Page 11 - 74_PBC to Begg_13-12-16 (22pp)

Firstly there are the serious issues of criminal fraud and blackmail, which you deny. However given that these are matters for a criminal court, and not within our control, I am proposing to focus in this letter exclusively on matters within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Property Tribunal.
(reply) You’ll recall - Not only denied but proved denied - total rubbish.
We say that you were in breach of section 20 in so far as you altered the scope of the specification agreed on 22 June 2014 and used unapproved contractors (including yourself) to carry out some of the work. This-was done on false pretences — namely that you were saving money for the lessees.In reality the objective was to make money for yourself. You have admitted in correspondence:

(a) that you departed from the agreed schedule of works in so far as you carried out "additional works "; and
(b) that you changed the agreed décor to one of your own choosing; and
(c) that you did not use AR Lawrence exclusively for the works but engaged other contractors, including electricians and carpenters, who were not supervised by AR Lawrence; and
(d) that you did some of the work yourself and that some part of the £31,765 was used to pay you personally (”my goodself’, as you put it); and
(e) that there was an unauthorised overspend of £858; and
(f) that you have offset, against retained shareholders funds attributable to Mr Hillgarth, the sum of £2,582.74 in respect of MHML's charges for dealing with the failed RTM application.
(reply) Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date? We say the extra work you claim to have done is irrelevant. It was neither requested, nor was it
necessary, and you carried it out in a very poor way (photographs will be available in due course).
(reply) Irrelevant? Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date? I think some photos were presented within hours of the works in hand - Requested? Hemi, Wade, Grangewood, meetings to discuss and approve, Mrs Hillgarth’s 9 Sept 2014 visit to view?
Then there are the issues on which we disagree, or where there is a dispute as to the facts, which will need to be determined by the court. These are:
1. We say that the admissions (a) to (f) above clearly put you in breach of Section 20, the legal conse- quence of which is that MHML and/or yourself are obliged to repay to the lessees all sums expended by them on the refurbishment in excess of £250. Your position appears to be that you were not in breach of Section 20 because:
(a) All the work was (you say) either done by AR Lawrence or subcontractors of AR Lawrence.
In your letter to me dated 10 June 2016 you said that: "all my work was done with approval and under supervision by both AR Lawrence and our Surveyor". You claimed that had your work ' been of "substandard or unprofessional quality .....it would have been required to be corrected by both AR Lawrence and our Surveyor." You have asked me for an example — ”just one" of your habit of telling lies. This claim that AR Lawrence were supervising and responsible for your work is just one example. It will be for the court to determine whether or not your evidence is to be preferred to that of Mr Tony White, who denies absolutely that you were a sub-contractor or that he was in any way responsible for your work.
(reply) - yup, you’ve almost got me there (I was expecting the website reference though) - but not quite I’m afraid... see the attached from your main independent Witness for the Prosecution -
“Possibly a further statement agreeing that the other works done by yourself and others was up to a good standard in my view.”
Following the fiasco of Mr White’s Witness Statement well evidenced as having been drawn up by Mrs Hillgarth containing as it did and still does, despite its re-issue, total fantasies and fabrications (all disproved) and now with the above statement made in an email (attached) dated 15 June 2016, I suggest you refrain from making further references to Mr White’s memory of events and integrity before our barrister lays into him in any court of law you wish to be entertained in.