Page 752 - (A) Mammoth (998pp)

From: GraffitiEditions<studio@graffiti.biz> Subject: Re:Flat5'sreply
Date: 11 February 2013 21:35:11 GMT
To: MicheleHillgarth<michele@hillgarthart.com>
Cc: ChristopherLeigh-Pemberton<clp@sw12group.com>,MariaLeoni-Sceti<mleonisceti@gmail.com>,SamyaRiad<riadsf@gmail.com>,
Diego & Susanna Fortunati <diego.fortunati@baml.com>, Diego & Susanna Fortunati <susannagnecco@hotmail.com>, Segar
Karupiah <segar_9@hotmail.com>, Jamil Raja <J.Raja@jraja.co.uk>
Bcc: LornaRaby<lornaraby@mac.com>,PaulBrown-Constable<studio@graffiti.biz>
2 Attachments, 2.9 MB
Dear Michele and indeed those that agree with her,
This is now getting ridiculous and a total waste of mine, Management's and other Lessees's time and patience. You have, in time memorial, been difficult and seem totally incapable of accepting facts as described, information as supplied and sensible suggestions to follow. You have argued and disagreed, not just with me but previous Agents, other Lessees and probably some of your sub-let tenants, let alone your letting Agents as well.
You refused to allow previous Agents to supply your contact details to Lessees or members of the Resident's Association. You refused to contribute or agree to the installation of a Communal Sky dish so denying the rest of us a useful and much needed facility. You've threatened previous Agents with applications to the LVT on numerous occasions. You refused to contact the Residents Association despite pleadings by previous Agents.
So there can be no misunderstanding or denial to these accusations, I attach for your's and other Lessees' consideration correspondence between yourself and previous Agents which is irrefutable evidence of your contrariness. Myself especially, and also Management are now having to put up with the exact same nonsense - it just goes on and on with one nefarious, inaccurate, ill founded accusation after another, despite very detailed time consuming answers.
I am copying this to one and all because your reply was also copied, but more importantly because at some stage it has to be finally and totally established by your majority associates, and confirmed in writing by each as opposed to innuendo from you, if indeed Management really is as incompetent, ineffective and ineffectual as you infer, based on all the relevant information supplied to date including the 2012 Report To Lessees, the Revised Decor Spreadsheet and facts and figures mentioned in subsequent correspondence. I want to hear specific, detailed complaints as to what we are NOT doing. Not what we've done. And that does NOT include complaints as to NOT listening to Lessee's whims and wishes as regards hiring Agents, going ahead with certain improvements and arranging items for Lessee's consideration. We know your's and some other Lessee's dislike - does that include the Mail Basket on the front door for instance?
Detailed complaints as to what we are NOT doing would be: not collecting the Demands, not paying the bills, not attending to Lessee requests for help/suggestions/facilities etc; failing to maintain the place, not keeping the place clean, not fixing things that are boken etc etc - NOT, though whinging about dead plants, mirrors, clocks, hanging baskets, plants and God forbid, salacious religious jokes let alone Nudes adorning the 3rd Floor.
Do you really think anyone in their right mind would spend £18,000 on cleaning a floor when it can be done quite adequately for £800..? You recommended a Solicitor for the purchase of the Headlease who quoted £10,000. We used mine for £2500, which so impressed you that he was subsequently retained by you for your lease extension. Wade's flooring quotes are loaded by 35% which is both normal, legal and exactly what I would do when hiring sub-contractors.
Believe it or not, we're trying to reduce costs across the board. With you steering the boat, we'd be borrowing money.
But, in answer to your email, it seems my letter of 6th February in reply to yours and others of 4th and 5th February did not explain the situation. It also appears that my email of yesterday 7 February was also not understood.
To be fair I am a total loss as to how to make the position clear. And in truth I can't quite understand your email of today most especially the mention of Out of the blue, for the first time, Management has decided to have a very “expensive, extensive External refurbishment”.
I think £80,000 would be a steal if we can get away with it - the Surveyor's bill is around £10,000....and that was 9 years ago!
I understand and fully appreciate what you and the supposed majority supposedly wish for, but regret that Management are firstly not obliged to entertain those wishes nor indeed agree with those wishes for the reasons well explained in correspondence for months.
And please, it's not Management that approaches the LVT, its disaffected and disagreeable Lessees who do with their justifiable/or not complaints for LVT's considerations and subsequent decision to force a change of Management. How many more times must I advise you to proceed.
We have given you and other non satisfied Lessees a very amicable and fair compromise in my email of 7 February so you can proceed with whatever Internals you desire, with whom you desire to use and with whatever budget you wish to appropriate. You, as a Director of Management would be totally responsible for the project and could Project Manage alongside whomsoever you decide to appoint.
It would be at that stage that comments and suggestions for the communal areas could be variously debated, but I do thoroughly agree that if the type, size, content etc of, as an example, the Prints/frames at present in situ on the 3rd floor for Lessee comment and suggestion/approval or not, be decided as not appropriate, (or very much liked), under any circumstances, be they smaller frames, traditional prints etc etc - all pretty much as was requested by Management for Lessees to do... make comment as to size, type, position