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

(c) Compensation for Leaseholders
Each leaseholder should be repaid or credited with their due share of the amount charged  by MHML for the unapproved work carried out in the course of the refurbishment by  your self and your sub-contractors.
I hope you will see that this is a generous proposal (not nearly as generous as our counter-pro- posal which would be for Mrs Hillgarth to fully to comply with all her Flat 5 Mitre House lease covenants; make a reasonable payment to MHML for our time and costs expended in dealing with this recent intrusion into our quiet and peaceful management of Mitre House;(oh dear - read above your own reference to 23 Sept email) relinquish her £1 share- holding in MHML and confirm in writing that most if not all accusations made in correspon- dence to date and correspondence to third parties were totally fictitious malevolent and malicious lies and innuendos with not a shred of evidence in support, whereas all denials have been confirmed and proven as untrue with supporting “hundreds of pages of relevant attachments”) which will avoid court proceedings (indeed so will ours) and will save  you (not to mention Mr Karupiah and Mr Raja) from spending 2017 in the same way as you have  spent most of 2016). (like catching Mrs Hillgarth out time after time ad nauseam) Please will you discuss this offer with your co-directors (I have and our counter-proposal is confirmed as appropriate) and, if you would like to  accept it, please let me know by no later than close of business on Friday 16 December. If it has not  been accepted by that date, the offer will forthwith lapse and be with- drawn. Court proceedings will  then inevitably ensue including a claim for Mrs Hillgarth's legal costs.(which is appreciated must by now be even more substantial to date than those she ran up over her RTM fiasco, but hardly of our concern - more yours!)
(reply) See final comment following the previous “Nuts” barb to your ridiculous proposals.
(reply) Such a shame our offer to comply “We have all original invoices referred to in your 23 March 2016 letter available for inspection. We also have photocopies of all invoices. I suggest we have both originals and copies couriered over to your office requiring only the originals to be returned after satisfaction” on 1st April 2016 was ignored.
Maybe it was considered an April Fool’s joke? Our counter-proposal is not, though.
I will again remind you and your client (who without doubt is writing this repetitive drivel) of British sang froid when faced with such ludicrous suggestions as those initially proposed in your previous ad nauseam correspondence and yet again somewhat revised above, of Lt. Colonel Frost’s response at Arnhem in September 1944 when requested to surrender... “Go to Hell” he barked, with Major Harry Carlyle adding with typical Great British humour, “we cannot accept your surrender.....we don’t have the facilities to accommodate you! Is there anything else?”
When advised, Lt. General Bittrich, the German commander ordered, “Flatten Arnhem”. I think we both know who got flattened eventually.....
Yours sincerely,
P.F.C.Begg Solicitor
CC Segar Karupiah Jamil Raja 
Sefton Solomon

   16   17   18   19   20