Page 2 - MASTER (NEW) Colour l/h

2.
Your tenant illegally installs a satellite dish on the roof without first obtaining your permission and you are charged £250 to remove it. Result, you pay it but then you charge your tenant the £250 and are reimbursed. You would not require anything other than the £250 invoice from whoever issued it, in this respect MHML, to satisfy your tenant's responsibility to reimburse? Unless you wanted to lose £16 by showing original?
The original supplier invoice is irrelevant as firstly if you have been reimbursed by your tenant for the illegal install and the dismantling charge therefore incurred, you cannot then use the original supplier invoice for tax purposes, so what relevance is it?
The relevance and your insistence on it was because you had given permission, and couldn’t charge the tenant and had to pay our £250 invoice - but again the original is of no use, because you would charging the £250 against tax, not the lesser original supplier’s £234
So why the insistence on seeing/having the original....game set and match to having given permission! Or just being congenitally contrary as we’ve proved multiple times to date.
This ADDENDUM_A - proves without a shadow of doubt that what we are requested of we supply (despite Mrs Hillgarth’s insistence we did not etc (emails 17 and 20 March 2015) despite our repeated assurances we had again and again) . We also supply correct paperwork, every single invoice she had requested (despite having been sent all previously and paid them mostly) if only she could read a pdf past the first page as we explained in our emails so she could revisit the pdf....but oh no, as you still mentioned it in your 13pp 23 March 2016 dia- tribe and subsequently since. A
And do note the accusation of us refusing to oblige requests from Messrs Fortunati and Leigh Pemberton both of which we’ve proved as untrue.
Mrs Hillgarth’s sole request on 17 December 2015 was replied to and is covered more fully on ADDENDUM_B
And just by-and-by; imagine this: