Page 465 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

11. We also have a letter from Isaacs to White dated 29 January 2015 (following practical completion on 17 December 2014) further reducing the final contract sum for A&R Lawrence to an agreed figure of £53,000 plus VAT. Again this reduction was done without any reference to the leaseholders, and without their knowledge or consent. I’m quite 1000% certain, as would any sane sensible common sense individual, that had they been told that all \[and much more\] of the oft discussed “unaffordable” items all been beautifully progressed and finished \[leaving aside vulgar, cheap and unsuitable\] with only a small regrettable overspend of £858, and even better with £16,201 left in Reserves as opposed to that predicted of £11,243 when queries were initially raised regarding the £2000 per lessee contributions. All in all a pretty good end result? 12. You were asked on numerous occasions, and by no less than five of the lessees (as well as myself), to provide a straightforward account of how much money had been paid out in respect of the 2014 refurbishment and to whom. However you consistently failed to do so, offering less and less plausible excuses for withholding this information. Instead you hid behind the six months statutory limit for a compulsory inspection. You maintained this rigid stance even when the questioning was conducted under the auspices of the Kensington and Chelsea housing authority. I don’t think any of the above happened before your 23 March 2016 accusatory letter? As you well know, our offer to comply with your 23 March 2016 demand for a dozen invoices was ignored. Sahara and pneumonia remember? We still offered to comply but insisted that those scurrilous accusations contained in your 13pp 23 March 2016 letter which we had proved to be untrue with supporting hard copy evidence be apologised for and withdrawn and we would then forward you the required documents. No apology nor acknowledgement was or has even been received? RBK&C, Macfarlanes, Royal London were all satisfied with our defence of your accusations. 13. After persistent investigation by Mrs Hillgarth it eventually transpired that the amount actually paid to AR Lawrence had only been £62,010 inclusive, and that the budgeted figure of £105,019.38 included a fee of £10,513.00 inclusive paid to your surveyor. You eventually admitted in correspondence that the sum of £31,765.21 had been charged to the lessees by MHML. This had not been known to any of the lessees (except presumably to Messrs Raja and Karupiah) and, if proposed to the (other) lessees in advance, would never have been accepted by them. You persist \[and indeed reference me saying it, obviously in emails, but have never supplied me with hard copy proof despite requests you do\] in saying I eventually admitted in correspondence that the sum of £31,765.21 had been charged to the lessees by MHML.