Page 3 - ref C_PBC to BEGG Prejudice PLUS

3
b) Blackmail, to which you appear besotted. The definition of which is, contrary to your quoted interpretation to suit your client’s contrariness, “the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them”.
Your client was the last lessee to pay her agreed (as on the audio) additional £2000 contribution and was demanding articles (keys etc) for her own benefit whilst ignoring pre-agreed contractuals. It could hardly be con- strued as Blackmail in refusing to meet her demands until our (MHML) demands were met and requesting of your client to meet her obligations as discussed at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting to inform lessees of their agreed contributions to other contractuals, such as Water Tank and TV/Sky installations.
Ref (iii)_ In breach of s.20 etc (your points (a)-(d) refer - point (e) is too stupid to make comment on - the audio recording makes clear that your client was in full agreement and consequently is party, as a Director of MHML at the time, to any accusation of being in breach of any s.20 Notice.
The full audio recording totally refutes your comment “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 (photo graphs will be available in due course)”
Items on which we disagree needing to be determined by the court (First Tier Tribunal):
Ref (iv)_my admission to etc - the audio recording totally refutes any further reference to s.20 breaches and con- firms your client’s understanding and agreement to savings etc - all other references are tittle-tattle (photographed working etc) Refer to emails of 11th and 13th September 2014 for references and confirmations made to all lessees re: savings being made, savings being used and not returned, to progress unaffordable works not in the schedule of works being performed by MHML/myself.
Ref (v)_RTM invoice. Your client caused MHML time and costs and expenses in dealing with her abortive RTM application and should be grateful that our costs were not greatly inflated yet further had we utilised legal repre- sentation as opposed to managing the whole lengthy process ourselves. This became a long standing debt which your client ignored and was thus debited to her Director’s account in a perfectly normal way. Mrs Hillgarth was previously indebted to MHML (£285) and was again debited for that debt in the same fashion. Her credit rating is zero.
Ref (vi)_MHML fees and costs and suppliers’ invoices. Had you had the courtesy to respond to our offer on 1st April 2016 to supply all requested paperwork as demanded in your letter of 23 March 2016 and/or confirmed that the lies, innuendos and accusations levied at MHML and myself and subsequently disproved (as again out- lined above), you would not be requesting paperwork some nine months later.
Ref (vii)_requests for additional fundings, Reserves etc - hopefully by now you appreciate and have proof that everything you were advised in correspondence was indeed accurate and correct re: £11,243 etc although it still beggars belief that having a set of our 2014 Accounts to hand you could still pose the question of: “And that £10,385 [£11,243] has not in fact been spent but remains in Reserves. This does not show anywhere in your accounts. If you think it does, please point me in the right direction.”
A perusal of our 2014 Accounts mentions £16,201 on four occasions including Reserve Fund flats and (Bank) Balance at 31st December 2014 of £16,201 (meaning in the bank, in Reserves!) Let alone our comment in our covering letter with the 2014 Accounts dated 8 June 2015 “Reserves NOT utilised for YE2014 amount to £16,201 carried forward for this 2015 year!” That’s what I refer to as “stupidity” or ignorance by constantly mak- ing the same petty accusations/computations/banal queries - and you say you ran it past a Certified Chartered Accountant!. And you have the temerity to admonish our accountants.
Further references (and every letter contained yet another computation) of expenditure could also have been understood and computed professionally had you taken notice of facts and figures, discounts, savings etc made on multiple occasions in correspondence subsequent to your letter of 23 March 2016. As with so much information supplied, you either ignored it or considered it irrelevant. It wasn’t, it was correct and relevant.
Settlement Proposal - your proposal was declined and indeed our offer made abundantly clear in our covering letter with the June 2017 Quarterlies dated 7 June 2017 remained unacknowledged:
Due to continuing discontent from a few lessees and their application to the courts to dismiss Management citing various misdemeanors including “stealing lessees’ window repair monies, indecent exposure to a young lady sub- let tenant, requiring a lessee to have a Police escort to collect keys, making and doing additional works without reference to lessees, having £16,201 in Reserves as opposed to the predicted £11,243, false accounting by not identifying Surveyor’s fees and other fees and payments made, including those to Management for their additional workings and services performed for the benefit of all lessees, non-payment to a supplier, blackmail, abuse and rudeness”, we have proposed to these same lessees that we will step aside and offer them the Head Lease so they can run Mitre House the way they wish it be run and by whom.