Page 27 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

Now your position is that no invoices can be provided to the lessees until our "multiple and malicious insinuations” have been withdrawn. This condition is patently absurd and unreasonable. Apparently you expect us to withdraw our accusations in advance of seeing the information we have asked for. But so long as you insist on withholding the information we are asking for, the suspicions must inevitably intensify. If you have acted honestly, as you insist is the case, all you have to do is to disclose the information to which the leaseholders are entitled (that is to say a proper breakdown of the refurbishment expenditure). It is after all their money that you have been spending. But if you refuse to provide the proper breakdown we have asked for, this inevitably reinforces the impression that you have been less than honest. Moreover the condition you impose is patently unfair on those lessees who have not made any such accusations, (whether true or untrue), but are equally anxious to understand what happened to their money. No, Mr Brown-Constable, your condition is unacceptable.
(comment/reply): It’s also my money, my co-director’s money and most pertinently both mine and my co-directors’ reputation, integrity and honesty which you have impugned. That is what is unaccept- able until such time as our integrity, honesty and reputation is restored with apologies and confir- mations that indeed we have disproved all slurs, innuendos and accusations having nothing what- soever to do with 12 invoices from the 2014 works - a perusal of even those would without a shadow of doubt raise yet more queries, complaints, innuendos and petty queries as the accusation of non- payment to BES/Nigel Brooks amply evidences.... I can imagine the furore over our accounts’ costs showing £2400 paid to BES Electrics and Mrs Hillgarth insisting only £1200 was paid, with £1200 being refused to be paid, and, “Paul, please don’t lie as I have subsequently been able to verify this infor- mation from Mr Brooks himself.”
Let it be clear that I am not making any insinuations or innuendos. I am accusing you straightforwardly of dishonesty, blackmail and fraud, and until clear evidence is produced to refute these accusations, I shall continue to do so. (Please ask yourself whether the lessees would ever have approved your section 20 letter of 22 June 2014 if they had understood that over £30,000, and possibly more, would be paid to you and your sub-contractors). You have deceived the lessees all along as to the colour of the walls (all recorded on emails), you have deceived them on the specifications, you have deceived them on the costs. Your website was one enormous fabrication. You are a habitual and persistent liar. And if you think that is defamatory, then go ahead and sue. The courts are available to you. I would welcome it.
(comment/reply): Just a shame there isn’t also a Small “Complaints” Court where stupidity, ignorance and incompetence can be penalised. But thankfully you have made our case somewhat watertight as to defamation but I do take umbrage now of the additional “a habitual and persistent liar.” Can you give me just one example of a lie I have told you - just one?
“The courts are available to you. I would welcome it.” - so will we, Sir.
We are not impressed, as l have told you, by the clouds of extraneous comment and deliberate obfuscation you send in response to every request for information. (my comment) name me one fact or query or accusation or innuendo or lie that we have not answered, save for those you know, Mrs Hillgarth knows, the court will agree, our Freeholder agrees, RBK&C agree we are not obligated to comply with. Therefore please just do as you have been asked so many times and provide a proper breakdown of the expenditure on the 2014 refurbishment, listing the twelve relevant invoices you say you have, and clari- fying how much was paid to whom, ensuring that you include answers to the following questions:
1. Of the 31,765.21 paid by MHML to you and your sub-contractors, how much was paid to you personally and how much to your subcontractors? (Identify please by name the electricians and other individual sub-contractors and itemise the amounts paid to each
of them)
2. How much was actually paid for the communal TV/Sky installation and for the Water Tank?
3. Please account for any other expenditures in connection with the refurbishment not listed above, and for the discrepancy of £19,299.79 referred to above.
(comment/reply): now it’s a £19,299.79 discrepancy - just how many more computations can you come up with? Refer back to my BES/Nigel Brooks £1200, £12,000 and now Mrs Hillgarth’s £20,000 - I’m punch drunk on analysing your various computations.... all previously answered where required unless statutorily not required, so revisit previous correspondence, or indeed some responses in this reply (I regret no page numbers as you seem incapable of numbering pages for some obscure reason making re-referencing impossible (and that goes for all your correspondence to date.... quite bizarre.) As for “Obfuscation” we are hardly obscuring any of your intended meanings in correspon- dence, or making our replies confusing, willfully ambiguous, or harder to understand, but simply stating the facts - and those facts are supported by paperwork which none of your’s to date have