Page 51 - The Big Begg_1

Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
-51-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
Due also to an emergency over a failing Water Tank, MHML sensibly arranged a quick replace- ment whilst scaffolding was in place to facilitate and reduce cost. As time was critical [health and safety as well as scaffolding in situ] it was decided to request of lessees if they would agree to going without an s.20 [cost and time] and save a little by making their fair share contribution.
Somewhat coincidentally, it had also been mooted by some lessees including MHML that a communal TV/Sky system could also [only] be installed with scaffolding in place. An s.20 was not a requirement due to cost but still needed 100% agreement from all lessees to again con- tribute their fair share.
Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify.
After weeks if not months, all lessees paid all three agreed contributions [Water Tank, TV/Sky in- stall & £2000], with Mrs Hillgarth being the tardiest in late October 2014 with works having com- menced 31st August 2014. Substantial discounts were negotiated by MHML from the Water Tank and TV/Sky installs due to scaffolding in place as well as a substantial reduction in Surveyor’s fees [as these were based on the initial total cost of AR Lawrence] due to MHML making alternative arrangements on some workings, non use of contingencies etc and using all and any savings for those items [lighting etc] considered unaffordable and therefore not in- cluded in any tender, including Wade and AR Lawrence. Consequently AR Lawrence’s final cost was reduced by £31,756 which our Surveyor did not receive a percentage of and that £31,756 of savings was spent, plus an overspend of £858, to progress all and more of the unafford- able items in Mrs Hillgarth’s initial Wade [x2] and Hemi quotes and indeed in MHML’s ini- tial £25,000 and £35,000 budgets.
Mrs Hillgarth denies agreeing to savings being attempted, any way possible, to be spent on unaffordable items in her Wade [x2] and Hemi quotes, and also denies that MHML would do some workings if they could be done cheaper than quoted by our tenders [which they could be and were] and considers monies paid to MHML for their workings to be “stolen” from leaseholders?
This accusation of “stealing leaseholders monies” was communicated by her to all lessees most recently in an email sent to all lessees on 2 January 2019. MHML consider it to be libellous.
If the penny still hasn’t dropped, Mr Begg... read on?
Mrs Hillgarth cannot abide the fact that I do keep an eye on Mitre House - so would she, if she too, lived here - in fact if she did, it would be run like Guantanamo Bay whereas my modus operandi is more akin to The Chelsea Arts Club. She cannot abide the fact I was charging initially £7.50 a day [2012] for doing everything running MHML as an on site 24/7 Concierge & Night Porter, rising in year five (2017) to £10 a day doing same. She cannot abide the fact that I run the “internal management” and in time immemorial I have always had an excellent relation- ship with our Agents whereas she has had an appalling record [you have seen the corre- spondence] with all of them and it won’t be long before she’ll be snapping at the heels of Maunder Taylor who thankfully insisted she at least request permission to sub-let, made clear they quote works’ costs including vat and fees, agreed to run the next major works concurrently as it is cheaper and respects the wishes of the “internal management” -
To both Water Tank [no demand for s.20 although one was drawn up and provisionally issued due to Mrs Hillgarth’s behaviour] and TV/Sky install contributions were agreed eventually by all lessees but made unbelievably fractious due to Mrs Hillgarth firstly insisting that the £2000 contribution to fund the £105,000 budget should and was always meant to be used for the TV/Sky install and could also cover the Water Tank. Mrs Hillgarth canvassed all lessees to withhold their £2000 contributions resulting in MHML making arrangements to reduce the Schedule of Works to reflect a shortfall of funding.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt