Page 7 - 20_PBC to Begg_25-5-16 (10pp)

7
34_what is also nonsense is Mrs Hillgarth’s insistence on a majority decision on anything save for when she requested (by supplying a template) all lessees (well 6 out of 9) to confirm individually in writing (email) a refusal to accept the cheaper Benitor quote. They did, too, but she never organised same for decor costs nor decor preferences.
35_as no doubt your extensive knowledge of the Landlord & Tenant Act will attest to, we are actually obliged to accept the cheapest quote. And if we do not, we are obliged to advise all lessees why we did not, and issue another s.20 Notice requesting a 100% agreement to accept a higher quote.
36_on this occasion we simply accepted the six emails and we three directors/lessees simply couldn’t be bothered to waste yet more time and energy and accepted Mrs Hillgarth’s choice of AR Lawrence for £105,019 to include vat and fees and let her take the responsibility for any untoward problems experienced with AR Lawrence’s work or abilities.
37_as has been provided, Mrs Hillgarth was already complaining about them within 11 days of the schedule! Mrs Hillgarth’s comment was that “she could not see any workers on site at 3.30pm” on 11 September 2014 some eleven days into the schedule....had she looked on the scaffolding she would have, as the internals were not scheduled for another 8 weeks - how’s that for stupidity?
38_Mrs Hillgarth continued complaining of almost everything during the works’ schedule culminating in her letter to me dated, somewhat auspiciously, 1st April 2015 (4 months after the works were completed on budget (almost) and on schedule (almost) stating her “concerns regarding the vulgar, cheap and unsuitable decor chosen by MHML for the communal area (no comment please)” I suggest you visit Mitre House and peruse Flat 5’s front door and consider if its owner is qualified to comment on any decor, whether or not it be vulgar or cheap! And she ignores its sad condition.
39_this letter was followed up on 10th December 2015 asking for a breakdown of the various costs of the AR Lawrence works (in fact saying she recalls previously asking for it which I reminded her, she had not). I replied pointing her to our website where all relevant documents regarding the breakdown of not only AR Lawrence’s costs, but all other tenders including her Wade quote, plus all quotes for individual works, plus TVSky quote, plus Water Tank quote, plus all our Surveyor’s correspondence and tenders, plus the Schedule of Works, plus analysis of costs, and all the various required and issued s.20 docs including those withdrawn due to her solicitors/RTM etc etc etc
40_I received a further request for the actual invoices from our various suppliers on 17 December 2015 to which I replied I was about to leave for my Christmas break, (not the Sahara Desert but Sri Lanka) and would be back in the new year (2016). I never heard another word, not even a Christmas greeting, nor reminder or demand of her request.
41_I then received your letter dated 23 March 2016 on Good Friday (one presumes as Easter reading) with a firm for- mal demand for documents pertaining to the YE2014 accounts to which we offered to comply in our reply dated, some- what ominously, 1st April 2016. It would appear that April Fool’s Day is a significantly opportune date in this affair.
42_now revert back to paragraph one on Page 5 to refresh your memory noting all previously extensively explained.
The above points set out comprehensively (but certainly only a small sample of situations experienced with Mrs Hillgarth over only the period July 2011 to date and undeniably repeating yet again ad nauseum every fact, figure, comment and observation made to date in all my correspondence and indeed again in the 1800 odd emails we have on file and in the 100 odd you have already been supplied with to date) and I will be relying on this letter as the basis for defending both mine and MHML’s reputation in any court proceedings you or your client deem necessary.
Threats of a Section 22-24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to have a manager appointed when viewed against the above observations, our accounts and record, is palpable nonsense. Opinions of Mrs Hillgarth and one or two other lessees are exactly that, subjective opinions, all based on the malice and jealousies of Mrs Hillgarth, not fact.
I await your reply to my letter of 18th May and obviously this letter with it’s various and substantive queries re your absence due to pneumonia and Mrs Hillgarth’s Sahara safari with relevance to our unacknowledged offer to comply.
My references to Mrs Hillgarth’s various incomes are relevant and included, somewhat ungentlemanly, when consider- ing her fellow lessees’ incomes and affordable budgets as not all of us are wealthy enough to appear within the Panama Papers or indeed be party to Saudi Foundations and such like.
Mrs Hillgarth should turn her attention to more pressing matters such as either dissolving her Mitre House RTM Company Limited or remaining within UK corporate law by filing annual returns for 2015 as it’s illegal not to. Hardly a competent referee to pass judgement on either myself nor MHML on our managerial and professional efficiencies.
We note also her concerns with adjacent neighbours at 66 Bedford Gardens with basement constructions - something we do have some sympathy with but again, regrettably, her random complaints were overruled by RBK&C planning.
It should also be noted that MHML have not harassed and obliged to date of Mrs Hillgarth to furnish us with copies of her Gas Safety Certificate, Electrical Certification after new works, Building Regulations sign off, Smoke Alarm installed by law, as of course she has not as is required in her lease, requested MHML’s permission to sublet which would include our consideration and pre-notification of all those documents plus a copy of her proposed tenant’s ten- ancy agreement, references etc - all as required by law as you well know as is compliance to lease covenants.