Page 2 - The Big Begg_1

-2-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
stage in the event that you should subsequently decide to omit this item of work follow- ing receipt of tenders. He continues “I have also included a £4000 general contingency sum” and he goes on “regarding the internal works ....I have omitted the re-spraying of the liftwell cage and lift doors...the specification does not include any allowance for works to the lighting/emergency lighting... as I understand you are dealing with these matters separately....”
He continues “Regarding the likely cost of the proposed work, you advised me ...that you had funds available in respect of the external works in the order of £55,000 plus fees and vat and further funds available for the internal works in the order of £15,000 plus fees and vat. In my opinion, this is unlikely to be sufficient to cover all the specified works, partic- ularly the works to the common parts. However rather than omit items from the Specifi- cations at this stage, it would obviously be easier to assess/review the project with regard to costs once tenders have been obtained and the actual costs are known.”
In a subsequent Surveyor’s letter dated 24 January 2014 he makes clear his fees based on final contract cost and other fees to be taken into consideration.
In a subsequent Surveyor’s letter dated 14 July 2014 (which “the copied to AR Lawrence” you have variously referred to as significant) he states: “Further to your email of 9 July 2014....I have now placed instructions with AR Lawrence...to proceed in the amount of £63,828 plus vat
He continues: “I have also amended the original Specification to reflect the agreed reduc- tions in the scope of works...”
vi) Consequently I consider your scurrilous reference to “pleading poverty” to reduce the works totally invalid and as for needing authorisation of leaseholders to reduce the workings invalid. As Landlord we had the authority to amend workings which were not in any way required to remain within our Head Lease covenants and which had no detrimental effect whatsoever on leasehold- ers or their finances. It must be quite obvious our management decisions were to protect lease- holder’s finances.
vii) As can be noted from our Surveyor’s letter dated 13 December 2013 he states: “I have omitted the re-spraying of the liftwell cage and lift doors...the specification does not in- clude any allowance for works to the lighting/emergency lighting... as I understand you are dealing with these matters separately....”
viii) If you revisit Mrs Hillgarth’s two initial quotations from her preferred contractor, Wade, dated 3 July 2012 and 23 January 2013, and indeed Hemi dated 3 July 2012 you will note these items above in (vii) were requested by her, along with other workings, to be costed.
Subsequently these same workings (vii) were subsequently referred to as the “unaffordables” along with quite a few others, again which Mrs Hillgarth requested of Wade & Hemi to quote for.
ix) Consequently your email dated 13 February 2019 is totally denied as being proof that neither you nor your client are telling the truth or are both totally ignorant of the truth, by stating:
“Thank you for your various e-mails of 7 February in which you berate me for asserting that “Neither Mrs Hillgarth, nor anyone else, requested METER CUPBOARDS, PIGEON HOLES, SIGNAGE”. You seek to demonstrate that there were a number of items in the Wade quote (which you say – incorrectly - that Mrs Hillgarth sourced) which she was effectively insisting on, and with which you felt some obligation to comply. That, as you are well aware, is a misrep- resentation of what actually took place. Mrs Hillgarth introduced Wade as a good contractor, and that is all. She never requested any particular work to be done by them. The Wade quote (as also the one supplied by Hemi) were based on information which you gave to the indi- vidual suppliers. Mrs Hillgarth never worked on any of these schedules. You were in charge of the project and you were (exclusively) dealing with that process.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt