The olde Mitre House Management 

Maintenance & Management with intelligent,

common sense economies of prime importance..!

Lessee Revolt / First-Tier Tribunal / 23 March 2016

Sadly one Lessee has deemed fit to take Mitre House Management Limited

to task over a miscellany of accusations and innuendos all of which have been strenuously denied and proved as scurrilous and vindictive.

As such, Mitre House Management Limited will be defending our position against an application to Appoint A Manager to be heard at the First-Tier

Tribunal on 26 and 27 June 2017 - this following a visit by Tribunal Members at 10.00am on 26 June 2016 to inspect Mitre House to ascertain its present condition, its decor and most importantly the standard of its management.

It is therefore hoped for and considered an almost racing certainty that the Tribunal Members will be impressed both with the maintenance and decor of the communal areas so denying any accusation of poor or inadequate management which is one of the mainstays of this particular lessee's complaints, alongside accusations of fraud, blackmail, vote rigging, abuse and rudeness, misappropriating Reserves, working illegally from a residential flat as well as appropriating the basement as an alternative bureau, poor and incompetent workmanship, using lessees' Window Repair monies for nefarious uses, using the 2014 works contractors for personal benefit in renovating a director's flat and to cap it all, that same director wandering around in his underwear frightening this compainant's  young sub-let tenant.

Not to mention requiring a Police escort to collect some front door keys!

'J'Accuse....! " - as stated initially in a thirteen page letter from Mrs Michele Hillgarth's Solicitor  dated 23 March 2016..."the story so far..."

Her Solicitor states: "Mrs Hillgarth is also very dissatisfied that she has been denied access to information about the internal and external refurbishment work carried out at Mitre House.  Not only she (on 10 and 15 December 2015), but also Diego Fortunati (on 17 and 21 December 2015) and Christopher Lee-Pemberton (since May 2015) have each pressed you, without success, to provide relevant details of the work carried out and a proper breakdown of the service charge accounts for the year ended 31 December 2014.  In particular they wish to understand the expenditure referred to in the accounts as “reserves utilised”.



In her Witness Statement  dated 8 August 2016 she states:

"I think many of the lessees, including myself, were so completely exasperated and exhausted with dealing with him that we failed to take advantage, within the prescribed period of six months from the date of the service charge accounts, of section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to inspect the invoices supporting MHML's service charge accounts summary.'



? Does raise the first of many queries (and robust denials) of the truthfulness of this particular accusation made in her Solicitor's letter of 23 March 2016 - ...Not only she (on 10 and 15 December 2015), but also Diego Fortunati (on 17 and 21 December 2015) and Christopher Lee-Pemberton (since May 2015) have each pressed you, without success, to provide relevant details of the work carried out and a proper breakdown of the service charge accounts for the year ended 31 December 2014. 


The Vote Rigging Affair: Her Solicitor continues..."On 7 June 2012 you wrote in an e-mail to Susanna [Gnecco]: “If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a dozen times.  It doesn’t matter what you or I want – its what the majority want”.  However it seems you were unwilling, in practice, to respect the wishes of the majority.  When alternative scenarios were put to them, 6 out of 9 flats voted for a “classic” look (as opposed to the “Belle Epoque” look favoured by yourself).  However you engineered the vote by claiming that Samya Riad had voted for “Belle Epoque” (she hadn’t) and by consulting Christopher Leigh-Pemberton’s tenant rather than Mr Leigh-Pemberton himself. "


Another malicious accusation as she might recall her email to me of 7 June 2012 stating; "Dear Paul, sorry to be so annoying, so to make it up why don't you choose. Regards, Michele"


​As regards the reference to Mr Leigh Pemberton and Samya Riad, I would remind Mrs Hillgarth yet again of their emails to me of 7 June 2012, where Mr Leigh Pemberton wrote:  "Re the decorations at Mitre House, I am in favour of Option B." Regards Clp and Samya Riad wrote: "Thanks Paul - I have read the e-mail. Go ahead and I will deal with it in the meeting." Samya


So that's THREE votes that were not rigged or misinterpreted?


​Samya Riad also wrote in an email dated 16 October 2012: "As for the meeting between the five flats that you refer to, there was no vote about anything during this meeting so it cannot be said that agreement was unanimous."


This was repeated in three further emails making clear no vote nor majority on anything.



The Website Affair:


Mrs Hillgarth was initially most enthusiastic with the idea of a website for Mitre House allowing good visual communication for lessees and MHML alike - she made this clear in emails on two occasions, the first in 2011 and again in 2012. ​ She then subsequently thought it unfathomable and a ridiculous waste of time (see below).

​Her animosity towards both MHML and Mr Brown-Constable resulted in her spiteful communication through her Solicitor to Canonbury Management reporting some plagiarism of Canonbury's terms and conditions resulting in a simple phone call from Roger McElroy requesting we delete them. This we did and that was the end of the matter following our email to Mr McElroy sincerely apologising for our mischief and happily inserting Canonbury Magement in pole position on our Contacts page which remains there to date. We still consider Mrs Hillgarth's actions contemptible and proof of her vindictive and spiteful manner.


​She was advised on multiple occasions (as were all lessees) to refer to the website for relevant documents and information which she seemed incapable of doing.


In an email to MHML dated 10 December 2015 (a full year after the works were finished in December 2014) she requested a breakdown of costs incurred during the works programme and was correctly advised to visit the website where all relevant documents to the breakdown of costs could be found. Despite assurances that all breakdowns were in evidence she insisted they were not.


​In a letter to MHML from her Solicitor dated 21 June 2016 he requested a full copy of the Surveyor's Schedule of Works which again he insisted was not in evidence on the website. It was and had been since January 2014 and Mrs Hillgarth had received four or five copies including one she requested from our Surveyor himself.


Her Solicitor wrote: In order to demonstrate to me that these requested improvements were indeed "over and above the works as costed for within the Schedule of Works" please send me a copy of the Schedule of Works you are talking about. You say that "all tenders were made from the exact same Schedule of Works dated December 2013 drawn up by our Surveyor". Please do not tell me this has already been sent to Mrs Hillgarth umpteen times or was available on your website for any fool to see. Just indulge me, for the avoidance of any further doubt or confusion, and send me the document you are talking about.

And the reply he received from MHML: Attached (the Actual WADE quote she sourced - ref (1)). Cannot believe you are incapable of simply downloading one or having Mrs Hillgarth email you a copy pdf - it’s 44pp so is adding considerably to her costs which she will be robustly pursued for.



Nevertheless the full printed copy was supplied yet again by MHML as evidenced above in our reply on the understanding that firstly (a) it was a copy of Wade's tender totalling £219,000 to include vat and fees (exactly as outlined on the final s.20 Notice dated 22 June 2014) and (b) it should be compared to the tender from AR Lawrence for £105,000 to include vat and fees (and the exact same works to be performed for the money - exactly the same) and (c) to be perused alongside Wade's two previous quotes dated July 2012 and January 2013 to ascertain that none of those "additional works" quoted in the two Wade quotes appeared in either Wade's £219,000 quote nor AR Lawrence's quote of £105,000 both of which included vat and fees.


All the above was again very well evidenced on our website and all lessees were implored by MHML to peruse it on multiple occasions including most especially Mrs Hillgarth.


 In Mrs Hillgarth's Witness Statement dated 10 August 2016 (para 21) she states:

The Section 20 Notice dated 22nd June 2014 stated that "all estimates obtained are online" (this presumably by way of response to the statutory obligation to make copies of the estimates available for inspection). However they were not available online. There had been no way for leaseholders to compare one quotation with another on a like with like basis. In fact all the material on-line was irrelevant, incoherent, inaccurate and incomprehensible (and accompanied by loud rock music).

I am only now beginning to understand that Mr Brown-Constable was using his website to keep us in a state of bewilderment, allowing us to assume he was proceeding as required by the Section 20 process, but in fact leading us along to achieve the outcome that he wanted personally. I have had a number of e-rnails from him to the effect that, as an owner/occupier in residence at Mitre House (as opposed to an absentee landlord like myself) he was more entitled to determine the decor than I was.

This is not the approach to be expected of management and demonstrates his unprofessional behaviour.

​MHML posted every relevant document on our website within hours of its receipt and notification by email with information or copy pdf to all lessees including clear instructions on (a) locating information and (b) analysing information. We have continued to do exactly the same to date and indeed have advised Mrs Hillgarth to revisit on multiple occasions to ascertain the veracity of our claim that indeed all and every document with relevance to Mitre House since 2006 is still on site, including the 2014 works programme, and all available to download if required. 

We cannot be held responsible if she is so incompetent as to follow advice and instructions which regrettably has been proved on innumerable occasions most notably evidenced from correspondence with our previous Agents with whom she employed a combative and irrational attitude resulting in their subsequent resigning of their contract.

We (MHML) cannot stress too clearly that our website has been updated on a weekly, sometime daily basis, with all information that any lessee is entitled to see and that included, as of 30th May 2015 when the 2014 Annual Accounts were published, all relevant analyses and documents from the 2014 works' programme and exactly as had been indicated to all lessees on multiple occasions during the works' programme
and to Mrs Hillgarth since 10th and 17th December 2015 and her Solicitor since 23 March 2016  -  one can only assume they have either been too busy trying to destroy as opposed to sourcing the information they repeatedly request ad nauseam or are simply computer illiterate - one suspects both from the way they needed 55pp for a simple screen grab!

And just possibly the destruction demanded might have resulted in some information you were requesting to have also been removed - yet more collateral damage!


STOP PRESS -in true Perry Mason fashion, an Audio tape of the Board Meeting of 23 May 2014 has miraculously come to light which totally exonerates MHML and PBC as Mrs Hillgarth makes clear both her understanding of savings and how they will be made and used and by whom they may be used and in her opinion will "Make everybody Happy".

Update: Audio Considered A Forgery - CIA, GCHQ & Mossad investigate veracity of recording prior to acceptance by court in Mitre House's longest running dispute since last year involving multiple nationalities in open warfare with Management - including Benefit claimants!

Update_2: Mrs Hillgarth's Solicitor denies veracity of audio recording stating: (see email of 13 June 2017): “If you listen carefully there is some music at the very beginning of your recording. Mrs Hillgarth does not recall any music in your flat; this was after all a board meeting. You were doing all the talking – and very quickly - with someone whose accent Mrs Hillgarth does not recognise. You say at one point: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”.  Mrs Hillgarth certainly has no recollection of that conversation and believes it is a fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context.”

Our reply to this totally dishonest observation was that firstly, music was playing (and proved to be playing by the supply of an audio portion evidencing that fact), secondly the "accent" Mrs Hillgarth claims not to recognise was Segar Karupiah, her fellow Director and known to her for over ten years, whom she converses with over the full period of the six hour 45 mins Board Meeting on 23 May 2014 to which the full audio refers, and thirdly to deny what was actually discussed in the presence of Segar Karupiah such as "We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders” as being fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context”  - would indicate both rank stupidity and dishonesty let alone desperation in the face of controvertible proof that she was in full agreement to the discussed proposal to make savings wherever and however possible and to use those same savings to fund and progress those additional workings which Mrs Hillgarth had herself sourced quotations for from the two independently sourced quotes she herself requested and received from Wade, and had discussed and agreed those same additional workings in two meetings with other lessees, as well as having progressed an RTM application resulting in her RTM Solicitors letter of 2 July 2013 insisting that MHML desist from any further management expenditure, abort presently issued s.20 Notices (so further delaying the works' programme) but most significantly insisting that the RTM application was to use Wade as contractor for the works and only Wade. response to MHML's reply insisting on the audio's veracity and if doubted to have it tested for authenticity, Mrs Hillgarth's Solicitor did exactly that and came up with an alleged "expert's opinion (Johnny Arthur) that indeed the audio had been faked and/or “doctored” stating: “The clip [coup de grace] appears to be two non-contiguous crudely edited together.” He adds: "there is a very distinctive room tone (a high frequency ring at around 2300 Hz), that is only audible while Mrs Hillgarth says the words, “and then everybody will be happy.”This suggests that this comment was recorded in a different location to the rest of the dialogue.”

Note his first error:
she actually says “well then everybody will be happy” and not “andthen everybody will be happy.” 

He further adds: “In addition to the room tone, there is an audible click at the end of the edit. (Clicks are caused when audio is edited together incorrectly, without proper use of crossfades). Again, with careful listening this can he heard in the original file, although in addition, it can also be seen visually in a Spectogram view of the audio.”

Note our response: Mrs Hillgarth [multiple clicks] is simply flipping paper on her lap as can be heard throughout lengthier clips.

But far more relevant is Mrs Hillgarth’s initial rebuttal of this whole audio recording, namely: Mrs Hillgarth does not recall any music in your flat; this was after all a board meeting. You were doing all the talking – and very quickly - with someone whose accent Mrs Hillgarth does not recognise. You say at one point: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”.  Mrs Hillgarth certainly has no recollection of that conversation and believes it is a fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context.”

Note: she makes no mention of “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy.” but simply no recollection of me saying “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”.

So exactly what is her rebuttal of this particular short clip (coup de grace) - no recollection? fake or doctored - but which wording - me saying“We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”,or her saying“will be used for something else”, followed by“well then everybody will be happy?” or one or more of them taken out of context? We have already proved music was playing (clip was supplied), that the unrecognised accent was that of Segar Karupiah and lengthier clips prior to this short clip prove conclusively all well in“context”.

We then further sourced two independent "expert" reports to ascertain the audio's veracity and to prove or not whether it had beenfaked and/or “doctored”Our two sourced independent “expert” analyses confirm the authenticity of both the short “coup de grace” audio as well as a lengthier clip prior to the statements made by Mrs Hillgarth, establishing without doubt that music was playing, multiple clicks were caused naturally by paper turning and it was not possible to have edited in Mrs Hillgarth’s comments due to firstly the background music requiring syncing and more pertinently, her comments"will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy?” had voices over her comments making “doctoring” impossible (unless the KGB, or CIA or MI6 or GCHQ had assisted ....which they had NOT!) -

Mrs Hillgarth and her Solicitor were also made aware of confirmation emails from both Mr Karupiah and Mr Raja that firstly Mrs Hillgarth had been advised prior to the Board Meeting commencing at midday on 23 May 2014 that the meeting was to be recorded for the sake of clarity and veracity of items discussed to relay to Mr Raja, secondly that Mr Karupiah confirmed both his attendance and his recollection of statements made, most pertinently her statement "well then everybody will be happy", and that he cannot believe she's denying saying it, and thirdly that Mr Brown-Constable, Mr Karupiah and Mr Raja all considered themselves libelled and slandered by Mrs Hillgarth's malicious accusations as made in her Solicitor's letter of 23 March 2016 and in subsequent correspondence to MHML and third parties, including at the Tribunal.

It's patently obvious that Mrs Hillgarth had lied regarding her denials of the audio content in the same way she had lied when accusing MHML of ignoring or denying requests from herself and other (named by her) lessees to view documents from the 2014 Accounts. These lies were also told to third parties, her Solicitor, other lessees, RBK&C Legal department, our Freeholders and their Legal department including their Solicitors, Macfarlanes.

Her denials also appear to include that all lessees were advised on multiple occasions in emails from MHML (9 September 2014, 3rd January 2015 to name but two) to await publication of our 2014 accounts and to then request and peruse all and any documentation at their leisure. No request was forthcoming until the demands made in her Solicitor's letter of 23 March 2016 some nine months after the 2014 accounts were published - and MHML agreed to comply by return.

That offer was ignored and unacknowledged as allegedly Mrs Hillgarth was on holiday in the Sahara and her Solicitor had pneumonia. 

In Mrs Hillgarth's own "Witness Statement", dated 11 August 2016 she admits in para 73 that neither she nor any lessee made any request for documents from our 2014 Accounts.

We rest our case - Mrs Hillgarth lied about MHML denying access to requests for 2014 Accounts' documents and she lied about not recalling statements made in the audio, referring to them as "faked and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context”

And another classic denial was made when Mrs Hillgarth's Solicitor bizarrely stated: “we [presumably he and Mrs Hillgarth] say the extra work you claim to have done is irrelevant. It was neither requested, nor was it necessary and you carried it out in a very poor way (photo graphs will be available in due course)” They never were and indeed neither were the photos of our alleged "basement office", which was yet another malicious accusation - and hence yet another lie. 

Add to that malicious accusations that Mr Brown-Constable was using AR Lawrence (our works' contractor} to refurbish his own personal flat; MHML were using the lessees Window Repair Monies for their own nefarious use; Mr. Brown-Constable was doing all the works' programme himself, or indeed all the internals' works as listed on the agreed Schedule of Works as quoted for by various contractors, including Mrs Hillgarth's third and final Wade quote [the only one following the Schedule of Works] and all as listed/costed to include vat & fees on the final s.20 Notice dated 22 June 2014.

Adding also to Mrs Hillgarth's list of other malicious accusations can be added: Vote Rigging (both Mrs Hillgarth and her Solicitor have been supplied on multiple occasions with Mr Karupiah’s letter to Samya Riad (Flat 4) dated 8 July 2012 which totally refutes this ridiculous accusation) and it is well documented on file Mrs Hillgarth’s infamous “you choose” email dated 7 June 2012); terrorising Mrs Hillgarth's tenant [illegally installed as the tenancy agreement states all permissions have been granted - they have not as never requested....ever, on all tenancies to date) by indecent exposure; unprofessional and incompetent workmanship by MHML (three years on and all looks in excellent condition as any independent Surveyor will attest to); not having suitable professional indemnity (MHML had sufficient); no complaint’s procedure (despite being a member of one of the three UK Govt. statutes, PRS - Property Redress Scheme since October 2014 and well advertised on all our stationery and website, maintaining a website that was designed to confuse and did not post all and any relevant document regarding all aspects of Mitre House, Accounts, Analyses, Major Works’ programme information & documents; requiring your client to attend in the company of HM Constabulary to collect some keys; MHML allegedly withholding payment to suppliers; your client’s denial of writing illegible cheques; and most significantly your client’s denial of what was discussed and agreed on 23 May 2014 during a six hour 45 minute Board Meeting in the presence of Segar Karupiah and Mr Brown-Constable culminating in her exclaiming, “will be used for something else”, followed by “well then everybody will be happy?”

All were and remain lies.

And to deny that we could sensibly fund and progress workings we could not initially afford by making savings from items we deemed unnecessary or could be done far cheaper flies in the face of common sense and basic economics.

Not so much a lie but an example of sheer ignorance and malicious innuendo, when Mrs Hillgarth via her Solicitor made frequent requests as regards allegedly missing funds from Reserves etc  - which were replied to in multiple correspondence re: the well documented and explained and anticipated £11,243 to be in Reserves at end of works' programme having received in the £2000 additional funding from all 9 lessees. It is almost inconceivable that having a set of the 2014 Accounts to hand they could still pose the question of: “And that £10,385 [£11,243] has not in fact been spent but remains in Reserves. This does not show anywhere in your accounts. If you think it does, please point me in the right direction.”

A perusal of our 2014 Accounts mentions £16,201 on four occasions including Reserve Fund flats and (Bank) Balance at 31st December 2014 of £16,201 (meaning in the bank, in Reserves!) Let alone our comment in our covering letter with the 2014 Accounts dated 8 June 2015 “Reserves NOT utilised for YE2014 amount to £16,201 carried forward for this 2015 year!”

That’s “stupidity” or ignorance or simply malicious innuendo. 

​Nevertheless, MHML attended the First-Tier Tribunal on 26th June along with Mrs Hillgarth and her Solicitor and her proposed Manager to progress her application to appoint a manager to replace MHML which resulted in the following decision:

On Page 2 (7) of the Tribunal's decision. On the first day of the hearing the Applicant (Mrs Hillgarth) presented its case and Ms Hillgarth gave evidence. There were various grounds for the application most notably what was said to be a lack of transparency on how funds were spent during the 2014 major works, whether the landlord could
charge for any management it carried out itself, whether the landlord was competent to carry out the management itself and alleged poor and unprofessional communication with the leaseholders.

Page 3 (8). On the morning of the second day of the hearing we were informed that the Respondent now consented to the appointment of Mr Michael Maunder Taylor as manager. It was agreed between the parties that the appointment would be for a period of 2 years during which they would seek to regularise the company position by making all leaseholders shareholders followed by a General Meeting at which new directors would be elected. The parties also proposed that once these steps had been achieved the Management Order would lapse 28 days thereafter. The parties signed a form of agreement and this is attached to this decision as a matter of completeness.

Page 3 (13). We consider that it is just and convenient to make an Order appointing Mr Maunder Taylor as a manager to carry out the management functions identified in the Order attached to this decision at Appendix 2. We were satisfied that it was just and convenient in the circumstances to make the order to allow the parties an opportunity to regularise the shareholding of the company and to seek to appoint new directors. It was clear to us that relations between the Applicants and the landlord had irretrievably broken down.

And in response to my written request to the Tribunal to add to their decision, that when I was invited to present our defence, I requested to question Mrs Hillgarth on oath and asked her two questions. The first being "was she aware of her comments on the audio recording on 23 May 2014?" The second question was "did she source two independent quotations from a company called Wade?"

To both questions, Mrs Hillgarth replied by denying knowledge of sourcing any Wade quotes and confirmed she did not say “will be used for something else”, or “well then everybody will be happy.” And indeed considered/confirmed on oath that the audio recording had been doctored and she had no recollection of the conversation.

When asked by Judge S. O’Sullivan if I (Paul Brown-Constable) wished to make further comment or query, I respectfully declined and made clear I saw no reason to progress the proceedings any further and I retired so allowing the Tribunal to appoint Maunder Taylor. [Mrs Hillgarth preferred Agents/Manager]

The reply received back from the Tribunal dated 14 July 2017 stated:

Mr Brown Constable also asked that the decision be corrected to make reference to his request to admit an audio transcript into evidence. Given the parties were able to reach agreement in this matter without hearing Mr Brown Constable’s evidence the tribunal does not consider it appropriate to include reference to this matter in its decision. The parties will have noted that the decision only contains a brief summary of the parties’ respective positions by way of background and does not comment in detail on the evidence or the merits of the parties’ cases.

Consequently it should be noted that firstly Mrs Hillgarth’s denial on oath is registered at the Tribunal and secondly the Tribunals’s decision states quite clearly:

“We were satisfied that it was just and convenient in the circumstances to make the order to allow the parties an opportunity to regularise the shareholding of the company and to seek to appoint new directors. It was clear to us that relations between the Applicants and the landlord had irretrievably broken down.”


The parties will have noted that the decision only contains a brief summary of the parties’ respective positions by way of background and does not comment in detail on the evidence or the merits of the parties’ cases.

The Tribunal decision makes clear that “It was clear to us that relations between the Applicants and the landlord had irretrievably broken down” and that “the decision only contains a brief summary of the parties’ respective positions by way of background and does not comment in detail on the evidence or the merits of the parties’ cases.

Consequently, other than Mrs Hillgarth’s denial on oath of sourcing two independent Wade quotes, which outlined the additional unaffordable works for approx £60,000 and were referenced innumerable times in correspondence as well as made clear by her RTM Solicitors in their letter of 2 July 2013 as the preferred and only contractor and budget to be appropriated for the upcoming works and her denial of the authenticity of the audio recording, MHML did not defend our position as regards the various accusations levied against it by the Applicant (Mrs Hillgarth).

We only wished to have her denials on oath and in that we succeeded.

Therefore none of the various accusations made by Mrs Hillgarth against MHML were proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

It should also be noted that fair offers were made to Mrs Hillgarth well prior to the Tribunal hearing to minimise disruption and cost to lessees but like on so many occasions it was totally ignored.

In MHML's covering letter with the June 2017 Quarterlies dated 7 June 2017 it was stated:

Due to continuing discontent from a few lessees and their application to the courts to dismiss Management citing various misdemeanors including “stealing lessees’ window repair monies, indecent exposure to a young lady sub-let tenant, requiring a lessee to have a Police escort to collect keys, making and doing additional works without reference to lessees, having £16,201 in Reserves as opposed to the predicted £11,243, false accounting by not identifying Surveyor’s fees and other fees and payments made, including those to Management for their additional workings and services performed for the benefit of all lessees, non-payment to a supplier, blackmail, abuse and rudeness”, we have proposed to these same lessees that we will step aside and offer them the Head Lease so they can run Mitre House the way they wish it be run and by whom. 

The alternatives are not favourable. If we contest the charges in court and lose, an expensive Manager will be appointed by the court to run Mitre House so denying any lessee the opportunity to appoint their preferred cheaper Agents or contractors. If and when we win, the toxic atmosphere at Mitre House will simply continue with no doubt more disagreements and arguments as it is quite obvious that two or three lessees have no confidence in our ability to properly manage Mitre House to their total satisfaction and wish us to be replaced by independent outside Agents of their choice.

They will only have that independent choice if our proposal to offer them the Head Lease is accepted.

A last ditch attempt was again made direct to Mrs Hillgarth dated 15 June 2017:

Dearest Michele,

This affair has now reached yet another ridiculous situation and you must know in your heart of heart that you did know and you did agree that by making savings we could do the other things we all wanted but couldn’t afford. 

You were simply annoyed in the three months after the meeting because we were insisting you pay the RTM invoice and request permission to sub-let etc and worst of all requesting you resign as a Director.

And don’t forget, we only asked you to resign because you were causing so much trouble over things we had agreed at the meeting, the additional funds of £2000 etc, me doing some works to save money exactly as we agreed at the meeting etc… If I had said to you that you had agreed at the meeting you would have asked me for proof which I didn’t have until a few days ago regrettably.

But you know I haven’t forged or doctored this audio of the meeting. That’s a very silly accusation.

Surely now would be an opportune time to settle our petty differences and bring this affair to a close for both our sakes and for Mitre House.

I am quite happy to engage Agents (you can choose them so long as we can afford them) from 1 January 2018 (ie end of this year), and I’ll personally repay you your RTM payment of £2582.74.

And thats it - we stop all this legal nonsense and get back to enjoying life hopefully as friends and put everything said or done to date behind us.

Good idea or not. Please let me know.

Love and luck, Paul

Both these offers remained totally unacknowledged resulting in a wasted attendance at the First Tier Tribunal, save for having on record and in front of witnessess Mrs Hillgarth denials on oath at the Tribunal on 26 June 2017 that she did NOT source two Wade quotes (23 July 2012 and January 2013) and claims the audio evidence has been "doctored and she does not recall statements made, and therefore she is now in the unenviable position of company formations and other costs to be charged to the Service Charge account which she will have to explain to fellow lessees in due course no doubt.

Mrs Hillgarth makes great claim as to having incurred substantial costs in exposing the fraudulent activity or as her Solicitor states: "Mrs Hillgarth has devoted an immense amount of her time over the best part of three years to expose and put a stop to this corrupt activity etc...”

Seeing as neither myself nor MHML were ever advised of demands nor accusations prior to her Solicitor's letter of 23 March 2016 (and responded to by return with our agreement to comply in supplying documents requested) it seems obtuse to suggest Mrs Hillgarth to claim “three years”. It is already well established she lied when saying that she and other lessees had made requests for documents from our 2014 accounts which were ignored by MHML. 

Had Mrs Hillgarth simply availed herself of our Property Redress Scheme (PRS) to further her complaint(s) against MHML, be that bad management, or access to documents, her costs would have been £90. It is hardly the fault of either myself, MHML or its members if Mrs Hillgarth has incurred considerable costs based on a pack of lies as is well evidenced firstly in her accusation of being denied access to documents and secondly her full knowledge and agreement as evidenced on the audio recording of the six hour 45 minute Board Meeting on 23 May 2017 with the immortal words “well then everybody will be happy”. They would be if she had told the truth.

Her Solicitor now claims she is entitled to one ninth of the full £105,877 budget as indeed would be all nine lessees if any of her accusations were true regarding MHML having made savings to progress and fund works' considered unaffordable and not listed or quoted for by any contractor (as none were included in the Schedule of Works) without having informed lessees, which of course MHML did in emails to all lessees dated 11th and 13th September 2014 and Mrs Hillgarth, whilst a Director of MHML on 23 May 2014, fully agreed to making savings to progress and fund additional works at the Board Meeting of same date which the audio recording corroborates in minute and incontrovertible detail. 

And if those emails are still considered insufficient, those sent on 10th and 28th August 2014 re: electrics to be performed which were not in the schedule of works but were still being performed within the agreed budget of £105,019 will also corroborate. Would Mrs Hillgarth advise how those electrics could be progressed and funded if savings were not to be made? She cannot as she denies any knowledge of savings!

Finally, all your references to fraud, criminal tampering with audio recording, negligence, misfeasance, breaches of fiduciary duty, and god knows what else simply pail into insignificant nonsense once the full audio recording is now in evidence to further substantiate email evidence supplied to date, plus Mrs Hillgarth’s perjury on 26th June 2017 and your “expert denial” of the audio’s authenticity (Johnny Arthur didn’t even identify the correct wording nor indeed mentioned Mr Brown-Constable saying “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders” which is what Mrs Hillgarth stated as having no recollection of, but focussed on “well then everybody will be happy.”  which Mrs Hillgarth hadn’t even mentioned other than it being [in her opinion] doctored, faked or out of context - it’s not when listened to her previous comment “will be used for something else”, and certainly not once the lengthier period [which both her Solicitor and Mrs Hillgarth deemed fit to ignore] prior to these comments is heard at length), and well supported by MHML's two expert reports confirming its authenticity plus both Segar Karupiah and Paul Brown-Constable as witnesses to Mrs Hillgarth's comments throughout a six hour 45 minute audio recording of the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting. 

If Mrs Hillgarth continues to maintain that this 6 hour 45 minute recording of the 23 May 2014 Board Meeting has in any way been “tampered with”, “doctored”, “faked” or comments made were made “out of context”, or that no music was playing and one “accent” was considered unrecognisable and Mrs Hillgarth was not informed a recording was to be made for sake of record, or that any fact or figure mentioned to date in this whole article is in any way untrue, then I suggest she seeks her legal rights and sues MHML for libel and slander and we’ll settle this matter in court.

But she should seriously consider the perjury she has committed to date at the Tribunal on 26 June 2017 and consider with regret that she did not take Mr Brown-Constable's advice to admit her comments on the audio and simply say that "she had changed her mind subsequent to the Board Meeting", as indeed she did on multiple occasions on other agreed matters.... too many to list but all evidenced in correspondence.

Alas she did not take that advice and is consequently facing charges of slander and libel, perjury and considerable costs incurred in her vindictive vendetta against MHML and its present and past members.

