Page 2 - Synopsis

-2-
Initially the four directors including Mrs Hillgarth, and most especially myself, had hoped that there should be no reason to charge any Management (Agents) Fees as the anticipated work involved was capable of being done by one of us living on site 24/7. I was more than happy to oblige as indeed I had organised the Residents Association for over 40 years and knew the ropes having dealt with our various Agents over the years.
Mrs Hillgarth is on record as having congratulated me profusely for my (past, but not present) sterling efforts! But that reasonable decision was revoked at year end having endured endless unrest caused by Mrs Hillgarth.
Mrs Hillgarth’s Application To Appoint A Manager is the culmination of five years (or 45 years taking previous Agents into consideration) of total discontent, initially when she proceeded with an application for an RTM in 2013 and becoming even worse subsequent to her resignation (dismissal) as a director of our company on 18 September 2014. It was a bad apple situation when she then canvassed newly arrived (overseas) lessees.
The five year (Exterior) and seven year (Interior) MAJOR WORKS programme finally commenced, after a two year delay on 1 September 2014 and Mrs Hillgarth was not happy with the results, most notably considering the interior decor to be cheap and vulgar, the interior workings to be of poor quality, the interior workings included items she (and other lessees) had never entertained or requested and most certainly never expected any work- ings to be done by anybody other than the finally approved Contractor on the agreed 22 June 2014 s20 Notice.
On 23 March 2016, (just before Easter) Mrs Hillgarth’s (recent) Solicitor, Mr P.F.C Begg requested in a 13pp let- ter, for sight of all relevant invoices (within 7 days) pertaining to these MAJOR works, totalling, as budgeted on the s20 Notice and indicated in our year ended 2014 accounts (dated 30 May 2015 and supplied to all lessees on 8th June) of £105,019 (plus a small £858 overspend), so finally totalling £105,877 to be accounted for.
In our reply letter dated 1st April 2016 (just after Easter) we offered to courier over all as requested including originals (as requested) and copies to retain. We also pointed out that this request was outside the statutory limit as outlined in Mrs Hillgarth’s and all our leases allowing 6 months for disclosure. This request was 4 months over.
Our offer to oblige was bizarrely ignored resulting in a reply dated 15 April 2016 stating Mrs Hillgarth was in the Sahara and Mr Begg had been down with pneumonia...! I know, you couldn’t make this up?
In the meantime, I had replied in full to Mr Begg’s 13pp diatribe letter of 23 March 2016 (as directed to do within 7 days) in my reply dated 8 April 2016 along with reams of documents, emails etc denouncing, denying and querying the accusations made against me personally and my fellow directors and our company in part, ranging from intimidation, vote-rigging, blackmail, fraud, racism, sexism, wandering around in my underwear disquieting Mrs Hillgarth’s young lady tenant, theft, abuse, mismanagement, misappropriation of funds and in truth god knows what else but repeated for everybody’s benefit yet again in the supplied s22 Notice dated 8 August 2016 attached to the Application. Various same correspondence was also copied to many third parties.
On receipt of Mr Begg’s tardy reply of 15 April 2016 I made clear that our offer to oblige was now withdrawn until such time as the various slurs and accusations as described in his 23 March letter were confirmed in writing as erroneous fantasies with no basis of truth or integrity as well evidenced by the supporting paperwork I had attached to my replies in the bundle sent to him on 8th April as directed and on schedule. None has ever been received despite further prompting in subsequent correspondence. An apology was mooted once we complied!
There then has followed over 50 letters from and to Mr Begg (and others) since 23 March 2016 to date, all along the very same lines as both his initial letter and the s22 Notice, many of which have been copied to other lessees, our Freeholder and their Solicitors, the RBK&C (Royal Borough Ken & Chelsea). Both our Freeholder & RBK&C with whom I corresponded (and met RBK&C) were satisfied by my explanations and denials.
Whilst I appreciate no smoke without fire, and always two sides to any argument, I do consider Mrs Hillgarth’s behaviour to border on the vexatious and frivolous in her well documented dislike of myself and authority.
All my replies to Mr Begg’s and any other correspondence received from third parties both deny the various accusations and innuendos raised and evidence such with supporting documentation, including disputing much of supplied witness statements from those identified in the s22 Notice - and proof of dispute was supplied.
Points To Note If Relevant:
I don’t think the whole application (or indeed the s22 Notice if required to be) was also sent to our Freeholders which seeing as the RTM application was required to be, might be an error of their application.
As stated previously, our Freeholders objected to the RTM application formally via their Solicitors, Macfarlanes.