Page 13 - STATEMENT OF CASE re-OCR s22_1

Brown-Constable had wanted from the outset, but which was absolutely unacceptable to the majority. Again it is potentially fraudulent, in the absence of a proper explanation, to take the leaseholders' money on the pretext that it will be used for a purpose they have approved, and then to use it for a purpose they have not approved, to suit one's own taste.
Apparently the money saved by no longer proceeding with a third colour (cost approx £1,875 as ad- vised) had been used to pay the annual insurance premium. But an insurance premium is a regular predictable expense which in any well-run management regime should come out of the regular serv- ice charge. MHML's unorthodox methodology, using the alleged savings from a one off project to pay a predictable and recurring charge, begs the question whether Mitre House would have been insured at all if no savings had been generated on the project.
(comment/reply) We note you insist on refusing to accept correspondence which disproves. 10. Other failures to provide information
During the course of the scheduled refurbishment work a number of additional items were under- taken opportunistically, outside the remit of the scope of works approved under Section 20 - specifi- cally a new water tank, a communal Sky TV aerial, window repairs etc. In an e-mail to Mrs Hillgarth dated 23 March 2015, in response to her numerous requests to see supplier invoices relating to these items, Mr Brown-Constable said: "Those invoices you are now requesting ..... will be available to view once the annual accounts are finalised. They weren't. He insisted on supplying his own MHML invoices.
In particular a "Special lnvoice" from MHML dated 7 October 2014 "to re-cable and re-install your Flat 5 existing Sky dish to Mitre House Communal system" does not say (as one might reasonably have expected): "as carried out and invoiced by [named] installers" but rather "as quoted/costed by [un- named] installers". It reads as though Mr Brown-Constable obtained a quote for doing this work but then either did the work himself, or through another cheaper contractor, for the price quoted by a third party. This point remains unexplained.
On 23 March 2016 a number of questions were put to Mr Brown-Constable formally through Mrs Hill- garth's solicitor. These requested a breakdown/ explanation of the "Reserves utilised" which, accord- ing to the Service Charge Accounts for the year to 31 December 2016, amounted to £105,877 against the budgeted figure of £105,019.38 for the agreed works. If the whole of this sum of £105,877 had not been paid to AR Lawrence & Sons Ltd, to whom had the balance been paid? Had any pay- ments been made to MHML, or to any director of MHML, or to any person, firm or company con- nected with MHML or any of its directors? As regards the additional charges made to Mrs Hillgarth and others, outside the scope of the approved refurbishment scheme, including those for a water tank replacement (£867.87), communal TV Sky and HD (£593), a Sky Dish re-install re cable (£250) and for keys (£50), MHML was asked to supply the original supplier invoices for these items, not the MHML invoices/statements which Mr Brown-Constable had supplied on 18-21 September 2015.
Mr Brown-Constable has a duty as a director of MHML, the head lessor managing (or purporting to manage) Mitre House, to supply this information. He has failed to do so. Under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Mrs Hillgarth and other leaseholders have the right to inspect ac- counts, receipts, and other documents supporting the accounts summary, and MHML is obliged to af- ford her reasonable facilities to do so, including the ability to take copies or extracts.
(comment/reply) No requests were received within the statutory 6 month period as is con- firmed by Mrs M. Hillgarth (applicant) in her Witness Statement (Para 73).
11. Blackmail and Intimidation
At paragraphs 43-73 of her Witness Statement, Mrs Hillgarth has made serious allegations that Mr Brown-Constable attempted to blackmail and intimidate her in September/October 2014, in the course of the refurbishment project at Mitre House. Specifically the allegation, which is supported and evidenced by detailed e-mail correspondence, is that by threatening unpleasant but unrelated re- criminations (as'detailed in the statement) Mr Brown-Constable tried to pressure her (a) to pay cer-
13