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

(b) You claim to have "made savings", but are unwilling or unable to supply the evidence or to substantiate the fact that any such savings were made.
(reply) Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date?
(c) The lessees (you imply) tacitly approved or condoned the fact that you were carrying out some of the work yourself— and that you were funding the ”additional work" by ”making savings". (I assume that is the thrust of your rhetorical question: ”were lessees advised of additional works
and savings being made to fund them? (yes)"). You say they had been advised of this in your email to Mrs Hillgarth dated 11 September 2014 (you confuse it with an e-mail of 13 September 2014) which you refer to as your "game, set and match" e-mail. Seemingly the fact that the lessees took no action to stop you can — at least in your mind — be taken to constitute "approval".
(reply) No you confuse it with the multiple emails sent/received on specific days...revisit emails.
The truth is that after you had been photographed doing the work (again photographs will be supplied) you had received endless e-mails from several of the lessees asking what you were up to and telling you that you were not allowed to deviate from Section 20 or to carry out work yourself. But needless to say the lessees were in no position to stop you. You were after all their landlord — a position of authority/trust which you have continued to abuse. To assert that their inaction constituted some sort of approval is clearly not tenable.
(reply) Hope they are as good and relevant as those of our dungeon office....or the “shoddy work- ings” Any chance of any of me wandering around Mitre House in my underwear?
Your assertion that the lessees had been advised of what was going on is typical of the half-truths you use to deceive and confuse. Yes, you did advise them, but not at the outset — only when the project was al- ready under way. Having been observed/photographed doing some of the work yourself, you had now come under serious pressure. Questions were now being asked which required explanation. If you had told the lessees prior to 22 June 2014 (the date of the agreed Section 20 letter) that your plan was to make sav- ings by doing work yourself in order to carry out additional works (allegedly expected by Mrs Hillgarth) the lessees would never have given their approval.
(reply) “but not at the outset”: - suggest you refer to the “several hundreds pages of my irrelevant at- tachments.....Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date?
2. We will claim damages for deceit, as an alternative to, or in addition to the Section 20 claim. You say: ”what Mrs Hillgarth cannot abide is that [you] did the work [yourself] and that it was shoddily done”. That is wrong. What she cannot abide is your deceit. Deliberately misleading the lessees into believing that the work would be done by AR Lawrence, changing the agreed décor without the approval of the lessees, and secretly reducing the scope of AR Lawrence's work in order to line your own pocket. Then compounding the deceit by presenting the lessees with grossly inadequate accounts and persistently refusing to answer questions from the lessees as to who had been paid for doing what.
(reply) Good luck. Just how much information do you need before comprehending replies to date?
You say that work on the lift is tricky to hide from anybody in the building. From which you seek to imply that what you did was entirely open and above board. Of course work on the lift is tricky to hide — particu- larly if you choose to paint it gold. But what can be hidden, as you well know, and what you plainly did attempt to hide, is precisely who was doing that work. You dismiss as "fantasy" the idea that you swore Bunny to silence about this. However we have written evidence, which we will produce in court, that you wrote to him: "only you and I know what’s going on re Mitre House etc — so only talk with me for now!!" (This instruction being repeated at the end of the note and signed ”Paul").
(reply) This ranks as even more bizarre than my underwear....get Bunny into court as a witness! I have not got the foggiest idea of what this might refer to - could be anything as I often leave notes.
3. As regards MHML's charges for the RTM matter, we say that what you have done amounts to conversion (theft). We say that unless there was agreement on the part of Mrs Hillgarth to pay those charges, or a court judgement requiring her to pay them, it is unlawful to offset those charges against MHML shareholders funds (whether distributed or not) attributable to Mrs Hillgarth. Your position is that the