Page 22 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

22
21 reduction in the scope of works to be undertaken by AR Lawrence.
(reply) £2000 per lessee was not MHML’s fault, as we had suggested a cheaper contractor. Mrs Hillgarth had insisted on firstly a £219,000 spend by her preferred contractor, Wade (which still did NOT include her wish list as quoted by them 12 months earlier) and then agreed on AR Lawrence as her preferred contractor which was explained would still cost all lessees an additional contribution of £2000 each, to which she agreed as is evidenced in the 23 May 2014 Minutes you have previously referred to. I think the comment about me pleading lack of money has already been disputed. On the contrary, we were making savings wherever possible to fund the additional workings not in AR Lawrence’s remit
22 as quoted from the Schedule of Works.
After making "savings" against the original budget totalling £32,496, achieved primarily by reducing the AR Lawrence specification, (a saving of £29,311 against the originally anticipated AR Lawrence bill) and by reducing by £3,185 the originally anticipated surveyor's bill, MHML's actual expenditure on items within the reduced Schedule of Works totalled only £72,523
23 (comprising £62,010 paid to AR Lawrence and £10,513 paid to the surveyor).
By way of explanation to the leaseholders Mr Brown-Constable has asserted in correspondence (see again Item 8) 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. For her part Mrs Hillgarth has confirmed in a Witness Statement (attached as Item 9)) that she never requested anything but the work which was agreed in the Section 20 Notice issued on
22 June 2014.
(reply) you are 100% totally correct - it is totally untrue and if you can show me evidence (Item 8) where I have said anything remotely like that I deserve to be jailed - “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.” Yes indeed, totally untrue!!! Where do you get these ideas from as this is now getting ridiculous? See my letters dated 1 and 8 August with queries?
I actually said exactly the opposite that to fund those items NOT in the Schedule of Works which were requested/required by Mrs Hillgarth (reference her Hemi & Wade x2 initial quotes), we had to make savings from the AR Lawrence works’ budget to fund them, which is exactly what we did very successfully and competently with “skilled workers” where required, including myself, certified NICEIC electricians where required and MHML charging for doing the works, plus the costs of buying in the supplies and fitments as required, all of which totalled £31,756 including fees, costs, expenses etc .
More likely yet another perfect example of your client’s dishonesty, all as proved in previous correspondence. I cannot believe you can repeat this accusation having seen the documents previously sent, Wade, Hemi quotes etc plus this statement:
As advised to MHML in an email from Mrs Hillgarth “The costs and breakdown provided by Hemi and Wade Design were based on the scope of works provided by Suzanna [Flat 9 - Fortunati] and agreed by the majority at the meeting on the 13th June 2012.” (copy attached ref E)
Even that’s a lie - (see attached ref CCC) - email from Flat 4 who makes clear there was no vote, no majority - simply Mrs Hillgarth up at her old tricks, disinformation in the extreme, maintaining a majority where there was none etc etc all as previously proved.