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

16
he sign it. He did, but forgot to date it.
We simply preferred a far more sensible straightforward one single figure including vat and fees to which any idiot could work out their total outgoing for the agreed total budget of £105,019 with, except for Mrs Hillgarth’s extraordinary reticence, a great deal more works performed than were ever expected to be (or in her case, “were” or now “were not” expected to be, but to be funded from where or why get quotes for those works she maintains were not wanted?).
And you are considering that fraud! It’s anything but. It could only be considered fraudulent if no workings were accomplished, by whoever, but hardly if far more work is done than was expected to be done, staying within the agreed budget, again by whoever, is hardly fraud, it’s common sense as a great deal of extra workings were accomplished with significant savings for all lessees including your client, and we three directors.
And again with reference to my letters of 1 and 8 August:
But it now appears MHML are accused of telling lessees (your para 23) “that the leaseholders, and in particular Mrs Hillgarth, were insisting that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other improvements outside the Schedule of Works could be included. This was entirely untrue.”
13 See my response to that statement on your para 23. (and my letters 1 and 8 August)
Once a specification/schedule of work has been approved by the leaseholders under the Section 20 process, and contractors approved to carry it out, it is not open to MHML, except with the consent of its leaseholders, to deviate unilaterally from the approved scheme of work, or to decide that it will use different contractors. But some of the leaseholders found out that this was precisely what had been happening. Although the leaseholders were paying to have the work done by skilled tradesmen at AR Lawrence, it transpired that some of the work was actually being done by Mr Brown-Constable himself and/or by other contractors engaged by him.
(reply) in an email to me on 11 September 2014 from Mrs Hillgarth:
Following my visit at Mitre on Tuesday, it appears that you are doing the internal work yourself, which is not
what had been agreed at the board meeting on 23rd May 2014.
In the minutes of the meeting of 23rd May 2014, it says explicitly that A&R Lawrence have been appointed to carry out the external and internal refurbishments and it also says that ‘PBC mentioned that savings could always be made by seeking independently sourced quotes for some of the works especially the internals.’ Could you elaborate on this and tell me who is doing what as far as the internal is concerned? Or if you are the solo internal decorator?
I would like you to state exactly what internal work they are doing, and supply me a breakdown of the costs of the internal so that I know where we are.
I look forward to receiving the breakdown of costs and please try to keep it to the point, it’s a pretty simple exercise since you should have all the facts at your fingertips.
and my reply by return in an email on 11 September 2014 from Mrs Hillgarth:
You're late my dear.... and cost me a lunch!
My bet was you'd be back with troublesome queries by midnight the day you visited!
I have already advised Flat 9 who posed the exact same queries that Management are proceeding on schedule on budget and “best they await the finished workings throughout the building and once accounts are