Page 20 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

personally and to your subcontractors (if any). You have not yet clarified for the lessees how
much of this £31,765.21 was paid to you personally and how much to your subcontractors. Obviously we expect you to do so, and in one sentence, not hundreds of pages.
(comment/reply): As previously explained, MHML made savings of £31,756 from the anticipated agreed budget of £105,019 so as to fund items NOT in the Schedule of Works nor in the budget of £105,019 for AR Lawrence.
MHML made these sensible savings (See above.... and revisit the “game, set and match” email of 13 Sept 2014), and purchased all items required, lights etc, paid contractors, electricians etc, and other various suppliers, carpenters etc, and yes, wherever possible did some work ourselves which could be done cheaper than using outside suppliers/contractors etc. All as explained ad nauseam to date.
Exactly as you’re inferring: 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 - how could MHML have paid and arranged execution of the “additional works” unless funds were in place to do so? You appear to be inferring that savings were made but never spent and MHML pocketed the lot....? That’s a tricky one to substantiate seeing as you have reams of emails out- lining additional works, savings being made to fund the additional works and complaints from Mrs Hillgarth as to their “shoddy: DIY professionalism, competence and whatever else that takes her fancy? Are the additional works denied to have been undertaken, are the additional works in good evidence at Mitre House. Were they done at no cost?
(my comment) on your: 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 personally and to your subcontractors (if any). Why “much” as opposed to some? Why would £31,765 be paid to me or MHML? It was “used” to pay for all additional works, the supplies needed, the labour, the time, the various electricians, specialists etc including MHML and my goodself for our input and saving lessees the difference between Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade quote of £60,000 and the £31,756...!
Your comment: You have not yet clarified for the lessees how much of this £31,765.21 was paid to you personally and how much to your subcontractors.
I consider this and any answer given, to be, to quote you, “a peripheral detail”, and anyway, falls within the 6 month statutory limit and had your client wished to view the original invoices she should have made a punctual request or indeed better still, have accepted our offer to comply on 1st April 2016 in response to your letter and demand of 23 March 2016.
She did neither.
And as you are well aware, we have always made clear that we required confirmation that our denials to the multitude of accusations (with our supporting evidence) were fully accepted as true and the accusations were untrue before we would reconsider our statutory rights.
None has ever been forthcoming, nor indeed answers to our many specific queries. I cannot, and neither will the court, any court, see the slightest relevance of how much that light fitment cost or how much I charged for spraying the lift (with professional assistance) - the relevance is simply, were any additional works undertaken (yes), did those works require funding (yes), were those additional works listed to be done by any contractor within the Schedule of Works (no), were lessees advised of additional works and savings being made to fund them (yes), were the additional works safe and sound and funded with no call on lessees for additional funding out- side of the agreed £105,019 budget (yes), did those additional works impact on any lessee finan- cially (yes, regrettably with an £858 overspend on the agreed £105,019).
It’s totally irrelevant and impertinent to request “You have not yet clarified for the lessees how
much of this £31,765.21 was paid to you personally and how much to your subcontractors. Obviously we expect you to do so, and in one sentence, not hundreds of pages”. The question to ask is how MHML managed to do all the additional works (plus quite a bit more) for £31,756 as opposed to Wade and Hemi’s quoted costs of nearer £60,000....and don’t for one minute consider replying because they were not done professionally nor competently and indeed some executed by me to save yet more money to fully complete all and more additional works as a perusal of Mitre House well evidences without a shadow of doubt except to the uninitiated or contrary or downright mis- chievous.
I appreciate not one sentence, but not too bad for me. But in truth, the reference to non payment to BES/Nigel Brooks is probably proof-perfect of what we might expect from Mrs Hillgarth’s perusal of any accounts re the £31,756 - one query/accusation/innuendo after another forever!