Page 2 - 48_PBC to Begg_7-7-16 (2pp)

2
It has already been established how difficult it was for Mrs Hillgarth to accept the initial £2000 per lessee (£18,000) as being required even to fund the initial existing Schedule of Works, so what chance insisting on a further £2000 per lessee to fund her (and others) additional requests?
As such, this affair is simply about her wanting, but not getting her own way, as regards a colour scheme (which is already established was in direct contrast on one or two items to one of her fellow lessees) and her jealous antipathies towards MHML for charging for works as opposed to paying far more to strangers (ie outside
suppliers for simple maintenance or in the case of the major works, major savings made on various easily executed workings by any competent person familiar with interior works).
Again, all savings made were for the benefit of all concerned, no matter to whom the payments were made...in this instance, MHML, as we saved the money and we organised, supervised and project managed the additional expect- ed workings whilst doing the works ourselves with professional accredited suppliers where necessary.
Certification is only relevant to Gas Safety authorised plumbers, or NICEIC Electricians. Both of which we would and have strictly adhered to when necessary. And obviously Health & Safety inspections, Legionella, Asbestos, Fire etc
Mrs Hillgarth would appear to be insisting that no matter the cost, outside suppliers should have been and always should have been employed. This infers that MHML are not qualified to do works, which begs the question of exactly what qualifications does she request of a painter and decorator, a gardener, a plumber or indeed a DynoRod employee? One presumes her perceived hope of their experience or by recommendation, or more likely good luck.
Her perceived opinion of MHML (me) is, as has been well established, very minimal, if not zero. Hence her antipathy to any workings or savings we attempt is considered by her, in her ignorance, to be both incompetent and illegal.
Any large workings over and above the £250 per lessee have always been advised by the statutory s.20 Notices except, as in the most recent case of the Water Tank and SkyTV installs, to save yet further money, voluntary 100% agreement was requested of lessees and voluntary payments were made by all lessees on their 100% agreement.
The required £2000 contribution from all lessees was not subject to an s.20 as was a direct result of Mrs Hillgarth ignoring MHML’s advice to do works within an available budget, a schedule of which was in existence since 2011, and was simply a required (and eventually 100% agreed to by all lessees) contribution to adequately fund Mrs Hillgarth’s preferred contractor AR Lawrence (over MHML’s proposed cheaper Benitor quote) and AR Lawrence’s full costs as outlined on the approved s.20 dated 22 June 2014 of £105,019 which included vat and fees.
As such, unless she is still maintaining that no works other than those as stated within the Schedule of Works should have been executed by anybody and certainly not by MHML, no matter the savings, there is nothing left to argue and I consider this latest affair to be closed?
You will no doubt appreciate that the above information is to negate any further queries over and above that which you are now predictably requesting, namely details of works’ costs within the MHML invoice of £31,756.21, which we consider an invalid request for reasons stated.
Had you acknowledged our offer to comply on April 1st 2016, you would have been in receipt of our invoice but cer- tainly not the impertinent queries as to how much I received or profit made. Ask AR Lawrence the same query or indeed that of any other business deal, contract, arrangement.
Were I or your client to demand same of our previous Agents or their contractors you would receive the same reply as I have made, that’s indeed if you ever received a reply.
The proof of our work is visible, tangible, on site for all to see, both internally and externally (with binoculars) - but it does require of your client to peruse the Schedule of Works and then make note of items quite visible at Mitre House that are NOT in the Schedule of Works or indeed have been done far cheaper than initially quoted.
If they are considered by her or her advisors to be not worth £31,756.21 then she must do her homework and re-cost or re-quote for all items present and visible at Mitre House (and environs), internally and externally and present her evidence. A cost for all I might add to include vat and fees, as previously she simply refused to follow form and do as directed which we explained was not the way we were wishing to present a totally transparent budget and simple total expenditure anticipated, understandable to all lessees, some of which could be unfamiliar with vat and fees?
Yours sincerely,
Paul Brown-Constable
Cc Segar Karupiah, Dima International Limited