Page 426 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

leaseholders (and potentially fraudulent on the part of MHML) to carry out the approved work (or unapproved /previously unspecified work) themselves, or through others, and then to retain and/or pay to non-approved contractors the money which had been paid by the leaseholders to havetheworkdonebyasingleapprovedcontractor. Andthisremainsthecaseevenifthe aggregate cost to the leaseholders is the same as, or less than, they would have paid to the agreed contractor.
5. Vote Rigging and fraudulent change of specification.
In relation to the refurbishment it was clear that 6 out of 9 leaseholders (ie all except the three MHML directors) had a broadly similar view about the appropriate décor.
On 7 June 2012 Mr Brown-Constable wrote in an e-mail to Susanna Gnecco: “If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a dozen times. It doesn’t matter what you or I want – its what the majority want”. However he was unwilling, in practice, to respect the wishes of the majority. When alternative scenarios were put to them, 6 out of 9 flats voted for a “classic” look (as opposed to the “Belle Epoque” look favoured by Mr Brown-Constable himself). However Mr Brown-Constable engineered the vote by claiming that Samya Riad (Flat 4) had voted for “Belle Epoque” (she hadn’t) and by consulting Christopher Leigh-Pemberton’s tenant (Flat 8) rather than Mr Leigh- Pemberton himself.
Mr Brown-Constable actually admitted this in writing on 11 June 2012 when he wrote to Susanna Gnecco and other tenants: “I admit to everything, including unsuccessfully trying to fiddle the vote.........Guilty as charged.” And then he simply proceeded to ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority by arranging for the premises to be decorated in the style and colour scheme which he had favoured from the outset.
Reply: This again petty accusation has been proved untrue on numerous occasions with a letter and supporting emails from Mr Karupiah (Director) to Samya Riad (lessee) dated 8 July 2012 and indeed in an email from Mrs Hillgarth to Mr Brown-Constable dated 7 June 2012 @15.03 saying “you choose”.
It had been agreed by a majority of the tenants as part of the Section 20 process for the refurbishment that the common parts would be painted white and taupe. (Mr Brown-Constable disputes that there was a majority for this décor, but there was certainly no majority for the alternative “Belle Epoque” scheme favoured by Mr Brown-Constable). Be that as it may, the leaseholders had every reason to suppose that the “classic” scheme (involving white and taupe) would be adopted, since this was consistent with the clear indication Mr Brown-Constable had already given to Mr Diego Fortunati on 13 August 2014. In an e-mail of that date Mr Brown- Constable confirmed to Mr Fortunati that Mr Fortunati’s choice of white (for the ceilings and dado rail) and taupe (for above and below the dado rail) could be expected to reproduce as expected without testing. And again in an e-mail of 1 October 2014 Mr Brown-Constable implied that if the leaseholders’ were to pay the additional £2,000 he was then asking for (which they did) the decoration would be carried out in accordance with their wishes – ie in three colours.
However Mr Brown-Constable subsequently had the common parts of Mitre House painted green and red, which had never been approved by the leaseholders. It was the “funky/edgy”