Page 24 - APPENDIX_00_PREFIX 1-17

-24-
intention to appoint Wade lnteriors upon formation of the RTM.
3. Consequently any expenditure you incur in relation to the s20 Notices is likely to be breach of your fiduciary duty owed to the shareholders of the existing company/and or in bad faith.
4. Further, you may be liable to account for Any expenditure which is authorised by you in respect of the s20 Notices as you will have acted negligently and/or the breach of your fiduciary duty owed to the leaseholders incurring that liability and/or in bad faith.
ln the circumstances we demand that you do not spend any further money from the Service Charge or the Reserve Fund at Mitre House as well as from Mitre House Management Limited, unless is for an emergency. Should you choose to ignore this letter and carry out any works the members of the RTM (and each of them) reserve their rights to hold you personally to account for any sums misap- propriated from the Companies’ account for these purposes.
Please confirm, for good order, that the works you intended to carry out following the lssue of Section 20 Notice will now be cancelled. (Folder_00 Item_75)
(i) In a letter from “MHML’s” Solicitors to Emms Gilmore Liberson dated 19 September 2013 they advised:
Dear Sirs, ‘
RE: Mitre House Management Limited
Following our service, on 12"‘ August 2013, of a counter-notice informing you that your client does not have the right to acquire the Right to Manage, we write to enquire of your client’s intentions in this matter.
Your client has previously instructed our client that all works to Mitre House must be suspended pending the outcome of the Right to Manage application. The suspension of the works and in particu- lar, the internal re-decoration, is to the detriment of all leaseholders.
Our client has co-operated fully with your client’s insistence that all works be suspended but this cannot continue indefinitely, not least because our client is in breach of the repairing obligations contained in the head lease. Any costs incurred by our client due to and whilst this situation continues will be borne by your client.
Please let us know if your client will withdraw the Right to Manage Claim Notice or if the RTM com- pany is proposing to apply to the First Tier Tribunal for a determination.
Yours faithfully, Rose & Rose
“PBC” comment: Mrs Hillgarth advised all lessees in an email dated 7 April 2011 that due to the commercial retail areas being in excess of 25% we could not consider the freehold etc yet bizarrely still progressed an RTM which was surprising her Solicitors did not advise her. (Folder_00 Item_77)
(Folder_00 Item_76)
“PBC” comment: MHML were in receipt of a letter dated 7 October 2013 from our Solicitors, and mine for 45 years or more, regretting that under the circumstances of representing both MHML and Mrs Hillgarth as a private client, there was a conflict of interest. We had no idea that Mrs Hillgarth had also, behind our backs, also retained our Solicitors for private con- veyancing work, which in her case was substantial as she has a healthy portfolio. It was also on record that when we were forming MHML to purchase our Head Lease, Mrs Hillgarth wished to use her then Solicitors, Forsters for £9000 plus vat and disbursements. We used my