Page 46 - The Big Begg_1

Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
-46-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Between November 2011 and until June 2012 various interior design presentations, schedules and costings were progressed following varied inputs and requests from various lessees result- ing in a basic choice of either a traditional/contemporary style favoured initially by Flat 9 and a belle epoque style favoured by MHML, most notably myself and initially some other lessees, including initially Mrs Hillgarth.
MHML prepared a costing budget and list of works [no matter traditional/contemporary or belle epoque] including boxing of meters and a mail pigeon table/boxes [signage was an obvious requirement and misc cost] of initially £25,000, rising to £35,000 both incl. vat which covered all but the most expensive cosmetic items on the wish list, such as a Lift refurb and a total renovation of the aged terrazzo flooring.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
For reasons best known to Mrs Hillgarth, the budget proposed by MHML of initially £25,000 incl.vat to progress the basic interior décor [no matter traditional/contemporary or belle epoque] plus some “wish list” items, rising to £35,000 incl.vat to include additional ‘wish list” items, was considered an insufficient budget to appropriate for the standard/quality of works on her wish list and as early as April/May 2012 she was proposing spending far in excess of £35,000 incl. vat as she considered the internal works should be far more extensive than those proposed by MHML to be funded within available Reserves with no call on lessees for additional funding. Again all was posted on www.mitrehouse.com.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
MHML prepared a final (Draft 10) design presentation [traditional/contemporary v belle epoque] alongside a £35,000 incl. vat Schedule of Internal Works and costing for those items consid- ered affordable. A vote for preference of style, traditional/contemporary style or belle epoque style was requested of all lessees (including like or no like variously discussed miscellaneous items/additions mooted by some lessees including MHML, carpets, mirrors, mail pigeon table, meter boxing, topiary, artworks etc) to be received by latest 31st May 2012.
All lessees obliged by 31st May save for Mrs Hillgarth who apologised for tardiness and initially emailed on 7 June saying “you choose”. MHML had prepared the first required s.20 Notice which was scheduled to go off once the voting was finalised on or around 1st June but was aborted due to Mrs Hillgarth’s late attention.
The voting from all lessee owners was a 5-4 preference for belle epoque [and included Mrs Hill- garth’s subsequent email voting for traditional/contemporary style as opposed to “you choose’ initially and this rose to 6-4 in favour of belle epoque when including a very long term sitting ten- ant in Flat 8.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Subsequent to the publication of a 6pp Vote Analysis sent to all lessees on 7 June, it became clear that one lessee, having been canvassed by Mrs Hillgarth, had reversed their voting preference and one lessee, again canvassed by Mrs Hillgarth did not adequately re-con- firm her revised preference and consequently MHML were accused by Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees of manipulating the result to suit their preference of belle epoque? Vote rigging scandal
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.