Page 3 - 6_PBC to Begg_8-4-16 (4pp)

-3-
Mrs Hillgarth might also have viewed on our website not only the full work’s analysis of all tenders [as further described in my comments on your 23 March letter] but our full Surveyor’s correspondence outlining amongst other things, the final full list of all our Surveyor’s sourced tenders’ total cost, [but not Mrs Hillgarth’s indepen- dently sourced Wade which was posted elsewhere but again with same full breakdown of costs] posted on our website on 3 March 2014 - added to the first posting of our Surveyor’s correspondence on or 23 June 2013.
My records show that the Schedule of Works [supplied by our Surveyor on or around 13 December 2013] was posted on our website somewhat tardily by me [it needed scanning etc] on 2nd January 2014.
As you will appreciate, Mrs Hillgarth could not have briefed her preferred contractor, Wade, had she not given them the required Schedule of Works for them to quote like-for-like on [which she had done twice previously and was advised of her error - as was one sourced from Hemi] but one other lessee surreptitiously sourced another quote based correctly on the Schedule but never published it - but all three of Wade’s and Hemi’s were still posted on our website]. If Mrs Hillgarth did not read the Schedule of Works prior to giving to Wade, one presumes she has no idea of what was to be quoted for or far more importantly and most relevant under the present set of accusations, what was not going to be quoted for. It appears she still does not know.
Along with your confirmations, dare I say apologies, on the various items above, I would also welcome your confirmation that Mrs Hillgarth, or indeed your goodself, have successfully accessed the various documents on our website and will now re-confirm that MHML did indeed maintain a professional approach by informing all lessees, including Mrs Hillgarth, of all and any relevant facts [including the Water Tank and TVSky quotes] regarding all original initial tenders and item costs but more importantly have been totally transparent by informing and advising lessees, including Mrs Hillgarth, of available access to all facts, figures and costs for them to have digested, discussed, commented or queried [without the need to have harassed MHML with innuendo and gossip] well prior to the 22 June 2014 agreed s.20 notice and the confirming of an agreed total budget to include VAT and all Fees of £105,000 for [only] the works outlined in the Schedule of Works.
It is quite obvious from Mrs Hillgarth’s list of complaints arranged over 13pp in your 23 March 2016 letter and comprehensively replied on with our comments and here attached, that Mrs Hillgarth only appreciated the actual workings in the Schedule of Works after they were completed and duly commenced canvassing other lessees with various complaints as she considered the new interior decor to be vulgar, cheap and unsuitable [as in her letter of 1 April 2015, some three months after its completion].
No mention though of lessee preferences’ ignored or of a majority vote that I had rigged or of works outside of the agreed budget or even any complaint of internal works’ proficiency and quality. Her reference to vulgar, cheap and unsuitable was a personal observation which has no foundation in fact. Had she enquired how we had managed to squeeze so much more than the listed workings outlined in the Schedule of Works yet remaining within the agreed £105,000 budget [admittedly going £877 over budget] we would not be in this position today. But no, her enquiries now are exactly the opposite as she is maintaining a misappropriation of funds for works not required [the Lift, the Lighting, the Electrics etc etc] and which were organised and com- pleted by MHML as opposed to by our main contractor which she maintains should have done those works.
As it has hopefully been established, not one single tender, including her own from Wade and Hemi included such workings as is evidenced in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works. Her next query will be, why not? The answer, funding, as was well explained at the outset.
Thankfully and further evidence of MHML’s more than adequate management skills, we stilled pulled the rabbit out of the hat and supplied all lessees with absolutely everything [they wanted] and we had (a) promised and (b) using our initially advised use of independent suppliers and (c) managed all to the approximate budget we initially proposed on 1 January 2012 [and published on our website]. All done with no reduction in the quality nor required workings as listed on the Schedule of Works and all as further outlined on your attached letter of 23 March 2016 - and most importantly remaining [almost] within an agreed expenditure of £105,000 to include vat and fees.
Mrs Hillgarth appears to be maintaining that the full £105,000 budget was always required to be paid to only our contractor, [or her’s had Wade been contracted] yet she then confuses to whom she paid her window repairs, which indicates a disturbing misunderstanding of both budgets and common sense let alone managing projects as large and as complex as our Internals/Externals were.
As I hope has now been established, Mrs Hillgarth had full access to all tender costs [including analyses], the Schedule of Works and reams of emails further explaining all above points. We really could not have done more to assist Mrs Hillgarth or her fellow lessees in evaluating, computing, concluding and deciding both works included [or not] and costs to be incurred, but Mrs Hillgarth seemed intent on catching MHML out on irrelevan- cies, innuendos and vote rigging as opposed to concentrating on basic facts and documents to hand.