Page 40 - ref C_PBC to BEGG Prejudice PLUS

when you wrote that leZer of 11 September you had already reduced the contract sum for AR Lawrence to £63,828 plus VAT. (You were subsequently to reduce it again to £53,000 plus VAT).
In your response to Mrs Hillgarth of 11 September 2014 you conNnued: “I have, though, done the liD, which is NOT included in the Surveyor's SpecificaKons, as advised to you in a previous email aDer your visit (I aNach the quote (£11,602 incl. vat) to do what I have succeeded in doing for under £200 of spray paint. In fact I've actually done more than their quote specified, considerably more!).
You conNnued: “Since the scaffolding commenced installaKon on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, Management have already saved Lessees exactly £1177.56 OFF the budgeted £105,019. This has been accomplished by Management stepping in and doing various workings which we knew could be done at a more economical cost (in brief, shop signage (COSTED BY A.R. LAWRENCE FOR £800 plus vat which Management have produced for £125.......and Kdying 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 TO ALSO INCLUDE BOXING IN THE LOOSE WIRING).This iniKal saving of £1177.56 will not however be reimbursed to lessees at the end of the works, as Management will uKlise this first of many savings, to progress works on the interior NOT included in the Surveyor's SpecificaKons (such as the liD workings).”
Why did you need to explain all this on 11 September 2014 if you had already made clear at the 23 May 2014 meeNng that you were going to take these steps and Mrs Hillgarth had agreed to it? Why didn’t you just say: “Michele, don’t you remember our meeNng of 23 May when you agreed to all this?”
The truth is that Mrs HIllgarth never requested or authorised MHML or yourself to do any work in relaNon to the refurbishment. She believed (and once the SecNon 20 noNce had been agreed on 22 June 2014 was enNtled to believe) that all the work was going to be done by AR Lawrence.
If you listen carefully there is some music at the very beginning of your recording . Mrs Hillgarth does not recall any music in your flat; this was afer all a board meeNng . You were doing all the talking – and very quickly - with someone whose accent Mrs Hillgarth does not recognise. You say at one point: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”. Mrs Hillgarth certainly has no recollecNon of that conversaNon and believes it is a fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context.
We are all too well aware of your skill as a forger as you have boasted, for example, of your credenNals from the “Dakota Wesleyan University” and/or the “University of Massachussets”. If this audio clip was genuine, why have you taken so long to bring it to our aZenNon? And why would Mrs Hillgarth have insisted on making sure the minute of your 23 May meeNng would sNpulate that the refurbishment for the inside and outside should be carried out by AR Lawrence only? Please explain.
The normal rules on disclosure apply if you wish to admit this tape in evidence, but before you apply to admit it in evidence you might wish to discuss with your co-directors (to whom I am copying this note) whether this might not expose you to serious criminal charges for unlawful recording, not to menNon perjury (if the clip is shown to have been “doctored”) and aZempNng to pervert the course of jusNce.
Your “open” (ie disclosable) e-mail of 13 June 2017 contains the following admission: “And
yes, even within the MHML invoice of £15,572.85 were some costs including paying any