Page 5 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-4-
It appears from your recent faux-pas re: Wade (“Neither Mrs Hillgarth, nor anyone else, re- quested METER CUPBOARDS, PIGEON HOLES, SIGNAGE”. You seek to demonstrate that there were a number of items in the Wade quote (which you say – incorrectly - that Mrs Hillgarth sourced) which she was effectively insisting on, and with which you felt some ob- ligation to comply. That, as you are well aware, is a misrepresentation of what actually took place.”
“Mrs Hillgarth introduced Wade as a good contractor, and that is all. She never requested any particular work to be done by them. The Wade quote (as also the one supplied by Hemi) were based on information which you gave to the individual suppliers. Mrs Hillgarth never worked on any of these schedules. You were in charge of the project and you were (exclusively) dealing with that process.”
Wrong on both erroneous observations as comprehensively proved in this tôme.
Your 21 January 2019 email: “As regards your point about the Property Redress Scheme, I can inform you that this was, as you might expect, our first port of call. However when they learned that the matter was the subject of civil litigation and potentially the subject of criminal proceedings, involving allegations of fraud, they said they had no authority to consider the matter. It was an issue for the courts to resolve.”
First port of call should have been both your’s and Mrs Hillgarth’s for our alleged refusal to supply year end accounts information having zero to do with fraud, embezzlement, stealing £29,000...? Mind you even that approach to PRS (something you accused us, along with Indemnity Insur- ance, or NOT having?) would have ended in a rebuttal as untrue as your client admitted in para 73 of her Witness Stmt.
Your 21 January 2019 email: “I have (re)read all the material you have (re)sent me with your e-mail of 20 January. The fact that you may have restated your position a substantial num- ber of times does not render your position legitimate, nor your explanation acceptable. I have got the point that you were using the money saved by part cancellation of the A&R Lawrence contract to carry out additional work (within the aggregate budget) which you re- garded as necessary to satisfy the expectations of the various leaseholders, including Mrs Hillgarth. You don’t need to repeat that any more.
My apologies but it is repeated again in this tôme ad nauseam as, leaving aside your more recent financial shenanigans broadside, these “unaffordables/savings/audio” lies at the heart of your dia- tribes since 23 March 2016 and your 2019 correspondence evidences you have not “got it”.
Your 21 January 2019 email evidences my observation above: “But neither you nor MHML ever quoted for this job. You misled the leaseholders into thinking all the work was to be done by A&R Lawrence. You never told the leaseholders you had cancelled a very substantial part of the A&R Lawrence contract. You never asked the leaseholders whether you could be paid for doing this work instead of A&R Lawrence. When you were caught doing the work, you deliberately misled the leaseholders into thinking there were going to be “sav- ings”. You refused to supply straightforward explanations of who had been paid how much for doing what. You tried to cover up what you had done in the service charge ac- counts. Are you really trying to claim all this was transparent, honest and acceptable be- haviour? If you genuinely believe this is the way a person in your position (landlord/ manager) was entitled to behave, I fear you are simply deluding yourself.”
Your client Mrs Hillgarth, whilst a Director of MHML, attended the Board Meeting on 23 May 2014, where all above was discussed (as evidenced on a 6hr 45 minute audio recording) and agreed with her fellow Directors present by exclaiming “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy”, again as evidenced on the NON DOCTORED audio!
As Management we had no obligation whatsoever to discuss anything with any lessee save for issuing correct and valid s.20 Notices which we did and finalising an agreed budget which we did and overseeing the agreed works which we did and as had been discussed and agreed at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting with your client in attendance we made sensible common sense sav- ings wherever and however possible to fund items that ALL lessees including your client and