Page 418 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

• Boxing of meters
• Boxing of interior messy wiring
• The lift interior and exterior (this was never part of the approved specification)
• Artefacts grills
• The handrails
• The flooring
• The BT wiring
• The various interior woodworks
• Replacing all brassworks throughout the building
• Changing the rear locks
• Buttoning on interior cupboards
• Installation of signage throughout the building
• The lighting and electrics [by qualified NICIEC electrician]
• “And [per Mr Brown-Constable] probably a lot more”
As stated above, the original budget for the refurbishment was £105,019. This had been understood by the leaseholders to be the contract price tendered by AR Lawrence and the total sum that would be paid to that firm. However according to a letter from Mr Brown-Constable dated 14 June 2016 (see Item 6 of the Second Schedule) this budget was in fact made up of two separate elements, namely £91,321 (the anticipated bill from AR Lawrence) and £13,698 (the anticipated bill from the surveyors Evens Boyce and Carpenter).
The leaseholders had never been informed that the surveyor’s charges were included in the original £105,019 budget, since MHML’s Section 20 letter of 22 June 2014 had referred only to the cost of engaging AR Lawrence. It is true that the letter talks of this £105,019 figure as being inclusive of “VAT and fees”, but no mention had been made of the surveyors. And in a subsequent e-mail of 11 September 2014 (see Item 7 of the Second Schedule) Mr Brown- Constable had specifically confirmed to Mrs Hillgarth that the works “are being done by your preferred contractor A&R Lawrence for the agreed budget of £115,019”. There was no mention here of surveyors fees.
According to Mr Brown-Constable in a letter to me dated 14 June 2016 (see Item 8 of the Second Schedule) the service charge reserves at that time amounted to only £98,262.75 to meet this budgeted expenditure of £105,019. Accordingly he collected in a further £18,000 (£2,000 per flat) to meet the expected shortfall of £6,756.25. The surplus of £11,243.75 was for “unforeseen works within the AR Lawrence quote.....and for any out of the blue emergencies, the lift requiring repairs (quite usual) and any other repairs etc etc”. In other words for contingencies.
In addition to this sum of £2,000 per leaseholder, the leaseholders were also asked for additional “voluntary contributions” for additional unscheduled work which had not formed part of the original specification – namely a new water tank (£867.87 per leaseholder and £7,810 in total) and for a communal TV installation (£593 per leaseholder and £5,337 in total). After some hesitation all these sums were paid in.
Having collected in the supplement of £2,000 per flat MHML had total reserves available to it of £116,262.75 (ie £98,262.75 plus £18,000). Plus an additional £13,147 to deal with the