Page 22 - The Big Begg_1

This response was in answer to a query I made to our Agents on 6 March 2019 which was: “Just one further thought? On your quarterly visits have you ever noticed any shoddy works or indeed any deterioration of any newly or renovated installed items in 2014.
-22-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
And as regards tenders, again MHML had a legal duty to obtain two or three tenders (we did six) and to oblige any lessees’ personal request of a contractor they wished us to get a tender from (we did, Wade) and to then choose the cheapest - no matter the cost - the cheapest unless for good reason etc. That ended the leaseholders concerns and how we (MHML) or equivalent project managed a £105,019 approved budget to include vat and fees, which despite your dishonest and exaggerated hyperbole could not possibly have been “exclusively & only” to be paid in full to AR Lawrence as it included “fees” to whom we had pay for services including our Surveyor and anybody else we felt obliged to pay including MHML for services rendered and works performed for the benefit of all lessees. Was there a benefit - yes indeed as those works considered unaffordable were progressed and more, and funded from savings made (as per 23 May 2014 Board Meeting with your client present and agreeing as the audio & Mr Karupiah can amply attest to) - so please no more wittering on about MHML not informing lessees as we were not obliged to so long as all the necessary works were progressed (they were) and any works capable of being cancelled due their non urgency or need (as per our Surveyor’s extensive and comprehensive analysis mentioned elsewhere in this tôme) were cancelled and the quoted costs of which were better used on the unaffordables - ie more workings were accomplished than less works which you’d have to be retarded not to appreciate and applaud -
You will note from correspondence from our previous Agents, KFH, in their letter dated 11 February 2005 to Mrs Hillgarth they state: “Any instructions relating to significant tasks (ie major works - internal and external decoration ) are firstly cleared and approved by the Landlord prior to implementation. The Residents’ Association alone do not have suffi- cient authority to instruct on such tasks.”
For Residents’ Association (“internal management” in your parlance) you can interpret as lease- holders including Mrs Hillgarth who despite prompting to liase with the RA by previous Agents she stubbornly refused - why? Because of me, that’s why!! See addenda for full details.
You will also note in a recent email to me dated 6 March 2019 from our present agents, they state: “Leaseholders will be given the opportunity to comment on the specification once prepared so that our client can take their observations into consideration.”
I am actually amazed that after five years there is not a mark, nor damage, nor deteriora- tion to be seen anywhere? I cannot recall a similar situation from previous refurbs.”
I received the following response by return: “Generally we are satisfied with the condition of Mitre House together with the workmanship that is undertaken around site.”
No mention of works needing attention, now or in next works’ schedule so if MHML (my) works were shoddy, as Mrs Hillgarth and you consider, Maunder Taylor, obviously don’t concur or missed it”?
As such might I remind you again that observations etc from leaseholders are taken note of but in no way are they legally binding on MHML or any other landlord whose job it is to manage on behalf of all lessees not simply those that consider themselves a majority (which Mrs Hillgarth never had) and the only legal requirement of MHML or equivalent is to follow all required statutes and regulations in advising leaseholders of their rights and obligations which does not include them deciding on colour schemes but only on expenditures outside those that are statutorily required as laid out in the Head Lease and in individual leases.
In our case at Mitre House re: internals - a lick of paint and fix anything broken every 7 years - and nothing else and re: externals: whatever needs doing to maintain integrity and structure of building - and nothing else. Indeed there is no legal reason to retain a Surveyor.
In other words, anything considered a replacement, a non essential, anything cosmetic must
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt