22_PBC to Begg MH letter OCR_27-5-16 (7)

66 Bedford Gardens London W8 7EH
Tel 020 7243 3515 Mobile 07850 100 247 Email mhillgarth@gmail.com
Wainwright & Cummins LLP 57-61 Atlantic Road, London SW9 8PU
Ref: RWI M01490/1 24th May 2016 Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter dated 29th April 2016. Without outlining what I am in breach of, it is rather difficult for me to reply. In any case, your client's motivation at this particular time could hardly be more obvious.
Mr PBC has written to my solicitor in response to a series of detailed complaints made by my solicitor regarding the activities of MHML and Mr PBC.
My solicitor Mr P. Begg specifically requested to inspect the supporting documents (in- voices) which justify the expenditure of £105,877 in accordance with Section 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenancy Act of 1985. My understanding is that where a Landlord fails without reasonable excuse to supply the leaseholders with either a summary or to inspect supporting documents, they commit a summary offense on conviction, and are liable for a fine of up to £2500 (Level 4 on the Standard scale). It is important to highlight that this was requested on several occasions and was duly ignored.
(reply) What remains to be established is whether any formal request was made to view documents from the YE2014 accounts (summary) dated 31 May 2015 within the statutory 6 month limit. Please advise.
Under Section 20 Part 2, the leaseholders of Mitre House voted for the appointment of a solo contractor for the refurbishment of the exterior and interior works. This was for the amount of £105,877. Mr PBC decided to carry out some of the work himself, work which was not agreed in Section 20. The work carried out was of a substandard quality and no doubt charged to us by Mr PBC at full cost. To avoid any doubt Mr PBC was witnessed carrying out work by several of the leaseholders. Section 20 Part 2 did not appoint Mr PBC as a contractor so Mr PBC and his two Directors are in breach of Section 20.
(reply) All as explained ad nauseum in correspondence to date. We do not recognise nor accept the reference to substandard quality which appears to be adding further argument. You don’t even know what works were done as you’ve never read the Schedule of Works!