Page 356 - xxxxxx9_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

8
29It seems to me that once leaseholders have been informed that specific contractors have been ap- pointed to do a fixed job at a fixed cost, it is potentially fraudulent (at least without informing them) to mislead the leaseholders by doing the work oneself, or through others, and then to keep the money which was paid by the leaseholders to get the work done. And this remains the case even if the aggre- gate cost to the leaseholders is the same as, or less than, they would have paid to the agreed contrac- tor.
(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence
30 In the course of September 2014, in a flurry of some 20 e-rnails over as many days Mr Brown-Constable moved the lessees from a statement to the effect that no additional funding would be required for the re- furbishment, to a request for additional funds (both for additional service charge and for one off re- serves), coupled with a statement that certain approved and funded works were to be cancelled.
31(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence -
Thus in his e-mail dated 2 September 2014 he said: "The cost [for the TV aerial} will be met from future reserves during 2015 at a rate per flat over 4 quarters of £96 each lessee meaning no one has to pay any additional sums whatsoever." Indeed he again went on to indicate, in a subsequent e-mail dated 13 September 2014, that he was somehow generating savings on the project. He said: "Since the scaffold- ing commenced installation on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, dead on schedule, Manage- ment have already saved Lessees £1177.56 OFF the agreed and budgeted £105,019." I took this as good news, since we would have to pay less money, although I did not really understand how he was generating these alleged savings.
(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - Mrs Hillgarth neglects to point out that had she and those lessees she advised NOT to pay their £2000 contributions, actually paid on schedule when demanded, it was our intention to attempt funding the TV/Sky but without all contributions it was not possible.
The request for additional funding for the refurbishment project
32 Despite leading us all to believe we would have to pay less than the budgeted figure, Mr Brown-Consta- ble's subsequent e-mail of 17 September 2014 asked leaseholders to pay £108 per quarter additional funds for the whole of 2015. Then in his e-mail to the lessees dated 21 September 2014, which is partic- ularly confusing and misleading, he told the lessees that if they were to pay an extra £2,000 each - ie £18,000 in total between the nine flats - this would cover certain extra (unbudgeted and/or unwanted) works of which they had been notified at the last minute, such as replacement of the water tank, and a communal TV installation.
(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - Mrs Hillgarth neglects to point out that had she and those lessees she advised NOT to pay their £2000 contributions, actually paid on schedule when demanded, it was our intention to attempt funding the TV/Sky but without all contributions it was not possible.
33However, in addition to this sum of £2,000, the leaseholders were also asked for "voluntary contribu- tions" for the water tank and the communal TV installation, even though the additional £2,000 per flat should have been enough to cover these expenses, even taking into account the anticipated deficit on reserves after the budgeted refurbishment costs had been paid. I should add that the leaseholders had been advised, at 10.30 pm on a Friday night, of the urgent necessity to replace this water tank, but un- supported by any sort of rational explanation, or third party inspection report, or by alternative quotations - this notwithstanding that a chartered building surveyor (Derek Isaacs of Boyce, Evens & Carpenter) had apparently been instructed in advance of the project.
(comment/reply) all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - the Water Tank etc had nothing whatsoever to do with the schedule of works - it came to light during it’s regular in- spection which just so happened to be during the works schedule - very fortuitously as we had scaffolding in place to facilitate a prompt replacement as indeed same for the TV/Sky install which also needed scaffolding in situ.