Page 494 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-10-
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: I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY REQUIREMENT THAT WE AS THE MANAGEMENT NEED REFERENCE LEASEHOLDERS SO LONG AS WORKS REQUIRED TO BE DONEAREDONEASOPPOSEDTOTHOSETHATDON’TREQUIREDOINGORAREUNAFFORD- ABLE, AND ALL AND ANY WORKS ARE DONE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO LEASEHOLDERS.
19. mr Brown-constable was asked on numerous occasions, and by no less than five of the leaseholders (as well as myself), to provide a straightforward account of how much money had been paid out in respect of the 2014 refurbishment and to whom. however mr Brown-consta- ble consistently failed to do this, offering less and less plausible excuses for withholding this in- formation. instead he hid behind the six months statutory limit for a compulsory inspection of service charge documentation. he maintained this rigid stance even when the questioning was conducted under the auspices of the Kensington and chelsea housing authority.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: IN YOUR LETTER OF 23 MARCH 2016 YOU REQUESTED AND WE COMPLIED ALMOST BY RETURN TO COURIER OVER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS.YOU IGNORED THAT OFFER AND AS YOUR LETTER CONTAINED ALMOST THE EXACT SAME ACCU- SATIONS AS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT WHICH WE HAVE ANSWERED AND DISPROVED AD NAUSEAM OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, WE WITHDREW OUR OFFER TO SEND OVER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE RECEIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND APOLOGY FOR THE VARIOUS ACCUSATIONS AND INNUENDOS LEVIED AGAINST US AND HERE YET AGAIN THREE YEARS LATER.
20. after persistent investigation by mrs hillgarth and her solicitor it eventually transpired that the amount actually paid to ar lawrence had not been anything like the originally con- tracted figure of £105,019.38, but had only been £62,010 inclusive of Vat.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: THE OBVIOUS RESULT OF SAVINGS MADE AND APPROPRIATED ON ITEMS NOT IN THE SCHEDULE OF WORKS CONSIDERED INITIALLY UNAFFORDABLE AND/OR COULD BE DONE CHEAPER THAN QUOTED BY AR LAWRENCE, AND RESULTING IN ASAVINGONOURSURVEYOR’SFEESASTHEYWEREBASEDONFINALEXPENDITUREOF AR LAWRENCE TENDER. YOU APPEAR OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT THE £105,019 BUDGET INCLUDED VAT AND FEES TO ALL AND ANY PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT (SUR- VEYOR, DCM ETC INCLUDING MHML (YOU WILL NOTE ALL AGENTS CHARGE A FEE -
OUR PREVIOUS AGENTS, KFH, HAD A HEATLHY 12.5%, WHEREAS OUR PRESENT AGENTS, MAUNDER TAYLOR, HAVE A MORE REASONABLE 2%) WITH THE RESULT THAT AR LAWRENCE’S PROPORTION WAS NEVER £105,019 - THAT WAS THE BUDGET APPRO- PRIATED TO THE WORKS WHICH INCLUDED THEIR TENDER COSTS. ALL AS GRAPHICALLY AND TRANSPARENTLY LISTED ON ALL THE VARIOUS S.20 NOTICES MOST NOTABLY THE FINAL 22 JUNE 2014.
ALL S.20 NOTICES MAKE CLEAR THAT ALL TENDERS INCLUDE VAT & FEES. HAD MRS HILLGARTH HAD AN IOTA OF COMMON SENSE SHE MIGHT HAVE REQUESTED “WHAT FEES?”ASOPPOSEDTOCOMPLAININGTHATPROFESSIONALLYITISINCORRECTTOLIST COSTSINCLUDINGVAT-TELLTHATTOOURPRESENTAGENTSWHOAREDOINGEXACTLY ASWE(MHML)DID-INCLUDINGVATANDFEESANDTOTHATCANBEADDEDMRSHILL-
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument