Page 452 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

Had your initial request been solely [initially] to view the requested dozen invoices, and on receipt they raised further comment/query/suspicion, you would then have raised those very same comments/queries/suspicions [for suspicions read accusations and innuendos] requiring a response.
Sadly for you, once those very same dozen invoices were in your possession, your only comment I can recall is that our MHML invoice was in your opinion, overly detailed? I appreciate you are now raising further unintelligible queries over “haste” and “duplication” and indeed “maths” regarding both MHML’s invoice and indeed my own to MHML? I’m a bit confused on these latest queries but covered nearer your relevant paragraph?
Anyway, the moral of this preliminary response to your letter here attached with my comments as usual, is quite simply had any lessee requested to do almost exactly as you should have done, to view all and any document from our finally published 2014 Accounts [Service Charge Summary], exactly as they had all been advised to do by me in at least three emails during the works’ programme in 2014 [September to December], they too might have raised comment/queries but one doubts suspicion as there is nothing whatsoever to be suspicious about [I appreciate you have made your client highly suspicious due to her obtuse behaviour, poor memory, disloyalty and in pursuit of what can only be described as a vendetta against MHML and most notably myself, due to her antipathy towards authority [insisting on lease covenants being adhered to etc] and her stubborn disagreement on each and every issue raised by her fellow Directors in their efforts to maintain Mitre House as economically as possible for all lessees, the rich and the poor.]
Had any lessee [and of course, despite your client’s untrue accusation as evidenced in her own Witness Statement (para 73] requested sight of our 2014 documentation within the six month period allowed [or in truth even later – Mrs Hillgarth did raise a query in late December 2015 [some twelve months after the works were finished?] and was advised to re-apply after the Christmas/New Year holidays and we would oblige. No further request was made [by any lessee despite your accusations] until your 13pp diatribe on 23 March 2016.
I think it fair to say that had we, MHML or more pertinently me, wished to, as your client maintains in her 2 January 2019 email to all lessees, “steal” monies from the leaseholders, we took one helluva risk by insisting all any queries raised nefariously by your client and gerrymandering other lessees with obnoxious and scurrilous accusations and innuendos [my flat refurb using our contractors etc] will be answered by inspection of all and any documents once the 2014 Service Charge Accounts Summary was published.
On 1st April 2015 [some three months after the works had finished], Mrs Hillgarth paid her Quarterly Demands [under protest as they had been raised for the first time in three years] with the following comment “Now that the refurbishment at Mitre House has been completed [three months ago!] I would like to register my concern regarding the vulgar, cheap and unsuitable décor chosen by Mitre House Management Limited for the communal area (no comments required please).”