Page 174 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-7-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
“How were MHML and you as a Director planning to fund the light- ing that you refer to in your email of 21 August 2014 to Paul and copied to all lessees?”
Mrs Hillgarth wrote in an email sent to all lessees on 21 August 2014: “We have all invested enough time on this refurbishment and there is no reason for you to decide to change the choice made by the majority on the lighting.
The lighting is not going to be the 1st thing change during the refurbishment so please make sure you do not purchase anything without the approval of the majority. We do not want your cheap lighting . Please stick to what has been agreed. Otherwise you will be liable for the cost. I am again speaking on behalf of the majority . If anyone disagreed you will know.
So in brief no lighting and no painting until the lessees are satisfied . From the majority at Mitre House .
Michele Hillgarth
Her response will help us focus on what we all do next?
Comment for consideration?
It would appear that your client is in my opinion deservedly unlucky with her choice of professional advisers. I refer in the first instance to her infamous RTM application which, despite her having ad- vised all lessees in 2011 that the purchase of the Freehold of Mitre House (yes, she was actually entertaining the idea) could not be progressed because the commercial units’ footprint was well in excess of 25% so negating any chance of success let alone attempt, she still blindly progressed an RTM application some 24 months later in 2013, inviting one or two other usual suspect lessees to participate and no doubt financially contribute to substantial costs.
Somewhat incompetently, her Solicitors did not advise her of the 25% ruling and obviously she did not advise them nor her fellow participants? Consequently despite a very lengthy, expensive and wasted period she was required by our Freeholder & MHML to withdraw which she did much to the detriment and further delays to our major works programme, which of course she was insisting upon using her preferred contractor, Wade, for an internals only budget of £60-65,000 versus MHML’s £35,000 max or had she got her way and succeeded, Wade’s final tender cost for both internals & externals topped £219,000 including vat and fees versus AR Lawrence’s £105,000 including vat and fees for 100% identical workings - and yes, no lighting etc (unaffordables).
Her next mistake was her attempt to discredit MHML and myself with a pack of lies regarding the 2014 works programme resulting in a 13pp letter from her new Solicitor dated 23 March 2016 ac- cusing MHML and myself of every possible conceivable crime from Blackmail to Fraud and an insis- tence of viewing certain 2014 accounts documentation which she accused MHML and myself of ignoring/refusing previous multiple requests, not just from her, but other requesting lessees?
She eventually admitted in her own Witness Statement (para 73) this was a lie and nobody re- quested or was denied access and indeed the first and only request was made in her Solicitor’s let- ter of 23 March 2016 with a deadline set for supplying.
This request was fully agreed to in a letter dated 1 April with the offer to courier over the requested documents but somewhat predictably no response nor acknowledgement was received as allegedly Mrs Hillgarth was in the Sahara and her Solicitor in bed with pneumonia - neither of which were proved watertight to not have been capable of receiving or acknowledging, indeed they were thor- oughly disproved as truthful excuses. Just another example of sloppy unprofessional attention once again for Mrs Hillgarth reflecting her experience with her RTM advisers?
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt