Page 288 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-51-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Due to this impasse, Mrs Hillgarth called another meeting of lessees on 20 November 2012 with an agenda that was predominantly MHML business references and had nothing whatsoever to do with lessees but included the vote again to dismiss MHML and to retain Wade as the con- tractor for the Internals now scheduled for 2013.
In January 2013 Mrs Hillgarth requested Wade to re-quote from a slightly reduced works’ brief, but it still totalled £51,647 incl. vat but no fees. Yet another example of Mrs Hillgarth’s unprofes- sional and thoroughly ignorant behaviour, let alone the disloyalty of attempting to yet again to dis- miss MHML and incompetence in attempting to retain her preferred expensive contractor, Wade, indicating she had no idea of economics nor indeed common sense.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
MHML’s three directors maintained their insistence that Wade’s second quote was still not good value or affordable and would still entail substantial calls on lessees for additional funding. This re- sulted in Mrs Hillgarth progressing an RTM application in mid 2013 which had the result of aborting any chance of progressing the Internals workings during 2013 as her RTM Solicitors firstly demanded that no further s.20 Notices be issued, no further funds be spent from the bank and that Wade would be retained for the internals’ workings, all as included in their let- ter to MHML dated 2 July 2013.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to further verify.
The RTM eventually failed due to previously known technical restrictions well advised to Mrs Hillgarth years previously, but obviously not advised by her legal advisers. Consequently, her three co-Directors took control of the situation to progress both Internals and Externals concurrently in 2014, retained our previous Surveyor from the 2005 works’ programme so well versed in Mitre House, who produced a revised Internals/Externals Schedule of Works, organised five sepa- rate tenders (All were posted on www.mitrehouse.com.) and indeed on Mrs Hillgarth’s insis- tence, a tender from Wade based this time of our final official Surveyor’s Schedule of Works as opposed to Mrs Hillgarth’s previous briefings to them in July 2012 and January 2013 based on her preferred workings only re: interior
In an email dated 15 April 2014 @ 18.00 to Flat 9, I wrote to Diego Fortunati in Flat 9:
“No lessee advised Management of a contractor, nor a mention of Wade to re-quote. This despite an inordinate amount of time to do so, well in excess of the legally allowed 30 day period, which ac- tually expired on 25th January 2014 and was still allowed by Management until 8th April 2014”
“Michele Sigg-Hillgarth mentioned Wade in her communication of 14th April 2014 and Management replied saying no objection to them tendering and we supplied all required documentation to Michele for them to do so by deadline 15th May - again a very generous lead-time and offer, neither of which we are legally required to do.”
MHML advised Mrs Hillgarth and all lessees on numerous occasions that our Surveyor’s Schedule of Works did NOT include certain cosmetic items that were originally quoted for in Mrs Hill- garth’s Wade quotes as they were considered unaffordable. A Board Meeting was called by MHML on 23 May 2014 attended by Mrs Hillgarth and Messrs Karupiah and myself to discuss amongst other items, the various tender quotes [all of which included mail pigeon box and meter cupboards] arranged by our Surveyor including that supplied by Mrs Hillgarth’s preferred contractor, Wade, [which also included mail pigeon box and meter cupboards].
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Wade’s total cost was £219,000 and the cheapest from AR Lawrence was £105,000, both in- cluding vat and all and any fees (such as Surveyor etc) and mail pigeon box and meter cup- boards. Mrs Hillgarth had organised a rebuttal of one late cheapest quote from MHML’s preferred
PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt