Page 8 - 53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp)

8
This work included replying to numerous impertinent and totally mischievous accusations from your retained Solicitors, Emms Gilmore Liberson, including one total untruth as regards Mitre House Management Limited having withdrawn their Counter-Notice, as well as dealing with phonecalls and messages from our Freeholder, Royal London, whom you personally contacted and told a pack of lies to in your effort to have Mitre House Management Limited removed as the Managing Agents at Mitre House.
Finally, you insisted in a phone call to Saphel Rose of Rose & Rose, who were Mitre House Management Limited's own Solicitors, that you considered it inappropriate for Rose & Rose to continue representing Mitre House Management Limited, as it was in your opinion, a conflict of interest.
Consequently, Saphel Rose wrote to me at Mitre House Management Limited announcing that his company, Rose & Rose could no longer represent Mitre House Management Limited.
My £2738 fee to Mitre House Management Limited included an urgent re-appraisal of our situation as regards the RTM application deadline without legal representation and a requirement, as was stated in the letter from Rose & Rose on 7th October 2013, to seek alternative legal representation URGENTLY.
Mitre House Management Limited have issued an invoice for £2582.74 which has been sent to the registered office of Mitre House RTM Company Limited for payment by yourself and your fellow Mitre House RTM Company Limited Directors. Copies have also been also sent to you (Director) and Mari Jo Leoni-Sceti (Secretary). How you appropri- ate the payment back to Mitre House management Limited amongst your other RTM colleagues, I will leave to you to sort, but unless this invoice is paid within 30 days, we will pursue your RTM company and those personally involved through the courts.
Ironically, whilst you retain your shareholding, you are entitled to 25% of this fee after tax...!
This invoice will be paid even if your RTM company has been (understandably) dissolved. All members (incl. directors) of this company are personally liable for the debt to Mitre House Management Limited, as laid down n English law.
As has been well explained to you, all of the above facts should be viewed in the light of you being a Director of Mitre House Management Limited which is why your co-Directors are in the process of having you removed as a Director of Mitre House Management Limited once these 2013 Accounts are finally approved.
It beggar's belief that you could have done, as you have done, all of the above mischiefs against your own company and your fellow Directors of Mitre House Management Limited causing no end of trouble, expense and effort for myself, Jamil and Segar, your fellow Directors, let alone the waste of time, expense and collateral damage to sched- ules and budgets at Mitre House, and to your fellow Directors of Mitre House RTM Company Limited who were totally misled and misinformed as to the management at Mitre House and to entering into an RTM application, with all it's expense, when you knew that because of the commercial element being in excess of 25% it was ineligible to proceed from day one.
Mitre House Management Limited are also in the process of pursuing Emms Gilmore Liberson and Rose & Rose through the Legal Ombudsman for what is considered inappropriate and thoroughly unprofessional correspondence and insinuations, including dishonesty from Emms Gilmore Liberson and a quite unacceptable decision by Rose & Rose, all of which Management consider was orchestrated by you.
As regards the Lease Extension £11,901, these are the rebates received from the lease extensions of Flats 1 and 5. You will recall a payment to you during 2013 which was how we were able to make such a generous repayment of all your (and ours) outlays to date in the lease purchase plus a small additional £750. We three others also received an additional £285 which you'll recall you refused to pay despite my constant assurance that you would receive it back.
I hope that takes care of the more private Management account affairs as mentioned in your email. If not, get back to me.
9 Nor did the RTM company or Mrs Hillgarth have any legal obligation to pay those charges. However on 6 October 2014 Mr Brown-Constable sent to Mrs Hillgarth a cheque for £67.26, having offset, against an MHML dividend of £2,650 properly payable to her, the sum of £2582.74 in respect of MHML's purported "fees" for dealing with the application made by or on behalf of the RTM Company. For MHML's convenience, MHML had simply chosen to offset this arbitrary sum against a dividend which should have been payable to Mrs Hillgarth by MHML.