Page 13 - 73_PBC to Begg_9-12-16 (20pp)

Your assertion that the lessees had been advised of what was going on (“game set and match” emails thoroughly disprove) is typical of the half-truths you use to deceive and confuse. Yes, you did advise them, but not at the outset (I think you’ll find from December 2011 which was the outset be- lieve it or not - and yes, I have the proof on file ready to use),— only when the project was already under way. (seeing as Mrs H. was sourcing Hemi, Wade etc quotes in 2012 gives an idea of “out- set”, and meetings to discuss, approve etc in 2012 does indicate “outset”.Having been ob- served/photographed doing some of the work yourself, you had now come under serious pressure. (are you inferring that I was hiding my work, in which case how was I photographed or available for photographing - this is pathetic!) Questions were now being asked which required explanation. If you had told the lessees prior to 22 June 2014 (the date of the agreed Section 20 letter) that your plan was to make savings by doing work yourself in order to carry out additional works (allegedly (allegedly, al- legedly? - Hemi, Wade, Grangewood, meetings to discuss and approve..... allegedly? I don’t think so - re-read the “game set and match again”) expected by Mrs Hillgarth) the lessees would never have given their approval. (yes, I’m sure they’d have given their approval when told their additional works not able to be considered within the £105k budget would cost each of them around £3500 each on top of the £2000 to afford the AR Lawrence works - please????) That’s why Mrs H’s £219,000 WADE quote was not adopted because (despite her insistence) once all lessees were asked if they were prepared to contribute around £5000 - £7500 each - we never got back one single reply!!!!! Who is writing and making these ludicrous observations?
(reply) “but not at the outset”: - suggest you refer to the “several hundreds pages of my irrelevant attachments.....Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date?
2. We will claim damages for deceit, as an alternative to, or in addition to the Section 20 claim. You say: ”what Mrs Hillgarth cannot abide is that [you] did the work [yourself] and that it was shoddily done”. That is wrong. (great so it’s not me, my workings or shoddy) What she cannot abide is your deceit. (that’s rich coming from her) Deliberately misleading the lessees into believing that the work would be done by AR Lawrence, (show me one example of me saying that AR Lawrence had anything whatsoever to do with the additional works - you can’t as none exist - the lift, the lighting, the emergency lighting, the electrics were ALL done BEFORE AR Lawrence even commenced.... as well explained to Mrs H as being the way a works schedule works!!! Explaining that to a prop- erty developer was tricky though and obviously not comprehended) changing the agreed décor without the approval of the lessees (which lessees - one or two non residents malcontents?), and secretly (secretly? see “game set and match” emails) reducing the scope of AR Lawrence's work in order to line your own pocket. (abusive, inflammatory, jealousy and simply pathetic) Then com- pounding the deceit by presenting the lessees with grossly (grossly.... grossly? I don’t think so) inad- equate accounts and persistently refusing to answer questions from the lessees as to who had been paid for doing what.
(comment) I don’t think so. Remember this email?
Diego
I really must also insist you refrain from impertinent emails requesting details you are not party to until such time as the annual accounts are published when all details, contractors, sub-contractors, costs, expenses, contingencies spent or saved, additional works required etc etc are available to you to peruse at your leisure-
Paul
You say that work on the lift is tricky to hide from anybody in the building. From which you seek to imply that what you did was entirely open and above board. Of course work on the lift is tricky to hide — par- ticularly if you choose to paint it gold. But what can be hidden, as you well know, and what you plainly did attempt to hide, is precisely who was doing that work. (hang on - I’m onsite doing and ready for my close-ups so can hardly be hiding?) You dismiss as "fantasy" the idea that you swore Bunny to silence about this. However we have written evidence, which we will produce in court, that you wrote to him: "only you and I know what’s going on re Mitre House etc — so only talk with me for now!!" (This in- struction being repeated at the end of the note and signed ”Paul").