Page 18 - STATEMENT OF CASE re-OCR s22_1

18
Section 7.13 Section 8.1
Section 8.8 Section 9.1 Section 9.7 Section 10.17
Section 10.22
Section 10.24 Section 12.2
Section 12.3 Section 12.5 Section 12.6 Section 12.7
Section 12.10 Section 13.11 Section 19.1 Section 20.1
Demands for money not clear and understandable as required by the Code of Practice
Demands for administrative charges not accompanied by a notice summarizing tenants' rights as required. Failure to follow statutory consultation procedures
Regular inspections of lifts and boilers by qualified personnel not undertaken as required
Obligation to monitor quality of water not complied with.
Obligations under Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 to maintain electrical equipment not fulfilled.
No statutory lift inspections undertaken on an annual basis as required.
The Code of Practice requires service charges to be no more than reasonable (the tenants believe the serv- ice charges have been and are unreasonable). No long-term planned maintenance programme in place. Money in reserve funds and advance payments not held on trust. No investment of client/tenant monies as required.
Code of Practice requires that summaries provided in response to a request for information must cover all costs incurred by the landlord for works and services. This has not been respected.
Obligation to make accounts, receipts and supporting documents available for inspection has not been ful- filled.
Obligation to reply to request for inspection within one month not fulfilled. Managing agents and landlords should only undertake property-related repairs where they are competent to do so. This has not been re- spected.
Obligation to declare interests with contractors not fulfilled.
Obligation to define duties of contractors not fulfilled.
Harassment of tenants is not permitted by law or the Code of Practice Obligation to ensure all contractors have appropriate public liability insurance not undertaken
Not all contractors have issued appropriately detailed invoices as required. No programme of cyclical main- tenance has been undertaken.
No procedures for handling disputes.
No complaints/ grievance procedures.
(comment/reply) If we have been, we must simply try harder but would dispute many if not all and would welcome specific examples from each code to prove authenticity of accusation.
16.. Breakdown of Relationship
Finally it is clear that the relationship between Mr Brown-Constable and certain of the leaseholders (includ- ing Mrs Hillgarth) has become "toxic", and therefore it is just and convenient to remedy this irrevocable breakdown in the relationship by removing the management function from MHML and appointing an inde- pendent managing agent who can take a dispassionate view.
Given that the current management and service charge arrangements pit the interests of three of the direc- tors (who are directors and shareholders of MHML, as well as leaseholders) against the interests of the re- maining six leaseholders, the owner of the freehold of Mitre House Royal London Insurance Limited (acting through their solicitors Macfarlanes) has recently recommended the directors of MHML to issue shares to those leaseholders at Mitre House who do not presently hold shares in MHML.
(comment/reply) NOT substantially already well covered in previous correspondence - BUT we will rely on presentation of all correspondence to date including initial 23 March letter with comments attached, Draft Crime Report dated 12 July with comments attached, all with supporting documents to explain or deny as required.
I suppose after what we’ve put up with to date you’d want to throw in everything including the “kitchen sink!” Surely this has to be the definition of vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of process.