Page 13 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

got in the way, we’d have finished the interior workings in mid September 2012 - as for this rubbish: “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 profession- al.” Mrs Hillgarth’s preferred contractor, Wade, quoted £60,000 for what we at MHML accom- plished for £31,756 - hopefully your maths will make that a pretty good saving.... as for poor workmanship, Mrs “Property Developer” Hillgarth wouldn’t recognise good workmanship from bad if the state of her own Flat 5 front door is anything to go by.... check it out! - you obviously (like so much preceeding this response) have not digested an email we consider to be “game, set and match” as regards all accusations and innuendos made to date since your initial letter of 23 March 2016, namely:
Mrs Hillgarth’s reference to the 13 Sept 2014 email is basically “game set and match” as both you and she cannot possibly be making the various accusations you have been making to date:
One third down the email is 3_Notes on the WORKS to date:
“Since the scaffolding commenced installation on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, dead on schedule, Management have already saved Lessees £1177.56 OFF the agreed and budgeted £105, 019. (my comment) note reference to “savings made” - begs the question for what? But none was received.
This has been accomplished by Management doing various workings which could be done at a more economical cost (in brief, shop signage (COSTED (Contingency) BY A.R. LAWRENCE FOR £800 plus vat which Management have produced for £125.......and tidying up visible wiring and making Meter Cupboards which A.R.Lawrence costed at £922 plus Vat for 3 meter cupboards and Management have produced same for £648 incl vat but TO ALSO INCLUDE BOXING IN THE (some) LOOSE INTERNAL WIRING on all three floors).
This initial saving of £1177.56 will not however be reimbursed to lessees at the end of the works, as Management will utilise this first of many savings, to progress works on the interior NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifications (such as the lift workings).(my comment) note reference to “savings made, to be used to progress works on the interior NOT included in the Surveyor's Specifications (such as the lift workings - note please, “such as”)” - begs the question of ”who wanted the lift etc?”But none was received. And hardly indicating any final sum to be appropriated with reference to your, as ever ill-informed, innuendo of 30 times etc - exaggera- tion to confuse no doubt! The court will see through that in seconds.
In brief, Management are attempting, and will succeed, in presenting the interior decor of Mitre House to a standard not even envisaged by most lessees, at no additional cost to lessees over and above the agreed £105,019 budget. This will be achieved by making small savings where possible, common sense, hard work and a great deal of thought.
The only proviso to that statement is so long as no EXTERIOR WORKINGS (over which Management has little or no control) require additional contingency monies which is, of course, why all lessees received the September Quarterly Demands with the additional non-voluntary contribution of £2000 each, so enabling reserves to amply fund any additional expenditures.
If Management can be accused of anything, it's that we have failed to throw a terminal knock-out blow to finally silence a few very ill-informed, troublesome and thoroughly vindictive lessees, none of whom reside at Mitre House, some of whom have advanced the most silly ideas and opinions and indeed have been proved wrong on almost every occasion, the RTM, the various quotes they thought acceptable/affordable and worst of all their gerrymandering of fellow lessees to constantly bicker and question Management's exemplary husbandry of Mitre House since 1st January 2012.
The list of complaints, queries, innuendos, accusations and gossip since Management took over sim- ply defies description - and all originating from just one or two sources. It's pathetic, juvenile and totally unjustified as all and any queries have been well explained in hundreds of replies - and inevitably receiving back the predictable same inane reply each time, accusing Management (or indeed the same was endured by ALL our previous Agents) of not replying to the previous queries/comments/accusations/innuendos etc. It's endless, repetitive and a total waste of Management's time let alone boring other lessees to death.
Well it's all over now. Your preferred contractor, A.R. Lawrence, was appointed. The budget of £115,019 [MY TYPO ERROR - SHOULD READ £105,019] was agreed firstly by Michele Hillgarth at a Management Board Meeting, and subsequently by other lessees who, like Michele Hillgarth, had