Page 13 - The Big Begg_1

-13-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
mum economy. MHML designed Alternative Decor Notifications and took notice of observations and preferences from lessees, which resulted in a vote for preferred style.
Initially the vote indicated a preference for “Belle Epoque” as opposed to “Traditional Elegance”, but this was subsequently contested (“vote rigging scandal’) by some lessees including MHML’s co-Director, Mrs Hillgarth, who by now was insisting upon spending far more than MHML’s
initial £25,000 incl. vat budget and seriously expanding the scope of the works. MHML attempted to oblige and raised their proposed maximum budget to £35,000 to include vat but were advised that a majority of lessees, including our co-Director, Mrs Hillgarth, wished to remove MHML and hire Agents, and to retain their preferred single contractor Wade (as op- posed to MHML’s various individual) and in 2013 progressed an RTM application to remove MHML and retain their preferred contractor Wade, from whom they had sourced two quotes (July 2012 and January 2013).
The RTM did not progress due to a legal anomaly, but Mrs Hillgarth (still a director of MHML) continued to insist, along with one or two other allies, but never a proved majority, of MHML’s incompetence, inefficiency and intransigence in not respecting her demand to retain her’s and her allies preferred contractor Wade.
Due to the now (October 2013) serious delay in progressing the Internals, MHML were obliged to now fund both Internals and Externals concurrently (or be in very serious arrears on our Head Lease covenants) during 2014.
Mrs Hillgarth insisted that funds were adequate without a call on lessees to fund her proposed Wade Internals budget of £60-£65,000 (as opposed to MHML’s £35,000) and to delay the Externals until 2015. Mrs Hillgarth again claimed she had the support and confidence of a majority of lessees but despite attempts by MHML to have those alleged agreements confirmed in writing (email) to retain Wade with a required call on lessees for substantial (£7000+) contri- bution to adequately fund, not one, including Mrs Hillgarth, was ever received save for a confirmation to retain Wade? But not to fund? And certainly not to contribute £7000 odd
Consequently, in late 2013 MHML retained our previous Surveyor (from our previous Agents and fully conversant with previous refurbishments at Mitre House) to draw up a Schedule of Works for both Internals and Externals for a max budget (of anticipated available Reserves) of £70,000 plus vat and fees (approx £96,600 in toto). He advised funds/works were optimistic
Due to the £96,600 anticipated overall cost, it was not possible to include many if not all of what both MHML had originally costed into their £35,000 budget in 2012, nor indeed those items that Mrs Hillgarth had requested of her preferred contractor, Wade, to quote for totalling £65,000.
Our Surveyor arranged six tenders including one from Wade, all based on the exact same specifications in his Schedule of Works for both Internals and Externals and all six were notified to lessees in MHML’s Section 20 Notice dated 22 June 2014. Total costs to include vat and fees ranged from £219,000 from Wade to £105,000 from AR Lawrence.
Consequently AR Lawrence being the cheapest would no doubt be retained requiring a call on lessees of £2000 to adequately fund a £105,019 budget with only £98,262 in Reserves resulting in a hoped for £11,243 remaining in Reserves for emergencies or carried forward to 2015.
During a MHML Board Meeting on 23 May 2014 attended by Mrs Hillgarth and two co-Directors, Segar Karupiah and Paul Brown-Constable, it was explained again to Mrs Hillgarth that none of the six tenders, including her Wade tender, included items she had initially sourced from Wade (July 2012 and January 2013) nor indeed what MHML had included (partially) in their revised budget of £35,000 in 2012 as they were all simply “unaffordable” given the anticipated funds available in Reserves of now approx £98,000.
These “unaffordable” items consisted of new Lighting fitments, new emergency lighting, PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt