Page 17 - The Big Begg_1

Best of British luck “as I’m having trouble paying the £10,000 a year annual outgoings?” n) We (MHML but notably and only Paul Brown-Constable) was reminded of all above in an
email from Mrs Hillgarth dated 2 Jan 2019 copied to all lessees stating libellously:
-17-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
jj) We (MHML but notably and only Paul Brown-Constable) failed to follow statutory require- ments in respect of a consultation notice - previously denied and here again.
k) We (MHML but notably and only Paul Brown-Constable) departed radically from the scheme of work referred to in the s.20 Notice without the knowledge or consent of the leaseholders - previously denied and here again.
ll) We (MHML but notably and only Paul Brown-Constable) performed works that had not been costed/quoted/tendered, were not authorised to do, nor be paid for doing, and the decor was not consistent with the scheme approved by the leaseholders, some workings not carried out to the required standard or at all and finally, workings that were carried out were “shoddily performed” and not up to the standard which leaseholders were entitled to expect from professional crafts- men and contractors? - previously denied and here again.
m) We (MHML but notably and only Paul Brown-Constable) are therefore required to compen- sate Mrs Hillgarth £25,000 for costs and expenses to date but do not include Damages in tort for deceit (TBA) nor her legal fees to date nor indeed, were her accusations and innuendos true, one might expect the other leaseholders to also make claims for their fair shares too,
resulting in an additional £11,514 paid to another eight leaseholders including myself...?
“I suspect that with all the amount of money you stole from your [the] leaseholders over the years of your management you have plenty of money to survive “
This was in response to an email I sent to all leaseholders on 31 December 2018 which does bring all above into focus as regards what the actual facts are and how the truth can be very easily ascertained. Reproduced on following page.
Consequently I consider your Statement of Truth signing off on your “Particulars of Claim”, namely: “I believe and the Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true and I am duly authorized [authorised surely] by the Claimant to sign this statement.”
I consider that to be totally unacceptable and rank dishonesty given the evidence supplied to you to date, if not on all accounts [outstanding recent queries], but without a shadow of doubt on all others most pertinently when the “audio” is referenced, “doctored” or not with Mr Segar Karupiah as a prime witness whom you appear reticent to gain confirmation from?
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt