Page 16 - STATEMENT OF CASE re-OCR s22_1

16
14. Private Benefit - Mr Brown-Constable's own Flat
In the course of the refurbishment works it became clear that Mr Brown-Constable was having his own flat decorated at the same time. In view of the existing uncertainties about what AR Lawrence were doing (or not doing) the suspicion arose that Mr Brown-Constable's own flat was perhaps being decorated at the expense of the other tenants at Mitre House. Thus on 13 August 2014 Mr Christopher Leigh-Pemberton (Flat 8) wrote to Mr Brown-Constable to ask for his confirmation that there was no element of personal benefit to him arising from the use of AR Lawrence as the contractors for the overall Mitre House project.
In his response of the same date, timed at 10.35, Mr Brown-Constable wrote: "even if I was using A&R Lawrence (which I am not) its none of anybody's business save mine". This was consistent with an e-mail timed at 7.45 on the same date to Mr Diego Fortunati (Flat 9), when Mr Brown-Constable wrote: "I am doing the works in the flat myself'. However both of these emails appeared directly to contradict his earlier e-mail to Mrs Hillgarth on 12 August 2014, timed at 5.54 pm, in which Mr Brown-Constable had written: "My flat is being done by Benitor and AR Lawrence after hours and weekends" (this notwithstanding that work is not al- lowed after 6pm).
Either Mr Brown-Constable was decorating his flat himself, or it was being done (whether wholly or partly) by contractors. It is not possible that both of these statements were true. Mr Brown-Constable has yet to answer Mr Leigh-Pemberton's (perfectly appropriate) enquiry as to whether there has been any element of personal benefit to him.
(comment/reply) Correspondence of the period will disprove these allegations.
15. Use of Common Parts for office space
The leaseholders have photographic evidence to show that Mr Brown-Constable has (or had) abrogated to himself certain of the common parts at Mitre House to serve as his office, or one of his offices at the Property. This is contrary to the terms of his lease.
(comment/reply) “photographic evidence?”one photo of a store cupboard - are you kidding? - Another example of (applicant) Mrs M. Hillgarth’s mischiefmaking
16. The RTM application and fraudulent conversion of Mrs Hillgarth's dividends
Although Mrs Hillgarth had initially been a director of MHML, the company was not under her control and Mrs Hillgarth became concerned at the way things were turning out. Thus in June 2013, while she was still a di- rector of MHML, she attempted to orchestrate a "Right to Manage" application on behalf of herself and other lessees of Mitre House. However the application failed because the property was "non-qualifying" in terms of the relevant legislation (ie there was too much commercial space in relation to the residential space).
Subsequently (and in spite of all the on-going difficulties described above) Mr Brown-Constable and his co-di- rectors found time to remove Mrs Hillgarth as a director of MHML on 18 September 2014. Having done so, Mr Brown-Constable initially sought to impose, through MHML, charges amounting to £2,582.74 for the time spent by himself and other directors in dealing with this "Right to Manage" application. The invoice was ini- tially submitted to a company called Mitre House RTM Company Limited (this being a special purpose com- pany, set up by Mrs Hillgarth and others, to pursue the RTM application). The RTM company had not agreed to pay those charges, and did not do so.
Mrs Hillgarth had also not agreed to pay those charges. Nor did she have any legal obligation to do so. On 6 October 2014 Mr Brown-Constable sent to Mrs Hillgarth a cheque for £67.26, having offset, against an MHML dividend of £2,650 properly payable to her, the sum of £2,582.74 in respect of the MHML charge to the RTM Company. For MHML's convenience, Mr Brown-Constable had simply chosen to offset this arbitrary sum