Page 20 - The Big Begg_1

-20-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Please note: This accusation is typical of the other ridiculous and spiteful accusations made by Mrs Hillgarth throughout this whole sad, sick, pathetic affair - vote rigging, using lessees window repair monies, wandering around in my underwear, flat 2 renting out using AirBnB, my panelling being illegally installed let alone my windows, blackmail, intimidation, abusive or ungentlemanly language (partly true but with good cause as that’s all she understands), disregarding ignoring refusing requests from her and other lessees for information including from our YE2014 ac- counts (another lie proved by her own admission in her Witness Statement para 73), swearing our cleaner, Bunny, to silence, getting caught out doing works (photos promised but none to date), and indeed basement “bureau” pixs but none to date save for that published/sup- plied to date, putting a lock on the basement which even a moron could see has been there al- most since the building was built in 1933, demanding half a dozen Surveyor’s Schedules of Works claiming each time non receipt, considering the www.mitrehouse.com un-navigable, con- fusing, an irrelevance, not containing each and every document relevant to the 2014 works (and much more) and including all correspondence between our Surveyor and MHML, and all invoic- ing including AR Lawrence invoicing and MHML invoicing etc etc since January 2015, despite which, since your 23 March 2016 letter of demands for exact same being instantly available had you spent less time fretting over plagiarism! How many times were both you and she advised to view all on www.mitrehouse.com -
But seemingly your only interest was in the Seaborne Freight plagiarised Terms & Conditions running to 52 pages in your evidence at the First Tier Tribunal hearing (52 pages!!!) - it was all there, all 13 invoices, whether you like it or not - both you and Mrs Hillgarth had neither the resolve, the aptitude, the time, the patience, the equipment or more likely the intelligence to source it - true or false? And to cap it all, my workings were allegedly “shoddy” (I’m sure Mrs Hillgarth is qualified to come to that conclusion when I recall from your correspondence she considered the works executed for £31,756.21 weren’t worth a penny over £5000.....despite the electrics alone coming to £10,000 odd.... and her infamous (the only comment received by the way) derisory email of 1 April 2015 (three months after end of works) that in her opinion the decor at Mitre House was “vulgar, cheap and unsuitable”..... and insisting on “no comments required please?” - so none were given!
You also appear to be under the impression that up until Mitre House Management Company (2017) Limited was established in late 2017 (allowing a legal one vote per leaseholder share- holder) that the leaseholders ran Mitre House.
They did not, but the Head Lease proprietor, MHML and its four Directors certainly did run Mitre House and those Directors included your client Mrs Hillgarth until September 2014. As our Articles make clear, MHML had a vote system and it was a unanimous vote for making savings as the audio evidences and which both Segar Karupiah and I witnessed her agreement within a yard or two of her in my flat on 23 May 2014 around 6,30pm.
You appear to be confusing the present Mitre House Management Company (2017) Limited which does have a leaseholder vote as all leaseholders (with the notable exception of one of your’s and Mrs Hillgarth’s alleged allies, the offshore Expert Trading Co (Flat 1) declining to participate but bizarrely well in evidence on all your alleged participants with Mrs Hillgarth (they’ve only visited Mitre House once or twice and one was to my flat) and consequently it could be argued that the eight (not 9) shareholding (Directors?) leaseholders could vote on certain aspects but even they would have a tough, nay impossible, job of insisting on spending £219,000 (Wade) versus £105,019 (AR Lawrence) for the exact (yes exact) same workings if just one sensible, sane, intelligent lessee disagreed - just one, would deny the majority, if indeed there was one? That’s democracy or common sense in this instance and that instance was exactly what MHML had to endure with your client’s ridiculous behaviour.
But yes I agree, Mitre House Management Company (2017) Limited’s lessee shareholders could vote for Caribbean Dawn and Waiting Room Green in a democratic vote but these same lessees were NOT shareholders of Mitre House Management Limited, nor Directors and conse- quently had no democratic right to any voting, simply suggestions/preferences, to which we (MHML) could take notice of in a neighbourly gentlemanly fashion but having no legal obligation to oblige their whims and fancies most especially when they changed every month -
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt