Page 3 - SKELETON ARGUMENT 26-6-17

A situation did arise when our main water tank on the roof failed its inspection and we were advised that whilst scaffolding was in place we could facilitate a far more economical replacement than if dedi- cated scaffolding were required at a later date.
There was a Health & Safety issue at stake and (“PBC”) advised all lessees of the situation and cost of replacement with scaffolding in place (£5850) and without (£8000) and explained that if all nine lessees agree to replace and make the savings we can do without the necessity of an s.20 or risk missing an install whilst scaffolding was in place by making an application to FTT for dispensation. (“PBC”) made it quite clear than one single objection would abort the install and dispensation must be sought. All lessees agreed to make voluntary contributions and dispense with an application to FTT including (“MH”) reluctantly.
The exact same situation was a communal TV/Sky install but the overall cost was under the £250 per lessee threshold but still needed 100% agreement from all lessees to contribute their share or again, we could not proceed. All agreed including (“MH”) reluctantly.
Savings were made and communicated to all lessees but (“MH”) con- tinued her obstructive and combative attitude to (“PBC”) making many wild accusations as to (“PBC”) behaviour, non-communication, rudeness and attitude which culminated in her fellow Directors requesting her resignation as a Director.
4. CONCLUSION:
(“MH”) had her Solicitor send a 13pp letter dated 23 March 2016 to (“PBC”) which outlined pretty much what is in the s22 Notice accus- ing (“PBC”) of multiple misdemeanours, including refusing to allow access to (“MH”) and other lessees to view documents from our 2014 accounts, which (“PBC”) strenuously denied.
3