Page 586 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

-9-
in THe WesT London CoUnTY CoUrT - Case No: [ ]
Mrs MiCHeLe HiLLGArTH - Claimant
versus
MiTre HoUse MAnAGeMenT LiMiTed - First Defendant and
pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe - Second Defendant
and
seGAr KArUpiAH - Third Defendant
and
JAMiL rAJA - Fourth Defendant __________________________________________________________________________________
pArTiCULArs oF CLAiM
__________________________________________________________________________________
seCondLY, HAd sHe AGreed in A MHML BoArd MeeTinG on 23 MAY 2014 in THe presenCe oF Her TWo Co_direCTors, Mr seGAr KArUpiAH And Mr pAUL BroWn- ConsTABLe THAT sHe exCLAiMed “WeLL THen everYBodY WiLL Be HAppY” WHen iT WAs expLAined To Her THAT sAvinGs CoULd Be MAde FroM THe WorKs’ Tender CosT To spend on iTeMs noT sCHedULed To Be done As THeY Were iniTiALLY Con- sidered UnAFFordABLe As Her WAde qUoTes MAde ABUndAnTLY CLeAr?
29. Subsequently the Second Defendant cancelled further work which had been contracted to ar lawrence and Sons limited, again without the knowledge or approval of the leaseholders, and again arranged for much of the cancelled work to be carried out by himself and/or through third parties.
A Considered response: MHML HAd no reAson nor responsiBiLiTY To inForM Lessees As BeinG MAnAGeMenT, HeAd Lessor, LAndLord And proJeCT MAnAGers THeY perForMed THeir MAnAGeMenT dUTies on BUdGeT on sCHedULe HAvinG pro- Gressed THe “UnAFFordABLes” WiTH no CALL on Lessees As THeY Were FUnded FroM sAvinGs MAde As per THe UnAniMoUs deCision To do so AT THe 23 MAY 2014 BoArd MeeTinG.
Mrs HiLLGArTH WAs AsKed TWo qUesTions on oATH, BoTH oF WHiCH sHe denied, nAMeLY HAd sHe soUrCed TWo qUoTes FroM WAde (Yes sHe HAd) BUT denied sHe HAd, And seCondLY, HAd sHe AGreed in A MHML BoArd MeeTinG on 23 MAY 2014 in THe presenCe oF Her TWo Co_direCTors, Mr seGAr KArUpiAH And Mr pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe THAT sHe exCLAiMed “WeLL THen everYBodY WiLL Be HAppY” WHen iT WAs expLAined To Her THAT sAvinGs CoULd Be MAde FroM THe WorKs’ Ten- der CosT To spend on iTeMs noT sCHedULed To Be done As THeY Were iniTiALLY Considered UnAFFordABLe As Her WAde qUoTes MAde ABUndAnTLY CLeAr?
30. The First and Second Defendants paid themselves for this work, without the authority of the leaseholders, from service charge reserves belonging to the leaseholders, and concealed this from the leaseholders. a detailed forensic analysis of the bank statements of mhml for calen- dar years 2014 – 2016 has been conducted which discloses how the fraud was perpetrated, and is annexed to these Particulars of Claim as appendix a.
A Considered response: THe deTAiLed ForensiC qUeries Were no More THAn norMAL reGULAr BAnKinG And Were disproved WiTH reLevAnT FACTs sTATed And errors Advised sUCH As sTATinG one seT oF sTATeMenTs HAd noT Been sUppLied
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT