Page 456 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

unaffordable by her fellow Directors with limited but adequate funds in Reserves for a sensible economic works programme without excessive additional demands on lessees. Mrs Hillgarth considers she was blackmailed \[or her Solicitor does?\] because it was made clear to her that firstly her tenant will have to remove an inappropriate satellite dish from the roof as no permission was requested and a communal system was to be installed, secondly, agreed additional funding from all lessees was in arrears due solely to Mrs Hillgarth canvassing other lessees and thirdly, Mrs Hillgarth was insisting on a duplicate set of keys for her tenant. It was made clear to Mrs Hillgarth that firstly she was in serious arrears on agreed additional funds, and indeed had advised other lessees to do same, secondly she denied the insistence her tenant remove her dish and finally it was not appropriate for her to insist on items such as additional keys whilst holding up all other processes and until such time as she complied with previously agreed fundings etc she should refrain from any further requests for personal reasons. Is that Blackmail or common sense? She also owed MHML £2572.84 regarding our costs for her failed RTM. As regards “Intimidation” I think that again references the “keys” affair. Due to various correspondence and indeed two meetings with Mrs Hillgarth when things had been discussed and indeed agreed, but almost immediately, within hours in some cases, Mrs Hillgarth would email other lessees with a totally contrary precis of what was discussed and agreed. Consequently, I insisted that all and any further meetings must have a third party present. When eventually Mrs Hillgarth came to my flat to demand her keys she was accompanied by a Metropolitan Police Officer who witnessed both Mrs Hillgarth insisting on her keys, and myself refusing until such time as she honours her financial commitments as indeed she had initially agreed to and was on call to advise all lessees of her agreement to what had been discussed at length at the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting. The police officer was as bemused as I was and had there been any intimidation I feel sure he would have intervened. Mrs Hillgarth claims she was escorted by a police officer as I had made clear we should not meet unless a third party was present...indicating she needed protection, whereas my request was without doubt for both the veracity of any discussions and my protection from scurrilous accusations of the likes of blackmail, intimidation and in truth god knows what else? As regards a fraudulent website – I have already reminded you of the recent UK Government scandal regarding Seaborne Freight and pinching \[stealing/plagiarising/borrowing\] some T&C from a takeaway....I also reminded you on your 23 March 2016 letter some 3 years ago that we had apologised to Canonbury from whom we had pinched and taken off the offending T&C and they were gentlemanly and accepted our apology graciously. I also made it clear that it is endemic and one would be hard pressed to find any website with 100% legitimacy as regards full copyright on every item – this in no way condones either ourselves nor Seaborne Freight – it’s wrong and illegal but internationally flaunted. And what a very petty spiteful observation to add to the mix of cheap, vulgar and unsuitable décor?