Page 10 - 73_PBC to Begg_9-12-16 (20pp)

(a) that you departed from the agreed schedule of works in so far as you carried out
"additional works "; (nothing of importance was departed from, but added to..) and
(b) that you changed the agreed décor to one of your own choosing; (define “agreed by who? Certainly not any virtual majority as previously disproven - l note the accent on décor!) and
(c) that you did not use AR Lawrence exclusively for the works but engaged other contractors, including electricians and carpenters, who were not supervised by AR Lawrence; (I think you’ll find that AR Lawrence did all their quoted work themselves without my or anyone else’s as sistance? They did not do the works they had not costed in their tender) and
(d) that you did some of the work yourself and that some part of the £31,765 was used to pay
you personally (”my goodself’, as you put it); (well, if someone does a job of work there are
It has been brought to Management's attention from some quarters that confirmation is requested that all nine lessees have been requested of the additional £2000 in the recent Quarterly Demands. We can 100% confirm this is the case and to date, three lessees have complied and paid, bizarrely the three who opposed any additional funding to be re- quested and to work within the reserve's affordable budget. So those lessees who were always intent on spending a small fortune had best now cough up as they certainly took no notice of Management's numerous warnings as to addi- tional funding requirements.
And do some lessees actually think that Management are so dishonest and devious as to attempt only asking certain lessees for funding. It's almost too pathetic to respond to.
Please reply by return as regards your windows and preferences re: tv install. Failing which your windows will not be repaired, will be painted closed making them almost inoperable until eased and tv cabling will be left tidily coiled out- side your bedroom and sitting room windows for your personal install at your convenience at a later date and expense.”
And God forbid if yet further evidence were needed, see the following references - firstly, a reminder to all lessees of their rights. This instruction/information was sent in the first instance to Flat 9 on 9 September 2014 (and indeed to other lessees including most notably Mrs Hillgarth, not once, not twice but on multiple occasions over the period of the works including during the months of preparation.
Diego
I really must also insist you refrain from impertinent emails requesting details you are not party to until such time as the annual accounts are published when all details, contractors, sub-contractors, costs, expenses, contingencies spent or saved, additional works required etc etc are available to you to peruse at your leisure-
Paul
(reply) So please no more references to incorrectly identified emails. If your client does not consider the information stated and discussed in all the various emails documented (and I have hundreds more) to be “game set and match”, we’ll let the courts decide.
Firstly there are the serious issues of criminal fraud and blackmail, which you deny. (well, I’d hardly admit them given the evidence supplied to date to thoroughly dispute the pathetic examples given by your client) However given that these are matters for a criminal court, and not within our control, I am pro- posing to focus in this letter exclusively on matters within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Property Tribunal.
We say that you were in breach of section 20 in so far as you altered the scope of the specification agreed on 22 June 2014 and used unapproved contractors (including yourself) to carry out some of the work. This-was done on false pretences — namely that you were saving money for the lessees. (yes, savings proved - see “game set and match” emails of 11th and 13th September) In reality the objective was to make money for yourself. (No, for the benefit of all lessees as well proven in previous correspon- dence - a simple example here of Mrs Hillgarth’s vindictive and pathological jealousy of MHML) You have admitted in correspondence:
usually costs involved - or are you inferring that because I am Paul Brown-Constable as op posed to Joe Bloggs, I do not qualify for reimbursement for works done or that I am not permitted by £10 per day stipend for 24/7 on-site attendance? Ridiculous and yet another example of Mrs Hillgarth’s vindictive and pathological jealousy myself and MHML) and
(e) that there was an unauthorised overspend of £858; (unauthorised by who? MHML manages the block, the works, the day to day running and unless a particular single works is to cost