Page 10 - ref C_PBC to BEGG Prejudice PLUS

After six further months of correspondence, (“MH”) admitted in her own Witness Statement dated 10 August 2016, that neither she nor any other lessee requested access nor information within the six month statutory period permitted as stated in all our leases.
(“MH”) also accused (“PBC”) of illegally making savings from the agreed budget of £105,019 and using those savings, allegedly in her opin- ion, to supposedly fund works (the additional cosmetic improvements) which nobody wanted and considered irrelevant.
(“MH”) also considered any works allegedly done personally by (“PBC”) to be incompetently executed and unprofessional. She also considered any payment charged by (“MHML”) for their part in making the savings and to then both fund and in some cases progress workings themselves via (“PBC”) to be dishonestly misappropriated.
(“MH”) maintains she never requested any cosmetic improvements at any stage and consequently could not have requested savings to be made and expected that all works were to be only carried out by the approved con- tractor, AR Lawrence, and by nobody else.
Our Board Meeting on 23 May 2014 was recorded with all present made aware before it commenced at midday. On that recording (“MH”) makes clear her approval of savings to be made and that if savings could be made it “would make everybody happy.”
(“MH”) has denied making any such comment when it was presented to her and accused (“PBC”) of tampering with the recording. (“MH”) Solicitor requested the Tribunal to accept a Witness Statement denying the tape’s authenticity and (“PBC’) has two Witness Statements confirm- ing the tape’s authenticity.
We have respectfully requested of the Tribunal that a transcript of this recording be permitted to be added to our bundle for consideration.
4