Page 10 - STATEMENT OF CASE re-OCR s22_1

.Replacing all brassworks throughout the building 10 .
.Changing the rear locks
.Buttoning on interior cupboards
.Installation of signage throughout the building
The lighting and electrics [by qualified NICIEC electrician]
"And [per Mr Brown-Constable] probably a lot more"
As stated above, the original budget for the refurbishment was £105,019. This had been understood by the leaseholders to be the contract price tendered by AR Lawrence. However according to a letter from Mr Brown-Constable dated 14 June 2016 (see Item 6) this budget was in fact made up of two separate elements, namely £91,321 (the anticipated bill from AR Lawrence) and £13,698 (the anticipated bill from the surveyors Evens Boyce and Carpenter).
It is fair to say that the lessees had not actually understood that the surveyor's charges were included in the original £105,019 budget, since MHML's Section 20 letter of 22 June 2014 had referred only to the cost of engaging AR Lawrence. No mention had been made of the surveyors. And in a subsequent e-mail of 11 September 2014 (see Item 7) Mr Brown-Constable confirmed to Mrs Hillgarth that the works "are being done by your preferred contractor A&R Lawrence for the agreed budget of £115,019".
According to Mr Brown-Constable in a letter to Mr Begg of 14 June 2016 (see Item 8) the service charge reserves at that time amounted to only £98,262.75 to meet this budget of £105,019. Accord- ingly he collected in a further £18,000 (£2,000 per flat) to meet the expected shortfall of £6,756.25. The surplus of £11,243.75 was for "unforeseen works within the AR Lawrence quote ..... and for any out of the blue emergencies, the lift requiring repairs (quite usual) and any other repairs etc etc". In other words for contingencies.
Having collected in the supplement of £2,000 per flat MHML had total reserves available to them of £116,262.75 (£98,262.75 plus £18,000). This was more than enough to complete the budgeted works, including a reasonable 10% contingency reserve. However according to Tony White's Witness State- ment Mr Brown-Constable pleaded lack of money to Mr White in order to justify a reduction in the scope of works to be undertaken by AR Lawrence.
After making "savings" against the original budget totalling £32,496, achieved primarily by reducing the AR Lawrence specification, (a saving of £29,311 against the originally anticipated AR Lawrence bill) and by reducing by £3,185 the originally anticipated surveyor's bill, MHML's actual expenditure on items within the reduced Schedule of Works totalled only £72,523 (comprising £62,010 paid to AR Lawrence and £10,513 paid to the surveyor).
By way of explanation to the leaseholders Mr Brown-Constable has asserted in correspondence (see again Item 8) that the leaseholders, and in particular Mrs Hillgarth, were insisting that certain items within the Schedule of Works should be excluded in order that other improvements outside the Sched- ule of Works could be included. This was entirely untrue. For her part Mrs Hillgarth has confirmed in a Witness Statement (attached as Item 9)) that she never requested anything but the work which was agreed in the Section 20 Notice issued on 22 June 2014.
As previously stated, once a specification/schedule of work has been approved by the leaseholders