Page 2 - 10_PBC to Begg OCR_16-4-16 (6pp)

It is fully appreciated that this delay was due to your incapacity whilst suffering from pneumonia but somewhat baffled why Mrs Hillgarth could not have offered to oblige our offer herself in your temporary absence.
We did though courier over by close of play 8 April 2016 a comprehensive bundle including as you rightly say a lengthy [commentary] counter-argument to your equally and extensive 13pp tome of 23 March 2016 which along with our [lengthy] counter-arguments did request our required clarification [with apologies if deemed validated] and comment to a multitude of innuendos, complaints, observations and accusations, all denied as stated.
We did not oblige as regards couriering over the 14 invoices as no response was made to our offer to send over same and as we had also made such a strong and forceful counter- argument to the various innuendos, complaints, observations and accusations made in your 23 March letter that we requested you to verify our responses/comments/evidence with Mrs Hillgarth or have her deny them.
Despite our request on the bundle’s envelope for acknowledgement of safe receipt, none was forthcoming. Consequently we also did not receive answers to the counter-arguments raised in our 8 April letter requesting validation or denial by Mrs Hillgarth in your absence.
We also pointed out Mrs Hillgarth’s ongoing refusal to comply with her lease covenants despite multiple requests to do so and provided adequate correspondence to substantiate her non compliance, from I might add, previous agents (KFH) and previous Head Lessor.
You remind me that in your initial response of 1 April you had offered to courier over these original invoices, plus copies, to my office. However I am afraid that, as I was at that time ill with pneumonia, you did not receive any immediate response to your offer. And now your offer appears to be withdrawn, or rather to be conditioned on receipt of all sorts of commitments, apologies and undertakings to comply with alleged breaches of lease obligations.
I think it fair to point out that our offer to oblige Mrs Hillgarth’s requests to view 14 invoices, which when offered was unacknowledged, became somewhat one-sided when taking into consideration a plethora of innuendos, complaints, observations and accusations which we have totally denied and have, I think, in most if not all instances, thoroughly refuted with more than adequate evidence to disprove her allegations.
Add to that Mrs Hillgarth’s total, previous and ongoing refusal to comply with the terms of her lease, made all the more important in these troubling security conscious times, does, along with an absence of apology nor confirmation for points she raised and we evidenced as being incorrect, does merit as you say, our requirement of some conditions to be met before we further oblige her’s or your multiple and somewhat obtuse demands.
The 14 invoices will be available for perusal for many years, whereas Mrs Hillgarth’s non compliance and without doubt her agreement to confirm or deny most, if not all, that her various innuendos, complaints, observations and accusations were/are ill-founded, will not be addressed once she has perused the 14 invoices and proved wrong yet again and deemed unworthy to make further criticisms of MHML’s ability to manage and maintain