Page 31 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

To précis your's and Mrs Hillgarth's concerns, leaving aside the (admitted) out of time request for docu- ments from our 2014 Accounts, it boils down to illiterate and imaginative accusations and innuendos including theft of lessees' Window Repair Monies; wandering around in my underwear; not having indi- cated Surveyor Fees were included in all Contractor costs; not having advised lessees of savings being made for additional works; not having indicated on the year end Accounts that costs saved totalling £31,756 were appropriated for the additional works expected by Mrs Hillgarth and by definition other lessees; not having replied to Mr Pemberton or Mr Fortunati when requested to do so; indicating in corre- spondence that Mrs Hillgarth was insisting on works being deleted from the Schedule of Works to fund the additional work; not paying, indeed refusing to pay, BES Electrics and AR Lawrence; Vote Rigging; Blackmail (the keys for cash fiasco); Fraud (too numerous to list but includes, misappropriating Funds collected for Water Tank/ SkyTV and the additional Reserve Fund contributions; payments to contractors other than AR Lawrence which one presumes to include Surveyor Fees, Administration Fees, supplier costs and purchases and of course to MHML for services rendered/labour/admin/costs and to cap it all, swearing our cleaner, Bunny, to secrecy - to what I’ll await enlightenment?
And by all accounts, with reference to Mrs Hillgarth's reply letter dated 8 November to our Solicitor, (who is in the initial stages of issuing forfeiture proceedings) she now alleges I forged a letter on our Solicitor's letterhead and I telephoned her Solicitor (Mr Begg) to ascertain his availability to receive docu- ments. I'll rely on you, Mr Begg, to confirm or refute her accusation of my alleged telephone call to you, as only you could have advised her. The forgery rant ranks alongside Vote Rigging and hiring AR Lawrence to refurbish my flat...plus a few other fantasies.
As regards your more pressing concerns and queries, namely the question, or not as the case may be, of additional works? Did Mrs Hillgarth source independent quotes from Wade and Hemi? (yes) Did those quotes include works that never appeared in the final Schedule of Works? (yes) Did Mrs Hillgarth hold meetings where these works were discussed and indeed agreed upon? (yes) Did Mrs Hillgarth peruse and agree the authenticity of Wade's and AR Lawrence's final quotes, both of which were costed from the exact same Schedule of Works? (yes) Did MHML advise lessees of savings being made which would be used to fund Works not included in the Schedule of Works? (yes) Were additional works executed? (yes) Did those additional Works reflect the works as quoted by Wade and Hemi? (yes) Did any lessee com- plain, query, contest the additional works once the works were completed in December 2014? (no) Did any lessee complain, query, contest or request information following the publication of the 2014 Accounts? (no)
Correspondence since and including your initial letter of 23 March 2016, your Draft Crime Report, your Preliminary Notice and various emails between myself and Mrs Hillgarth confirm indisputably that the answer to all above points queried is "true"
My sincere condolences to any third party or lessee having to read through this Mitre House Soap Opera but, in the case of lessees, they were warned innumerable times about Mrs Hillgarth's predictable ani- mosities and unproductive attitude to MHML and myself in particular!
With Donald J Trump as next US President I would propose that I am the least of Mrs Hillgarth's concerns and her efforts should now be directed at making hay whilst the sun still shines!
Mrs Hillgarth is on record as having had an unhealthy disregard, nay disrespect of authority as was wit- nessed by her futile and totally unprovoked failed 2013 RTM application. Made in the knowledge that it did not even meet the first requirement, namely that the commercial element must not exceed 25% of the building. It actually exceeded 35%, a fact she had provided to lessees in 2011, yet she still both can- vassed other lessees to participate and progressed the application despite being in flagrant conflict with the required statute, the 25% ruling.
The present dispute with Mrs Hillgarth centres on another statute, namely any request for financial infor- mation from the annual accounts must be made within 6 months of their publication. Despite this ruling, Mrs Hillgarth has progressed yet another failed attempt at discrediting MHML.
And if further proof of Mrs Hillgarth’s deep disrespect for authority were needed, she has refused request after request to fully comply with her lease covenants, namely to seek permission prior to sub-letting and to close carpet her property if indeed it is to be sub-let.
Nevertheless, it appears that Mrs Hillgarth has indeed issued Tenancy Agreements stating that all required permissions have been received? Hardly the actions of a respecter of authority?