Page 494 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-12-
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO CITY OF LONDON POLICE
and to THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE
mitre house management limited (“mhml”) – company no: 07731341
mitre house, 124 King’s road, london sW3 4tP (“mitre house” or “the Property”) directors of mhml: Paul Brown-constable, dima international limited (Jamil raja) and segar Karupiah (resigned 29 september 2016) (together “the directors”).
2 JUNE 2014 “DON'T FORGET THAT ONCE SEGAR'S AND MY LEASE EXTENSION MONIES ARRIVE IN OUR MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT (MID AUGUST LATEST), THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PAYOUTTOALLOFUSOFAROUND£3500MEANINGWE'VEDOUBLEDOURINVESTMENTIN THE HEAD LEASE IN LESS THAT 3 YEARS..... NOT A BAD RETURN.”
NO MENTION OF “DIVIDEND” - BEGS THE QUESTION OF HOW MANY OTHER LIES HAVE YOU TOLD, MR BEGG?
BUT DID SHE PAY HER RTM SOLICITORS, EMMS GILMORE LIBERSON? I DON’T BLAME HER IF SHE DIDN’T AS THEY PROGRESSED A THREE MONTH CAMPAIGN TO REMOVE MHML VIAANRTMWITHNOTAHOPEINHELLDUETOTHE25%RULINGANDHADTHECHUTZ- PAH TO INSIST THE RTM WAS A “FAIT ACCOMPLIS” - ALL IT ACHIEVED WAS ANOTHER 12 MONTH DELAY ON PROGRESSING OUR VERY OVERDUE WORKS’ PROGRAMME FORCING A CONCURRENT WORKINGS AND A NEAR DOUBLING OF COST.
21. mr Brown-constable eventually admitted in correspondence that the sum of £31,765.21 had been charged to the lessees by mhml in respect of the refurbishment project. this had not been known to any of the leaseholders (except presumably to messrs raja and Karupiah) and, if proposed to the (other) leaseholders in advance, would never have been accepted by them.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: £31,756.21 WAS THE TOTAL SAVINGS MADE AND SPENT ON ITEMS NOT IN THE SCHEDULE OF WORKS AS INITIALLY CONSIDERED UNAFFORDABLE AND WAS NOT CHARGED BY MHML TO LEASEHOLDERS. IT WAS SPENT ON BEHALF OF LEASE- HOLDERS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF MITRE HOUSE’S COMMUNAL AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE DENIEDLOOKSTUNNINGWITHADMITTEDLYACOLOURSCHEMEWHICHMRSHILLGARTH AND ONE OR TWO OTHER LESSEES (HER VIRTUAL IMAGINED MAJORITY) DISLIKED WHEREAS THE SILENT MAJORITY WAS ENTHRALLED AS WERE THEIR VARIOUS TENANTS.
£31,765.21 WAS NOT CHARGED TO LEASEHOLDERS AS YOU WELL KNOW WITH YOU PATHETICALLY REFERENCING AN HONEST ANSWER TO AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION AND HARDLY “eventually admitted in correspondence” - YET ANOTHER LIE(S)
22. according to the audited service charge accounts for 2014 and 2015 “reserves utilised” on the major works refurbishment in 2014 (meaning monies actually spent) totalled £136,735 and comprised three elements - £105,877 (the original budget of £105,019 plus a small over- spend), £18,000 (the £2,000 per flat mr Brown-constable called up to supplement reserves) and £13,147 (the “voluntary” contribution called upon for the communal tV/sky and Water tank).
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: (meaning monies actually spent) totalled £136,735 SAME OLD NIT-PICKINGCOMPLAINTASTOWHYOURITEM“RESERVESUTILISED”OF£105,877DOES NOTPRECISELY(ORINDEEDASYOUACCUSEISMISLEADINGWITHINTENTTOFRAUDU- LENTLY MISAPPROPRIATE LEASEHOLDER’S MONIES ) INDICATE THE ACTUAL PRECISE AMOUNT SPENT FROM RESERVES AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CORRECTLY CLASSIFIED
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument