Page 14 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

14
indeed will comment on the interior of Mitre House - mark my words.
You will also note that we listed on the minutes (forwarded obviously to Mrs Hillgarth) all the same tender costs which (as was pointed out to her at the meeting) now included fees and costs (refer to BB v AAA for further evidence - and BB was, as previously advised, always in evidence on our website along with all other relevant documents and the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works).
You will also note multiple references to “Surveyor” which somewhat deflates your assertion that we had never informed lessees of a Surveyor with obvious fees and costs. You will also note a request that Mrs Hillgarth informs all lessees of her findings during the meeting, including one might have expected the discrepancies between the actual quoted costs on our Surveyor’s (BB) letter (published on our website) versus the 22 June 2014 s.20 totals which made clear were including vat and fees, as well as, just maybe, reference to the fact that fees included the Surveyor Costs.
Patently she did not. And do not forget she wished to appoint her own Surveyor!
I need not repeat her perusal of banking details as a Director of MHML, so any complaints over our banking arrangements should have been raised then. None were as she considered them satisfactory.
This is really a repeat of what we have already explained. What you have left out is that had Mrs Hillgarth (or other lessees) done as directed and viewed all the tenders on our website, they would have seen the exact amounts each contractor had tendered (admit- tedly plus vat (not fees, just plus vat). Consequently AR Lawrence’s actual total cost was £76,101 plus vat. Any lessee (or had Mrs Hillgarth advised them after our meeting on 23 May 2014 as she was requested to and agreed to) could have requested, had they perused our website as they were advised to do multiple times, why has AR Lawrence gone from £76,101 to £105,019. The simple answer was plus vat, plus Surveyor fees etc. Very straightforward.
What went down on the s.20 was a total works cost including vat and fees and attributed to AR Lawrence (not for any nefarious reason, purely simplicity - the alternative was to follow previous agents’ form and state £76,101 plus vat, plus fees). Any lessee including Mrs Hillgarth could have queried “fees” - they didn’t. They could have enquired why the details on the website do not match the s.20 total - they didn’t.
One presumes Mrs Hillgarth was somewhat tardy yet again in her fiscal duties as to recap she was requested to inform all lessees following the 23 May minutes meeting.
It would be appreciated, so long as you believe it, that they all be told that you are now totally satisfied subsequent to Friday's meeting, with all Management's competence, professionalism, arrangements, specifications and quotes to date. You are not expected to approve the www.mitrehouse.org, as I'll leave that to filter through from outside sources in due course, as indeed will comment on the interior of Mitre House - mark my words.
I certainly enquired of previous agents what fees, and you were supplied two other Agents’ s.20s to prove the point - their contractor cost of “£xxx” plus vat and fees.You (and Mrs Hillgarth) obviously prefer their way, whereas I and MHML prefer and maintain it far more transparent, to have done it our way. Hardly fraud?
And please NOTE all points and references to Agents’ s.20s and their account