Page 2 - 6_PBC to Begg_8-4-16 (4pp)

Please find attached your 13pp comprehensive and extensive 23 March letter with our comments to certain paragraphs, but not all, as per our provisos outlined above. On receipt of the various confirmations and apologies requested we will comply with the paragraphs temporarily unanswered and requested invoices.
A budget of £105,000 to include vat, fees and costs was agreed as per the s.20 dated 22 June 2014 and the lessees’ preferred contractor A.R. Lawrence & Sons Ltd was chosen over our cheaper choice, Benitor.
For the avoidance of doubt:
-2-
A.R. Lawrence [and Benitor and all others including Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade] tendered following our Surveyor’s Schedule of Works dated December 2013 which was made available on our website & via email to lessees.
Despite MHML’s best efforts [as comprehensively outlined in my comments on your 23 March letter] to appease certain lessees, most notably Mrs Hillgarth, and to keep lessees including Mrs Hillgarth fully appraised of what works were included [or not included] in the Schedule of Works, MHML still appears to being vilified, accused of mismanagement, various other misfeasances and fraud.
This again is reminiscent of what we [and indeed previous agents] have endured with Mrs Hillgarth for many years, as these accusations in your letter of 23 March have been denied and proved to be wrong previously.
I refer in the first instance to MHML allegedly demanding various monies [fraudulently] without gaining a firm 100% agreement upfront from all nine lessees in writing [which we did] and also making clear to all lessees that if that 100% agreement could not be confirmed [which we did and it was], on firstly the required and agreed £2000 contribution from all lessees to afford a £105,000 budget and secondly, the communal TV Sky and the Water Tank install, requiring as they would have [certainly on the Water Tank, but in reality not for the TV install as costing just under the permitted limits] an s.20 notice to be issued in the absence of again 100% agreement from all lessees [which we received], MHML could not proceed on any of the three. If these are now considered erroneous accusations I would welcome your confirmation please.
I refer in the second instance to comments made about Lessees’ Window repairs and MHML receiving those contractor monies into our bank. Surely Mrs Hillgarth recalls to whom she wrote her cheque? Comments refuting this [and previously explained to Mrs Hillgarth in various emails] are made clear in my comments on your 23 March letter as are comments and further rebuttals that the £7.50 per day for [my] 24/7 services rendered, is not and never has been also re-charged to the Service Charge account over and above my invoice to, and receipt of funds from, our company MHML - if these are now considered erroneous accusations or observations I would welcome confirmation please.
I have checked our website and can confirm that most if not all documents you refer to as not being there, are indeed there, and have always been there and available for viewing or downloading/printing exactly as having been communicated ad nauseum to all lessees and most especially, Mrs Hillgarth, on multiple occasions.
To that end I attach two “screen grabs” of the relevant pages [found on www.mitrehouse.com/Works In Hand Finance Budgets 2014/Quotes and Costs] - or follow this link; http://www.mitrehouse.com/quotes---costs.html and please no accusation of posting subsequent to your 23 March letter as an IT inspection can disprove!
Yet further examples of Mrs Hillgarth’s incompetence and ignorance culminating in her ridiculous accusations of ourselves being somewhat economical with the truth. Had Mrs Hillgarth done as directed [but correspon- dence evidences her reticence in ever doing so] we would not now be wasting your time and mine.
The whole process was made even worse by Mrs Hillgarth’s constant vitriol communicated to other lessees [add to that our freeholder, their agents, various professional bodies and an RTM] resulting in all being misinformed and confused which resulted in yet more queries and a further waste of our time in repeating information. MHML is totally innocent of charges made in your 23 March letter of our unfitness to manage [chaos/pandemonium etc] as we did exactly as we had informed Mrs Hillgarth [and other lessees] by regularly confirming how Mrs Hillgarth and her fellow lessees could gain access to relevant information so as to fully evaluate and come to their own conclusions as to what was, or what was not, included in the now infamous Schedule of Works dated December 2013 with each and every costed item analysed from each tender including her preferred supplier, Wade, with it’s staggering £219,000 budget to include vat and fees.
Mrs Hillgarth’s obvious inability to evaluate information supplied [or posted on our website] as she requested us to supply [and we can prove it was], is at the core of this attack on our integrity and made far worse when she then miscommunicated her concerns re: non supply of information etc to other lessees, freeholder, their agents in fact almost anybody she could think of and now you, is hardly the fault of MHML and certainly not myself.