Page 9 - 74_PBC to Begg_13-12-16 (22pp)

But significantly, the only lessees to have paid their Quarterlies to date are the three who opposed spending additional funds over Reserves in hand. Those lessees like yourself that agreed to spend a small fortune despite Management's numerous warnings, are now on call to oblige.
Paul
Followed very shortly @ 16.13h on 13 September 2014 - referenced “game, set and match” in previous correspondence and with relevance to your first paragraph of this letter so as to leave no doubt as to what was repeated four times - but obviously to little avail as firstly you can’t even identify it correctly but obviously do not consider it “game, set and match” - any independ- ent peruser will and most certainly will any court in the land.
One third down the email is 3_Notes on the WORKS to date:
“Since the scaffolding commenced installation on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, dead on schedule, Management have already saved Lessees £1177.56 OFF the agreed and budgeted £105, 019. (my comment) note reference to “savings made” - begs the question for what? But none was received.
This has been accomplished by Management doing various workings which could be done at a more economical cost (in brief, shop signage (COSTED (Contingency) BY A.R. LAWRENCE FOR £800 plus vat which Management have produced for £125.......and tidying up visible wiring and making Meter Cupboards which A.R.Lawrence costed at £922 plus Vat for 3 meter cupboards and Management have produced same for £648 incl vat but TO ALSO IN- CLUDE BOXING IN THE (some) LOOSE INTERNAL WIRING on all three floors).
This initial saving of £1177.56 will not however be reimbursed to lessees at the end of the works, as Management will utilise this first of many savings, to progress works on the interior NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifications (such as the lift workings).(my comment) note reference to “savings made, to be used to progress works on the interior NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifications (such as the lift workings - note please, “such as”)” - begs the question of ”who wanted the lift etc?”But none was received. And hardly indicating any final sum to be appropriated with reference to your, as ever ill-informed, innuendo of 30 times etc - exagger- ation to confuse no doubt! The court will see through that in seconds.
In brief, Management are attempting, and will succeed, in presenting the interior decor of Mitre House to a standard not even envisaged by most lessees, at no additional cost to lessees over and above the agreed £105,019 budget. This will be achieved by making small savings where possible, common sense, hard work and a great deal of thought.
The only proviso to that statement is so long as no EXTERIOR WORKINGS (over which Management has little or no control) require additional contingency monies which is, of course, why all lessees received the September Quarterly Demands with the additional non-voluntary contribution of £2000 each, so enabling reserves to amply fund any additional expenditures.
If Management can be accused of anything, it's that we have failed to throw a terminal knock-out blow to finally si- lence a few very ill-informed, troublesome and thoroughly vindictive lessees, none of whom reside at Mitre House, some of whom have advanced the most silly ideas and opinions and indeed have been proved wrong on almost every occasion, the RTM, the various quotes they thought acceptable/affordable and worst of all their gerrymander- ing of fellow lessees to constantly bicker and question Management's exemplary husbandry of Mitre House since 1st January 2012.
The list of complaints, queries, innuendos, accusations and gossip since Management took over simply defies de- scription - and all originating from just one or two sources. It's pathetic, juvenile and totally unjustified as all and any queries have been well explained in hundreds of replies - and inevitably receiving back the predictable same inane reply each time, accusing Management (or indeed the same was endured by ALL our previous Agents) of not reply- ing to the previous queries/comments/accusations/innuendos etc. It's endless, repetitive and a total waste of Man- agement's time let alone boring other lessees to death.
Well it's all over now. Your preferred contractor, A.R. Lawrence, was appointed. The budget of £115,019 [MY TYPO ERROR - SHOULD READ £105,019] was agreed firstly by Michele Hillgarth at a Management Board Meeting, and subsequently by other lessees who, like Michele Hillgarth, had been requiring/insisting on budgets almost double that of A.R.Lawrence with admittedly far more extensive Interior workings, which are NOT included within the agreed Surveyor's specifications - but due to Management's due diligence, common sense and professional ability, we will be accomplishing many additional workings which are not expected to be done (something pointed out to all lessees on numerous occasions) but the costs of which will remain within the agreed £105,019 budget. How, easy.
Examples of two very basic, very simple initial examples of how Management will accomplish this herculean task are outlined above and need no further comment nor explanation. If we save a pound somewhere, we can spend a pound on whatever is missing from the Surveyor's Specifications (electrics, emergency and communal lighting, the lift, etc etc). If we save a pound and spend two pounds, we will go over budget and any lessee can then challenge the over expenditure if deemed unworthy once the accounts are finally published for Service Charge 2014.