Page 386 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

Were lessees advised of 100% agreement to forego s20 Notices for both Water Tank and TV/Sky install and make voluntary contributions to fund most economically with scaffolding in situ - Yes or No? Did Mrs Hillgarth canvass other lessees to insist Water Tank and/or TV/Sky installs be paid from the £2000 contributions - Yes or No? Did MHML resist and insist all lessees comply to agreed contributions or be refunded if paid or not to pay if hadn’t and MHML would simply reduce down the works schedule - Yes or No? Did all lessees eventually pay all contributions including Mrs Hillgarth but not without spreading discontent amongst all lessees - Yes or No? Did MHML renegotiate original quotes and save £2153 off the initial cost due to scaffolding in situ - Yes or No? Did that saving remain in Reserves to be spent on “additional works” - Yes or No? Did MHML save £3185 on Surveyor’s fees by reducing AR Lawrence budget and place in Reserves for spending on “additional works” - Yes or No? Did MHML advise lessees of electrical works to be accomplished “not included in the schedule of works” in an email dated 10 August 2014 - Yes or No? Did MHML advise lessees when those electrical works were finished in an email dated 28 August 2014 - Yes or No? (vx)_ Did AR Lawrence include “additional works” - Did any quote including Wade include “additional works” Yes or No? (vy)_ Were Lessees advised of savings to be made to do “additional works” - Yes or No? (vz)_ Were “additional works” seen to be in hand and were “additional works” in evidence at end of works - Yes or No? (vxx)_ Were lessees requested of additional funds to fund “additional works” - Yes or No? (vxxx)_ Were savings made to fund “additional works” - and did those savings remain in Reserves - Yes or No? Did MHML attempt to disguise/hide/deny they were doing some of the “additional works? - Yes or No? Were the works that MHML (PBC) executed of a good professional standard - Yes or No (we’ll let the Tribunal visit on 26 June be the judge of that) Did £11,243 remain in Reserves at end of works - NO.... £16,201 did for the benefit of all lessees in 2015 Our 13 folders adequately comprehensively and finally will answer each and every point above as indeed they have done on multiple previous occasions in previous communications with both Mrs Hillgarth since 2011 and Mr Begg since 23 March 2016. And as stated in previous correspondence, if anything stated is considered untrue or unsubstantiated please advise for further clarification. It is also confirmed in previous correspondence that by making savings and spending those savings on “initially unaffordable additional works” which Mrs Hillgarth had sought quotes on and therefore it would seen logical by definition that she and her other lessees wished to have those workings (and she did progress an abortive RTM stating that - in bundles) ihad she got her way and funds could be appropriated - thankfully they eventually were due the savings made by MHML from the £105,019 agreed budget - and for Mrs Hillgarth to claim that she didn’t want any “additional works” over and above the AR Lawrence specifications is nonsense as they included items such as Emergency Lighting that would have been an additional charge to the service charge anyway as they were a necessity even had no savings or “additional works” attempted. it’s quite simple - she never read the Schedule of Works with due diligence and was convinced those “additional works” were in the remit of the AR Lawrence quote as indeed she pointed out in her email of 6 June 2014 that her equivalent Wade quote included “additional works”. It didn’t and neither did AR Lawrence or any other. Only her July 2012 and January 2013 Wade quotes did. Had anybody else done what MHML (PBC) did, Mrs Hillgarth would have been ecstatic - her animosity to the whole situation was because MHML (PBC) accomplished it and to deny MHML a fair fee for doing so flies in the face of logic by suggesting that MHML only made savings to line their own pockets - we could have done that quite simply by charging a normal 15% fee like any agent does and indeed could also then have also charged for the work we did as well using, if dishonest, phoney supplier invoices set up for the purpose....but we did not and we did a great deal of workings far cheaper than our outside contractors had quoted (the lift for £11,602 as an example - in bundle and nowhere near as comprehensively as PBC did it) and saved lessees a great deal of money as Wade quoted £60,000 including vat and fees, and MHML made savings of £31,756 from the agreed budget of £105,019 and used all those savings to do Wade’s £60,000 of “additional works” plus some, and including MHML's actual works’ costs and their fees for doing so which totalled £15,572 with the remaining £16.184 as actual physical costs (including 2 x£1200 to our electrician - in bundle) and supplies (light fitments, handrails, brasswares etc etc- all of which came direct from the Reserves into the Current account as that is where the savings remained until spent. No, I have not advised these figures in error but to make quite certain that all parties are singing from the same hymn sheet prior to the Tribunal to prove conclusively that all erroneous innuendos are crystal clearly on the table and not still being twisted to suit Mrs Hillgarth’s fantasies and repeated accusation that MHML invoiced the service charge for £31,756 as opposed to what we keep repeating, that MHML spent the savings of £31,756 on behalf of all lessees carefully and very economically to do all the “additional works” at half the price quoted by Mrs Hillgarth’s Wade costings. All Mrs Hillgarth wants to know now is how much PBC invoiced MHML for his workings which one can presume to be whatever fees were charged by MHML for their project management within the MHML £15,572 invoice.