Page 17 - 73_PBC to Begg_9-12-16 (20pp)

And please no accusation that the tank is Management's fault. It's an act of God, that's all, out of the blue emergency, like the lift failing or a pipe breaking - nothing else. If we had Agents there'd be an emergency call out, mammoth fees on top, and a cost probably double or triple of what we're paying, so count your lucky stars we're running the show and not some cowboys.... or Flat 9 with sidekicks 3 and 5. I don't think Flat 4 is part of your consortium of complainants despite your constant referral to Samya as in league with you. I think she wishes to remain totally neutral on all affairs in hand. Best you check and confirm.
Can't count on Flat 1 (no idea who owner is as only deal with Agents) as nothing heard from them (Agents) since 8 July and Flat 8 appears sensibly staying low beneath the parapets.... any comments?
But again, no comment back please as regards ungentlemanly behaviour/language etc - if you had to put up with the nonsense we have had to endure for three years getting to where we are now, you'd probably run, not walk, to the nearest bridge.
And finally, Maria - if you actually think Diego writes this rubbish you need help. I was under the impres- sion that your request for proof the other day (can you believe that, asking for proof...?) on who'd paid or not, which I supplied believe it or not, would bring an end to hostilities..... ? But fear not, this is the last email anyone will receive until the works are completed 21 November by A.R. Lawrence for £105,019 (save for any catastrophes/unexpected contingencies).
So long as Management does not receive any more stupid and retarded queries - or you'll receive back an equally retarded comment - is that plain enough English for everybody.
I have wanted to write this since the initial upset over the dustbins in January 2012 which Flat 9 consid- ered non-Chelsea and requested why all lessees had not been consulted prior to purchase (£150 for all 9 inc. vat and delivery) - the answer.... you'd still be waiting for them!
Paul
(reply) Yes strong language indeed but dealing with Mrs Hillgarth’s totally misguided, ill-informed (by her) cohorts (3 in toto including her) was jeopardising the entire project(s): Read out of con- text without everything else supplied over the last 9 months (hundreds of pages of irrelevant at- tachments!) I agree it would seem inappropriate but not coming from me, a neighbour, a lessee, Chairman of The RA, a director of the Management company etc and most known to me as friends for years - anyway, glad you mentioned this 23 September email as it is without doubt another “game set and match” - Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date?
But now it is clear— and you admit — that you had plenty of money. (oh dear - read above your own reference to 23 Sept email) Now you say (now? It was outlined on the s20 dated 22 June 2014): ”we had £98,262 in reserves to fund the 2014 works budget of £105,019. Consequently we were short by £6,757 and hence the required £2,000 contribution from all 9 lessees which would then allow £11,243 to remain safely in Reserves for any unforeseen eventuality”.... If this last statement is true, it is clear that you misled both Tony Smith [TONY WHITE, but no matter, he’s pretty discredited) in July and the lessees in September 2014 as to the funds available to you in Reserves. (oh dear - read above your own reference to 23 Sept email) You continue: ”.......Somewhat regrettably a small £85 [£858] over- spend on the £105,019 budget was in evidence at the end of the Works which was the only item requiring a dip into the Reserves of £11,243" (pretty good management of a £105,019 budget I would propose seeing as all required works were done, plus the additional works - which you could consider to have all been done for £858...! . From this I take it that Reserves following the project stood at, or should have stood at £10,385 (ie £11,243 less the £858 overspend). (seems logical)
Looking at the 2014 service charge accounts, and again at the comparative figures in the 2015 service charge accounts, it appears that money actually spent on the refurbishment (that is the meaning of ”reserves utilised") {yes indeed, that’s why Notes are also attached to indicate allowances] totalled £136,735 (ie £105,877 +£18,000 + £12,858). (you have to be brain dead to think that after all expla- nations since 23 March 2016 - or indeed going back to the s20 of 22 June 2014 or indeed back to the initial Surveyor quotes in January 2014 that your (yet again repeated despite previous com- ment) aggregate figures represent Reserves Utilised used in toto to pay £105,877 for the full works