Page 345 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

have some perfect examples if required) – so I insisted that there must always be a third party present.
So she then arrived with a Policeman!
Rudeness I regret is probably the only thing Mrs Hillgarth does understand.
You were content to take the leaseholders’ money at the same time as you abused them. I have seen a copy of your invoice dated 30 December 2013 to MHML for your “consultancy” at daily rate fees of £7.50 a day for 365 days. That is £2737.50 per annum. MHML charged the leaseholders £4,320 for the three years 2012-2014, £4850 for 2015 and is projecting £4,995 for 2016. Since you are a 25% part owner of MHML it is reasonable to assume that a substantial proportion of these management fees ends up in your pocket.
Well explained previously hopefully – yet another slur perpetrated by Mrs Hillgarth.
You seem to find it stimulating to take the leaseholders’ money and to abuse them in this way. Tomakelightoftheirlegitimateconcerns,andtoavoidreplyingtotheirlegitimate questions. Your e-mail of 18 October 2014 to Diego Fortunati (attaching forged qualifications) is a classic example of this. Humour is an admirable thing in the right context. But in this particular context, where you are plainly abusing your position to take money from your fellow leaseholders, you have no right to pretend it is all a joke and generally to make light of the matter.
Ask a silly question and you’ll get a silly answer
Mrs Hillgarth’s dividends
In the course of all the pandemonium described above you found time to remove Mrs Hillgarth as a director of MHML on 18 September 2014. No doubt it was inconvenient to have someone on your board who did not approve of the way you were managing things and who was prepared to challenge you.
Not at all. During wartime she’d have been shot as a traitor.
On 6 October 2014 you sent to her a cheque for £67.26, having offset, against an MHML dividend of £2,650 properly payable to her, charges amounting to £2,582.74 for time spent by you and other directors in dealing with a “Right to Manage” application submitted by Mitre House RTM Company Limited. (This was the special purpose company set up by Mrs Hillgarth and others, to whom your invoice in respect of those charges was originally addressed). It had not agreed to pay those charges. Nor had Mrs Hillgarth. Neither she nor the company had any legal obligation to pay those charges. For your convenience, you simply chose to offset this sum against a dividend payable to Mrs Hillgarth by MHML, but which in the event was paid only to yourself and your fellow directors.
Mrs Hillgarth did not cash the cheque for £67.26 which you sent her. That would have been to accept an unlawful offset, which she will not. And it is entirely to her credit that she has not – at least to date – chosen to reimburse herself by offsetting the same amount against the “management charges” imposed by MHML. The full dividend of £2,650 still owing to her must be accounted for immediately to Mrs Hillgarth.