Page 6 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

6
5 No doubt in order to justify its unreasonable management charges MHML previously held itself out on its Mitre House website (http://www.mitrehouse.com/mitre-house-management- limited.html as having relevant property management experience. MHML asserted, amongst many other claims, that MHML is "the most used RTM service provider", "forms over 85%
of all RTM companies" and that it had experience of handling collective freehold enfranchise- ment applications. They further stated that MHML carried £3 million of professional indemnity cover. In fact these representations were all completely untrue and had simply been plagiarized in totality from the website of Canonbury Management - a bona fide property management company. MHML had also downloaded all of Canonbury's terms and conditions of business on to its own website. MHML had simply changed the corporate name, wherever it appeared, from Canonbury to MHML.
6 As soon as this flagrant abuse was drawn to their attention, Canonbury objected to this breach of their copyright and forced MHML to withdraw and take down from the MHML website all the false misrepresentations as well as the plagiarized terms and conditions. However the leaseholders/tenants have retained copies of the previous website text for evidential purposes and these are attached - see Item 1.
(reply) The website affair raises its ugly head once again. As you well know, it was admitted, sincerely apologised for to Canonbury and forgiven. In truth, it was unforgiv- able but regretfully a worldwide mischief perpetrated by millions of websites including most likely Canonbury in some respects or even Targus Group. The sheer spitefulness of your client in attempting to dispose of the Mitre House website does evidence what a vindictive and untrustworthy individual she actually is which resulted in her being requested to step down as one of our directors. Her disloyalty and deviousness was simply decided by her fellow Directors to be unacceptable, most especially having attempted an RTM.
We have on file her enthusiasm for the website initially!
(B) The Right to Manage application and the conversion of money owed to Mrs Hillgarth.
7 Although she had initially been a director of MHML, the company was not under her control and Mrs Hillgarth became concerned at the way things were turning out. Thus in June 2013, while she was still a director of MHML, she attempted to orchestrate a "Right to Manage" application on behalf of herself and other lessees of Mitre House. However the application failed because the property was "non-qualifying" in terms of the relevant legislation (ie there was too much commercial space in relation to the residential space).
(reply) As has been established irrefutably, she is not only disloyal and duplicitous but also forgetful as she proceeded with an RTM application, dragging other innocent lessees with her, in full (yet forgotten) knowledge that it was not possible due to a 25% footprint of the commercial units. She also did not resign her directorship prior to commencing her ill-founded, ill-informed and utterly uncalled for RTM application.
One is somewhat surprised her Solicitors did not also advise her of the 25% ruling, as the subsequent proceedings were a very time consuming, costly debacle.
My dealings with her RTM application did actually make me somewhat of an expert.
I note your reference to “non-qualifying” - suggest you re-read what you’ve already been supplied - she emailed me and other lessees that it was “non-qualifying” on 7th April 2011..... yet still proceeded in 2013 and thinks that there will be no costs involved for anybody? I suggest she reads up on RTM costs for fellow participants.