Page 49 - The Big Begg_1

-49-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
MHML advised Mrs Hillgarth and all lessees on numerous occasions that our Surveyor’s Schedule of Works did NOT include certain cosmetic items that were originally quoted for in Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade quotes as they were considered unaffordable. A Board Meeting was called by MHML on 23 May 2014 attended by Mrs Hillgarth and Messrs Karupiah and my- self to discuss amongst other items, the various tender quotes [all of which included mail pigeon box and meter cupboards] arranged by our Surveyor including that supplied by Mrs Hillgarth’s preferred contractor, Wade, [which also included mail pigeon box and meter cupboards].
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Wade’s total cost was £219,000 and the cheapest from AR Lawrence was £105,000, both including vat and all and any fees (such as Surveyor etc) and mail pigeon box and meter cupboards. Mrs Hillgarth had organised a rebuttal of one late cheapest quote from MHML’s preferred contractor, Benitor (£98,000) and insisted that AR Lawrence be retained which MHML happily agreed to on the proviso that, as Mrs Hillgarth was again made aware of, there were a number of items within ALL tenders, including Wade and AR Lawrence, that with a bit of common sense could be dropped (as our Surveyor agreed), or done far cheaper by using an independent supplier (as initially sourced way back in 2011/2012) or by MHML's competent per- sonnel, and any savings made by doing so could be used to fund those items that were NOT in the final Surveyor’s Schedule of Works, but did appear in Mrs Hillgarth’s initial two Wade quotes (2012 & 2013) and indeed in part in MHML’s £35,000 budget.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
Mrs Hillgarth agreed with both Mr Karupiah and myself to the above suggestion of mak- ing savings, any way we could, and using them for items considered unaffordable. This is exactly what was accomplished but subsequently Mrs Hillgarth denied making any such obser- vation/agreement and in fact accused MHML (myself) of adding her agreement to an audio recording of the entire 7 hour meeting?
It is noted that whilst you pursue your “investigations” into various personnel etc as referenced in your recent 2019 correspondence, that despite my multiple if not innumerable if not inter- minable references to Mr Segar Karupiah’s attendance at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting when your client agreed to making savings, anyway we could, including MHML progressing works, to spend on works considered unaffordable, that you have never once requested of him if indeed he was present, indeed did he witness your client making the now infamous outbursts of “will be spent on something else” and “well then everybody will be happy”....? Any reason why not?
Mind you, had she said “I did say that because that’s what they wanted to hear” or “I did say that but I changed my mind as Paul bet I would” (yes on tape) ,she’d be off the hook? What a shame she can’t now after your email stating she never said it and the tape must be doctored? not forgetting her denial on oath [yes i know it’s not actually on oath, but on her ho- nour to tell the truth, expected to tell the truth], and made all the worse by ‘ole Johnny “DJ” arthur’s erroneous error...and finally if i had a dollar for every time you’ve mentioned “doctored” in your correspondence - i’d chip in on your postage costs. Big lie, big costs - there is a god?
I’m actually thankful she even admitted she was at the meeting!
One pertinent point from this 23 May 2014 Board meeting was that Mrs Hillgarth was insis- tent on comparing the Wade tender quote with that of all others to ascertain they were all quoted from the same Surveyor’s Schedule of Works and consequently identical [despite all having been on the website www.mitrehouse.com for weeks]. obviously, a perusal of the Sur- veyor’s Schedule of Works listed each and every working to be performed for both External & internal [with an individual costing for each item from the relevant tenderer, Wade or ar Lawrence or Benitor, or any of the other five].
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt