £105,877 shown in the Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014] includes....£1,590 due to AR Lawrence once final snagging is accomplished”. It is unclear why this unpaid retention is accounted for as monies paid rather than being charged as a provision. Nor is it clear whether the £105,877 also includes a reserve for other unpaid contractors (of which there is at least one – see the final paragraph of Tony White’s Witness Statement).
This is not the only accounting anomaly. The Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014 clearly state that no surveyor’s fees were paid or accrued in 2014 (see page 8 of the Accounts at Item 4 of the Second Schedule, which shows a nil entry for 2014 in respect of the line item marked “Surveyor’s Fees”). However in a letter dated 10 June 2016 Mr Brown- Constable asserts that surveyor’s fees were in fact paid in 2014 and that these were included in the “Reserves utilised” figure of £105,877 shown in the line immediately below it.
Reply: Yet again we are required to reply in the exact way as previously on multiple occasions namely that we had always made abundantly clear on multiple occasions including on all published s.20 Notices that all and any contractor’s costs included vat and fees.
Fees meaning any fees, Surveyors, CDM, Agents etc, and again all including vat. It should be noted that our new Managing Agents, Maunder Taylor, are also adopting the same way of advising costs, to include vat and fees.
However these are mere niceties compared with the most obvious and glaring accounting error. It goes without saying that the leaseholders should have been informed in the Service Charge Accounts that out of the aggregate refurbishment figure of £105,877 charged to the leaseholders the sum of £31,765.21 had in fact been paid to MHML, particularly as the leaseholders had been led to expect that all the refurbishment monies would be paid to AR Lawrence – and certainly not to their own landlord.
Reply: Yet again, despite multiple denials and explanations, £31,765.21 was not paid to MHML nor charged by MHML as the various invoices you have been supplied with well evidence. MHML accomplished savings from the £105,877 of £31,765.21 which was spent on items that were initially considered unaffordable [as per Mrs Hillgarth’s two initial Wade and one Hemi quotes] or could be accomplished cheaper than tendered costs. MHML presented a very detailed invoice for their services and works performed totalling £15,572, not £31,765.21. The balance of £16,183.36 was fully accounted for within the £105,877 as suppliers costs with full supporting invoices along with all other suppliers’ costs.
How many more times are you to make this exact same untruthful accusation and we having to make the exact same response