Page 48 - The Big Begg_1

Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
-48-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Various correspondence and costs’ analysis ensued over months with Mrs Hillgarth insisting that her Wade quote did not total £66,347 but far less [it didn’t] and that MHML’s £35,000 incl vat didn’t include vat and totalled £42,000 if vat were added? MHML requested of lessees if they were willing to fund the Wade quote by substantial personal contributions to Reserves and despite multiple requests not one lessee, including Mrs Hillgarth, agreed to doing, whilst she argued that Reserves were adequately funded for a £65,851 interior budget for Wade to be contracted with no call on lessees for additional funding and funding for the an- ticipated Externals the following year 2013 would be adequately in place or attended to if not as she considered MHML’s estimate of £70k to be airy-fairy, unconfirmed, arbitrary and used to confuse. It was actually almost 100% correct.
Due to this impasse, Mrs Hillgarth called another meeting of lessees on 20 November 2012 with an agenda that was predominantly MHML business references and had nothing whatso- ever to do with lessees but included the vote again to dismiss MHML and to retain Wade as the contractor for the Internals now scheduled for 2013.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
MHML’s three directors maintained their insistence that Wade’s second quote was still not good value or affordable and would still entail substantial calls on lessees for additional funding. This resulted in Mrs Hillgarth progressing an RTM application in mid 2013 which had the result of aborting any chance of progressing the Internals workings during 2013 as her RTM Solici- tors firstly demanded that no further s.20 Notices be issued, no further funds be spent from the bank and that Wade would be retained for the internals’ workings, all as in- cluded in their letter to MHML dated 2 July 2013.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to further verify.
The RTM eventually failed due to previously known technical restrictions well advised to Mrs Hillgarth years previously, but obviously not advised by her legal advisers. Conse- quently, her three co-Directors took control of the situation to progress both Internals and Exter- nals concurrently in 2014, retained our previous Surveyor from the 2005 works’ programme so well versed in Mitre House, who produced a revised Internals/Externals Schedule of Works, organised five separate tenders (All were posted on www.mitrehouse.com.) and indeed on Mrs Hillgarth’s insistence, a tender from Wade based this time of our final official Sur- veyor’s Schedule of Works as opposed to Mrs Hillgarth’s previous briefings to them in July 2012 and January 2013 based on her preferred workings only re: interior
In an email dated 15 April 2014 @ 18.00 to Flat 9, I wrote to Diego Fortunati in Flat 9:
“No lessee advised Management of a contractor, nor a mention of Wade to re-quote. This de- spite an inordinate amount of time to do so, well in excess of the legally allowed 30 day period, which actually expired on 25th January 2014 and was still allowed by Management until 8th April 2014”
“Michele Sigg-Hillgarth mentioned Wade in her communication of 14th April 2014 and Manage- ment replied saying no objection to them tendering and we supplied all required documentation to Michele for them to do so by deadline 15th May - again a very generous lead-time and offer, neither of which we are legally required to do.”
In January 2013 Mrs Hillgarth requested Wade to re-quote from a slightly reduced works’ brief, but it still totalled £51,647 incl. vat but no fees. Yet another example of Mrs Hillgarth’s unprofessional and thoroughly ignorant behaviour, let alone the disloyalty of attempting to yet again to dismiss MHML and incompetence in attempting to retain her preferred expensive con- tractor, Wade, indicating she had no idea of economics nor indeed common sense.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt