Page 5 - 10_PBC to Begg OCR_16-4-16 (6pp)

business at Mitre House (I refer to Clause 2(13) of your head lease dated 19 May 1984). I anticipate this will shortly be the subject of correspondence from Royal London Insurance Company, your present freeholders. You will also shortly be confronted with a challenge through the courts to your right to continue managing the block, which I sincerely believe you will lose, You claim to be "sick and tired of the shenanigans", and you confess to enormous frustrations with Mrs Hillgarth and other tenants. It is blindingly obvious from the correspondence that the feeling is entirely mutual. So why not put an end to this pointless mutual antipathy by recognising that the game is up; by terminating this charade before consequences ensue which you will regret. You say you will not resign voluntarily, but I beg you to reconsider your decision on this before it is too late.
I have adequately covered the supposed working from home aspect in previous comments. I will welcome the input from Royal London who will no doubt raise the issue of Mrs Hillgarth’s non compliance. Half their staff work from home occasionally I might add.
Sending out Quarterly Demands and being on site 24/7 hardly constitutes as you infer, running a Management Company in breach of Clause 2(13) of your head lease dated 19 May 1984 [or indeed my own personal lease]. My flat is simply a correspondence address with a computer and printer and dedicated telephone for only Mitre House lessees’ concerns which is a far more economical way to service Lessees’ needs than hiring external agents with substantial overheads, other lessee commitments and subsequently higher fees. But we’ll see what Royal London have to say.
This accusation is simply a tit-for-tat attempt to dilute Mrs Hillgarth’s non compliance.
I note that your co-directors have left the running and maintenance of Mitre House exclusively to you, but as directors the law does not permit them (otherwise than by resignation) to slough off their criminal and civil responsibilities in the manner you suggest. I suggest they might wish to take advice on their position. In the interim, please be kind enough to send around to my office the invoices you initially offered to send.
My two co-Directors are fully aware of their statutory responsibilities, as like your goodself no doubt, have involved themselves in a multitude of companies over their long and distinguished careers and need no reminding from you or Mrs Hillgarth as to their responsibilities, one of which, along with myself, was to vote Mrs Hillgarth off our board of directors for doing exactly what you are inferring we three remaining directors are presently accused of, mismanagement plus in her particular case, incompetence, which without doubt we have proved conclusively. Dare I say disloyalty to a criminal degree?
At least we three can read, evaluate and digest, [when presented with information in emails, in letters or on websites with or without soundtracks], important, relevant documents, facts and figures, which has been proved conclusively in mine and your correspondence to date, that Mrs Hillgarth has indubitably failed to do. A short edited list of which is outlined above re: Schedule of Works etc.
Please refer to the attached letter which further amplifies the apparent nonsense of your’s and Mrs Hillgarth’s demands and aspirations for due process of law as you see it.