Page 25 - The Big Begg_1

To which I replied by return responding to her comments - see below my replies in bold)
From: Michel Hillgarth <Michele@HillgarthArt.com> Subject: Minutes
Date: 6 June 2014 18:19:59 BST
To: Segar Karupiah <segar_9@hotmail.com>
-25-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
accusations erroneously state!
Comment: Mrs Hillgarth will recall she did organise an excellent majority in the correct manner requesting lessees to confirm in writing (emails) to rebut MHML’s recommended cheapest tender from Benitor (£98,000) which MHML accepted purely for some peace and quiet and quite content for Mrs Hillgarth’s majority to vote in retaining AR Lawrence.
Mrs Hillgarth did an excellent job with her template to her preferred lessees and they all loyally responded to retaining a contractor costing them £2000 each as opposed to one (Benitor) that would have probably cost zero?
As MHML made clear to Mrs Hillgarth that this was the only occasion, despite half a dozen other occasions when MHML had requested exact same from all lessees to respond in writing individually to alleged majority opinions, most pertinently retaining Wade and entailing substantial (£5000-£7500) contributions to adequately fund their quotes, NOT ONE LESSEE INCLUDING MRS HILLGARTH CONFIRMED THEIR AGREE- MENT TO FUND WADE’S COST DESPITE THREE REQUESTS TO DO SO - THEY DID, THOUGH CONFIRM THEIR CHOICE OF WADE!!!! BUT NO WAY WOULD ANY AGREE IN WRITING TO FUND BY MAKING SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS...!
And on receipt of the Minutes to the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting she replied on 6 June 2014:
I would like it registered that the estimates provided are not “like for like” in my opinion, for example Wade has included several things such as lighting etc. which are not pro- vided in some of the other quotes including the quote from A&R Lawrence.
Regarding paragraph/point 3, I confirm that I will write to all the tenants of Mitre House to notify them that the contractors appointed by management is A& R Lawrence (of course once you confirm that this has indeed gone ahead [comment: meaning what - how can it go ahead until announced????], and also once I have received all the requested documents above - including an amended copy of the minutes according to my points for alteration above) in line with management’s obligation to appoint the lowest quote. [comment: contrary unhelpful etc]
Her comment that: “I would like it registered that the estimates provided are not “like for like” in my opinion, for example Wade has included several things such as lighting etc. which are not provided in some of the other quotes including the quote from A&R Lawrence” simply further evidences her ineptitude and incompetence as WADE’S FINAL TENDER DID NOT INCLUDE LIGHTING AND NO OTHER TENDERS INCLUDED LIGHTING as they were part of the unaffordables to be funded from savings - she was muddling her initial two Wade quotes way back in 2012/13 which included lighting but she denied sourcing and you now accuse me of being party to - totally wrong as proved later in this tôme.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt