Page 582 - xx10_BEGG_ALL_MASTER to Add to

-5-
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
__________________________________________________________________________________
A Considered response: An oFFer MAde BY MHML MonTHs BeFore BUT iGnored
15. By a Transfer dated 19 march 2018 the head lease of mitre house was transferred from mhml to the said new company, mitre house management Company (2017) limited, which is now owned by all the nine leaseholders at mitre house.
A Considered response: As per A previoUs oFFer (one oF THree) AGAin MAde BY MHML BUT ALso iGnored
16. at all material times until the intervention of the Fourth Defendant (as referred to in para- graph 13 above) mhml was for all practical purposes the creature and alter ego of the Second Defendant, since the other directors of mhml had effectively abdicated in writing all responsi- bility for the operational management activity conducted by the Second Defendant.
A Considered response: Mr BroWn-ConsTABLe WAs on siTe 24/7 ACTinG As A ConCierGe/niGHT porTer/seCUriTY oFFiCer As He Lived And resided AT MiTre HoUse sinCe 1968
17. By reason of the facts asserted above the Claimant claims compensation for costs, losses and damages suffered by her as set out below.
(A) Claim for reimbursement consequent upon failure by defendants to follow proce- dures required by section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – £250 statutory cap on the liability of the leaseholders.
18. in connection with the 2014 project, which was a substantial refurbishment project at mitre house involving both external and internal works, the Defendants failed to follow statutory re- quirements in respect of a consultation notice approved by the leaseholders (including the Claimant) under Section 20 of the landlord and Tenant act 1985. in particular the Defendants departed radically from the scheme of work referred to in the Section 20 notice without the knowledge or consent of the leaseholders.
A Considered response: AnsWered ABove And TrUe THAT As LAndLord, MHML, proCeeded And proGressed THe WorKs To A sATisFACTorY ConCLUsion on BUdGeT on sCHedULe To THeir FreeHoLder’s sATisFACTion As WAs THeir riGHT To do WiTHoUT FUrTHer reFerenCe To Lessees As reGArds CoLoUr sCHeMes eTC As no ConsensUs WAs ever esTABLisHed And CHAnGed reGULArLY And ConFUsinGLY
PleaSe reFer To aTTaCheD “AddendA/FUrTHer reFerenCes” iN SuPPorT oF argumeNT