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

5
A further perusal through Mrs Hillgarth’s voluminous correspondence will confirm the following facts:
1_ it was always made clear by MHML the available funds available in Reserves for works from 1 January 2012.
2_based on those available funds, MHML proposed an internals budget of £25k leaving around £70k for externals
3_these estimates and proposals were made the day we took control on 1 January 2012
4_MHML made very clear (as evidenced by quotes gathered by MHML in Sept-December 2011) that we could afford far more workings (admittedly cosmetic, not repairs) if we used some common sense to make sensible economies.
5_Mrs Hillgarth did not agree (on anything) and began canvassing other lessees with her opinion that MHML were (as you have repeatedly pointed out) useless, incompetent, unfit to manage, fraudulently misappropriating funds etc etc.
6_this resulted in reams of correspondence well over 2 years between lessees and MHML regarding one point, funding. 7_this led eventually in 2013 with Mrs Hillgarth attempting an RTM accusing MHML of everything including blasphemy.
8_this despite our first year’s 2012 accounts showing a £1748 surplus back to Lessees after having reduced Quarterly Demands down to £650 from the £950 previously charged by our agents, KFH, in 2011
9_and again, MHML managed a YE2013 surplus back to lessees of £1100 having retained Quarterlies at £650
10_we were then accused (by Mrs Hillgarth and one other lessee) of underfunding the Reserves which we quickly dis- proved with a 9 year analysis of annual service charge summaries/accounts, most notably contributions to Reserves.
11_despite this erroneous accusation (and disproved) of underfunding Reserves, Mrs Hillgarth and one lessee then requested the surplus be refunded as opposed to MHML’s suggestion to leave it in Reserves. You could not make this up!
12_things went from bad to worse with Mrs Hillgarth then insisting (and again canvassing other lessees) that we split the internals and internals over two years - this despite the fact that we are already well in breach of our Head Lease obliga- tions by 3 or 4 years and made even more ridiculous by Mrs Hillgarth insisting that because the works required (in her opinion) different talents for interior and exterior it was not a feasible idea to have both done concurrently) but due to falling well behind Freeholder’s deadlines MHML were required to take total control and work within available budgets, which was to include any required external contractual obligations within our headlease and the minimum required to comply for internals (painting only). We had almost adequate funding for exactly that schedule. Almost.
13_our Surveyor was briefed of the financial situation and he obtained 5 quotes, all tendered from the exact same Schedule of Works dated December 2013, which was supplied to all lessees on request (Mrs Hillgarth had at least four) as well as posted on our website alongside all documents, (incl. Surveyor’s) relevant to the processes so far outlined.
14_as was their right, Mrs Hillgarth and one other lessee arranged their own tenders based eventually on the correct approved Schedule of Works dated December 2013. This resulted in two new tenders, Wade and Grangewood.
15_the Wade quote was added to the s.20 list of contractor’s costs, incl. vat and fees. The Grangewood costings were never advised to MHML so remained unknown, which almost certainly amounted to far more than even the Wade total cost (£219,150). Knowing Grangewood as we did, a figure in excess of £200,000 was most likely plus vat and fees. Only Mrs Hillgarth or Flat 9 (Mrs Fortunati) can confirm. MHML made various proposals to Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees to adequately fund her Wade quote, all of which were either unacknowledged or argued about re: underfunding reserves, splitting the works over two years, mismanagement of reserves etc etc - in brief, no lessee including Mrs Hillgarth agreed to the additional funding proposals - MHML breathed a sigh of relief as its three directors/lessees were all opposed to the idea for obvious stated reasons; why pay more to one contractor for same works costed by others.
16_MHML also sourced a very competitive quote from Benitor totalling £98,000 which required no major additional fund- ing from lessees but Mrs Hillgarth objected and requested other lessees to also reject it. MHML obliged as can be seen quite clearly on the final approved s.20 dated 22 June 2014 where AR Lawrence was adopted for £105,019. In truth, Mrs Hillgarth’s veto of this cheaper Benitor quote was organised by her for no other reason than rank stupidity seeing as she was also complaining of the required £2000 contribution to fund her preferred choice, AR Lawrence?
17_as is well documented on this 22 June 2014 s.20, available funds amounted to £98,262 approximately with a requirement to fund a £105,019 works programme agreed by Mrs Hillgarth etc
18_MHML made clear that we were therefore short of approx. £7000 and it would be not be advisable to have zero funds in reserves to cover unanticipated additional (exterior) works (as is usual in these situations) as well as we should