Page 52 - The Big Begg_1

-52-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
have you any idea how much all of that will have driven her to further insanity, further vitriol and further vendettas....let alone raising the question of her why she doesn’t also berate [great old word] our present Agents for doing exactly what MHML did but got bombarded for doing so?
As regards accusations of MHML charging management fees for their 24/7 on site services, and of charging fees in excess of professional Agents’ fees, and MHML being allegedly unprofessional and incompetent, these are also denied and evidenced by their success in reducing annual outgoings by 25% over a five year period with no detrimental effect on
services and further evidenced by the increase in annual outgoings (£3000 in 2017 to £10,000 in 2019) since MHML resigned their involvement in managing Mitre House and the appointment of a Manager/Agents by the First Tier Tribunal on 27th June 2017.
That 333% rise in annual outgoings includes professional management fees of £7995 per annum for 2019 as opposed to MHML’s £4995 in 2017.
As regards whether legal or not to [as you infer] to alter s.20 Notifications agreements, one could quote Reedbase Ltd v Fattal [2018] EWCA Civ 840. The works in
question (admittedly different to those in MHML/Mrs Hillgarth’s dispute but the principle remains same) comprised repairs to a tiled asphalt roof. The landlord consulted, but later increased the scope (and cost) of the works. Should the landlord have consulted afresh?
The answer in this case was “no”, but, as a matter of principle, it depends. A change from the original works is not determinative in and of itself: In all the circumstances, were leaseholders given sufficient information by the original consultation?
Given the purpose of consultation and the position of other leaseholders who may not object to the changes, would the protection envisaged by the consultation process be materially in- creased by obtaining new estimates?
What lessee, except for obviously Mrs Hillgarth, would object to more workings per- formed than envisaged at no additional cost? We rest our case.
In summary - Mrs Hillgarth wished to spend far more than her MHML co-directors, all of whom considered we should only spend what was in the Reserves which had been saved to date for the proposed workings on a very overdue scheduled Internals and Externals at Mitre House and in serious breach of our Head Lease covenants being two coats of good paint and repairs where and if required.
Mrs Hillgarth claims that she did not request of Wade (or Hemi) certain workings to quote for in her initial two Wade quotes (and Hemi) or indeed requested any quotes whatsoever (as sworn on oath at a First Tier Tribunal hearing on 26th June 2017 with her Solicitor present)), and considered the works listed in the final Surveyor’s Schedule of Works, given to Wade to tender from, to be the only works to be progressed, by Wade or any other tendering con- tractor, including the cheapest. And insisting as previously outlined that “lighting” was in- cluded in her final Wade tender whereas the other tenders, including AR Lawrence, did not.
Mrs Hillgarth appears not to have properly perused the final Surveyor’s Schedule of Works and denies in correspondence having had sight of it to do so. This cannot be true as she was supplied with multiple copies, it was on our website and she required/requested/demanded a copy to pass over to her preferred contractor, Wade, to tender from.
In correspondence from Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor, it was advised that Mrs Hillgarth never agreed to any such proposal to make savings to spend on other items and subsequently denied saying “will make everybody happy”. and MHML and her co-directors had ridden roughshod over all Landlord & Tenant Act requirements and had misappropriated funds to the detriment of Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt