Page 8 - ref C_PBC to BEGG Prejudice PLUS

The application failed which made the situation between (“MH”) and her fellow directors even more difficult as (“MH”) continued canvass- ing other lessees with what (“PBC”) considered misinformation and unaffordable budgets containing many cosmetic improvements, the cost of which were way over what was readily available in Reserves.
A Board Meeting was held on 23 May 2014 to finalise the various, issued to date, s20 Notices and after discussion (“MH”) agreed to (“MHML”) contracting with one of six tenders, AR Lawrence, for £105,019 which (“PBC”) made clear included vat and fees. (“MH”) had preferred her tender from Wade for £219,000 including vat and fees. Both AR Lawrence and Wade had quoted for the exact same works to be done from the exact same Schedule of Works drawn up by our Surveyor (hence “fees” in the overall budget of both quotes).
The problem was that neither AR Lawrence nor Wade (nor any of the other four tenders) included any of the cosmetic improvements requested by (“MH”) as they were simply unaffordable.
Consequently at the Board Meeting on 23 May 2014 (“PBC”) proposed that if sensible savings could be made from the agreed budget outlay of £105,019 from the AR Lawrence works programme we could use those savings to fund the cosmetic items (“MH”) has requested initially, by keeping a very careful eye on contingencies and using where possible cheaper methods and individual contractors for some aspects on the Interior as that was where (“MH”) had indicated for all her cosmetic improvements (the lift refurb, additional lighting etc).
3. THE FACTS;
The agreed budget of £105,019 still required a contribution from all nine lessees including (“MH”), (“PBC”) and the other two Directors of £1000 - £2000 each, which was agreed at the Board meeting. This was further agreed to be £2000 so as to retain ample Reserves of £11,243 in case of additional panics or problems with maintenance issues.
(“MH”) agreed it was a good idea and “Would make everybody happy”
2