Page 501 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-19-
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”).
despite dozens of references/discounts made and all in the 2014 Accounts sent to Maunder Taylor on 23 June 2017 some fifteen months ago.... as I said previously, you ain’t doing too well keeping up with events?
Notes to the above to prove again your duplicity and incompetence seeing as these statements were made on 21 June 2016, three months after your 23 March 2016 letter and now two years ago... yet you’re still asking the very same questions (Reserves Utilised ad nauseam with dozens of computations) and insisting MHML invoiced/charged the Serv- ice Charge the full amoiunt of the savings made of £31,756.21 (and kickin’ up a fuss be- cause item (c) states £31,765.21 as opposed to £31,756.21 - how many times have you drawn attention to that typo? Must be close to a dozen to date...so let’s put this to bed for good and no more petty references to a typo nor “my admitting”...I didn’t..!
SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER FOR DISCOVERY ALL THE SERVICE CHARGE ACCOUNTS 2014 TO DATE (JUNE 2017) WERE ALL SUPPLIED TO MAUNDER TAYLOR ON 23 JUNE 2017 AND INCLUDED A FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE 2012-2017 BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS OFALLINCOMEANDEXPENDITUREINCLUDINGTHEINVOICEFROMMHMLTOTHESERV- ICE CHARGE ACCOUNT FOR £15,572.85 AND NOT £31,756.21 AND A COMPREHENSIVE LIST ANALYSIS OF THE £16,183.36 SUPPLIERS’ COST
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE REPEATED THIS ERRONEOUS ACCUSATION THAT “Paul Brown-constable eventually admitted in writing that the sum of £31,765.21 had been
“charged to the leaseholders by mhml in respect of the project” - ON EACH PREVIOUS OCCASION IT WAS ALSO DENIED AS INCORRECT & AMBIGUOUS TO CONFUSE - AND DESPITE REQUESTS TO EVIDENCE WHEN AND HOW I MADE THIS STATEMENT NONE HAS EVER BEEN FORTHCOMING - IT’S PATHETIC JUVENILE OR SENILE IN YOUR CASE AND PRE- DICTABLE...IF YOU CAN’T FIGHT FAIR...?
34. later still mr Brown-constable also admitted in correspondence that out of the monies charged to the leaseholders by mhml he had personally been paid by mhml for his own work on the project. in support of this he produced his own invoice/2014_00012 addressed to mhml (and also dated 31 december 2014) indicating that he had charged £7,500 to mhml in respect of exactly the same work for which mhml had charged over double (£15,572.85) to the lease- holders.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: MORE RUBBISH - AGREED BUT AM CONFUSED AS TO “had charged £7,500 to mhml in respect of exactly the same work for which mhml had charged over double (£15,572.85) to the leaseholders. AS WITH ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION, THE PRINCIPAL HAVE COSTS AND MY £7500 WAS A COST TO MHML FOR WORKS PERFORMED ON THEIR BEHALF AND THEREFORE BILLED TO THE PRINCIPAL. THE ABOVE APPEARS TO INFER THE SERVICE CHARGE WAS INVOICED FOR £15,572.85 AND £7500 WHICH THEY WERE NOT. THE BALANCE OF £8072.85 BETWEEN THE £15,572 AND MY INVOICED
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument