Page 38 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

replacement shed was installed in 2004/5 by our then works’ contractors NAL, replacing as it did an old decrepit wooden shed probably in situ since 1933. I think any surveyor/builder would agree that the layout of that particular area warrants an obvious placement for a shed/lean to/hut whatever?
Your email of 4 July 2018 simply confirms that following (again) Mrs Hillgarth’s insistence that artworks/artefacts & all topiary be removed from all communal areas that a certain few listed items were owned by Mitre House (the property not the old Management) via the 2014 Works’ Interior/Exterior budget.
As Maunder Taylor (again more likely Mrs Hillgarth as she was besotted with the basement) had disposed of all items left in the basement and denied future use of it as a safe storage area for Mitre House (the property not the old Management) items, the certain few listed items in your email of 4 July 2018 had already found safe refuge in the “shed” along with some items moved out of the basement before your removals, namely Mitre House spare parts/paints etc.
Consequently I can confirm yet again that the old shed (area) and rebuilt shed courtesy of NAL (and the fence) is part of the fabric of our demised area since 1933, and the contents are all owned by Mitre House ((the property not the old Management) and does not contain any lessee’s personal items.
Based upon my letter of 7th May and subsequent references/correspondence, I note you are still maintaining that due to Mrs Hillgarth (Mitre House Management Company (201) Ltd do not wish for the shed to remain in situ and In the absence of any consent or corroborating evidence that consent was sought, our client [which I presume to be Michael] was left with no alternative but to arrange for the shed to be removed.
Corroborating proof of Consent for a shed installed in 1933 and rebuilt by NAL in 2004/5 would be tricky? What cannot be denied is the owner of the contents?
I am somewhat dubious of "The same enquiries applied to the plant pots” as one only has to view the non demised area adjacent to where the removed pots were situated to see an abundance of other pots and shrubberies and was why I was attempting to see if re-siting was required by any of the new commercial units?
It’s pretty obvious that in any of your correspondence referencing a leaseholder’s concern, be that topiary/artworks/basement/terracotta pots/shed/zero tolerance/managed/works’ concurrent/work’s re-scheduled (admittedly mine), that your leaseholder concern has originated from Mrs Hillgarth, to which can be added my request and Michael’s kind dispensation to retain some semblance of olde Mitre House on the 3rd floor by retaining artworks and topiary, all of which would have incensed Mrs Hillgarth, as indeed would have been her requirement to comply with her lease covenant (at least one of them) to request permission to sub-let, and the result of your vote regarding “concurrent workings bought forward to 2020”, and your quoting works’ budgets including vat and fees and of course the “zero tolerance or managed (allowing art and topiary)” with the result for managed/art/topiary etc
All of which she had been vehemently opposed to previously.
Anyway all above is now academic as both you and Mitre House Management Company (2017) Ltd have formally announced a parting of the ways and new Agents (Strangford Management Ltd) will be in situ from 1 July 2019 due seemingly to being somewhat cheaper and apparently offering to make more site attendances than you were adequately making (4 per year minimum I recall) - see attached pdf for formal