Page 11 - 73_PBC to Begg_9-12-16 (20pp)
P. 11

and pathological jealousy of MHML
more than £250 per lessee, any amount can be sanctioned if valid and required with no ref erence to any lessee - as you well know!!! And with reference to your comment of repaying lessees the additional costs from savings made, the 20 odd jobs executed around Mitre House outside of the main schedule of works were all done piecemeal and individu ally (which is one of your complaints surely?) costed and none if any breached the £250 x 9 indi vidual costs. And even if they did, a budget of £105,019 had been agreed, and confirmed in our ”game set and match” emails as to be sufficient and would include all additional works outside of the main schedule of works - I, and any sane thinking experienced lessee in these types of works can live with an £858 overspend which is pennies compared to what AR  Lawrence would have overspent had MHML not kept them on a very tight leash. You can refer Mrs H back to the substantial overspends by our previous agents running into thou sands, not a mere £858 on £105k budget. Another example of Mrs Hillgarth’s vindictive
(f) that you have offset, against retained shareholders funds attributable to Mr Hillgarth, the  sum of £2,582.74 in respect of MHML's charges for dealing with the failed RTM application.
(reply) Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date? I sug- gest Mrs Hillgarth references our website for information on costs involved in progressing an RTM, or, as that particular information is now unavailable due to her spiteful pettiness (and a proof-per- fect example of her pathological jealousy of MHML) I suggest she seeks professional advice, some- thing she was advised to do as way back as 2013. (The loud Rock music still is, though, in situ, although I’m sure she’d agree that the Marseillaise is not considered Rock ‘n Roll)
We say the extra work you claim to have done is irrelevant.(irrelevant to whom and thought irrelevant by whom?) It was neither requested, (Hemi, Wade, Grangewood, meetings to discuss and approve etc - see “game set and match emails dated 11th and 13th September) nor was it  necessary, (in that case why did Mrs Hillgarth source quotes etc - Hemi, Wade, Grangewood, meetings to discuss and approve etc - see “game set and match emails dated 11th and 13th September) and you carried it out in a very poor way (photographs will be available in due course). (oh yes, I’m sure Mrs “Property Devel- oper” Hillgarth knows good work from bad as a perusal of her own Flat 5 front door well evidences whilst sub-letting it (without permission) for £600 p.w - this is a thoroughly mischievous observa- tion.
Then there are the issues on which we disagree, or where there is a dispute as to the facts, which  will need to be determined by the court. These are:
1. We say that the admissions (a) to (f) above clearly put you in breach of Section 20, the legal  conse- quence of which is that MHML and/or yourself are obliged to repay to the lessees all sums  expended by them on the refurbishment in excess of £250. (covered in your item (e) above...) Your position appears to be that you  were not in breach of Section 20 because:
(a) All the work was (you say) either done by AR Lawrence or subcontractors of AR Lawrence.
(it was.....who else did any of AR Lawrence’s tendered schedule of works - I didn’t)
In  your letter to me dated 10 June 2016 you said that: "all my work was done with approval and  under supervision by both AR Lawrence and our Surveyor". You claimed that had your work '
been of "substandard or unprofessional quality would have been required to be corrected  by both AR Lawrence and our Surveyor." (yes quite true - and obvious - had the lights been blink ing on and off or the lift with wet paint and not working etc you can bet your life that
AR Lawrence’s crew or our Surveyor or the Freeholder’s surveyor would have made comment? - but that’s history - see below for yet another “game set and match”) You have asked me for an example — ”just one" of  your habit of telling lies (my habit - are you kidding me? You’ve only got to re-read either “game set and match” to see who the real culprit of economies of the truth actually is!). This claim that AR Lawrence were supervising and respon sible for  your work (responsible - supervising? who’s adding fibs now?) is just one example. It will be for the court to determine whether or not your  evidence is to be preferred to that of Mr Tony White, who denies absolutely that you were a  sub-contractor or that he was in any way responsible for your work.
(reply) - yup, you’ve almost got me there (I was expecting the website reference though) - but not quite I’m afraid... see the attached from your main independent Witness for the Prosecution -
“Possibly a further statement agreeing that the other works done by yourself and others was up to a good standard in my view.”

   9   10   11   12   13