Page 435 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

unscheduled water tank and communal TV aerial. Total £129,409.75. This was more than enough to complete the budgeted works, including a reasonable 10% contingency reserve, plus the additional unscheduled work. However according to Tony White’s Witness Statement Mr Brown-Constable pleaded lack of money to Mr White in order to justify a reduction in the scope of works to be undertaken by AR Lawrence. In fact he had more than enough money to do all that was required. After making “savings” against the original budget totalling £32,496, achieved primarily by reducing the AR Lawrence specification, (a saving of £29,311 against the originally anticipated AR Lawrence bill) and by reducing by £3,185 the originally anticipated surveyor’s bill, MHML’s actual expenditure on items within the reduced Schedule of Works totalled only £72,523 (comprising £62,010 paid to AR Lawrence and £10,513 paid to the surveyor). By way of explanation/justification to the leaseholders Mr Brown-Constable subsequently asserted in correspondence (see again Item 8 of the Second Schedule) that the leaseholders, and in particular Mrs Hillgarth, were insisting that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other improvements outside the Schedule of Works could be included. This was entirely untrue. For her part Mrs Hillgarth has confirmed in her Witness Statement (attached as Item 9 of the Second Schedule) that she never requested anything but the work which was agreed in the Section 20 Notice issued on 22 June 2014. Reply: Quite correct – the above statement is entirely untrue and despite previous requests to substantiate it none has ever been forthcoming to date? Mrs Hillgarth did not agree with the budget and proposals suggested by her co-directors and sourced various alternative quotations from her preferred contractor Wade (2 quotes) and one from Hemi. These quotations included certain workings that Mrs Hillgarth was quite obviously insisting upon, mostly cosmetic and as such could only be proceeded with if all lessees agreed to fund in excess of the minimal Head Lease requirements (two coats of good paint and repairs where and if required) and most relevantly if affordable within the constraints of the available Reserves. A final Surveyor’s Schedule of Works for both Interior and External was drawn up in December 2013 which did not include many of the items which Mrs Hillgarth had requested of her three previously sourced quotes from Wade & Hemi due to budget restraints. The Surveyor’s Final Schedule of Works was advised to all lessees including Mrs Hillgarth and posted on our website www.mitrehouse.com alongside all previously sourced quotes, including MHML’s proposals, costings/budgets and Mrs Hillgarth’s three, independently sourced quotes (Wade x2 and Hemi) Our Surveyor arranged tenders from five contractors as well as one from Mrs Hillgarth’s preferred contractor, Wade. Final tender costs from all six tenders were advised to all lessees and posted on our website. It was advised to Mrs Hillgarth on numerous occasions that all contractors, including Wade, had tendered from the exact same Surveyor’s Schedule of Works and final total costs, including vat and fees, ranged between £105,000 and £219,000 as advised in a Section 20 Notice dated 22 June 2014.