Page 3 - The Big Begg_1

-3-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
x) Neither myself nor Mrs Hillgarth’s MHML’s co-Directors had any reference to, nor were party to, nor even advised of Mrs Hillgarth’s approach to Wade & Hemi and indeed one other quote which was never presented. Subsequent to the “vote rigging” scandal after the 13 June 2012 meeting, organised by Mrs Hillgarth for some lessees but not attended by her co-directors, we, me, MHML made clear we, me, were stepping aside from the “works’ programme and request- ing that lessees only liase with Mrs Hillgarth. (email references on file if required).
xi) This can further be evidenced by Mrs Hillgarth’s RTM application, whilst a director of MHML, in mid 2013 due entirely to her MHML co-directors voting against her insistence on using Wade for the internals refurbishment at a cost of £60 - £65,000 as opposed to her co-directors far more reasonable, affordable budget of initially £25,000 rising to £35,000 in an effort to compro- mise.
xii) Mrs Hillgarth’s RTM Solicitors wrote a letter dated 2 July 2013 stating: “The RTM company’s intention is to undertake the redecoration and refurbishment of the common parts [Mitre House] appointing Wade Interiors.”
The RTM application failed as both Mrs Hillgarth (despite having advised all lessees in 2011) and her Solicitors failed to take notice of the 25% commercial footprint ruling.
xiii) Subsequent to the failure of the RTM application, relationships between Mrs Hillgarth and her co-directors had indeed “irretrievably broken down” most especially when MHML took back the responsibility for progressing the now very delayed workings and now necessitating a concurrent schedule for both internals & externals without doubt with no further comment during 2014 which Mrs Hillgarth predictably disagreed with doing and still insisting on allocating far more funds than available in reserves without very substantial calls on lessees for contributions.
xiv) Now refer back to (i) as that was the exact process that subsequently transpired commenc- ing December 2013 until the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting when it was explained to Mrs Hillgarth that “savings” could be made from any approved contractor’s budget in all sorts of ways including MHML personnel (PBC) doing some workings which were either not included in the Specifications (our Surveyor’s Schedule of Works) due to they being “unaffordable” (reference (viii) above) or could be done more economically than quoted to date by either independent in- dividual contractors or MHML personnel or a combination of both.
Mrs Hillgarth was finally convinced with various examples of 35% loadings on many sub-con- tractor’s costs included in all tenders (most especially the final and third quote (tender) from her preferred contractor, Wade, totalling £219,000 incl. vat and fees versus that from AR Lawrence quoting for identical workings but costing £105,000 including vat and fees) and finally agreed with her two co-directors present, Segar Karupiah and Paul Brown-Constable, that if savings could be made they would not be refunded to lessees but as she exclaimed “would be used for something else” (referencing the “unaffordables”) followed by “well then everybody will be happy” (referencing the fact that the savings would be used to progress “unaffordables”)
xv) Mrs Hillgarth now denies her agreement maintaining she cannot recall any such conversa- tion nor indeed aware of music playing nor recognising her fellow co-director and neighbour of 20 years, Mr Karupiah. Fortuitously and with agreement of all parties present including Mrs Hill- garth, a tape recording of the entire six hour 45 minute meeting was made and Mrs Hillgarth can be clearly heard exclaiming “would be used for something else” (referencing the “unafford- ables”) followed by “well then everybody will be happy” (referencing the fact that the savings would be used to progress “unaffordables”).
xvi) Not only does she deny agreeing, she also maintains the tape was “doctored” which is supported by a sound engineer’s report sourced by her Solicitor (ref:Johnny DJ Arthur). MHML sourced two other sound engineer reports disagreeing and maintaining the tape had not been doctored in any way and indeed due to music playing was almost impossible to doctor?
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt