Page 580 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-3-
in THe WesT London CoUnTY CoUrT - Case No: [ ]
Mrs MiCHeLe HiLLGArTH - Claimant
versus
MiTre HoUse MAnAGeMenT LiMiTed - First Defendant and
pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe - Second Defendant
and
seGAr KArUpiAH - Third Defendant
and
JAMiL rAJA - Fourth Defendant __________________________________________________________________________________
pArTiCULArs oF CLAiM
__________________________________________________________________________________
sTATUTorY, FidUCiArY And LeGAL reqUireMenTs. Mrs HiLLGArTH WisHed To
reTAin Her preFerred ConTrACTor (WAde - And proGressed, WHiLsT sTiLL A direCTor oF MHML An rTM AppLiCATion (WHiCH FAiLed) To reTAin WAde As ConTrACTor) And MHML MAinTAined And proved THAT THe WorKs in HAnd CoULd Be proGressed FAr More eConoMiCALLY THAn Her preFerenCe, WAde, WHiCH WAs proved CorreCT WHen WAde qUoTed £219,000 WHereAs MHML soUrCed A qUoTe For idenTiCAL WorKinGs For £105,000 FroM Ar LAWrenCe
9. The Claimant and other leaseholders at mitre house were so dissatisfied by the continuing lack of information supplied by the Defendants in relation to the 2014 project, and by the way that mhml (through the Second Defendant) was continuing to manage mitre house, that the Claimant, supported by other leaseholders, brought proceedings in the First-Tier Property Tri- bunal, alleging (inter alia) fraud, in order to secure a change of management.
A Considered response: MHML MAde THree oFFers To resiGn And donATe THe HeAd LeAse To Mrs HiLLGArTH dUe To Mrs HiLLGArTH’s ConsTAnT AGGrAvATions And inepTiTUdes As neW LeGisLATion WAs in proGress As To MAnAGinG AGenTs (sUCH As MHML) BeinG soon To Be reqUired To HAve proFessionAL qUALiFiCA- Tions WHiCH We did noT WisH To enTerTAin
THe FirsT Tier TriBUnAL’s deCision MAde no MenTion or CoMMenT on THe vArioUs spUrioUs And vindiCTive ACCUsATions sUCH As FrAUd WHiCH HAd ALL Been previ- oUsLY proved As siMpLY spiTeFUL And opporTUnisT UnTrUTHs, And riGHTLY sTATed, qUiTe CorreCTLY “THAT in THeir opinion, reLATions BeTWeen THe AppLiCAnT (Mrs HiLLGArTH) And THe LAndLord (MHML) HAd irreTrievABLY BroKen doWn”
Mrs HiLLGArTH WAs AsKed TWo qUesTions on oATH, BoTH oF WHiCH sHe denied, nAMeLY HAd sHe soUrCed TWo qUoTes FroM WAde (Yes sHe HAd) BUT denied sHe HAd, And seCondLY, HAd sHe AGreed in A MHML BoArd MeeTinG on 23 MAY 2014 in THe presenCe oF Her TWo Co_direCTors, Mr seGAr KArUpiAH And Mr pAUL BroWn-ConsTABLe THAT sHe exCLAiMed “WeLL THen everYBodY WiLL Be HAppY” WHen iT WAs expLAined To Her THAT sAvinGs CoULd Be MAde FroM THe WorKs’ Tender CosT To spend on iTeMs noT sCHedULed To Be done As THeY Were iniTiALLY Considered UnAFFordABLe As Her WAde qUoTes MAde ABUndAnTLY CLeAr?
10. 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.
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT