Page 47 - The Big Begg_1

Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
-47-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Consequently, MHML (myself) resigned our involvement as we had performed all our responsibilities in preparing design presentations, budgets, costings and Schedule of Works and told all lessees that from now on Mrs Hillgarth would be their point of contact. Consequently you now appreciate that your recent faux-pas as regards mine or MHML’s in- volvement was zero and neither I nor MHML were responsible for her two initial Wade quotes in July 2012 and January 2013 in any fashion.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Mrs Hillgarth, intent on progressing a far more extensive and expensive schedule of works to those proposed by MHML called a meeting on 13 June 2012 with some other lessees to dis- cuss dismissing MHML to be replaced by professional Agents, having all and any s.20 Notices issued by a Solicitor and/or outside Agents and sourcing two independent quotations from Hemi and from her preferred contractor Wade, as in her opinion MHML’s budget was insuffi- cient to do the more expensive workings she was insisting on and preferring a single main con- tractor as opposed to MHML’s preference for using independent multiple suppliers and so making substantial savings of approximately 35%. At this stage (mid 2012) it was only envis- aged to progress the Internals workings followed by the Externals in 2013.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
As previously stated, MHML (myself) had resigned and passed responsibility over to fel- low Director Mrs Hillgarth, neither Messrs Raja, Karupiah nor myself attended the meeting, but despite Mrs Hillgarth’s insistence that a vote was taken at the meeting to dismiss MHML and have alternative agencies issue s.20 Notices, one attending lessee denied any vote was taken but simply that these items were raised and discussed.
@@@ With no assistance, knowledge or involvement whatsoever from her MHML’s co- directors, Mrs Hillgarth briefed two contractors, Hemi and Wade (previously aka Stopps and suggested by her during the last workings at Mitre House in 2005 and rejected by our then Agents as their quotation being too expensive). The works she requested of them to quote for mirrored many of the items that MHML’s schedule of works included, including mail pigeon boxes/table and meter cupboards, but with one or two additional items such as a total ter- razzo floor renovation [as opposed to good clean], a total Lift car and surround refurb and electrics/lighting. Had Mrs Hillgarth and /or certain other lessees NOT WANTED mail pi- geon boxes/table and meter cupboards, it seems somewhat obtuse for Mrs Hillgarth to have included these item in her brief to Wade/Hemi to quote for?
Mrs Hillgarth presented these two quotes to MHML and lessees, totalling £65,851 including vat from Wade [to include all extras but no fees], and £66,259 from Hemi including vat but no fees and insisted Wade be adopted no matter that it was way in excess of MHML’s £35,000 incl. vat affordable funds with Externals requiring very substantial funding in the following year 2013, approximately costed at £70,000 incl. vat.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Despite Mrs Hillgarth being a Director of MHML, her three co-Directors, Messrs Raja/Karupiah and myself argued that her Wade costing of £65,851 incl. vat was unaffordable and all of the items she had requested of Wade to quote for could be accomplished far cheaper using in- dependent suppliers and most items were already included in MHML’s schedule of works budget of £35,000 incl. vat and those that were not were simply not affordable without a sub- stantial call on lessees for additional funding.
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.