Page 12 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

(comment/reply): Is this yet another “peripheral detail” - it’s certainly been more than well cov- ered in previous correspondence despite your denial it hasn’t been so revisit past tomes please (and can be proved so please no more of “it hasn’t been” or you’ll look incompetent), it certainly is, anyway, outside of the 6 month statutory limit for further information and it’s certainly a stupid question as to it’s relevance bearing in mind what funds were left in Reserves and why on earth if the quotes for the Water Tank and Communal TV/Sky totalled £13,147 and £13.147 was “voluntarily” collected, why wasn’t it spent on a new Water Tank and communal TV/Sky? Are you inferring we did not utilise the two companies who quoted and used somebody else and pocketed the difference? Most likely you are but I can con- firm we did not. Mrs Hillgarth kicked up such a fuss over her £250 invoice you may recall. And you never know, and you won’t unless you revisit previous correspondence, we might even have received a small discount which, before you start bleating all over again, also remained in Reserves.
The section 20 letter dated 22 June 2014 stated that "Management are contracting with the cheapest tender, A&R Lawrence, for an estimated £105, 019. 38 inclusive for Internals and Externais commencing 1" September 2014". Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees understood this to mean exactly what it said — namely that A&R Lawrence (only) would be carrying out themselves, or sub-contracting where necessary to others, all of the work for a total of £105,019.38
inclusive.
(comment/reply): I note your addition of (only)...you are forgetting “including vat and fees” so consequently are you complaining of HMRC getting their whack, the Surveyor getting his and anybody else getting their’s (Mrs Hillgarth normally wouldn’t but because MHML were involved and most especially me, she’s apoplectic) - then you mention sub-contrac- tors - make up your mind, but anyway, it’s all been explained in previous correspondence despite your insistence that it hasn’t been, and the website, despite your denials, was indeed an instrument of instant, informative and all relevant (and irrelevant) communica- tions, documentation, quotes, analyses, Surveyor’s Schedule of Work, correspondence etc etc - so we’ll let the court decide on what you’ve been told, explained, advised, instructed etc - and decided to ignore, not comprehend, not communicate to your client in words of one syllable etc....!
You point out that the Section 20 letter “included VAT and fees", and assert that this was “a far more transparent and sensible way of informing lessees of the (hoped for) total outlay". l beg to differ. A far more transparent and sensible way of informing lessees of the total outlay would
have been to separate out from the monies payable to A&R Lawrence the fees payable to the sur- veyor and (more importantly) any fees that would be payable to yourself and your own sub- contractors.
(comment/reply): I, nor will the court or any third party, care less whether you beg to differ or not - the accounting procedures and the way we, MHML, preferred to communicate our information to lessees was of no one else’s concern than our’s and certainly not those of you or your client’s biased and petty observations in finding fault to suit her own nefarious vexatious and frivolous agenda. Any facts and figures, information and analysis could have been questioned by any lessee on publication of the accounts as they were advised to do in correspondence. We’re not running Cadogan Estates, but 9 flats in Mitre House!
Did any do so, NO...did your client having been advised by me to await accounts and then ask for supplier invoices, NO..... hardly my fault or that of MHML is it?
But of course you could not possibly have done that, because the lessees would never have accepted your involvement as a contractor. lndeed they had already specifically rejected your plan to have the work carried out by miscellaneous small contractors. That is precisely why it took some two years to agree on a contractor. In the only MHML board meeting Mrs Hillgarth was invited to attend, on 23 May 2014, you and your directors confirmed that only A&R Lawrence would be carrying out the work. Mrs Hillgarth insisted on this precisely in order to avoid your doing exactly what you have done - namely that you would do the work yourself, or through a number of small contractors, in order to put money into your own pocket. Not only did you not save the lessees any money by doing the work yourself, but the work you did carry out was of very poor quality and will have to be redone at some stage by a professional.
(comment/reply): Rubbish - “That is precisely why it took some two years to agree on a contrac- tor” - yes true, but had Mrs Hillgarth’s initial £60,000 versus MHML £37,000 and then Mrs Hillgarth’s £219,000 versus AR Lawrence’s £105,019 and Mrs Hillgarth’s abortive RTM not