Page 23 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

Suggest you check out what those costs and breakdown were before you repeat her lie which no doubt appears on her “Witness Statement”. Don’t change it as that’s possibly fraudulent mischief to suit your purposes. That would be fraudulent.
23
I fully appreciate you wish to know the breakdown of the £31,756 costs and wish to see the originals of our AR Lawrence and Surveyor invoices (although I think it now established what those are). We have strong reservations in doing so until such time as all the various insinuations, accusations, innuendos and slurs levied against myself and MHML are con- firmed as being fictitious, most especially the proven lies, given where we have satisfacto- rily disproved them.
We have requested this since replying to your 13pp 23 March 2016 letter and if you recall we did indicate that on receipt of those confirmations we would re-consider our statutory right in withholding the items. We made that clear to both RBK&C and our Freeholder.
Regrettably, as with our offer to fully comply on 1st April 2016, no acknowledgement of our request for confirmation has even been received.
This leaves us thinking that our denials with supporting evidence are either insufficient or we are not to be in receipt of our request for reasons best known to your client. I would be grateful for a reply to this one particular query as it does possibly allow both parties to have satisfaction and bring this situation to a conclusion.
24 And we would also remind your client of her lease obligations to be fully complied with now.
As previously stated, 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 the leaseholders (which MHML did not have), to deviate unilaterally
from the approved scheme of work or from the contractors engaged to carry it out. The legal consequences of that is to render any charge to the leaseholders in excess of £250 per leaseholder irrecoverable from them.
(reply) (which MHML did not have) So how come the accusation (denied robustly by me) “in par- ticular 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 in- cluded. (Sounds like a permission....You can’t have it both ways - one or other is a lie?)
Anyway, it’s legal nit-picking - we used common sense and economy, not dishonesty and fraud. There was no charge to the leaseholders outside of the agreed to spend budget of £105,019 on the 22 June 2014 s.20, save admittedly for the £858 which is not an s.20
25 required amount anyway.
Mr Brown-Constable was challenged to explain how MHML had managed to spend the sum of £33,354 (this being MHML's aggregate expenditure of £105,877 according to the Service Charge Accounts, less their actual expenditure paid to AR Lawrence and to the surveyor totalling £72,523) on improvements which the leaseholders allegedly wanted MHML to make outside the Schedule of Works. In a letter dated 30 June 2016 (Item 10) Mr Brown-Constable admitted that the sum of £31,765.21 had been charged by "MHML and their various sub-contractors" although he has so far failed to say how much of this sum was retained by MHML and how much was paid to MHML's sub-contractors. He has also declined to explain how much he personally had charged to MHML for the work undertaken by him. This remains unclear.
(reply) Reference to not being a “valid” query. For valid, read “impertinent, privileged, private, inappropriate and most relevantly out of time”