Page 508 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-24-
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”).
48. the identity and qualifications of ryszard Wajda are not known, but dimitar dimitrov appears to be a jobbing builder from e16. We do not have invoices for either of these suppliers. nor do we know what services were provided by them. nor who authorised these payments. nor are these payments, so far as one can tell, picked up in the service charge expense detail report for the year ended 31 december 2015. therefore one can only assume that they were sub-contractors of Paul Brown-constable who were being paid in arrears for work done on the 2014 refurbishment project. however the identity of these suppliers has never been disclosed or explained by him. nor has he provided invoices to support the payments made to them.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: ARTISANS EMPLOYED BY MHML AND PAID BY MHML ON A
REFURBISHMENT PROJECT (FLAT 7) HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SERVICE CHARGE
EXPENSE ACCOUNT OR THE 2014 WORKS? (contrary to your client’s malicious rumour to all lessees that my Flat 7 was being refurbished in September 2014 utilising our works’ contractor AR Lawrence or indeed your recent accusation of Benitor’s involvement?) - Another lie? Where do you get these Walter Mitty ideas from, Mr Holmes?
Conclusion
49. since Paul Brown-constable is not noted for his altruism, the only conclusion one can draw from these unorthodox arrangements is that he had originally hoped to pocket approxi- mately £29,000 personally (of which approximately £9,000 to be shared with his “sub-contrac- tors”), out of the “savings” he was allegedly making on the refurbishment project. (as we now know these so-called “savings” were actually achieved by cancelling – without informing the leaseholders - a substantial part of the internal work which had been contracted to ar lawrence, and undertaking the work himself, or through undisclosed sub-contractors).
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: “ALTRUISM” - TELL THAT TO MRS HILLGARTH AND HER VIRTUAL MAJORITY WHO ARE NOW EACH £10,950 (£1600 IN 2017, PLUS £2350 CON- TRIBUTION TO FEES AND £7000 ADDITIONAL OUTGOINGS IN 2019) WORSE OFF TODAY THAN THEY WERE ON 26 JUNE 2017 - THAT’S ALTRUISM, MR BEGG...
IF EVER FURTHER PROOF WERE NEEDED OF LIBELLOUS ACCUSATIONS MADE TO DATE AND WELL ESTABLISHED IN PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE THIS INFERENCE THAT I “had origi-
nally hoped to pocket approximately £29,000 personally (of which approximately £9,000 to be shared with his “sub-contractors”), out of the “savings” he was allegedly making on the refur- bishment project” HAS TO TAKE THE CANDLE?
50. however on being investigated by michele hillgarth and her solicitor, it would seem that mr Brown-constable (and/or his colleagues on the Board of mhml) must have grown alarmed at the prospect of exposure. and that he covertly arranged for the repayment to mhml in 2015, and for the onward reimbursement to the reserves in 2016, of the approximately £29,000 he had stolen in 2014.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: IF EVER FURTHER PROOF WERE NEEDED OF LIBELLOUS AC-
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument