Page 19 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

You state:
The minutes state that: "MH [Michele Hillgarth] proceeded to review and compare the quotes from A&R Lawrence and Wade Design to ensure they were both quoting for the same exact works and specifications. MH was satisfied that the quotation specifications were identical and agreed that the works be allocated to A&R Lawrence being the lowest bidder".
(my comment) True indeed, but...... what you have failed to comprehend is that (at the 23 May meeting) the “additional works” were NOT, nor NEVER, listed in the Schedule of Works which all contractors tendered from, including AR Lawrence and your client’s final Wade - and it was those two, AR Lawrence and Wade which your client insisted on perusing to make sure they matched in their respective list of works to be executed by (or indeed by all contractors).
She was also shown all the correspondence from our Surveyor including the actual contrac- tor costs from all tenders (ex vat and fees, not including...) all of which was also posted on our website as you have previously been advised ad nauseam.
What you are confused by, (even after “hundreds of pages” of correspondence) is that the “additional works” were NOT in any final Wade or AR Lawrence quote (or indeed any contrac- tor quote), but were in your client’s initial Wade and Hemi quotes, which despite requests for her to do so, did not follow MHML’s suggested affordable Schedule of Works (so making all comparison quotes understandable and easy to analyse and compare). She then subsequent- ly did follow form and passed our final Schedule of Works to Wade but did not appreciate that their original items (ie additional works) were not listed to be done! And despite out constant and repeated ad nauseam reminders that they weren’t...!
As I have pointed out innumerable times, despite Mrs Hillgarth’s receipt of half a dozen Schedules of Works, perusing the final quotes from Wade and AR Lawrence at our board meeting of 23 May 2014 and confirming her acceptance that they matched in specifications she had still not realised that neither (nor indeed any contractor quote) included the “addi- tional workings” that both her Wade and Hemi quotes had quoted for.... which begs the ques- tion of why get quotes for works if you don’t want them?
In short, her idea of checking a comparison between Wade & AR Lawrence consisted of checking page numbers as opposed to reading the admittedly lengthy list of works to be done and this must also have been the case with the half dozen copies of the Schedule of Works she had previously requested, including the one she passed over to her Wade contractor for them to finally properly quote against to match exactly all other contractors, all quoting from the very same Schedule of Works.
Hence “You have claimed you were aware, through discussion of the Wade quotation, of the "additional" work that Mrs Hillgarth actually wanted (and which you say was outside the scope
of the work to be undertaken by AR Lawrence).” is both confusing, confused, and wrong surely?
In fact even re-reading this, I can’t make head or tail of it?
There was no mention here of Mrs Hillgarth asking for additional work. Nor of you doing any of the work yourself. Nor of you being supervised by AR Lawrence. Nor, as you are perfectly well aware, did Mrs Hillgarth ever ask for anything beyond what was in the AR Lawrence
quotation. Why would she have done so if the AR Lawrence specification was identical to the Wade specification? No Mr Brown-Constable, the facts speak for themselves, and you are going to have a lot to answer for in court.
(comment/reply): See above.... and revisit the “game, set and match” email of 13 Sept 2014 - your constant bleating on about no additional works etc is pathetic given the evidence sup- plied to date from as early as 2011 - for goodness sake revisit the “hundreds of pages” (that’s why there are “hundreds of pages” as you keep asking the same query and making the same banal, under the circumstances, accusation).
As the lessees now understand the matter, following enquiries made directly of your suppliers, the amount actually paid to AR Lawrence was only £62,010 inclusive, and the budgeted figure of £105,019.38 included a fee of £10,513.00 inclusive paid to your surveyor. As regards the sum of £31,765.21, which we had understood from an earlier response to have been retained by/paid
to MHML, you now say: "this was not retained by MHML but spent by MHML for the benefit of
all lessees from savings made from the Section 20 budget of £105,019 on additional works.....and includes all costs incurred." Since much of this so-called "additional" work has apparently been carried out by yourself, l take this to mean that £31,765.21 was actually paid by MHML to you