Page 14 - The Big Begg_1

-14-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
additional electrical points and auto sensors throughout the communal areas, a total Lift Car and surrounds refurbishment, and various other cosmetic improvements.
It was explained to Mrs Hillgarth that MHML could make “savings” from any approved tender, in- cluding AR Lawrence’s overall total tender to include vat and fees of £105,000 and use those “savings”, to be made from deleting certain items our Surveyor considered non-essential, and from substantial contingencies if not required and from progressing certain Internals’ [only] items that MHML considered could be done more economically than tendered, any way possible to include MHML personnel progressing some workings if more economical than other individual contractor’s quotes. Email references from Mrs Hillgarth well evidence her knowledge of MHML and Mr Brown-Constable to attempt workings wherever possible.
It was both Segar Karupiah’s and Paul Brown-Constable’s understanding that Mrs Hillgarth fully agreed to this sensible proposal to make “savings” wherever possible from items not considered essential or could be done more economically to spend on, initially considered “unaffordable’, items not included nor costed for in the Schedule of Works, and which Mrs Hillgarth and her fellow allies had all made previous requests for progressing as the initial two Wade quotes way back in July 2012 and January 2013 well evidences.
Mrs Hillgarth can be very clearly heard on a pre-advised tape recording of the meeting (“good idea”, she said) agreeing to this sensible proposal to making savings, exclaiming, “will be used for something else” (as opposed to refunding lessees), followed by “well then everybody will be happy”.
Mrs Hillgarth adamantly denies being pre-advised and denies the content of the recording main- taining it had been “doctored” as she has no recollection of conversations, or of music playing nor recognising “a man’s voice”, being that of her co-Director, Segar Karupiah?
Three engineer’s reports were ascertained as to the veracity of one, five minute clip, resulting in Mrs Hillgarth’s report agreeing it had been “doctored/edited”, and two from MHML insisting it hadn’t been “doctored/edited”. Common sense would indicate its veracity as why would any- body refuse to make savings on items not required to spend on those you do require?
Nevertheless, works commenced 31 August 2014, savings were made and notified to all lessees and appropriated to all the various “unaffordables” to good effect, which included some works performed by MHML’s Paul Brown-Constable.
Due to some urgent works coming to light on a fortuitously scheduled inspection, a new roof Water Tank was required and could be installed at a considerable saving if done whilst scaffold- ing in situ (which it was). Lessees were given two choices - to agree (or not) to voluntarily mak- ing their fare share contribution and do without the normal, legally required s.20 Notice (so missing the benefit of scaffolding in situ and therefore costing more) or quite within their rights to insist on a normal, legally required s.20 Notice. MHML made very clear that to do without an s.20 would require 100% approval. Just one objection would entail an s.20 process.
A similar proposal was also made to all lessees regarding the installation whilst scaffolding in situ (or else impossible), to install a communal TV/Sky. Again MHML made clear it needed 100% approval from all lessees to proceed and to pay their fair share. Just one objection would abort the whole proposal as the TV/Sky was not a requirement like the failing Water Tank.
Mrs Hillgarth continued her disruptive and disloyal relationship with her fellow Directors insisting that the £2000 contribution to adequately fund the £105,000 works’ budget should be used to fund both the Water Tank and TV/Sky installs. She canvassed other lessees to withhold their £2000 resulting in MHML having to refund those that had paid and reduce the work’s to be pro- gressed. Fortuitously, all lessees did eventually all pay both their £2000 and contributions for the Water Tank and TV/Sky installs but not until mid October causing delays and schedules.
Mrs Hillgarth and her three allies (ie 4 out of 9 flats) were not impressed with the final internals’ PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt