Page 446 - The Big Begg_1

Furthermore, I don’t think the requested additional funds (from the 9 Lessees) described in your two alternative scenarios below are correct based on the facts below:
· Based on the latest amount assuming Wade full scope quote and Management Externals tender, we need c. £130,000 to do both Internals (c. £52,000) and Externals (c. £78,000)
· Reserves at 31/12/2013 stood at £92,702 based on latest accounts and will be at £102,000 by September 2014 when works start (additional £350 per flat, per quarter, for 3 quarters collected)
· On this basis the shortfall to do both Internals and Externals, even assuming we stop collect money in September, is £28,000
Why are you asking the 9 lessees to agree to pay additional £5,369.55 each, totaling more than £48,000 in your option A or £6,650 totaling almost £60,000 in your option B, when we only need £28,000? Why do we suddenly need to collect £20,000 to £32,000 more than what we need? Is this just an attempt to let people believe Lessees proposal is not viable?
The £28,000 needed correspond to c. £3,100 per flat which - over a period of 5 quarters - is £620 additional demand per quarter not the £1,975 you propose! Why should anyone approve any of the unreasonable options you propose when there is no clear economical reason behind?
There is certainly a way to avoid Lessees pay more and get what required, as per below:
· Management has been charging an out-of-market management fee of £4,320 for the last 2 years, totaling £8,640 and is planning to continue to do so, based on next budget.
· If Management returns those money to the reserves and commits not to charge any Management fee for the next 2 years (2014-15) we will have more than £17,000 (£4,320 x4) additional funds by 2015
· If we then postpone Externals to late 2015 additional £12,000 can be collected by September 2015 via the existing service charge (£350 per flat, per quarter, for 4 quarters between September 2014 and September 2015)
· This will give us a total additional £29,000 which is more than the £28,000 shortfall described above
As you can see there are ways to work around this matter as long as Management acts in the interest of all Lessees.
Why don’t we add this option to your vote and if the majority approves it we go for it? Sincerely,
Diego (Flat 9)
From: Mitre House Management Ltd [mailto:studio@graffiti.biz]
Sent: 02 May 2014 20:27
To: ivan@osullivanproperty.co.uk; ivanaplus@hotmail.com; Karupiah Segar; Leoni-Sceti Maria; Riad Samya; Michele Hillgarth; Brown-Constable Paul; Leigh-Pemberton Christopher; Fortunati, Diego - GCIB LDN
Subject: Mitre House - Final attempt
Final Attempt To Sort:
Michele contacted us with a request to have Wade quote to the same specifications as the rest of our Section 20-2 tenders a copy of which you have.