Page 11 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

and my reply same day 6 October 2014: (5 weeks now into the 2014 works’ schedule):
Michele - you are likely to be the only lessee not to pay the £2000 arrears, and the tv install - by this evening
No worry - you're in deep trouble on both accounts - your dish (or rather Stella's) comes down tomorrow and non-payment of arrears is something no doubt you are well aware of sorting from many of your previous tenants - serious business with very unpleasant consequences - add to that no permission to sub-let so any tenancy agreement is invalid (Stella wil be pleased), uncar- peted throughout and also sublet in that condition (Stella having yet a stronger case to not pay rent) and a possibly contaminated water supply (if Stella approached her solicitor, not only would she be advised to no longer pay rent till fixed, but she'd probably get back previous rental and deposit paid.
I would not want to be in your shoes, Michele. Best find a computer and get your monies paid before Stella gets home this evening. Management have enough on you to call the Police our- selves.....
(suggestion/comment) If you really still think that any email conversation above gets any- where near what you have accused me of, namely: To be specific you were making an unwar- ranted demand (namely that Mrs Hillgarth should collect on your behalf the additional cash calls to the other lessees) with menaces (namely that if she failed to do so you would, amongst other things, “snip" her tenant's aerial and advise her tenant to withhold her rent). And you did that, as is now apparent, with a view to making a gain for yourself. That is blackmail, and you were unwise enough to do it in writing. The evidence is there on the record for all to see. I’ll rely on the court to educate you.
No more, Michele - it's over - ok
Might I suggest you dig out a DVD of Dirk Bogarde in “Victim” to better educate yourself as regards “blackmail” as opposed to making pathetic innuendos based on zero evidence in a forlorn attempt at justifying your client’s obsession in discrediting myself and in her well documented desire to remove MHML from its present position of managing Mitre House for no other reason than a pathological disrespect for authority, expressing one fib after another which simply confirms exactly what we had stated from receipt of your 23 March 2016 letter - it’s all rubbish!
Furthermore it is untrue, as you well know, that this has been "comprehensively covered in previous correspondence". it hasn't. The fact that you may have denied it in previous correspondence does not constitute "proof perfect" that the allegation is untrue.
(comment/reply): Wanna bet..... you’ll go broke - revisit previous 8 pages! But please, please, do not reply saying it’s now a “peripheral detail” - in fact please do not reply!
As regards the charge of fraud, you also claim to have answered our questions comprehensively in previous correspondence — most recently in your letter to me dated 29 September 2016. But that, as you perfectly well know, is not the case. All you have done is to try and cloud the issue in a torrent of irrelevance and dishonest obfuscation.
(comment/reply): Doubtful, but no doubt your following paragraphs will enlighten me.
In your letter to me of 29 September 2016 (responding to mine of 23 September) you said: "£25,121.54 is the cost & installation of the communal TV/Sky and Water Tank with the balance remaining in Reserves (his [Mr Begg] reference £11,974.54 and as stated previously in various 2014 correspondence to lessees as well as correspondence with your Solicitor)".
(comment/reply): True - what exactly is erroneous in that statement - anything not spent on the Water Tank and TV/Sky installation, along with anything else not spent anywhere else remained in Reserves.... where else would it remain? At least Reserves weren’t overdrawn by £1904.90 at year end....as they would have been if Mrs Hillgarth’s maths was in charge!
That response leaves unclear how much was actually spent on the communal TV/Sky and Water Tank. It also fails to answer my question (posed on the assumption that something close to the budgeted figure of £13,147 was properly spent on the communal TV/Sky and Water Tank), as to what had happened to all the rest of the money which, according to the service charge
accounts, had apparently been spent.