Page 6 - 20_PBC to Begg_25-5-16 (10pp)

6
have accessible funds available for unexpected emergencies, the lift or urgent repairs etc. Consequently MHML pro- posed, and subsequently received 100% agreement (eventually) for a £2000 per lessee (9x £2000) contribution to cover all and any contingency. Mrs Hillgarth, having agreed, then began canvassing other lessees as to why and not pay etc.
19_MHML, due to an array of redundant TV aerials and satellite dishes on the roof proposed a communal TVSky instal- lation and explained it needed 100% agreement from all lessees and could only be achieved whilst our works’ scaffold- ing was in place or the cost (plus dedicated scaffolding in future) would be prohibitive.
20_all lessees eventually agreed to contribute without the need for a s.20 (or scaffolding issue would kick-in)
21_Mrs Hillgarth had years ago refused her consent and the project had to be dropped as needed 100% approval. This time she agreed solely because her sub-let tenant (with her permission) had illegally installed a satellite dish on the roof in an appallingly sloppy manner with white cabling dangling down both sides of Mitre House.
22_most unfortunately but by simple coincidence, our 5 yearly Legionella/Water Tank inspection took place during the works (somewhat fortuitously as it happens) as the inspector (whom we inherited from previous Agents going back 25 years) considered the state of the tank to be beyond repair or indeed adequately safe. As such, MHML were required to organise a speedy quote on the understanding that, as with the TVSky install, it needed scaffolding in place to facilitate a one ton replacement tank to be be installed economically. We preferred to maintain our contract with Houseman.
23_again, MHML advised lessees as to the cheapest option (which was whilst scaffolding in place) and if we received 100% agreement we could do without the required application to LVT for dispensation of an s.20 (as considered an emergency situation). We received 100%, although Mrs Hillgarth attempted to abort the process by insisting the £2000 voluntary contribution to fund the actual schedule of works was for this purpose (as indeed the TVSky install).
24_consequently yet more correspondence and further misinformation was relayed by Mrs Hillgarth to other lessees resulting in another upsurge of misinformed comment, like a virus, which eventually MHML were able to dismiss as patent nonsense but not before yet further damage was done to the good neighbourly community spirit experienced at Mitre House for years whilst the Residents Association was operative prior to MHML taking charge (same members)
25_it should be noted that despite multiple requests for her to make contact with the Residents Association (as evi- denced in correspondence you have witnessed between Mrs Hillgarth and our previous Agents) she refused to do so, even to the extent of refusing to allow her contact details to be passed over by our Agents to our Resident Association as we were experiencing very serious problems with many of her sub-let tenants at times.
26_Mrs Hillgarth, throughout the 3 year gestation of the works schedule (July 2011 to 1 September 2014 and subse- quently as this affair well evidences) has caused upset and mischief to discredit MHML at every turn, including whilst a director of MHML attempting an RTM which was doomed to failure due to her inability to remember the 25% rule.
27_nevertheless, this attempted RTM resulted in demands from her solicitors to withdraw s.20 Notices which delayed the works schedule by yet another year and then she demanded the works be split again over a 24 month 2 year period.
28_Mrs Hillgarth did not realise (because she had obviously never properly perused the Schedule of Works dated December 2013 and which she actually gave to her preferred contractor, Wade, to tender from) that although the exteri- or works were very comprehensive (and something MHML could not argue with as it was all required repairs and not cosmetic) the interior consisted only of painting and decorating the communal wall and window areas. There were a few relatively cosmetic items for attention but relatively insignificant (if she bothers to now read it properly)
29_MHML reminded Mrs Hillgarth and other lessees that their additional suggested requirements, lighting, emergency lighting, auto sensors, the lift, brassworks etc were all cosmetic items requiring 100% approval - which MHML took for granted as there were no objections once Mrs Hillgarth had canvassed all lessees that all were a necessity.
30_what she failed to comprehend that not one of her additional requested requirements was listed in the Schedule of Works and consequently covered for funding within the agreed budget of £105,019. They were simply demanded.
31_despite MHML constant repetitive reminding of this fact, Mrs Hillgarth simply ignored the finding preferring to make yet more mischief by accusing MHML of mismanaging the schedule and budget. I know, you could not make this up!
32_various examples have been supplied to date including Mrs Hillgarth’s visit to my flat where her preference was made to certain lighting styles and to colour of lift, in direct contradiction to one of her fellow lessees. She later admitted that she only told me that “because that was what you wanted to hear!” Yes, I have the email to substantiate.
33_this comment and others made by Mrs Hillgarth made MHML’s job almost impossible and made even worse by her constant referencing back to other lessees with typically same type comments, including the infamous vote-rigging which, I do hope you now agree, was nonsense. As I said previously, ask a silly question and get a silly answer.