Page 445 - The Big Begg_1

From: Fortunati, Diego - GCIB LDN diego.fortunati@baml.com Subject: RE: Mitre House - Final attempt
Date: 8 May 2014 at 17:55
To: Mitre House Management Ltd studio@graffiti.biz, ivan@osullivanproperty.co.uk, ivanaplus@hotmail.com, Karupiah Segar
segar_9@hotmail.com, Leoni-Sceti Maria mleonisceti@gmail.com, Riad Samya riadsf@gmail.com, Michele Hillgarth mhillgarth@gmail.com, Leigh-Pemberton Christopher clp@sw12group.com
Dear Paul,
Had Management followed the wishes of the majority of the Lessees since the beginning, we would have all saved plenty of time, e-mails and possibly money; but, more importantly, both Internals and Externals would have been completed by now.
When renovation discussions started in March 2012 only Internals were mentioned by Management. Many Lessees organized meetings (attended by the majority and you always refused to attend) provided inputs, based on a consensus of the majority, and even a professional contractor name (Wade Design) with a professional quote.
At that time money was sufficient and Management should have just benchmarked Wade Design quote against a couple of others and get the works done, based on the majority of Lessees specifications (like a professional Management would have done), following the Notice required.
Instead, this whole dance of scope of works, failed notices and insane proposals from a bunch of “artisans” started, culminating in the Management proposal as the only option due to a lack of reserves. Suddenly the reserve charges were reduced, while Management was still paying £4,320 per year to himself, and both Internals and Externals became urgent (to avoid the majority plan to have a proper internal refurbishment done as opposed to your constant attempt not to maximize value of the properties by doing minimal works).
With this approach people have been led to believe the only viable option for Internals is what Management is proposing (which by the way will potentially allow Management to make even more money out of us, by managing the works).
The whole Management process was tempted given that after the issue of your Notice I (Notice of Intention) Management obligations would have been (see Section 20 Notices procedure) as follows:
1. Carefully consider any comments and suggestions within the consultation period from Notice l
2. Then invite contractors to tender for the works (including any contractor nominated by a Leaseholder)
3. Send out the Notice ll (Notice of Proposals) that will have to include: tender from any contractor nominated by a Leaseholder and the name of the contractors
4. Once more carefully consider any comments and suggestions within the consultation period from Notice ll
Management proposal is therefore not valid given:
(i) there isn’t a named professional general contractor undertaking the works (as per the notice process) and therefore there is no assurance that what we pay for will lead to what we expect without incurring in extra costs over the budget
(ii) Management proposal is based on many single “artisans” quotes which are in most case older than 2 years and therefore not anymore relevant based on the above