Page 200 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-30- “HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?” Paul And the above was followed by this email from me on 7 June in understandable frustration: Michele - BEFORE you ask here are some additional replies to queries and one revised cost per hour - NOT £1.71 per hour, but 58p - and YES, I am spending 12 hours a day on duty answering queries from you....and organising everything else. Including replying to emails, something you fail to do very often. You must admit that my prediction came true 100% with yet further complaints, all of which are totally unfounded and the same accusations of having NOT been sent documents, not having been advised or agreed to facts and figures etc etc - when are you going to stop? You spent 7 hours at that meeting and every request was both answered and ALL relevant paperwork supplied - ALL OF WHICH, every question, every piece of paper HAD BEEN ANSWERED INNUMERABLE TIMES IN EMAILS AND ALL DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY YOU HAD ALSO BEEN ADVISED/SENT/POSTED - (except for those I said I would send, which I did EXACTLY ON SCHEDULE once I had received DIMA Intl's reply to the Minutes - You simply DO NOT READ ANYTHING.... that is quite obvious. Just pay that Invoice £2582.74 within 7 days please, properly close carpet your wooden floor and apply for permission to sub-let prior to your new tenant moving in or we will take you to court for non payment and breach of your lease. This is your final warning. I submit that this response above from Mrs Hillgarth following a 7 hour Board Meeting and still making erroneous accusations (Wade tender/lights etc) evidences Mrs Hillgarth’s incom- petence and untrustworthiness as regards many other erroneous comments, observations and accusations. This a perfect example of what we were up against with Mrs H| Hillgarth. A constant denial of things discussed and agreed, an inability to read or digest anything, and a refusal to oblige her fellow Di- rector’s request. Hence her continuing attempts to frustrate the schedules for the interior and exterior works and misinform other lessees most pertinently regarding the £2000 (which she initially refused to pay and told other lessees to withhold due to the Water Tank and TV/Sky re- quests for payment as she now maintained the £2000 was for those and could Hence my demand to Mrs Hillgarth that under no circumstances would I meet with her unless a third party was present... for my security, not her’s....! adequately cover their cost which actually amounted to £11,256 (initially quoted for £13,000 odd) which, had the £2000 per lessee been used as she insisted, it would have left only £6744 from the 9 x £2000 (£18,000) to cover a shortfall of £6757 to cover the £105,019 works’ budget with only ap- prox £98,262 in Reserves (as per s.20 Notice dated 22 June 20140) - yet she still persisted, in view of this information, to canvass other lessees to withhold payments resulting in as it did, MHML re- ducing the works to fit the revised available funding all as well advised to lessees and posted on www.mitrehouse.com and can’t be denied as you have referred to it in your correspondence and as you have been supplied with, emails to all lessees saying do not pay if you haven’t already and those lessees that have paid (three at the time) will be fully reimbursed - see below: In an email to all lessees dated 18 September 2014 (some 18 days into the works’ schedule) I wrote: It appears that one or two lessees have refused/are refusing to pay the additional £2000 for PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt