Page 26 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

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.
To date, Management nor the Comments Book have received any adverse nor complimentary com- ments. Long may that continue.
Management would finally request that Flat 9 and now Flat 5 address their impertinent and totally irrele- vant comments and queries to other lessees as opposed to Management, who have made clear in their reply emails to date, including this one, that no further comments nor queries of an impertinent nature be further directed to Management.
We are far too busy saving lessees (of which all four Management Directors also are) money, time and disruption whilst these works progress.
And I've just wasted a valuable half hour putting this reply together instead of getting on with making Mitre House look beautiful by installing the rear scaffolding on my own....not easy, fancy coming over?.
Don't you ever give up, Michele - firstly I'm accused of getting my flat done cheaply by A.R.Lawrence and now that I'm doing all the works. You must think me very stupid!
Paul
Does anything in either the 11th September or 13 September emails imply: “but hardly anything which could justify a fee of over thirty times the £1,000 expenditure that your e-mail of 11 September 2014 had led Mrs Hillgarth to expect.” I don’t think so.... these were simple examples of savings to be made and made to date... how you get from simple informative information to 30 times costs god only knows - we could have stopped at savings made to date (if requested to) and returned savings (if requested to do so).... but in the absence of any requests, complaints, queries as to additional works, we proceeded as planned and just so happened to have saved 30 times that saved to date to fund £60,000 of quoted additional works for £31,756.....not bad going for alleged- ly incompetent, thieving, fraudulent, blackmailing Head Lessors, dontcha think?
Lessees have asked you a number of times for a simple breakdown of the invoices supporting the expenditure incurred on the 2014 refurbishment. Instead you have hidden behind the six months statutory limit for a compulsory inspection. Ludicrously you claim there was "no reluctance whatsoever to produce the requested documents", this apparently being demonstrated by your initial offer to send me the invoices, which you now expect me to accept as "proof perfect" of your honest intent. However you then promptly withdrew your offer
when it was not taken up immediately. Whatever you may choose to believe I did in fact have pneumonia (these things happen) and Mrs Hillgarth was in fact in the Sahara (however improbable you may find that), which is why you did not receive an immediate reply. This can if necessary be proved quite easily in court if you will not accept my word for it.
(comment/reply): Only Mrs Hillgarth had/has asked, 12 months after the works were finished and over 6 months after the 2014 Accounts were published. We agreed to comply and you ignored the offer due to pneumonia and Sahara visit.....”However you then promptly withdrew your offer when it was not taken up immediately” - hardly “immediately” as we didn’t eventually hear back from you for a fortnight - but we did make clear we would reconsider our non-acknowledged offer to comply once you confirmed that all (petty and serious) accusations had been satisfactorily denied - and proved denied - which they have been - but no confirmation has ever been received, in fact more accusations just kept on a-coming with yet more denials with yet more supporting evidence to prove the invalidity of the scurrilous slurs and innuendos imagined by Mrs Hillgarth. And you have the cheek to complain about “hundreds of pages”... we would hardly have written “hundreds of pages” just replying on your initial demand to view 12 invoices from the 2014 accounts which was initially offered to comply in, I recall 2 sentences on 1st April 2016, had not the request to view the 12 invoices also included 13pp of every conceivable misfeasance, malfea- sance imaginable, all of which we presumed also needed attending to and responding to...obvi- ously not? All of which you consider our “condition to be patently absurd”
I doubt the court will? As they will obviously take into consideration our unacknowledged offer to comply and the inflammatory, deflamatory, dishonesty and downright untruthfulness of the accu- sations made include your most recent as me being “a habitual and persistent liar”.
That’ll take a bit of proving...!