Page 21 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

ln your letter of 27 October 2016 you say: "How many more times must l repeat that £11,000
odd was not siphoned off and not disappeared, but left deposited in Reserves. Where else would it reside having told all lessees that we had £98,000 odd in Reserves with a budget to eventually pay of£105,000 odd requiring contributions totalling £18,000 which would, after payment for
the budgeted works, so long as nothing untoward occurred in the interim, leave around £11,000 odd in Reserves”. To answer your question, you don't need to repeat anything. But as it
happens, this is not actually something you have repeated much. In fact it is a relatively new theme. Perhaps you would explain to us in plain words what exactly you mean by "left
deposited in Reserve"? And why you insisted on such steep cash calls to the lessees (apparently providing you with a surplus of some £11,000) when you already had so much money in
reserve?
(comment/reply): If you cannot understand the financing or "left deposited in Reserve"? by now you never will. And if I had a pound for every time £11,243 remaining in Reserves has been men- tioned in emails since mid 2014 to date, I’d be wealthy.
According to the audited service charge accounts for 2014 and 2015 “reserves utilised" on the major works refurbishment in 2014 (meaning monies actually spent) totalled £136,735 and comprised three elements - £105,877 (the original budget plus a small overspend), £18,000 (the £2,000 per flat you called up to supplement reserves) and £13,147 (the "voluntary" contribution called upon for the communal TV/Sky and Water Tank). However there seems to be a major discrepancy of nearly £19,300 between what your auditors, Pemberton Professionals, say has been spent and what you are currently saying has been spent, which l calculate as follows:
Reserves utilised/money spent (per the auditors)
62,010.00 10,513.00 31,765.21 7,810.00* 5,337.00 £117,435.21
£136,735.00
Money paid out by MHML (per PB-C)
To AR Lawrence
To Surveyor
To PB-C and his subcontractors For Water Tank (budgeted)
For Communal TV/Sky (budgeted)
(£117,435.21) £19,299.79
*(per Houseman quote dated 22 September 2014)
Discrepancy/expenditure remaining unaccounted for:
ln your e-mail to Mrs Hillgarth of 5 December 2012 at 10:36 you pointed out to her that “in law, Tenants/Lessees have to be advised of all costs, including any VAT. That's Landlord & Tenant Act law”. Indeed it is. So it is indefensible that, having been asked on numerous occasions and by at least three of the lessees (as well as myself) to provide a straightforward account of how much money was paid out by MHML on the 2014 refurbishment and to whom, you have still failed to
do so.
(comment/reply): I think we are back to “aggregating” again despite two previous comments made to both you and Mrs Hillgarth to desist as it’s illogical accounting. Reserves springs to mind yet again....re: Discrepancy/expenditure remaining unaccounted for: £19,299.79 - I would reiterate that no expenditure remains unaccounted for as it resides comfortably in Reserves - not in the pockets of MHML or indeed myself! So please no more computations.
lf (despite what the service charge accounts appear to say) some of the £136,735 has not in fact been "utilised" but remains in reserves, you will need to explain what information was given to the auditors and why the accounts were wrongly stated. (my comment) in your opinion...
(comment/reply): How many more times...? Anything not utilised remained in Reserves. Notes to the 2014 Accounts made abundantly clear the distribution of all funds received. All as previously described and explained in previous correspondence as you are well aware.
As regards your "additional works” for which £31,765.21 has apparently been charged to
MHML, (my comment) charged to MHML...? it is instructive to re~read your e-mail of 11 September 2014 to Mrs Hillgarth. This was of course written at a time when many of the lessees had become awa re that you were doing some of the work yourself, as you had been photographed doing so, and had been caught spraying the lift in gold paint in the middle of the night. (my comment) photographed by who in the middle of the night? (l might add with a toxic spray and without adequate ventilation con- trary to health and safety regulation). (my comment) yet another new accusation...and the photog- rapher might have noticed all windows and doors wide open throughout the building for that very same reason - and I tested the toxicity with the odd cigarette! This was taking place at the beginning of the refurbishment and was the reason why lessees had started asking questions (recorded