Page 441 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

And finally, “doctoring” the infamous Board Meeting audio recording. I can’t say more. Your client denies saying “well then everybody will be happy”, but doesn’t deny saying “will be used for something else”. She also denied music was playing [it was and we proved it] and said she didn’t recognise one man’s voice [her co-Director and neighbour of 20 years, Mr Segar Karupiah].
She’ll need sectioning if she continues to maintain that she did not source certain workings from her preferred contractor Wade [you’ve seen their 2 initial quotes]. MHML were demanded by her RTM Solicitors to used Wade [the letter you’ve seen].
The workings that Wade quoted for were considered unaffordable by MHML. Mrs Hillgarth was convinced at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting that savings could be made, anyway we could, from the agreed budget for both internals & externals based on the [almost? Benitor] cheapest contractor’s total of £105,019 to include all fees and vat [ie a total transparent easy to understand max final cost] and those savings would not be credited back to lessees but [as she exclaims] “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy”.
I can’t say more – she was in full agreement to make savings and spend on those items we all wanted but could not afford. And “anyway we could” included, and she was well aware, that not only would we make savings from non use of certain contingencies but also by doing anything we could far cheaper but just as competently than quoted and that included myself doing those workings I was more than competent to progress, which I did to good effect despite Mrs Hillgarth now considering it of poor quality – but you will recall her 1st April 2015 letter [some three months after the works had finished], with the following comment “Now that the refurbishment at Mitre House has been completed I would like to register my concern regarding the vulgar, cheap and unsuitable décor chosen by Mitre House Management Limited for the communal area (no comments required please).”
No mention of tacky or poor quality work?
Agreeing for the time being to leave aside those matters, here are what seem to me the physical, indisputable and non-contestable features of the case against you and your co-directors:
1. At a board meeting of MHML on 23 May 2014, it was confirmed that only A&R Lawrence would be carrying out the refurbishment work. Mrs Hillgarth insisted on this precisely in order to avoid your doing exactly what you have done – namely that you would carry out the work yourself in order to put money into your own pocket.
It was not actually 100% confirmed as the Minutes make clear. We were awaiting final confirmation from Mrs Hillgarth as you have previously been well advised [with