Page 492 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-8-
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”).
WE (MHML) THEREFORE USED COMMON SENSE AND CUT OUR CLOTH ACCORDINGLY. SOACCUSATIONSOFME“PLEADINGPOVERTY”ISANOTHERLIE?
14. it appears that mr Brown-constable then covertly did much of the internal work himself, not disclosing to the leaseholders that he had reduced the scope of a&r lawrence’s brief. un- fortunately for mr Brown-constable, he was caught red-handed while he was doing this, and mrs hillgarth wrote to him on 10 august 2014 to find out why he appeared to be doing work him- self.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: IN TWO EMAILS DATED 11TH AND 13TH SEPTEMBER ALL LESSEES WERE ADVISED OF SAVINGS BEING MADE AND USED FOR ITEMS NOT IN THE SCHEDULE OF WORKS AND YOUR CLIENT MAINTAINS THOSE EMAILS WERE ONLY SENT BECAUSE “he was caught red-handed while he was doing this” WHICH IS A TYPICAL COM- MENT FROM MRS HILLGARTH AND WHY WE INSISTED UPON HER RESIGNATION.
“CAUGHT OUT”, I THINK WAS YOUR RIDICULOUS RESPONSE - A BIT LIKE “WELL SHE WOULD SAY THAT WOULDN’T SHE?” TO COIN A PHRASE...!
15. mr Brown-constable responded in a thoroughly disingenuous e-mail dated 11 august 2014 implying that a&r lawrence were doing substantially all the work they had been con- tracted to do. this was not true. “Of yes it was”
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: IT WAS OBVIOUSLY TRUE AS AR LAWRENCE HAD NOT QUOTEDFORLIFT/ELECTRICSETCBUTWEREPROCEEDINGWITHALLTHEEXTERIOR WORKINGS AS QUOTED. NEITHER I NOR ANY OTHER KNOWN TO ME ASSISTED ON THE EXTERNALS WORKINGS AND AR LAWRENCE STILL PERFORMED WORKINGS ON THE INTERIOR SAVE FOR ONE OR TWO ITEMS I KNEW COULD BE DONE MORE ECONOMICALLY OR WERE NOT ON THE SCHEDULE OF WORKS WHICH WERE PROGRESSED USING THE VARIOUS SAVINGS AND CONTINGENCIES WHICH WE KEPT A VERY CLOSE EYE ON.
16. it is relevant that in this e-mail of 11 august 2014 mr Brown-constable said nothing about cancellation of a substantial element of the contract. nor did he remind mrs hillgarth about an understanding he subsequently claimed to exist between them – namely that “addi- tional work”, apparently insisted on by her, should be carried out by mr Brown-constable rather than by a&r lawrence. had there been any such understanding he could and would have re- minded her of it. But he didn’t because (as he very well knew) there was no such understand- ing.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: “WELL SHE WOULD SAY THAT WOULDN’T SHE?” I CAN IMAG- INE THE CONVERSATION “MICHELE, YOU AGREED AT THE MEETING ETC ETC....” “NO, I DIDN’T AGREE TO ANYTHING ETC ETC” - THAT, MR BEGG, IS WHAT THIS WHOLE AFFAIR IS ABOUT - LOSS OF MEMORY, LIES AND ACCUSATIONS!!!! AND I COULDN’T PROVE IT THEN AS THE AUDIO WAS NOT FOUND AGAIN UNTIL JUNE 2017 AND PLEASE NO INSINUATION THAT IT TOOK ME THREE YEARS TO EDIT A 7 HOUR RECORDING....
17. When further pressed by the leaseholders as to what was going on, mr Brown-consta- ble subsequently claimed to have been carrying out the work that he did under the supervision
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument