Page 480 - xxxxxx9_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-7-
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO CITY OF LONDON POLICE
and to THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE
mitre house management limited (“mhml”) – company no: 07731341
mitre house, 124 King’s road, london sW3 4tP (“mitre house” or “the Property”) directors of mhml: Paul Brown-constable, dima international limited (Jamil raja) and segar Karupiah (resigned 29 september 2016) (together “the directors”).
CHEAPER THAN QUOTED AND THAT INCLUDED WORKINGS TO BE PERFORMED WHERE APPROPRIATE BY MHML PERSONNEL, MOST NOTABLY MYSELF, ALONGSIDE REQUIRED PROFESSIONAL AND CERTIFIED TRADESMEN, ELECTRICIANS ETC. THE SAVINGS MADE BY DOING SO WERE EXTENSIVE AND AS ADVISED TO BOTH MRS HILLGARTH AT THE BOARD MEETINGANDALLLESSEESINSUBSEQUENTCORRESPONDEENCE,WOULDNOTBE REFUNDED TO LESSEES BUT EMPLOYED TO FUND THOSE ITEMS WE ALL WANTED BUT COULD NOT INITIALLY AFFORD AND THE SAVINGS WERE ALL USED TO EXCELLENT EFFECT IN PROGRESSING ALL AND FAR MORE THAN ENVISAGE ALTHOUGH MRS HILLGARTH CONSIDERED THE WORKINGS SHODDY AND UNPROFESSIONAL AND THE DECOR CHEAP, VULGAR AND INAPPROPRIATE.
A PERUSAL OF THE COMMUNAL AREAS AND THE WORKS PERFORMED, AGAIN MOST NOTABLY BY MYSELF ALONGSIDE ANY REQUIRED CERTIFIED PERSONNEL, IS STILL IN A PRISTINE CONDITION AFTER NEARLY FIVE YEARS WEAR AND TEAR - THERE IS HARDLY A MARK,ADENT,ASCRATCHONANYSURFACESINCLUDINGTHEBRONZEACRYLICMIRRORS INSIDE THE LIFT CAR NOR ON THE ACRYLIC METAL SURFACES OF THE LIFT ENCLOSURES.
YET ANOTHER UNTRUTH TO SUIT YOUR MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF TRUTH OVER FICTION
13. seventeen days later, and before the work had even started, mr isaacs, the surveyor to the project, acting on mr Brown-constable’s instructions, contacted tony White of ar lawrence to reduce the scope of the project without any explanation. (see mr White’s witness statement, and see also letter from mr isaacs to tony White dated 14 July 2014 confirming the cancellation - which had been first advised orally on 9 July 2014 - and reducing the contract sum from £105,877 to £63,822).
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: YOU WILL NOTE OUR SURVEYOR’S INFORMATIVE LETTER DATED 13 DECEMBER 2013 WHICH STATES: “I HAVE INCLUDED FOR CLEANING THE ARTIFICIAL STONE SURFACES...HOWEVER, I HAVE MADE THIS A PROVISIONAL ITEM AT THIS STAGE IN THE EVENT THAT YOU SHOULD SUBSEQUENTLY DECIDE TO OMIT THIS ITEM...I HAVE ALSO INCLUDED A £4000 GENERAL CONTINGENCY SUM.
IHAVEOMITTEDRE-SPRAYINGTHELIFT,ATTENTIONTOTENANT’SDOORS,NOALLOWANCE FOR WORKS TO THE LIGHTING OR EMERGENCY LIGHTING AS I BELIEVE YOU ARE DEALING WITH THESE MATTERS SEPARATELY IN THE INTEREST OF ECONOMY.
REGARDING THE LIKELY COST OF THE PROPOSED WORKS YOU ADVISED THAT YOU HAD FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THE EXTERNALS OF £55,000 PLUS FEES AND VAT AND FURTHER FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THE INTERNAL WORKS IN THE ORDER OF £15,000 PLUS FEES AND VAT. IN MY OPINION THIS IS UNLIKELY TO BE SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL OF THE SPECIFIED WORKS, PARTICULARLY THE WORKS TO THE INTERNAL COMMON PARTS. HOWEVER, RATHER THAN OMIT ITEMS FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS AT THIS STAGE, IT WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY EASIER TO ASSESS/REVIEW THE PROJECT WITH REGARD TO COSTS ONCE TENDERS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND THE ACTUAL COSTS KNOWN.
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument