Page 4 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

4
Agents’ fees charged by KFH in 2011 were £3915 whereas in late 2012 (due solely to your client’s nuisances) it was decided that fees would have to be charged for our first year 2012, despite our initially hoping not to charge (and as stated in correspondence to lessees) and were decided, by MHML including Mrs Hillgarth at £4320 which was in keeping with the average increase of KFH fees, and identical with the cheapest quote we received from one Agent (you have on file from my 7 July letter), and we were including on-site 24/7 attention on every day of the year - and we reduced Quarterly Demands down from £950 to £750 and ended 2012 with a surplus of £1758.
We held our fees at £4320 for two more years, and reduced Quarterly Demands down to £650 in 2013 with a further surplus of £1188, but a regrettable excess of £1753 in 2014 but a small surplus of £770 in 2015.
Our annual fees rose to £4850 in 2015 (after 3 years held at £4320) which was a below average 3.5% annual compound increase and to £4995 in 2016 (again a below average increase) - all being less than the average rise of our previous Agents with again, 24/7 on-site year round attention to all concerns etc.
See attached (ref B) for full and total and irrefutable analysis of Agents Fees...!
My fee of now £10 per day for 24/7 attendance (£7.00 in 2012, £7.50 in £2013, £8.50 in £2014) is hardly unreasonable and once invoiced by me personally to MHML leaves a balance left for MHML of £1365 from their fee of £4995 (in 2016) to cover accounting and general running costs. Hardly excessive or overly profitable. And still far cheaper than if we hired external Agents today charging around £7200 for (almost) same services (no 24/7 on-site though or finite attention to detail and certainly no minute attention to costs, expenditure etc) that we have provided to date nor the same type of “home care” attention and economies we have achieved to date and will continue to do so.
Mrs Hillgarth has an income of £650 a week subletting at Mitre House alone (plus other properties), but those that reside at Mitre House as home do not have that benefit (or the tax breaks) and economies are greatly appreciated and indeed very necessary.
4 HoweverMHMLdoesnotprovideanyofthesafeguardsforleaseholders/tenantswhichwould be available from a professionally qualified and appropriately regulated managing agent, (such as separate client/trust accounts, a formal complaints procedure and professional indemnity in- surance). Some of the lessees see no reason why they should pay for MHML's (unqualified) services the same sort of charge as they would have to pay for a properly qualified, properly regulated and properly indemnified agent offering all relevant safeguards and meeting all its required professional obligations. MHML has no office costs to cover, no personnel costs, no professional indemnity or fidelity insurance, and no relevant expertise.
(reply) See your para (2) for further reference - Some valid truth in the above para (4) statement and were Mitre House a 200 unit residential block as opposed to a very small 9 flat block I would certainly agree and would not even consider managing or involving MHML in something even over Mitre House’s nine flats. Mitre House is my home and therefore I have a vested interest in its good upkeep not just for myself, as Mrs Hillgarth insists, but for all lessees. If the value of my property improves then so do all lessees’ investments). Our decision to manage Mitre House was purely financial to minimise costs. We have done that despite charging a reasonable fee for doing so, unless you consider £10 a day extortionate.