Page 4 - ref C_PBC to BEGG Prejudice PLUS

Both these offers remained totally unacknowledged resulting in a wasted attendance at the First Tier Tribunal and your client in the now unenviable position of company formations and other costs to be charged to the Service Charge account which she will have to explain to fellow lessees in due course no doubt.
4
The alternatives are not favourable. If we contest the charges in court and lose, an expensive Manager will be appointed by the court to run Mitre House so denying any lessee the opportunity to appoint their preferred cheaper Agents or contractors. If and when we win, the toxic atmosphere at Mitre House will simply continue with no doubt more disagreements and arguments as it is quite obvious that two or three lessees have no confi- dence in our ability to properly manage Mitre House to their total satisfaction and wish us to be replaced by inde- pendent outside Agents of their choice.
They will only have that independent choice if our proposal to offer them the Head Lease is accepted.
A last ditch attempt was again made direct to Mrs Hillgarth dated 15 June 2017: Dearest Michele,
This affair has now reached yet another ridiculous situation and you must know in your heart of heart that you did know and you did agree that by making savings we could do the other things we all wanted but couldn’t afford.
You were simply annoyed in the three months after the meeting because we were insisting you pay the RTM invoice and request permission to sub-let etc and worst of all requesting you resign as a Director.
And don’t forget, we only asked you to resign because you were causing so much trouble over things we had agreed at the meeting, the additional funds of £2000 etc, me doing some works to save money exactly as we agreed at the meeting etc... If I had said to you that you had agreed at the meeting you would have asked me for proof which I didn’t have until a few days ago regrettably.
But you know I haven’t forged or doctored this audio of the meeting. That’s a very silly accusation.
Surely now would be an opportune time to settle our petty differences and bring this affair to a close for both our sakes and for Mitre House.
I am quite happy to engage Agents (you can choose them so long as we can afford them) from 1 January 2018 (ie end of this year), and I’ll personally repay you your RTM payment of £2582.74.
And thats it - we stop all this legal nonsense and get back to enjoying life hopefully as friends and put everything said or done to date behind us.
Good idea or not. Please let me know. Love and luck, Paul
Here endeth the Mrs Hillgarth’s grievances against MHML as outlined in your letter of 9 December 2016 - but I suggest you re-visit my 20pp reply with comments/responses made to each paragraph but in the knowledge that the six hour 45 minute audio recording of the 23 May Board Meeting was not in evidence at this time. Its existence simply adds proof perfect confirmation to everything you have been advised of innumerable times in all correspondence to date and you can be assured that it is all “untampered”, “undoctored” and ”in context”
Continuing your Without Prejudice letter responses:
Ref (iii)_unaware of corporate, service charge and personal expenditure etc. It is not unlawful, but as the RICS Code of Practice states, inadvisable and best to avoid. Our accounting competently made required adjustments.
Ref (iv)_our Auditors (Accountants) were supplied with relevant information to satisfactorily produce our Service Charge accounts and your reference to any misinformation on their part is refuted. You still appear oblivious to our 2014 accounts showing well in excess of the anticipated £11,243 as advised to be expected by lessees in Reserves as well as the various reminders for lessees to await publication of our accounts and view all and any documents at their leisure. No requests were ever received, nor indeed for previous accounts’ information.
Ref (v)_ you will also note your client’s accusation as stated initially in your letter of 23 March 2016 (and repeat- ed to third parties) that both she and other lessees were denied access to our 2014 accounts’ documentation. Subsequently in your client’s Witness Statement (para 73) she admits no such request was ever made by any lessee. Surely this lie was the heart and soul of your initial 23 March 2016 letter? But it was a lie.