Page 14 - 73_PBC to Begg_9-12-16 (20pp)

(reply) This ranks as even more bizarre than my underwear....get Bunny into court as a witness! I have not got the foggiest idea of what this might refer to - could be anything as I often leave notes.
3. As regards MHML's charges for the RTM matter, we say that what you have done amounts to conversion (theft). We say that unless there was agreement on the part of Mrs Hillgarth to pay those charges, or a court judgement requiring her to pay them, it is unlawful to offset those charges against MHML shareholders funds (whether distributed or not) attributable to Mrs Hillgarth. Your position is that the charges were properly payable by Mrs Hillgarth (notwithstanding that you had initially invoiced them to the RTM company) and that the offset was therefore lawful. You made use of her money that was sitting in the company's account in order to pay yourself, just as if she had given you a blank cheque. That is theft — plain and simple. You seem blissfully ignorant of commercial, banking or indeed HMRC accounting practices when it comes to refunds or payments whilst indebted?
(reply) MHML were not prepared to tolerate a bad debt - She was a debtor and a very bad well known one to MHML - I hesitate to think what Mrs Hillgarth’s credit rating is? MHML consider her thoroughly untrustworthy as she had previously withheld amounts due. She received due re-payments when due, she also received payment for an invoice she presented to MHML for vandalism to her bathroom, by return, for a ridiculous amount, but no worry.
'4. The only other outstanding question now is exactly how much of the lessees’ money you (you; meaning me (if me: zero) or MHML, of which I am an employee and as such any monies due to me is paid by MHML) have taken. (and by me “taken” or MHML “taken” do you mean “reim- bursed” for services rendered? “Taken” does infer theft? Is that what you are inferring that I or MHML took money without providing services?) You have refused to disclose how much was paid to you personally, this being ”impertinent" and/or a ”peripheral/ detail" and/or ”not a relevant query" and/or ”asked out of time". (it is all of those obviously) But this is information to which the leaseholders are entitled and which will become available to us on disclosure (doubtful as there is no reference to pay- ments to me personally for my “labour” on any document or indeed anybody else’s labour costs including AR Lawrence or any other supplier/contractor at Mitre House) as soon as litigation has started we will seek an order for specific disclosure of all relevant invoices and MHML bank statements so that we can see exactly what has been paid and when and to whom. A shame you didn’t accept our offer to comply on 1 April 2016? You already have the amounts paid to all relevant parties? Why is my labour costs of such interest as opposed to anybody else - yes, I know, because Mrs Hillgarth is simply being awkward in the extreme? Had Joe Bloggs (or even her Wade, Hemi or anybody else including AR Lawrence) done all the £31,756 works she’d be delighted and there would be no query as to how much he made out of the works or? Right or wrong?
Problem is, it would have cost each lessee, including myself and my co-directors around an additional £3500 to cover the £31,756 - (over and above the £2000 to cover the AR Lawrence works on the approved Surveyor’s Schedule of Works) but as has been well documented (Wade/Hemi etc), had they done the additional works, that additional contribution would have doubled to nearer £7000 to cover the quotes from Wade and Hemi..... so if you don’t consider
a saving of around £30,000 as a saving, by MHML’s clever management in progressing the addi- tional works for only £31,756, funded from savings made from the AR Lawrence budget, God knows what is?
‘The specification was agreed with the surveyor in February 2014 and AR Lawrence were appointed as the contractor in March 2014 (I doubt that as the s.20 wasn’t issued until 22 June 2014). In July 2014 you told Tony Smith [it’s Tony White, but no worry he’s pretty much out of the frame now] that you were short of money (I’d be very wary of quoting Mr White) and that was why you needed to re- duce the specification/scope of AR Lawrence's work. Work started on 1 September 2014. Subsequently you wrote to the lessees on 23 September 2014 to ask for funding for the water storage tank (costing £7810 inclusive of VAT), stating at para 5 that you had no available Reserves to cover this cost. (No, I did not - re-read your reference) Not withstanding that you had (without their knowledge or consent - (oh dear, “game set and match” emails kick in yet again, dated you will note, some 2 weeks pre- viously) reduced the scope of the work (making savings as indicated in “game set and match” emails), you told the lessees: ”...in the absence of available Reserves for these particular emergency works all lessees are required to pay .... ..