Page 15 - STATEMENT OF CASE re-OCR s22_1

Mr Fortunati also asked about the status of the electricity and telephone wiring at the building, and for certification that it was compliant with relevant regulations. This was something which Mrs Hillgarth had been requesting, without success, for some two years. As Mr Fortunati pointed out, fixing and properly testing the electricity and telephone lines should have been the first thing carried out by any profes- sional management team. He wanted to know how it was possible that (despite a surveyor apparently having been instructed before the works started) major liabilities such as the electrics and the water tank should have been discovered in the middle of the works rather than before starting. (These issues remain moot. In a more recent letter to leaseholders dated 15 March 2016, enclosing MHML's second quarter demand for 2016, Mr Brown-Constable advised the leaseholders that further electrical work/electrical metering replacement was to be done, and that further engineering work was to be car- ried out on the lift. Again this was not planned expenditure and ought arguably to have been encom- passed within the original refurbishment project).
In his e-mail of 22 September 2014 Mr Fortunati also complained that, having initially told the lease- holders that refurbishment of the lift could not be afforded/included in the scope of the work, Mr Brown- Constable had unilaterally chosen to paint the lift gold - a scheme he had proposed two years earlier and which the majority had already rejected. (The majority had voted for it to be painted dark grey or black). Seemingly Mr Brown-Constable had undertaken this work himself, without any notice to the leaseholders, and before the actual refurbishment works had started. Not surprisingly Mr Fortunati wanted to know who would be paying for the paint and for this unwanted/unapproved job.
Like the other leaseholders, Mr Fortunati struggled to understand how MHML could be generating sav- ings without changing the scope of the works or changing the contractor. He enquired of Mr Brown- Constable whether AR Lawrence had agreed to do the same works for less. He wanted Mr Brown-Constable to share with the leaseholders a detailed schedule indicating exactly what works were being carried out, by whom, and at what cost, and how payment for those works was to be made over time. Not only did Mr Brown-Constable fail to answer those questions but he went so far as to block AR Lawrence from speaking to any of the leaseholders.
(comment/reply) Correspondence of the period will disprove these allegations. 13. Rudeness
Mr Brown-Constable's subsequent response to Mr Fortunati's considered and well-reasoned email speaks for itself. On 22 September 2014 he replied to Diego and Susanna Fortunati (copying a number of other leaseholders): "Thank you for your predicted and anticipated emails of which has been cov- ered in previous emails [actualIy it hadn't] and all of which indicate a total ignorance of good manage- ment and Landlord & Tenant Act. [Actually the opposite is true; Mr Fortunati's e-mail demonstrates a good grasp of both]. I can't work out whether you are totally stupid or just retarded - I suspect both" "How about if we got lucky and you got run over crossing the road?" "Which word don't you understand in Pay up or Shut up?"
In a separate response to Mrs Hillgarth's e-mail of 29 September 2014 (also copied to other lessees) Mr Brown-Constable wrote: "In truth I couldn't give a rats arse whether the water tank gets replaced". His belligerence was such that on 30 September 2014 Mrs Hillgarth felt the need to be accompanied by a police officer when she attended at Mr Brown-Constable's flat to collect some keys. She had felt very apprehensive following his e-mail of 13 September 2014 in which he stated that "I've had enough of your duplicity and yes [referring to Mrs Hillgarth's visit the previous day] I slammed the door. I just don't trust you and in the present climate, it would not be advisable for us to be in contact unless others are present". Rudeness of any sort is never acceptable from a proper managing agent. Flagrant abuse of this kind borders on criminal harassment.
(comment/reply) Fully apologised for but made clear that there were extenuating circumstances all as explained in correspondence of the period and certainly disproving “persistently” as there exists perhaps 4 or 5 examples over a 3 year period of 1800 emails and all within a 4 week period in 2014.
15