Page 11 - STATEMENT OF CASE re-OCR s22_1

under the Section 20 process, and contractors approved to carry it out, it is not open to MHML, except with the consent of the leaseholders (which MHML did not have), to deviate unilaterally from the ap- proved scheme of work or from the contractors engaged to carry it out. The legal consequence of that is to render any charge to the leaseholders in excess of £250 per leaseholder irrecoverable from them. The leaseholders will make application to the court for the recovery of sums paid by them in excess of £250 for the refurbishment.
Mr Brown-Constable was challenged to explain how MHML had managed to spend the sum of £33,354 (this being MHML's aggregate expenditure of £105,877 according to the Service Charge Accounts, less their actual expenditure paid to AR Lawrence and to the surveyor totalling £72,523) on improvements which the leaseholders allegedly wanted MHML to make outside the Schedule of Works. In a letter dated 30 June 2016 (Item 10) Mr Brown-Constable admitted that the sum of £31,765.21 had been charged by "MHML and their various sub-contractors" although he has so far failed to say how much of this sum was retained by MHML and how much was paid to MHML's sub-contractors. He has also de- clined to explain how much he personally had charged to MHML for the work undertaken by him. This remains unclear.
Mr Brown-Constable has also admitted (Item 11- see his letter dated 30 June 2016 which attaches his comments superimposed on a letter from Mr Begg dated 21 June 2016) that a retention sum of £1,590 due to AR Lawrence and which still remains unpaid (see Witness Statement of Tony White) had been in- cluded in the "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 in the Service Charge Accounts, notwithstanding that this sum had not yet been paid.
By way of explanation of his role Mr Brown-Constable has claimed in a letter to Mr Begg dated 10 June 2016 -Item 12) that he was doing the work as a sub-contractor of AR Lawrence or under their supervi- sion. He says that had his work been of "substandard or unprofessional quality ..... it would have been required to be corrected by both AR Lawrence and our Surveyor." This is denied absolutely by Tony White (see his Witness Statement). According to Tony White, Mr Brown-Constable was not in fact, as he had claimed, working as a sub-contractor of AR Lawrence or under their supervision. AR Lawrence op- eratives may well have seen what Mr Brown-Constable was doing, but they were in no way responsible for his work in the way Mr Brown-Constable had suggested.
In the latest letter from Mr Begg to Mr Brown-Constable dated 7 July 2016 (Item 13) Mr Brown-Consta- ble was asked (a) How much had been charged by him personally to MHML for the work he did on the refurbishment? (b) What profit did MHML make on the £31,765.21 it charged to the lessees for the re- furbishment? In other words what was the difference between the £31,765.21 it charged to the lessees and the total amount paid by MHML to its sub-contractors? In his letter dated 7 July 2016, with com- ments superimposed on Mr Begg's letter of the same date (see Item 14) Mr Brown-Constable simply re- sponds to each question: "t don't consider that a valid query". It is believed that the reason for this evasive response is that these questions cannot be answered truthfully without admitting fraud.
(comment/reply) already well covered in previous correspondence - repetitious & explained - We will rely on presentation of all correspondence to date including initial 23 March letter with com- ments attached, Draft Crime Report dated 12 July with comments attached, all with supporting documents to explain or deny as required.
8. False Accounting in the 2014 Service Charge Accounts.
According to Mr Brown-Constable (see Item 11) "the £105,877 figure [this being the "Reserves utilised" figure of £105,877 shown in the Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014] includes .... £1,590 due to AR Lawrence once final snagging is accomplished". It is unclear why this unpaid re- tention is accounted for as monies paid rather than being charged as a provision. Nor is it clear whether the £105,877 also includes a reserve for other unpaid contractors (of which there is at least one - see the final paragraph of Tony White's Witness Statement).
This is not the only accounting anomaly. The Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2014 clearly state that no surveyor's fees were paid or accrued in 2014 (see page 8 which shows a nil entry for 2014 in respect of the line item marked "Surveyor's Fees"). However in a letter dated 10 June 2016 Mr Brown-Constable asserts that surveyor's fees were in fact paid in 2014 and that these were in-
11