Page 484 - xxxxxx9_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-11-
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”).
GARTH’S INSISTENCEE THAT INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WORKINGS SHOULD NOT BE DONE CONCURRENTLY AS EXTERIOR WORKINGS REQUIRED DIFFERENT SKILLS TO THOSE WHO DO INTERIORS AND THAT NO SAVINGS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY HAVING ONE CONTRACTOR DO BOTH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR CONCURRENTLY - AGAIN TELL THAT TO OUR
PRESENT AGENTS WHO ARE PROGRESSING INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NEXT YEAR WITH A SMALLBUTUSEFULSAVINGANDCERTAINLY,ASWEADVISED,WOULDCAUSEFARLESS DISRUPTION TO RESIDENTS TO GET ALL WORKS AWAY IN ONE GO AS OPPOSED TO OVER TWO YEARS?
JUST TWO EXAMPLES OF YOUR CLIENT’S IGNORANT AND ANNOYING OBSERVATIONS COMMUNICATED AD NAUSEAM OVER 24 MONTHS TO OTHER LESSEES, WHOM TO BE FAIR TO HER, SWALLOWED THE LOT, DAY AFTER DAY, MONTH AFTER MONTH BUT INTERESTINGLY NOT ONE CONFIRMED IN WRITING (OR VERBALLY) TO MAKE THE REQUIRED ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO PROGRESS MRS HILLGARTH’S WADE QUOTE WHICH FINALLY ENDED UP AT £219,000 FOR THE EXACT SAME WORKINGS AS QUOTED BY AR LAWRENCE’S BUDGET OF £105,019 - BUT HAVING DOUBLE CHECKED THAT THEY WERE 100% IDENTICAL AT THE 23 MAY 2014 BOARD MEETING SHE THEN SENDS AN EMAIL DATED 6 JUNE 2014 SAYING: “I WOULD LIKE IT REGISTERED THAT THE ESTIMATES PROVIDED ARE NOT “LIKE FOR LIKE” IN MY OPINION. FOR EXAMPLE WADE HAS INCLUDED SEVERAL THINGS SUCH AS LIGHTING ETC - WHICH ARE NOT PROVIDED IN SOME OF THE OTHER QUOTES INCLUDING THE QUOTE FROM A&R LAWRENCE”.
ALMOST AS TOTALLY TRULY MISGUIDED AS YOUR RECENT “PIGEON BOXES & METER CUPBOARDS”OBSERVATIONSALONGWITHYOURASSUMPTIONTHATMRSHILLGARTH’S INITIAL TWO WADE QUOTES IN JULY 2012 AND JANUARY 2013 WERE THE RESULT OF MY INVOLVEMENT OR PARTICIPATION FORGETTING THAT SUBSEQUENT TO MRS HILLGARTH’S INFAMOUS “YOU CHOOSE” EMAIL OF 7 JUNE 2012, I WAS ACCUSED OF “FIDDLING” THE VOTE AND TENDERED MY RESIGNATION FROM THE WORKS’ PROGRAMME PASSING ALL RESPONSIBILITY OVER TO MRS HILLGARTH WHOSE NEXT MOVE AS HEAD HONCHO WAS TO PROGRESSANRTMAPPLICATIONTORETAINWADEFORTHEWORKS,KNOWINGFULL WELL (OR FORGOTTEN) THAT IT WAS A NON STARTER DUE TO THE 25% PLUS FOOTPRINT OFTHECOMMERCIALELEMENT,SOMETHINGSHEHADADVISEDALLLESSEESSOME36 MONTHS PREVIOUSLY? BUT SHE STILL CONVINCED ONE OR TWO LESSEES TO ALSO COMMITMENTALKAMAKAZIRESULTINGINHERRECEIPTOFANINVOICEFROMMHMLFOR £2582.74COVERINGOURTIME,COSTSANDLEGALADVICEINFIELDINGHERSOLICITOR’S CONSTANTBARRACKINGFORTHREEMONTHSBEFORETHROWINGTHETOWELIN.
PREDICTABLY, AS MHML HAD EXPERIENCED BEFORE WITH DEBTS OWED BY MRS HILL- GARTH SHE REFUSED TO PAY AND CONSEQUENTLY MHML SIMPLY DOCKED HER DEBT AS WE HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY FROM A PAYMENT DUE TO HER AND HER FELLOW DIRECTORS ON RECEIPT OF INVOICES (NOT A DIVIDEND AS MHML ACCOUNTS WILL EVIDENCE WE HAVE NEVER PAID A DIVIDEND SINCE INCEPTION) WE ACTUALLY SAID IN AN EMAIL DATED
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument