Page 29 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

28 In the latest letter from Mr Begg to Mr Brown-Constable dated 7 July 2016 (Item 13) Mr Brown- Constable was asked (a) How much had been charged by him personally to MHML for the work he did on the refurbishment? (b) What profit did MHML make on the £31,765.21 it charged to the lessees for the refurbishment? In other words what was the difference between the £31,765.21 it charged to the lessees and the total amount paid by MHML to its sub-contractors? In his letter dated 7 July 2016, with comments superimposed on Mr Begg's letter of the same date (see Item 14) Mr Brown-Constable simply responds to each question: "I don't consider that a valid query". We believe the reason for this evasive response is that these questions cannot be answered truth- fully without admitting fraud.
29
(reply) See your para (25) for comments - Your (a) and (b) are subject to the 6 month ruling anyway - you ignored our offer to comply - and I doubt we’d have offered to comply if we were fraudsters? Do you really consider not telling you how our invoice was appropriated between cost and profit a fraud. Did you request of AR Lawrence the same question or your garage bill? Get it and we will.
A fraud would be if we had taken the saved money and done nothing with it? A perusal of Mitre House’s interior is proof perfect extensive works were carried out following your client’s requests, which despite evidence to the contrary, she still appears to be denying. You get your client to voluntarily comply with her lease covenants and MHML will voluntar- ily comply with your requests. I know, more chance of winning the lottery!
And don’t forget your most recent (para 23) ludicrous innuendo: “that MHML (me) were in- sisting that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other improvements outside the Schedule of Works could be included. which even you must agree to be yet another malicious error to further confuse the situation? Simple: prove it?
I have attached one or two references (ref F three pages) in yet further support that she did expect and request items, to add yet further to the evidence already supplied which was 100% conclusive anyway - remember Hemi, Wade x2, Grangewood plus letters accompanying our Quarterly Demands, plus the “Suzanna” schedule, all outlined in this report.
29 (D) False Accounting in the 2014 Service Charge Accounts.
According to Mr Brown-Constable (see Item 11) "the £105,877 figure [this being the "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 shown in the Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014] includes .... £1,590 due to AR Lawrence once final snagging is accomplished". It is unclear why this unpaid retention is accounted for as monies paid rather than being charged as a provi- sion. Nor is it clear whether the £105,877 also includes a reserve for other unpaid contractors
(of which there is at least one - see the final paragraph of Tony White's Witness Statement).
(reply) this is simply a repeat of what has already been more than adequately denied and explained surely? Reserves Utilised simply indicates where funding originates from. The £1590 ended up where it should have done, as a creditor on the accounts.
30 What is so unusual or fraudulent in that? (see my letters 1 and 8 August)
This is not the only accounting anomaly. The Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 Decem- ber 2014 clearly state that no surveyor's fees were paid or accrued in 2014 (see page 8 which shows a nil entry for 2014 in respect of the line item marked "Surveyor's Fees"). However in a letter dated 10 June 2016 Mr Brown-Constable asserts that surveyor's fees were in fact paid in 2014 and that these were included in the "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 shown in the line immediately below it.