Page 3 - 70_PBC to Begg (Nuts)_16-11-16 (33pp)

his first invoice). We have never ever been in default on received invoices, ever, as indeed our prompt by return payments to AR Lawrence and our Surveyor and indeed any of our sub-contractors will attest to. It would hardly be acceptable to our Freeholder, nor indeed to my fellow directors, or our lessees, if we ran up a bad credit rating or ended up in the small claims court – or worse!
You will note that this very same accusation was raised again (two months after my denial above on 14 June) in Mrs Hillgarth’s Witness Statement dated 10 August where she not only repeats the accusation but now also confirms “I have subsequently been able to verify this information from Mr Brooks himself.”
Does begg the question of why she did not verify at the time she tutored Mr White’s Witness Statement?
Her full statement was (Item 85) “According to Mr White the same scenario happened with an electrician Nigel Brooks who carried out some electrical work at Mitre House in July 2014. He submitted an invoice for £2,095.20, but only got paid £ 1,200, and remains unpaid. I have subsequently been able to verify this information from Mr Brooks himself.”
Consequently I was again required to confirm: (comment/reply) Item 85 - all comprehensively covered in previous correspondence - References such as non payment to “an electrician Nigel Brooks” is a proof perfect example of Mrs Hillgarth’s imagination..... I can confirm, for the umpteenth time, that Mr Brooks was paid £1200 on 11th August 2014 and £1200 on 4th September 2014 - this particular accusation has been repeated by you and Mr Begg and in Mr White’s Witness Statement - it’s a lie, it’s not true and as previously made clear I sug- gest you check with Mr Brooks and refrain from repeating it.
But of course she has, adding? “I have subsequently been able to verify this information from Mr Brooks himself.”
Indicating somebody is lying? But who? And as below states, even Mr White’s edited Statement now dated 8th July 2016 still carries the accusation despite now being 3 weeks after my rebuttal on your 14 June letter?
The relevant significance of this particular erroneous accusation is that, if true, then any accounting of the costs of £31,756.21 made from savings from the agreed budget of £105,019 to include vat and fees for the additional works not in the Schedule of Works would be £1200 short? This would therefore have resulted in further accusations of MHML (me) falsifying actual costs incurred. Yes or No?
Hence the importance of confirming if BES/Nigel Brooks was paid £1200 on 11th August 2014 and £1200 on 4th September 2014 - or not?
To facilitate your decision and to remind Mrs Hillgarth, I attach an email dated 15 June 2016 (REF A) of correspondence between myself and Mr White most especially my email to him which refers to the “Brooks” debt - and would also refer you to multiple rebuttals of this statement and multiple supporting documents sent previously.
(Further comment/reply) As regards your client’s accusation that I was the cause of her los- ing her tenant due to various reasons including my wandering around in my underwear causing the tenant some understandable misgivings (if true), I think that accusation merit- ed explanation and denial, which of course I did with photographic evidence of my overalls being mistaken for underpants.
Both that accusation and that of non-payment to a supplier (as stated in your initial letter of 23 March 2016, in subsequent correspondence including that to our Freeholder and RBK&C), was stated again in both Witness Statements, including yet again on Mr White’s edited version, and in your Draft Crime Report and finally again in your Preliminary Notice... but you appear now to be referencing both above as “peripheral details”, such as whether or not a minor creditor has been paid in full, whether l really had pneumonia, which direc- tor Mrs Hillgarth had lunch with, whether you were wearing your longjohns or your underpants and so on.
I would respectfully surmise that you expended a great deal of time and effort, ink and paper on those items you now consider peripheral details....? So have I done, regrettably, seeing as you did consider them “peripheral details” of no significance or substance!