Page 2 - 20_PBC to Begg_25-5-16 (10pp)

2
The dedicated emergency telephone contact number for Mitre House lessees is installed and operates from my flat as I both live in and provide 24/7 Concierge type services from Flat 7. It would seem appropriate to have an emergency number manned 24/7, as indeed same for the receipt of mail for immediate attention. I presume no objection to my sleeping on the job?
If you still consider this to be a breach, having the Concierge residing on-site 24/7 in his own flat servicing the needs of his fellow lessees and with an almost instantly attended to emergency phone (mobiles rely on batteries and
signal strength and are hardly considered 100% reliable), and having mail immediately attended to on receipt, please advise. As I have previously stated, references made as regards running a “business” from my flat is nitpicking.
And has been well documented to date, if any lessee considers £10 a day for on-site, 24/7/365 to be excessive, please advise. Or are you suggesting your client does not wish 24/7/365 concierge type services? If so please advise.
Admittedly, it’s a three hour drive from Buckland Newton in Dorset to SW3 (given the M25 is navigable) but that is still a far quicker response to certainly any known Managing Agent’s response I have experienced in 45 years. Kandy is a 12 hour flight but still a far speedier response than that of any Managing Agent your client has ever experienced..
Our Knightsbridge bureau functions from 9.00am - 5.30pm Monday to Friday somewhat mirroring normal business hours as indeed is the norm for Managing Agents or indeed Solicitors. And yes, it’s another printer and computer. We do not accept nor receive correspondence to this address, nor to Buckland Newton Place, Dorset; nor Kandy; only Mitre House is manned 24/7 for acceptance of mail and deliveries, both my personal items and those for Mitre House.
I hope that now clarifies the situation which no doubt you will consider to be another “rabbit out of the hat”, but the total irrelevance and pettiness of attempting yet again to discredit MHML deserves the contempt of a “rabbit out of the hat.” Hundreds of thousands of (business) offices would be required to close if the simple use of a correspondence address was considered a breach of a lease as you are inferring. Mrs Hillgarth’s lease breaches have negative impact on good neighbourliness as well as raising National Security concerns failing notification to MHML of who she is renting to?
Your reference to her supposed agreement with Flat 3 below is laughable. Flat 8 above is equally inconvenienced, flats adjacent to Flat 5 are also inconvenienced including my Flat 7 where the sounds from uncarpeted flooring are easily and annoyingly identifiable. Noise from heels and shoes on wooden flooring is unavoidable and noise rises too.
I suggest we clarify exactly what we are discussing as I am becoming bored and confused with this back ‘n forth exchange of, as you rightly say, total irrelevancies such as the insults and innuendos levied against myself and MHML
As demanded in your initial 13pp, 23 March 2016 letter, you, on behalf of Mrs Hillgarth, demanded to view originals, not copies, of the relevant invoices making up the s.20 expenditure of £105,019 and finalised at £105,877 as stated in the YE2014 accounts dated 31 May 2015, under Reserves Utilised,
This was repeated in your letter dated 31st March (in reply to mine of 29th March which you summarily dismissed) insisting on a reply to agreeing to comply by latest Tuesday 5 April with a deadline to supply by latest Friday 8th April.
We did reply on 1st April (well ahead of your Tuesday 5th April) agreeing to comply by couriering over the demanded documents totalling 14 at the initial count (10 of which relevant to the £105,877), the others being misc. requested.
As is now well established, we did not receive acknowledgement nor reply to our offer made in this 1 April letter until your letter of 15 April, which was immediately replied to on 16 April. In the meantime, since our compliance letter of 1 April, we had sent three further letters with very comprehensive bundles of copy correspondence on 8 April (your main deadline as stated above in both your letters of 23 March and 31 March respectively), 27 April (ref S. Belafonte/ RBK&C/Tenancy Relations Officer) and 10 May, none of which were acknowledged despite requests to do so until your letter of 11 May, sent Recorded Delivery, post marked 13 May, arriving unsigned for on 17 May as documented.
As with your letters, all our correspondence was hand delivered to your 9th floor offices at Tarsus Group.
Your letter of 11 May (arriving 17 May) again made apologies (firstly referenced in your 15 April letter) for the lack of replies due to your incapacity with pneumonia and somewhat predictably, Mrs Hillgarth being (genuinely) in the Sahara Desert. I replied to your letter by return on 18 May raising some concern yet again over the non acknowledgement of our offer to comply in our 1 April letter despite your pneumonia and Mrs Hillgarth’s Sahara trip as indeed I don’t think your reasons stated are particularly valid nor indeed I would venture, true.
I need hardly re-confirm just how important this non acknowledgement of our offer to comply has become, being as it is at the very heart of Mrs Hillgarth’s concerns over the expenditure (or not) of £105,877 on the interior/exterior works, as everything else in your correspondence to date, the accusations, the innuendos (leaving aside the works budget expenditure (or not) of £105.877), the gossip and various other financial demands have, I think, I hope, been thorough-