Page 24 - 67_PBC to Begg Addendum_31-10-16 (24pp)

And finally, before Mrs Hillgarth brings up her vulgar and inappropriate, not wanted etc decor, might I remind her that Hugh Seaborn, Chief Executive of Cadogan, is on record as saying “As stewards of Chelsea, it’s essential that we safeguard the area’s wonderful bohemian heritage.”
24
our list of costs and she insisted we hadn’t because “I have subsequently been able to verify this information from
Mr Brooks himself.”
Imagine that scenario over £31,756 costs and expenses - and whilst we’re discussing this £31,756, it’s ridiculous to keep refer- ring to this as a charge from MHML - it was not a charge from MHML but a list and total of costs paid for from funds saved from the overall £105,019 budget and spent by MHML on doing all the additional works which, whether Mrs Hillgarth believes it not, were discussed, were required, were requested and were expected to be accomplished within the £105,019 budget or why else would Mrs Hillgarth have sourced quotes for these exact same additional works if they weren’t?
Quotes I might add totalling £60,000 odd which MHML managed to accomplish for £31,756 and yes of course MHML made a charge for their part of the work. That’s one helluva lot fairer than a normal Agent taking 15% in fees - for that you get nothing. And our Work was not as Mrs Hillgarth states, unprofessional and sub-standard, which is simply another spitful and ungracious and untrue observation and totally unsubstantiated as so many of her accusations remain - unsupported with evidence.
If ever proof were needed to finally establish Mrs Hillgarth’s total inability to either comprehend or have proper understanding of normal practice, let alone her appalling memory and imaginative manipulation of facts and figures to suit her purposes, her admission under her (Item 80) in her Witness Statement is self-explanatory, namely she states:
“In his e-mail to me dated 23 March 2015, in response to my numerous requests to see the invoices relating to the water tank, the Sky TV aerial, the window repairs etc, Mr Brown-Constable said: "Those invoices you are now requesting ..... will be available to view once the annual accounts are finalised. - They weren't. Instead he insisted on supplying his own MHML invoices. One of them, described as a "Special Invoice" from MHML dated 7 October 2014 to re-cable and re- install your Flat 5 existing Sky dish to Mitre House Communal system" does not say (as one might reasonably have expected): "as carried out and invoiced by [named] installers" but rather "as quo ted/cos ted by [unnamed] installers". It reads as though Mr Brown-Constable obtained a quote for doing this work and charged us the amount quoted, but then a arranged for the work to be carried out through another (cheaper) contractor. This remains unresolved.
And just in case of any misunderstanding, my reply to her initial email(s) requesting repeat documents on 23 March 2015 was as follows:
Michele -
Those invoices you are now requesting have nothing whatsoever to do with your personal/business accounts and will be avail- able to view once the annual accounts are finalised. I cannot believe that it's taken now half a dozen emails, me sourcing yet again all relevant invoices which are relevant to your persona;/business accounts, sending them for a third time and all you actually want is original supplier invoices.
Try going into Printemps and buying some shoes and asking to see the shop's invoice from China for making the shoes.
Be very careful about your insinuations that I or Management, or indeed anybody is fiddling invoices, taking bribes, taking kick- backs etc, as that is what you are implying and if you do so again you will be brought to account, legally.
Your incompetence, ignorance and insinuations simply defy description and in view of the fact that you remain seriously in breach of your lease obligations, I suggest you attend to those matters very promptly as Management will, once the annual accounts have been finalised, refer the outstanding matters to our Solicitors.
Paul
In truth this reply from me sums up the whole sad story of Mrs Hillgarth’s constant repeated requests for information and docu- ments she has previously requested and received, her inability to comprehend proper procedures, her insinuations, innuendos and manipulation of information further communicated to other lessees in her pursuit of her own selfish spiteful agenda to discredit MHML and her total disregard for her own personal legal obligations as regards her lease covenants etc
There can be no valid reason for your threatened application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), let alone the previous Fraud Squad and current RBK&C yet again, given the replies, denials and explanations supplied to date, even leaving aside this reply with further comprehensive proof of your client’s mischief, as like ourselves, they will without doubt consider any application to be frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process. Or Play Misty For Me.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Brown-Constable
Segar Karupiah/Dima Intl.
Mitre House Management Limited