Page 291 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-54-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
a shortfall of funding.
After weeks if not months, all lessees paid all three agreed contributions [Water Tank, TV/Sky install & £2000], with Mrs Hillgarth being the tardiest in late October 2014 with works having commenced 31st August 2014. Substantial discounts were negotiated by MHML from the Water Tank and TV/Sky installs due to scaffolding in place as well as a substantial reduction in Surveyor’s fees [as these were based on the initial total cost of AR Lawrence] due to MHML making alternative arrangements on some workings, non use of contingencies etc and using all and any savings for those items [lighting etc] considered unaffordable and therefore not included in any tender, including Wade and AR Lawrence. Consequently AR Lawrence’s final cost was reduced by £31,756 which our Surveyor did not receive a percentage of and that £31,756 of savings was spent, plus an over- spend of £858, to progress all and more of the unaffordable items in Mrs Hillgarth’s initial Wade [x2] and Hemi quotes and indeed in MHML’s initial £25,000 and £35,000 budgets.
Mrs Hillgarth denies agreeing to savings being attempted, any way possible, to be spent on unaffordable items in her Wade [x2] and Hemi quotes, and also denies that MHML would do some workings if they could be done cheaper than quoted by our tenders [which they could be and were] and considers monies paid to MHML for their workings to be “stolen” from leasehold- ers?
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
most recently in an email sent to all lessees on 2 January 2019. MHML consider it to be libellous.
This accusation of “stealing leaseholders monies” was communicated by her to all lessees
If the penny still hasn’t dropped, Mr Begg... read on?
Mrs Hillgarth cannot abide the fact that I do keep an eye on Mitre House - so would she, if she too, lived here - in fact if she did, it would be run like Guantanamo Bay whereas my modus operandi is more akin to The Chelsea Arts Club. She cannot abide the fact I was charging
initially £7.50 a day [2012] for doing everything running MHML as an on site 24/7 Concierge & Night Porter, rising in year five (2017) to £10 a day doing same. She cannot abide the fact that I run the “internal management” and in time immemorial I have always had an excellent relationship with our Agents whereas she has had an appalling record [you have seen the correspondence] with all of them and it won’t be long before she’ll be snapping at the heels of Maunder Taylor who thankfully insisted she at least request permission to sub-let, made clear they quote works’ costs includ- ing vat and fees, agreed to run the next major works concurrently as it is cheaper and re- spects the wishes of the “internal management” - have you any idea how much all of that will have driven her to further insanity, further vitriol and further vendettas....let alone raising the ques- tion of her why she doesn’t also berate [great old word] our present Agents for doing exactly what MHML did but got bombarded for doing so?
As regards accusations of MHML charging management fees for their 24/7 on site services, and of charging fees in excess of professional Agents’ fees, and MHML being allegedly unprofessional and incompetent, these are also denied and evidenced by their success in reducing annual outgoings by 25% over a five year period with no detrimental effect on
services and further evidenced by the increase in annual outgoings (£3000 in 2017 to £10,000 in 2019) since MHML resigned their involvement in managing Mitre House and the appointment of a Manager/Agents by the First Tier Tribunal on 27th June 2017.
That 333% rise in annual outgoings includes professional management fees of £7995 per annum for 2019 as opposed to MHML’s £4995 in 2017.
As regards whether legal or not to [as you infer] to alter s.20 Notifications agreements, one could quote Reedbase Ltd v Fattal [2018] EWCA Civ 840. The works in question (ad- mittedly different to those in MHML/Mrs Hillgarth’s dispute but the principle remains same) com- prised repairs to a tiled asphalt roof. The landlord consulted, but later increased the scope (and cost) of the works. Should the landlord have consulted afresh?
The answer in this case was “no”, but, as a matter of principle, it depends. A change from the PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt