Page 485 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-1-
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”).
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE
the purpose of this report is to supplement the information previously provided with further im- portant evidence which has come to light following a detailed forensic analysis of the bank statements of mhml for 2014 to 2016.
Background
1. to recap the background information already provided, mrs hillgarth is one of nine leaseholders in the block of flats at mitre house. mhml itself was originally established in august 2011 by four of these leaseholders (including mrs hillgarth) to acquire the head lease of mitre house. each of the four held 25% of the share capital of mhml and each of the four became a director of mhml (in the case of Jamil raja through dima international limited, a company owned by him).
2. the objective of establishing mhml in 2011 was to acquire the head lease of mitre house and to appoint an acceptable independent professional firm to manage the block. neither mhml nor Paul Brown-constable, nor any of mhml’s other directors had the qualifications, experience or competence to manage the Property (or any other property) themselves. this was specifically acknowledged in an e-mail from Paul Brown-constable dated 6 november 2011, in which he stated to his co-directors that as none of them had the expertise, nor the time to manage the property, they would seek a managing agent.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: THE REASON FOR PURCHASING THE HEAD LEASE WAS NOT TO APPOINT ACCEPTABLE INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL AGENTS BUT TO RUN AND MAN- AGE MITRE HOUSE IN AS ECONOMICAL AND COMPETENT MANNER. TO THAT END IT WAS DECIDED BY ALL DIRECTORS INCLUDING YOUR CLIENT TO MANAGE THE BLOCK OURSELVES AND SO IMMEDIATELY MAKE SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTIONS IN OUTGOINGS FOR ALL LESSEES.
IT WAS INITIALLY INTENDED THAT NO MANAGING FEES NEED BE CHARGED AS THE WORK- LOAD WAS MINIMAL BUT DUE SOLELY TO YOUR CLIENT’S OBSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR BY INSISTING ON A TOTALLY UNAFFORDABLE BUDGET FOR AN INITIAL INTERIOR ONLY REFUR- BISHMENT IT BECAME NECESSARY TO INSTIGATE MANAGEMENT FEES TO COVER THE EX- TRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF TIME & COSTS INVOLVED IN ARRANGING QUOTES AND DECOR PRESENTATIONS, ALTERNATIVES, COSTINGS & BUDGETS.
COMPETENTLYANDECONOMICALLYMANAGINGMITREHOUSEREQUIREDNOTHINGMORE THAN COMMON SENSE AND AN ADHERENCE TO ALL REQUIRED LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SAFETY AND CONGENIALITY OF ALL LESSEES/OWNERS/TENANTS WHICH WE ACCOM- PLISHED MORE THAN SATISFACTORILY FROM DAY ONE AS MR BROWN-CONSTABLE WAS ONSITE24/7ACTINGASBOTHDIRECTORANDCONCIERGE/NIGHTPORTERANDHANDY- MAN AND MAINTAINING SECURITY FOR ALL NINE RESIDENCES.
THE EMAIL REFERRED TO DATED 6 NOVEMBER 2011 ACTUALLY STATES: AS ALREADY ADVISED TO MICHELE & SEGAR, I CAN'T MAKE THURSDAY 10TH FOR A LUNCH AT 1.00 BUT COULD DO A VERY EARLY AT MIDDAY PROMPTLY (I HAVE TO BE AWAY BY 2PM FOR A
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument