Page 262 - (A) Mammoth (998pp)

Aside from the ;ding of the cabling, which can be done without replacing the aerial why do you
want to do this? Why was;ng money replacing something that works instead of doing something that is needed of renova;on (eg. terrazzo floor?).
We went through a process of No;ces and approved a scope of work not including any TV aerial. You are not authorised to spend our money for other works outside of that scope in the sec;on 20 No;ce, unless there are urgent con;ngencies.
In addi;on, in your e-mail dated 2 September 2014 you said (quo;ng your own words) “The cost [for the TV aerial] will be met from future reserves during 2015 at a rate per flat over 4 quarters of £96 each lessee meaning no one has to pay any addi;onal sums whatsoever.”
Why are you now asking to pay £108 per quarter addi;onal funds for the whole 2015 (see your e- mail dated 17 September 2014) and the addi;onal £2,000 as part of the latest demand? This is a clear example of how you are managing the budget, and the lack of transparency. In the span of 2 weeks we moved from a no funding statement to a request of funds both for addi;onal service charge and one off reserves. No wonder why essen;ally independently none of the 6 lessees’ cons;tu;ng the majority has yet to pay any addi;onal fund.
LiL
Along the same lines of your behaviour of disposing of our reserve fund outsides of the scope of works is the liL. You said we could not it in the scope of work the liL refurbishment.
I turn-up in the building a few days ago and surprisingly the liL is very purely painted in a totally random golden colour (agached picture for everyone’s benefit), which is exactly what you had proposed two years ago and the majority already rejected. Who decided that and why?
We voted it to be painted in a certain way (dark grey or black to avoid scratches and dust). You said we could not afford any refurbishment of the liL and then suddenly you painted yourself (I assume) without any no;ce. Who's going to pay for the paint and the job? Why have you unilaterally decided that it was a good use of our money instead of keeping it for the con;ngencies? Why rushing such decision by doing the pain;ng so early, even before the actual start of the works?
It is a bit contradictory to ask for addi;onal funds if nobody knows how the exi;ng funds will be spent and everyone is totally confused by the fact that we have a lot of money available - substan;ally sufficient to cover what was agreed - but you are doing extra works not required or agreed and asking for more money. Who is gejng paid for those?
Scope of works and costs
We have gone through a process of No;ces whereby you have submiged a scope of work - cut it at your choice to match the reserves available - and agree to contract A R Lawrence to perform the en;re works for £105,019.
Despite that, it appears you con;nue making changes to the works, some of which – based on what you said - are genera;ng savings. For instance in your e-mail dated 13 September 2014 you said “Since the scaffolding commenced installa;on on Sunday 31st August, exactly two weeks ago, dead on schedule, Management have already saved Lessees £1177.56 OFF the agreed and budgeted £105, 019.”
While I appreciate making savings if the final outcome is unchanged is good, I struggle understanding how this is happening. If you have a fix descrip;on of works, cost and a contractor, how can you generate savings without changing one of the above (the works or contractor?). Is A R Lawrence accep;ng to do the same works for less? This would be very good news and a further reason not to overfund our reserves of we con;nue on schedule and on budget.
If any real savings are made, they should be used against con;ngencies as opposed to funding unwanted works (such as the TV aerial), excluding wanted works, such as pain;ng two colours rather than one which mul;ple source have confirmed has no impact on the final cost.
We con;nue to believe that much clarity would be provided if you could share the detailed schedule indica;ng what works are being carried out, by whom and at which cost and how would
the payment be made over ;me. This informa;on must exist and is not confiden;al - as you claim –