Page 10 - The Big Begg_1

-10-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Your email dated 15 February 2019 @11.54 -
“It now seems clear what you personally have done, and the evidence is there to prove it. But there are further queries that do need to be answered. In particular how it has been possible for two qualified accountants as directors and a firm of professional auditors to produce audited accounts which bear no relationship whatever to reality. That requires a lot of explanation.”
“You have been anxious to assert that your colleagues are blameless in this matter and should bear no liability for your own misdeeds. Bearing in mind the evidence in our pos- session that certainly seems surprising, so I think you will need to clarify the basis on which you maintain (if you still do) that they should bear no responsibility for this matter. Are you saying that you successfully deceived them as well, in the same way as you de- ceived the leaseholders?”
Neither the leaseholders, my co-Directors, Messrs Karupiah & Dima Intl/Jamil Raja, nor indeed our Accountants, were deceived in any respect, and as you make clear of my oft repeated since your letter of 23 March 2016, any responsibility or culpability whatsoever to any accusation, in- cluding me deceiving anybody, levied to date by Mrs Hillgarth and repeatedly ad nauseam in your weighty correspondence to date, are directed at me personally and if any were true it would be my responsibility and culpability and mine alone. I hope that is now abundantly clear.
As regards “...audited accounts which bear no relationship whatever to reality.” I can only say £16,201 as opposed to £11,243 which is about as real as reality itself?
As regards our Banking arrangements which your client, Mrs Hillgarth, was quite familiar with as she requested all Bank Statements from inception (August 2011) in mid 2012 and was supplied as requested with scanned copies on pdf via email. She made one or two observations, query- ing YMCA costs etc. During the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting she again carefully reviewed our Banking arrangements as the attached well evidences in her own handwriting and she requested and received all Bank Statements from inception (August 2011) to date (May 2014) as emails evidences if required to verify. I can’t recall any queries save for the usual non-receipt and as usual they were required to be resent and were resent.
As regards your query as to why our item “Reserves Utilised” of £105,877 on our YE2014 Service Charge Accounts does not precisely (or indeed as you accuse is misleading with intent to fraudulently misappropriate leaseholder’s monies or worse still “audited accounts which bear no relationship whatever to reality.”) indicate the actual precise amount spent from Reserves and therefore cannot be classified as utilised/spent. The same indeed could be levelled at the two other itemised "Reserves Utilised” of £18,000 and £12,858, neither of which were all spent, but were received. And all explained in the accounts’ accompanying Notes.
Our previous Agents subsequent to major works in 2005 had adopted the very same process. They did not differentiate or individually list Surveyor fees nor their agents’ fees etc, prefering as we preferred one amount reflecting the budget appropriated plus any overspend (£858). As in- deed do Knight Frank & Welcome Trust on their summaries, all of which you have previously been supplied copies of. One figure only under Reserves Utilised.
Your accusation that this was progressed to mislead and misappropriate leaseholder’s monies as we had not mentioned all recipients individually, AR Lawrence, Surveyor, AerialTec, House- man, MHML etc is denied as petty supposition, as indeed any request to inspect the various Accounts’ documentation by any lessee/leaseholder, to which they had all been advised to do on publication of the YE2014 Accounts, would have been well in evidence if indeed any query had been raised. Any outstanding amounts were listed and properly accounted for in creditors in the correct manner.
All and any expected queries raised would have been easily answered as the overall budget for PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt