Page 491 - xxxxxx9_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

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”).
(a) the specific lessee who requested that the work be done; and
mrs hillgarth (see attached Wade & hemi quotes - and source grangeWood quote. and
more" sweeper item):
(c) the amount charged by that contractor (including yourself where relevant). £31,765.21
-18-
Comment: ambiguous and irrelevant simply in pursuit of your shaky argument - i should have answered as is obvious from previous and subsequent correspondence “Mrs Hillgarth had re- quested of Wade, Hemi & Grangewood specific workings which could not be progressed as they were “unaffordable” but were all eventually progressed from savings of £31,756.21 made as agreed by Mrs Hillgarth to be attempted to be made (savings) at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting” TRUE OF FALSE?
(b) the specific contractor who carried out the work; and mhml and their various sub-contractors.
Comment: ambiguous and irrelevant simply in pursuit of your shaky argument - i should have answered as is obvious from previous and subsequent correspondence “MHML with various sub-contractors progressed all the “unaffordables” from savings of £31,756.21 made as agreed by Mrs Hillgarth to be attempted to be made (savings) at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting” TRUE OF FALSE?
Comment: ambiguous and irrelevant simply in pursuit of your shaky argument - i should have answered as is obvious from previous and subsequent correspondence “MHML charged/in- voiced the Service Charge £15,572.85 for progressing all the “unaffordables” from sav- ings of £31,756.21 made as agreed by Mrs Hillgarth to be attempted to be made (savings) at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting” TRUE OF FALSE?
Your query was: assuming the total expenditure figure of £105,877 per the service charge accounts is correct, the total amounts paid to contractors other than the surveyor and ar lawrence should add up to £33,354. if they do not, please explain why not.
My answer was: the £105,877 figure includes (your Witness statement anomaly of non pay- ment/refusing to pay) £1590 due to ar lawrence once final snagging is accomplished, plus £31,765.21additional workings funded from savings made as described. again, full transparency of total cost of all works and fees to all lessees including myself and my fellow directors.
Comment: Now count up how many computations you have sent since 21 June 2016 quite obviously not having a clue of the above explanation, but focusing solely on a ruddy typo!!!!
Somewhat reminiscent of my references to discounts received which you seemed oblivious to and more recently seemingly only becoming cognizant of Water Tank & TV/Sky final costs
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument