Page 4 - 67_PBC to Begg Addendum_31-10-16 (24pp)

More recent anomalies requiring clarification could be as follows in the interest of closure, namely:
It appears in recent correspondence from both yourself and Mrs Hillgarth that you seem intent of muddying the already muddy waters by aggregating figures. I refer in the first instance to your letter of 26 August:
4
(comment/reply to) “By my calculation you used a total of £137,024 of the leaseholders' money...”
Seeing as only £98,262.75 was in Reserves and only a further £18,000 and £13,147 was collected from lessees, I cannot compute your assertion of £137,024 spent/used and would therefore welcome clarification.
But I regret my reply to Mrs Hillgarth on her Witness Statement and indeed to you in my reply on your 26 August letter (accompanying the Preliminary Notice) returned to you on 27th October was incorrect.
I replied stating:
Or are you making the same erroneous observation as Mrs Hillgarth makes in her Witness Statement by consid- ering the Lessee Window Repair costs to have been paid to MHML (and she did accuse me of also purloining those...as evidence supplied to date evidences). I would remind you that all lessee window costs were paid direct to AR Lawrence, not MHML, from invoices raised by our Surveyor. All I did was collate the cheques received to pass over to the Surveyor to pass over to AR Lawrence - just one more job I executed to facilitate operations!
As you will appreciate I’ve dealt with so many figures in so many configurations from both you and Mrs Hillgarth (in her emails) that even I’m getting confused - my comment/reply above was a pure coincidence that in fact the Lessee Window Repair Monies (which were never paid to MHML despite Mrs Hillgarth’s accusations of purloining them) totalled £7302. As again you will appreciate, your figure of £137,024 was, in my initial calculation £7614 too much and consequently I wrongly assumed you had (and Mrs Hillgarth had) included the Window Monies? My mistake, as in reality you were doing an “aggregate” making your computation almost impossible to fathom....but I did eventually, thanks to Mrs Hillgarth’s follow-up email mirroring your query of 23 September but adding some very obtuse re-calculations in her email dated 21 October (items 1, 2, 3) namely (1 & 2) being:
1. If the total amount spent on the communal TV/Sky and Water Tank was not in fact £13,147, but the whole of that figure of £25,121.54, (which as I have said is highly unlikely) please tell myself and the other lessees how the balance of £7,325.25 (£136,735 less £129,409.75) has been spent. Where did that money go?
2. If the amount spent on the communal TV/Sky and Water Tank was (as seems more likely) the originally budgeted amount of £13,147, please tell myself and the other lessees how the balance of £19,299.79 (£136,735 less £117,435.21) has been spent. Where did that money go?
So, to compute your’s (and almost Mrs Hillgarth’s) obtuse calculations to reach your “used a total of £137,024 of the leaseholders' money...” it seems you added the full budget £105,877 to the £18000 and the £13147 making a grand total of, as you rightly stated, £137,024 differing very slightly but quite expectedly from Mrs Hillgarth’s total of £136,735 - a difference of £289?
The relevant significance of this particular erroneous computation is that obviously it’s a ridiculous addition as the £105,877 could only be paid by adding some of the £18000 to the available Reserves of £98,262 as was the requirement of the £18000 made clear from the start, so leaving, if no requirement to use it, approx £11,243 in Reserves for contingencies etc all as stated ad nauseam since your 23 March 2016 initial letter.
So please, no more scattergun imaginative computations.
As for the various other anomalies, in truth far too many to list, most especially from Mrs Hillgarth’s extraordinary 20pp, 92 item Witness Statement, I will simply make the following observations relying on the Tribunal to come to their own conclusion:
Further Reference to Mrs Hillgarth’s Witness Statement are identified by her (1-92) paras:
(para 4)_There was a meeting on 30 June 2011 at 13,00h (Pheasantry), pre the Auction on July 14 2011 as Mrs Hillgarth had no idea of the intended Auction as the legal notification paperwork was delivered to her Flat 5 Mitre House (and intercepted by me and forwarded on to Mrs Hillgarth home address). Mrs Hillgarth was not even in the country when the Auction took place. Correspondence at the time evidences Mrs Hillgarth’s obstructiveness, tardiness and incompetence which included her suggestion of using her Solicitors for £9000 plus vat and costs.
We used my Solicitors for £2500 all in.
But Mrs Hillgarth adds, as allegedly stated by me over this lunch: ....”but when he told me: "Think about it, if we manage it ourselves, we could make a lot of money. We could also manage other buildings, why stop at Mitre House?" This meeting took place at the Pheasantry in the Kings Road over lunch. I told him that if this was his view I was not interested in buying the head lease. He subsequently realised he had gone too far and backed off.”