Page 423 - xxxxxx9_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

in excess of £250 per leaseholder irrecoverable from them.
Mr Brown-Constable was challenged to explain how MHML had managed to spend the sum of £33,354 (this being MHML’s aggregate expenditure of £105,877 according to the Service Charge Accounts, less their actual expenditure paid to AR Lawrence and to the surveyor totalling £72,523) on improvements which the leaseholders allegedly wanted MHML to make outside the Schedule of Works. In a letter dated 30 June 2016 (Item 10 of the Second Schedule) Mr Brown- Constable admitted that the sum of £31,765.21 had been charged by “MHML and their various sub-contractors” although he has failed to say how much of this sum was retained by MHML and how much was paid to MHML’s sub-contractors. He has also declined to explain how much he personally had charged to MHML for the work undertaken by him. This remains unclear.
Reply: In an email to Mr Brown-Constable from Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor dated 8 June 2017 (eighteen months ago), he states: “It certainly seems surprising, to put it no stronger than that, that you should have prepared such a (very) detailed invoice on 31 December 2014 ....” [ie what I charged personally for the work I performed]
This is again a perfect example of repetitive accusations which have been previously, extensively and comprehensively answered on innumerable occasions in multiple previous correspondence but continue to be raised as though never responded to.
Mr Brown-Constable has also admitted (see Item 11 of the Second Schedule - his letter dated 30 June 2016 which attaches his comments superimposed on a letter from myself dated 21 June 2016) that a retention sum of £1,590 due to AR Lawrence and which still remains unpaid (see Witness Statement of Tony White at Item 5 of the Schedule) had been included in the “Reserves utilised” figure of £105,877 in the Service Charge Accounts, notwithstanding that this sum had not yet been paid. It has still not been paid and according to Mr White’s Witness Statement he does not think that Mr Brown-Constable had any intention of paying it.
Reply: All as previously explained and denied in previous correspondence.
In her Witness Statement Mrs Hillgarth expresses scepticism about the list of things Mr Brown- Constable claims to have done himself (see above). It would be astonishing if these items could possibly justify a charge of £31,765.21. Some, if not most, of these items were included in the original specification, although it is less than clear from the “Brief Specs” put up by Mr Brown- Constable on the MHML website – this being the only specification made available to the leaseholders - precisely what was to be included in the specification, and what was not. For example there is an item in the “Brief Specs” entitled “various joinery and re-wiring”, which could mean almost anything. Mrs Hillgarth believes this brief specification on the website, which (so far as she is aware) was the only specification ever produced to the leaseholders, was kept deliberately vague by Mr Brown-Constable so that leaseholders could never be entirely sure what was in and what was out.
In her evidence Mrs Hillgarth states that: “the “boxing of meters” could not in my view have cost more than around £600, and I had certainly understood that the “boxing of interior messy wiring” was in the original specification, and thus to be carried out by AR Lawrence, as was both “the flooring” (assuming this refers to the Terrazzo flooring) and “the various interior woodworks”, (although it is unclear which woodworks he is referring to). “The flooring”, despite