Page 582 - OK THE REAL DEAL BEG 616pp NO SOUND

-6-
in THe WesT London CoUnTY CoUrT - Case No: [ ]
Mrs MiCHeLe HiLLGArTH - Claimant
versus
MiTre HoUse MAnAGeMenT LiMiTed - First Defendant and
pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe - Second Defendant
and
seGAr KArUpiAH - Third Defendant
and
JAMiL rAJA - Fourth Defendant __________________________________________________________________________________
pArTiCULArs oF CLAiM
__________________________________________________________________________________
19. in the context of the said 2014 project the Second Defendant fraudulently and/or in breach of his fiduciary and other statutory duties as a director of the First Defendant misappropriated service charge monies to himself and to the First Defendant which he had agreed with the Claimant and others would be paid to a building firm called ar lawrence and Sons limited.
A Considered response: THis is UnTrUe. As Advised To ALL Lessees And Mrs HiLLGArTH, THe sTATUTorY s.20 noTiCe dATed 22 JUne 2014 (As indeed on ALL previoUsLY issUed s.20 noTiCes) sTATed UnAMBiGUoUsLY THAT ALL CosTs “in- CLUded vAT And Fees” ConseqUenTLY THe ConTrACTor, WHoever THeY MiGHT HAve Been, Were never GoinG To reCeive THe FULL sTATed CosT WHiCH inCLUded vAT And Fees To pAY oTHer proFessionALs or personneL, CdM, MHML, sUrveYor eTC
20. in the context of the said 2014 project the Third and Fourth Defendants (who are qualified practising accountants) fraudulently and/or negligently and/or in breach of their fiduciary and other statutory duties as directors of the First Defendant conspired with the Second Defendant to conceal from the Claimant and other leaseholders the fact that such service charge monies had unlawfully been paid away to the First and Second Defendants.
A Considered response: As no serviCe CHArGe Monies HAd UnLAWFULLY Been pAid AWAY THis is ConTenTioUs HYperBoLe And is denied. ALL And AnY WorKs THAT Were perForMed BY AnY ConTrACTor/ArTisAn Were oF A Good sTAndArd And invoiCed And pAid FroM eiTHer sAvinGs MAde (THe UnAFFordABLes) or FroM THe reserves/BUdGeT As on THe s.20 noTiCe - £105,019 inCLUdinG vAT & Fees
pArTiCULArs oF sTATUTorY reqUireMenTs
21. Sections 18 to 30 of the landlord and Tenant act 1985 (“the act”) afford statutory protection to tenants from excessive service charge costs. By section 19, service charges must be “rea- sonable and reasonably incurred” to be recoverable.
A Considered response: MHML MAnAGeMenT CHArGes Were ALWAYs siGniFi- CAnTLY LoWer THAn proFessionAL AGenTs despiTe MHML sUppLYinG 24/7 on siTe ATTendAnCe THroUGH iTs direCTor, pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe residinG on siTe 24/7 As ConCierGe/niGHT porTer/seCUriTY oFFiCer And reiMBUrsed £10 per dAY
22. in addition there is a consultation regime in sections 20 and 20Za of the act whose primary purpose is to ensure that tenants do not pay for poor services, or for more than they should.
A Considered response: THere Were no poor serviCes nor Were THeY pAYinG PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT