Page 3 - STATEMENT OF CASE re-OCR s22_1

4 MHML is precluded by the terms of its head lease, and the directors of MHML are precluded by the terms of their respective leases, from running a business at the Property, and therefore should not be conducting the management of the Property at/from Mitre House.
Further information outlined on the Third Schedule (Item 4)
5 MHML does not provide any of the safeguards for leaseholders/tenants which would be available from a proper professionally qualified managing agent, (such as a formal complaints procedure and profes- sional indemnity insurance).
(comment/reply) We do not consider minimal secretarial facilities, (24 hour emergency phone for tenants, a computer & a printer, as found in most homes today) in Mr Brown-Constable’s flat whilst he is also in residence and in attendance on site 24/7 for the benefit of only the residents constitutes running a business as per the covenant as laid down in all leases. Indeed all leases make clear that a staff flat can be provided for a porter or concierge such as Mr PBC.
(comment/reply) MHML has £100,000 Professional Indemnity, is a member of the government ap- proved PRS (Property Redress Scheme since Octber 2014) and a member of the RLA (Residen- tial Landlord’s Association, which we consider more than adequate for the caretaking of the 9 residential flats at Mitre House (of which all directors/shareholders are also owner/lessees), and in keeping costs to a minimum for the benefit of all lessees.
Further information outlined on the Third Schedule (Item 5)
6 MHML is abusing its position as head lessee by imposing management charges on the leaseholders/tenants at market rates comparable with or exceeding those which would be charged by an appropriately qualified and regulated managing agent offering relevant safeguards.
comment/reply) Annual Service Charge/Reserve annual costs, including fees charged by MHML, to Lessees (over the six year period of our tenure) are only £54 per annum per lessee more in 2017 today than lessees were paying our previous Agents (KFH) in 2011. And our fees include 24/7 on site attention and very careful attention to all expenditure, both contract and misc.
Further information outlined on the Third Schedule (Item 6)
7 MHML has failed to follow statutory requirements following receipt of consultation notices pursuant to Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and MHML (and/or Mr Paul Brown-Constable, one of MHML's directors) have fraudulently remunerated themselves out of monies made available by the leaseholders to pay an agreed contractor engaged pursuant to the Section 20 procedure.
(comment/reply) All required s.20 Notices were raised correctly and processed correctly and there was no fraudulent remuneration made to any parties including MHML or its directors.
Further information outlined on the Third Schedule (Item 7)
8 MHML has presented inadequate and/or false service charge accounts to the leaseholders containing incorrect and/or misleading information.
(comment/reply) We have supplied identical Accounts (since 2012) mirroring the same format and information as indicated in both our previous agents’ KFH and other Agents’ such as Knight Frank/Wellcome Trust showing the same information in their end of year Accounts.
Further information outlined on the Third Schedule (Item 8)
3