Page 301 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

-50- “HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?” Mrs Hillgarth, intent on progressing a far more extensive and expensive schedule of works to those proposed by MHML called a meeting on 13 June 2012 with some other lessees to discuss dis- missing MHML to be replaced by professional Agents, having all and any s.20 Notices issued by a Solicitor and/or outside Agents and sourcing two independent quotations from Hemi and from her preferred contractor Wade, as in her opinion MHML’s budget was insufficient to do the more expensive workings she was insisting on and preferring a single main contractor as opposed to MHML’s preference for using independent multiple suppliers and so making substantial savings of approximately 35%. At this stage (mid 2012) it was only envisaged to progress the Internals work- ings followed by the Externals in 2013. Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify. As previously stated, MHML (myself) had resigned and passed responsibility over to fellow Director Mrs Hillgarth, neither Messrs Raja, Karupiah nor myself attended the meeting, but de- spite Mrs Hillgarth’s insistence that a vote was taken at the meeting to dismiss MHML and have alternative agencies issue s.20 Notices, one attending lessee denied any vote was taken but simply that these items were raised and discussed. Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify. @@@ With no assistance, knowledge or involvement whatsoever from her MHML’s co-direc- tors, Mrs Hillgarth briefed two contractors, Hemi and Wade (previously aka Stopps and sug- gested by her during the last workings at Mitre House in 2005 and rejected by our then Agents as their quotation being too expensive). The works she requested of them to quote for mirrored many of the items that MHML’s schedule of works included, including mail pigeon boxes/table and meter cupboards, but with one or two additional items such as a total terrazzo floor renovation \[as opposed to good clean\], a total Lift car and surround refurb and electrics/lighting. Had Mrs Hillgarth and /or certain other lessees NOT WANTED mail pigeon boxes/table and meter cupboards, it seems somewhat obtuse for Mrs Hillgarth to have included these item in her brief to Wade/Hemi to quote for? Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify. Mrs Hillgarth presented these two quotes to MHML and lessees, totalling £65,851 including vat from Wade \[to include all extras but no fees\], and £66,259 from Hemi including vat but no fees and insisted Wade be adopted no matter that it was way in excess of MHML’s £35,000 incl. vat af- fordable funds with Externals requiring very substantial funding in the following year 2013, approxi- mately costed at £70,000 incl. vat. Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify. Despite Mrs Hillgarth being a Director of MHML, her three co-Directors, Messrs Raja/Karupiah and myself argued that her Wade costing of £65,851 incl. vat was unaffordable and all of the items she had requested of Wade to quote for could be accomplished far cheaper using independent suppliers and most items were already included in MHML’s schedule of works budget of £35,000 incl. vat and those that were not were simply not affordable without a substantial call on lessees for additional funding. Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify. Various correspondence and costs’ analysis ensued over months with Mrs Hillgarth insisting that her Wade quote did not total £66,347 but far less \[it didn’t\] and that MHML’s £35,000 incl vat didn’t include vat and totalled £42,000 if vat were added? MHML requested of lessees if they were willing to fund the Wade quote by substantial personal contributions to Reserves and despite multiple requests not one lessee, including Mrs Hillgarth, agreed to doing, whilst she argued that Reserves were adequately funded for a £65,851 interior budget for Wade to be contracted with no call on lessees for additional funding and funding for the anticipated Externals the following year 2013 would be adequately in place or attended to if not as she consid- ered MHML’s estimate of £70k to be airy-fairy, unconfirmed, arbitrary and used to confuse. It was actually almost 100% correct. Correspondence can be (has been) supplied to verify. PLEaSE rEFEr to variouS attaCHED “PDF/FuRtheR ReFeRenCes” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt