Page 195 - (A) Mammoth (998pp)

From: Subject: Date: To: Cc:
Fortunati, Diego - GCIB LDN diego.fortunati@baml.com Mitre House
6 October 2014 10:28
Mitre House Management Ltd studio@graffiti.biz
Jamil Raja J.Raja@jraja.co.uk, segar karupiah segar_9@hotmail.com, Maria Leoni-Sceti mleonisceti@gmail.com, ivan@osullivanproperty.co.uk, Christopher Leigh Pemberton clp@sw12group.com, susannagnecco@hotmail.com, Samya Riad riadsf@gmail.com, Michele Hillgarth mhillgarth@gmail.com
Dear Paul,
I’m wri/ng on my own, but I must say that I sense others have the same feelings: you have generated the utmost confusion at Mitre House, with poten/ally economic (and not only) damages.

We have experienced years where management was done by third par/es: no material issues were raised, we did not have to read thousands of eEmails E at /mes threatening and offensive E and it was cos/ng us the same management fee you charge or even less.

The confusion and disorienta/on, is due to the massive amount of irrelevant informa/on provided every /me we ask for a simple ques/on and in mul/ple occasions informa/on provided are incorrect or change by the minute and therefore are irrelevant.
Just think about the TV aerial saga: never requested; you included it in the works for free, if possible; then asked for money; then said no money so no TV aerial (echoed by your two fellow directors); then threatened us and reEinserted it in the works asking for money again. All documented.

Everyone can understand different things are possible and savings can be achieved, but why are we not using the funds you have decided to use for the TV aerial to do something the majority wanted to do? Why not doing a proper deep Terrazzo floor or liS renova/on?

This is the problem. People disagree with the way you are using our money versus what proposed and agreed. We landed on the final sec/on 20 No/ce aSer a long process and sadly most of the /mes having to accept, based on your indica/ons, what could or could not be done. Then suddenly the works started and you started changing the scope of the works, somehow ignoring the whole process. You changed the cards on the table and con/nue asking everyone’s to hold theirs. On top of that have started a blackmail campaign.

I am fine paying the addi/onal £2,000 as per the approved Sec/on 20 No/ce, which I will do later today and receive back my money for the water tank. However, I am warning that I will require a detailed review and comparison of the scope of works agreed and executed once completed, including access to the surveyors’ report that confirm what has been done and paid for is at least what was agreed in the sec/on 20 no/ce.
You said you receive recurrent reports from the Surveyors, why don't you distribute them broadly to us so we can keep up to date on works and payments?

Based on precedent correspondence aSer payment of these addi/onal funds I now expect that the works, to be en/rely performed by A.R Lawrence, include (as per the emails sent by Management on 22 September 2014), in addi/on to all the rest stated in the sec/on 20 no/ce:

1. TV aerial
2. Interior pain/ng in three colours of choice of the majority of the Lessees 3. Specialist terrazzo floor renova/on
4. Front Door renova/on/stripping & new door furniture/bell push etc