Page 475 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-4-
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO CITY OF LONDON POLICE
and to THE INSOLVENCY SERVICE
mitre house management limited (“mhml”) – company no: 07731341
mitre house, 124 King’s road, london sW3 4tP (“mitre house” or “the Property”) directors of mhml: Paul Brown-constable, dima international limited (Jamil raja) and segar Karupiah (resigned 29 september 2016) (together “the directors”).
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: MRS HILLGARTH WAS REQUIRED TO RESIGN DUE TO HER DISLOYAL AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOUR AS EVIDENCED BY HER PROGRESSING AN RTM APPLICATION IN 2013 WHILST REMAINING A DIRECTOR OF MHML WITH THE SOLE INTEN- TION OF RETAINING HER PREFERRED CONTRACTORS, WADE, TO DO THE INTERNALS’ REFURBISHMENT AT A QUOTED COST IN EXCESS OF £65,000 VERSUS AN ALTERNATIVE, AFFORDABLE MHML QUOTE, REFLECTING AVAILABLE RESERVES, OF £35.000 REQUIR- ING NO CALL ON LESSEES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING - WHEREAS WADE REQUIRED VERY SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING WHICH NOT ONE LESSEE AGREED TO FUND.
Legal Proceedings in the First-Tier Property Tribunal
7. in due course mrs hillgarth and other leaseholders at mitre house became so dissatis- fied with the way that mhml (through Paul Brown-constable) was managing mitre house, and in particular with his fraudulent conduct of a major refurbishment exercise in 2014 (see below at para 11 et seq), that she, supported by other leaseholders, brought proceedings in the first-tier Property tribunal, alleging (inter alia) fraud, in order to secure a change of management. her action was successful and by an order of the first-tier Property tribunal made on 28 June 2017 the firm of maunder taylor was appointed to manage mitre house in lieu of mhml.
A CONSIDERED RESPONSE: THIS IS INFLAMMATORY AS WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION WHICH STATED: “THERE WERE VARIOUS GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION MOST NOTABLY WHAT WAS SAID TO BE A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY ON HOW FUNDS WERE SPENT DURING THE 2014 MAJOR WORKS, WHETHER THE LANDLORD (MHML) COULD CHARGE FOR ANY MANAGEMENT IT CARRIED OUT ITSELF, WHETHER THE LANDLORD WAS COMPETENT TO CARRY OUT THE MANAGEMENT ITSELF AND ALLEGED POOR AND UNPROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION WITH THE LEASEHOLDERS.
MHML OFFERED NO DEFENCE NOR COMMENT TO ALL ABOVE SAVE FOR REQUESTING OF MRS HILLGARTH WHILST ON OATH IF SHE HAD SOURCED INDEPENDENT QUOTES FROM HER PREFERRED CONTRACTOR, WADE AND ONE FROM HEMI - SHE DENIED DOING.
SHE WAS ALSO ASKED IF, AT A BOARD MEETING ON 23 MAY 2014, SHE HAD AGREED WITH HER FELLOW DIRECTORS PRESENT, TO MAKING SAVINGS WHERE POSSIBLE TO FUND ITEMS CONSIDERED UNAFFORDABLE WHICH SHE HAD REQUESTED OF WADE TO QUOTE FOR AND CONSEQUENTLY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL WORKS’ SCHEDULE OF WORKS, AND HAD UTTERED THE WORDS “WELL THEN EVERYBODY WILL BE HAPPY” - SHE DENIED AGREEING AND MAINTAINED A TAPE RECORDING OF THE WHOLE 7 HOUR MEETING HAD BEEN “DOCTORED” - IT HAD NOT BEEN.
SUBSEQUENT TO THESE DENIALS THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION WAS: WE CONSIDER IT IS JUST AND CONVENIENT TO MAKE AN ORDER APPOINTING MR MAUNDER TAYLOR AS A MANAGER TO CARRY OUT THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER ATTACHED TO THIS DECISION AT APPENDIX 2. WE WERE SATISFIED THAT IT IS JUST AND
Please refer to attached “ADDENDUM/FURTHER REFERENCES” in suPPort of argument