Page 30 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

30
(reply) my goodness, how many more times? Will I get 10 years for fraud because we didn’t
split the costs between Surveyor and Main Contractor and our costs?
(see my letters 1 and 8 August) We did exactly as our previous Agents (in your words - Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward, a reputable and experienced firm and one of the largest independent property services groups in London.) - (see attached copy accounts ref D & DD from Wellcome Trust) Have they supplied details? Have they simply used Reserves
31 Utilised ?- so why is the way we presented our accounts so dastardly?
However these are mere niceties compared with the most obvious and glaring accounting error. It goes without saying that the leaseholders should have been informed in the Service Charge Ac- counts that out of the aggregate refurbishment figure of £105,877 charged to the leaseholders the sum of £31,765.21 had in fact been paid to MHML, particularly as the leaseholders had been led to expect that all the refurbishment monies would be paid to AR Lawrence - and certainly not to their own landlord.
(reply) I cannot understand the logic of caring who got what for what so long as what got done, which it all did, plus a great deal more, and all within an approved and agreed budget. It’s pure semantics to insist that surveyor’s fees are advised separately to works and are then having to be indicated on the accounts separately.
(see my letters 1 and 8 August)
Our previous agents lumped works together (attached ref D & DD) and we followed form.
The main difference being is that what ended up as Reserves Utilised on our accounts was the same total agreed figure (admittedly plus £858) as on the s.20 notice whereas our previous Agents could actually put in any figure they wanted after adding vat and fees. Which would your client prefer, total transparency of final cost prior to works commencing or an unknown total cost until accounts are published. We preferred the former and will do again in the future thank you very much.
Again, this was all totally covered in previous correspondence.
In summary, I will rely on all my replies to date including this letter in my defence. I would re-con- firm that all of your points (1) to (31) have been previously answered comprehensively in previous correspondence and for the life of me cannot comprehend why you would yet again raise the same accusations, indeed totally contrary to what I have already totally disproved - I refer in par- ticular, as just one simple example, to Mrs Hillgarth’s ludicrous denial of works she wanted doing. Does she actually wish to go in front of a judge and explain what she meant by:
“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.” (see attached ref E & F)
And as previously stated - 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 to her old tricks, disinformation in the extreme, maintaining a majority where there was none etc etc all as previously proved.
This latest attempted coup by Mrs Hillgarth is not only very tardy but almost identical in its misguided respect of statutory requirements (25% v 17 days), raising almost identical reasons yet again for her again proceeding with yet more ill-informed accusations, multiple references to fiscal mismanagement, multiple accusations of financial and moral irregularities and petty refer-