Page 53 - The Big Begg_1

-53-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
In a First Tier Tribunal hearing on 26 June 2017, Mrs Hillgarth denied on oath that she had sourced quotes from Wade and that she had agreed during the 23 May 2014 Board Meet- ing to her co-directors’ proposals to make savings to fund items considered unaffordable and therefore were not included in the Surveyor’s Schedule of Works to be progressed.
In Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor’s initial letter dated 23 March 2016 various other serious accusa- tions and innuendos were levelled at MHML’s co-directors, all of which were denied or ex- plained or in one very petty instance, apologised for, with supporting documentation and considered totally malicious and irrelevant.
It was due to Mrs Hillgarth’s perceived disloyalty, deceitful behaviour and recalcitrant attitude towards her fellow directors that she was requested to resign in September 2014 and has been truculent and litigious ever since including slandering and defaming her fellow directors to third parties to the distinct cost and embarrassment of all her three ex-colleagues.
at nil consideration of Mitre House, as neither MHML nor it’s directors wished to continue in their capacity as Head Lease proprietors (purely for technical reasons as new UK law requirements for managing agents was imminent), Mrs Hillgarth still progressed an application to the First Tier Property Tribunal at a cost to her allegedly of £15,000 and MHML offered no defence and re- signed as indeed we had previously offered to do on three occasions previously.
Despite three offers to Mrs Hillgarth for her to take over the management and Head Lease
Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor accompanied her to the Tribunal hearing on 26th June 2017 and was witness to the exact same accusations levelled again at MHML and its directors as had been levelled in all correspondence since the initial 23 March 2016 letter and been denied with sup- porting evidence. Her Solicitor also witnessed Mrs Hillgarth on oath denying she had sourced two initial Wade quotes (or indeed any quotes) and also denied she ever ex- claimed “well then everybody will be happy” and indeed considered the tape recording to have been edited to her disadvantage by adding “well then everybody will be happy”, made all the more obtuse when her Solicitor had a report made which substantiated his client’s accusation.
Mrs Hillgarth’s agreement and exclamations were made in the presence of her two fellow directors as witnesses and MHML produced two independent reports totally refuting the accu- sation that the tape recording had been edited or abused in any way and indeed would be nigh impossible to add edits such as “well then everybody will be happy” over background music which Mrs Hillgarth also denied was playing, and indeed raised a query as to the identity of a man’s voice - namely her fellow co-director Mr Segar Karupiah and neighbour of at least 20 years.
It was noticeable that both at the Tribunal and in all correspondence previously and subse- quently, no mention nor reference was ever made of the obvious comparisons and items listed and costed between Mrs Hillgarth’s initial two Wade quotes (and Hemi’s) and Wade’s final tender based on our Surveyor’s final Schedule of Works which all the other five contractors tendered from so making all workings identical on all tenders including Wade’s.
Put simply, if Mrs Hillgarth’s initial two Wade quotes (and/or Hemi) contained costed items which do NOT appear in Wade’s final tender nor any other contractor’s tender then they could be reliably considered “additional unaffordable items” which was explained to Mrs Hill- garth in the Board Meeting of 23 May 2014 to be capable of being afforded if sensible savings were made from the finally agreed budget (in this case £105,019), in any manner possible, to which she agreed and when advised that no refunds to lessees would take place, she ex- claimed “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy”.
She also admits in her own Witness Statement (para 73) that neither she nor any lessee requested of MHML sight of Accounts nor relevant documents pertaining to the 2014 Accounts period within the statutory period outlined in her lease.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt