Page 4 - 22_PBC to Begg MH letter OCR_27-5-16 (7)

(reply) We think not - please don’t tell me you are now questioning the 25% footprint which our records and plans have not one dot of relevance to you as they were produced for our benefit to prove in court had it got that far of the 25% situation - what possible relevance is that for you now unless you are inferring your own solicitors had yet another set of plans showing a different footprint which is something you must request of them. Our RTM invoice well indicated in minute exact detail all and every email/letter/document/cost incurred in dealing with your RTM application which resulted in MHML losing our own Solicitors due to your mischief and totally unprofessional behaviour - I will not entertain any further request from you re: RTM as this is yet another perfect example of your nuisance requesting query after query ad nauseum exactly as we have so often described (as did Gavin Owen in his correspondence with you years ago) - it never ends with query raised, query answered, further query etc etc
And yet again to confirm, no dividends have ever been paid by MHML. You refused to pay £265 due when we were setting up the company and that was docked from monies due to you and then you owed the RTM monies to MHML and that too was docked from monies due to you. It’s a disgraceful record for a director of a company to have been so disreputable, disloyal and disruptive. That’s why we required your resignation.
Mr PBC is fully aware that the leaseholders are unhappy with the quality of the interior refurbishments and therefore with the cost of the work carried out. He concluded him- self Mitre House now looks like an "Albanian brothel". It would appear that he wants to devalue the property in the hope that no one, l.e, no tenants would wish to live in Mitre House. The interior has been carried out to Mr PBC's own particular taste despite the fact that he only owns 1/9 of the property.
(reply) I think the Albanian brothel reference was more to the decor insisted on by you and Flat 9 but I could be wrong - other points, Water Tank etc All as explained ad nauseum in correspondence to date.
Being the Head lease does not give right to Mr PBC and his two Directors to run a business within the property and use some of the common parts for their solo use. Maria from Flat 3 requested to use the basement to store her bicycles but this was rejected. I personally have 25% of the Head lease and certainly do not treat Mitre House as my own property. I own Flat 5 which is 1/9 of the property, like everybody else. It would not surprise me if we, the leaseholders, were paying for the extra electricity, heating and decoration of their office.
(reply) Mrs Hillgarth states:“Maria from Flat 3 requested to use the basement to store her bicycles but this was rejected.” Our reply to Flat 3 on 14 July 2015 @ 15.30h: we’re not running a Motel here nor left luggage bureau and the rear yard and environs are not demised to any lessee - but are demised as Management’s responsi- bility to maintain. Where do you get these ideas from...Michele?
If you are referring to the new shed in the rear it’s for our cleaner’s equipment - having spent a fortune unnecessarily last year, it seems only correct the place is adequately maintained with new equipment - that equipment requires safe storage.
Our reply to Mrs Hillgarth on 14 July 2015 @ 13.22h: Now I’ve got Maria thinking the rear yard is a parking space for ruddy bicycles and you thinking the rear yard is for