Page 11 - The Big Begg_1

-11-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
the works’ programme was always referred to as including vat and fees, and had any query been raised as to MHML’s involvement and invoice of £15,572 to the Service Charge it would have been responded to as the workings from savings made to progress those items initially considered unaffordable all as well advised to all lessees on numerous occasions during 2014 as the attached well evidences.
In my letter accompanying the March 2015 Quarterly Demands I wrote: “Amazingly all quiet and peaceful at Mitre House. Not one single comment on any subject from any Lessees”) and totally bemused by no follow up to view accounts seeing as so many observations, criticisms, demands, innuendos and accusations had emanated from your client along with her usual suspects, Flats 3 and 9 and maybe Flat 8 during the works which were all answered in the same fashion “await publication of the accounts and view whatever you wish to view!”
Nobody did until your letter nine months later demanding exact same (almost) and you received an immediate reply saying, OK, no worry. I’ve attached our covering letter in readiness to accompany our offer to oblige, which did contain some relevant information but alas, due to your bout of pneumonia and your client running around the Sahara, despite your strict deadlines to comply, resulted in a three year ongoing argy-bargy with by all accounts, as per your Particulars of Claim, very substantial costs incurred by your client but amazingly partly donated to by her three [the infamous virtual majority] usual suspects? See below (First Tier Tribunal)
Were queries raised as to MHML’s involvement, we would have referred to the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting where Mrs Hillgarth agreed with her fellow MHML Directors in a unanimous decision to attempt making savings, in any way possible, including interior workings that could be done more economically than quoted for in all tenders, to be progressed by MHML and/or its personnel progressing only some interior works, from the soon to be approved £105,019 budget to include vat and fees and to use any savings made to progress works initially considered “unaffordable” (ref: Mrs Hillgarth’s two initially sourced Wade quotes in July 2012 and January 2013) and consequently not included in the final Schedule of Works and consequently not to be performed by any contractor nor indeed that of the contractor subsequently chosen*** by Mrs Hillgarth, AR Lawrence, as opposed to her preferred contractor, Wade, who had not been further considered following a tendered cost of £219,000 including vat and fees based on identical workings as all other tenders including that from AR Lawrence for £105,019 including vat and fees.
*** Mrs Hillgarth resisted and indeed canvassed other lessees to do same when MHML proposed an admittedly, but acceptable as we had allowed Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade tender to have additional time to supply, late tender from Benitor which at £98,000 including vat and fees was the cheapest tender received. As our s.20 Notice dated 22 June 2014 makes clear, Benitor was not to be considered due to lessee concerns and MHML were content to oblige. The consequence of which was the preference of AR Lawrence by Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees.
First Tier Tribunal
Your predictable reliance on the First Tier Tribunal’s decision ("that relations between the Applicants and the Landlord have irretrievably broken down”) is misguided in pursuit of your further accusations as you’ll recall, with no doubt some bemusement, that on behalf of MHML I offered no defence to the drivel you had supplied Maunder Taylor with to represent your client’s application, as the predictable decision was fair and true. We did though establish that your client lied on oath in front of witnesses including your good self and Maunder Taylor personnel present.
MHML consider the First Tier Tribunal affair as no more nor less than facilitating our desire to be rid of Mrs Hillgarth and the Head Lease, both of which were successfully accomplished at no cost to MHML, but by all accounts involved Mrs Hillgarth in substantial costs despite our three or four offers well prior to 26 June 2017 to step aside and donate to her the Head Lease, due to
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt