Page 18 - 73_PBC to Begg_9-12-16 (20pp)
P. 18

budget/cost when due reference to the Notes attached to the accounts is perused - this is simply being awkward for awkward’s sake as you know full well the way it all works - or should do as our accounts have always simply followed what our previous Agents supplied) That is not only my interpretation but that of a qualified chartered accountant. But now you are saying that these  figures should not be aggregated. And that £10,385 has not in fact been spent but remains in  reserves. (exactly where else would it reside along with any other unused funds) This does not show anywhere in your accounts. If you think it does, please point me in the right direction.
£98,262.00  £18,000.00 £12,858.00  £129,120.00
Nor can I reconcile your figure of £10,385 with the figures you have previously given me, which have been as follows: 
Leaseholders funds
Starting Reserves before the Project
Additional contributions
Voluntary Contributions for Water Tank + T\//Sky Leaseholders Funds made available to MHML
Leaseholders’ funds paid out by MHML (per PB-C)
To AR Lawrence 62,010.00  To Surveyor 10,513.00  To PB-C and his subcontractors 31,765.21  For Water Tank + T\//Sky 13,147.00
Leaseholders funds remaining in Reserves after project
This figure of £11,684 represents a difference of nearly £1,300 from your figure of £10,385. If the  money paid out by MHML for the Water Tank and T\//Sky aerial was actually only £12,858 rather  than £13,147, the amount standing to Reserves should increase by £289 to £11,973.79, which is a difference of £1,588.79 from your figure.
(reply) sounds about right with Reserves’ balance actually totalling a very healthy £41,128. 71 and the reason we have been able to reduce the 2017 Quarterlies down from £900 per quarter to only £650 per quarter per lessee resulting in an annual saving per lessee of £600 p.a.
As we have said so many times before, you really need to clarify straightforwardly for the lessees exactly how much money was paid out on the refurbishment and to whom. Your position that you  are not pre- pared to provide a proper account until we apologise for our "lies and innuendos” is  plainly untenable. If you provide a proper account which demonstrates that you have acted  correctly, no doubt an apology could follow. But so long as you continue to withhold relevant  information there is nothing to apologise about, and it becomes increasingly obvious that our accusations are well~founded.
(reply) “no doubt an apology could follow” Sounds suspiciously like an admission! Just how much more information do you need before comprehending replies to date?
If, despite what the accounts appear to say, some of the £136,735 has not in fact been "utilised" but  has been withheld in reserves waiting to be paid (and I am including here any monies still retained  from Tony White and/or the electrician, which you say is in creditors (it is, but NOT £1200 for BES/Nigel Brooks as it was never owed - just another erroneous and mischievous innuendo your client made in her Witness Statement and had the audacity to make Mr White make in his!) you will need to clarify ex- actly  how much remains in reserves and why the accounts were wrongly stated. I suggest you get your accountant/auditor to help you with this. Please bear in mind that the bank accounts of MHML are invisi- ble to the lessees, since you control them. They have no idea how much is in reserves unless you provide them with an honest statement of account.
(reply) Any lessee could simply have asked how much was in Reserves at any time - The request above is actually the very first occasion on which a request has been made to date - and answered. The full and final Reserves figure after any utilised for year ending 2016 will be published, as usual, in the year ending 2016 Accounts summary to be available around mid-march 2017

   16   17   18   19   20