" be continued....."                                                                                                          Dateline 20 August 2017

Please Note: Full supporting documentation, email references etc available on request


Stop Press

Service Charge Accounts YE 2020

Still Downhill All The Way

witness the ongoing 333% INCREASE IN ANNUAL DEMANDS 

"…an olde great classic?"

Request For Information

Ask your query on anything of interest

 Correspondence to date (20/8/2017) - updated weekly since initial letter received 23 March 2016


​​ if you prefer a book form link of The Email, Claim & Pemberton pdfs

1_Letter from Begg_23 March 2016 (13pp)​ -


2_PBC email to MH_25-3-16 (1pp) -

3_PBC to Begg_29-3-16 (2pp) -

4_Begg to PBC_31-3-16 (2pp) -

5_PBC email to MH_1-4-16 (1pp) -


5a_Supplement_Requested Invoices Bundle To Courier over 3 April 2016

6_PBC to Begg_1-4-16 (4pp) Compliance -

7_PBC to Begg _8-4-16 (4pp) -

7a_Attachments in 8-4-16 to Begg (106pp) -

8_PBC to Begg OCR_8-4-16 (38pp) + ATTACHMENTS -

9_Begg to PBC_15-4-16 (2pp) -

10_PBC to Begg OCR_16-4-16 (6pp) -

11_PBC to Begg Cover Letter_16-4-16 (4pp) -

12_RBK&C to PBC_22-4-16 (2pp) -

13_PBC to RBK&C_27-4-16 (1pp) -

14_PBC to Begg_27-4-16 (9pp) -

15_PBC to Begg_10-5-16 (11pp) -

16_PBC to RBK&C_10-6_16 (2pp) -

17_Begg 11-5-16 to PBC to Begg OCR_11-5-16 (5pp) -

18_PBC to Begg_18-5-16 (1pp) -

19_PBC to RBK&C-18-5-16 (1pp) -

20_PBC to Begg_25-5-16 (10pp) -

21_PBC Cover letter to Begg re MH Letter_27-5-16 (1pp) -

22_PBC to Begg MH letter OCR_27-5-16 (7) -

23_RBK&C to PBC_28-5-16 (2pp) -

24_PBC to RBK&C_28-5-16 (1pp) + ATTACHMENTS -

24a Attachments to 28-5-16 (77pp) -

25_PBC to Begg_28-5-16 (1pp) -

26_PBC to Begg_31-5-16 + ADDENDUM_A (2pp) -

27_PBC to Begg_31-5-16 + ADDENDUM_B (2pp) -

28_PBC email to RBK&C_8-6-16 (2pp) -

29_PBC to RBK&C_8-6-16 + ATTACHMENTS (1pp) -

30_PBC to Begg_10-6-16 (3pp) -

31_Begg to Segar_10-6-16 (6pp) -

32_Segar to PBC_13-6-16 (1pp) -

33_PBC email to RBK&C_14-6-16 (1pp) -

34_Begg to PBC_14-6-16 (dated 14-5-16) (1pp) -

35_PBC Cover letter to Begg_14-6-16 (1pp) -

36_PBC to Begg OCR_14-6-16 (6pp) -

37_PBC to Segar_16-6-16 (1pp) -   

38_PBC to Jamil_16-6-16 (1pp) -      

39_PBC to Begg_17-6-16 (2pp) -

40_Macfarlanes to PBC_17-6-16 (3pp) -

41_PBC to Begg 20-6-16 (4pp) -

42_PBC to Macfarlanes_20-6-16 (4pp) -

43_Begg to PBC_21-6-16 (4pp) -

44_PBC to Begg_21-6-16 OCR (8pp) -

45_PBC to Begg_22-6-16 (1pp) -

46_PBC to Begg_27-6-16 (1pp) -

47_PBC to Begg_30-6-16 (9pp) + ATTACHMENTS -

47a_Attachments 30-6-16 (28pp) -

48_PBC to Begg_7-7-16 (2pp) -

49_PBC to Begg_7-7-16 OCR (4pp) -

50_PBC to Segar_15-7-16 (2pp) -

51_Begg to PBC (Crime)_12-7-16 (10pp) -

52_PBC to Begg (Crime)_12-7-16 (1pp) -

53_PBC to Begg (Crime OCR)_12-7-16 (33pp) -

54_PBC to Begg_20-7-16 (1pp) -

55_PBC to Begg_27-7-16 (1pp) -

56_PBC to Begg_1-8-16 (1pp) -

57_PBC to Begg_8-8-16 (3pp) -

58_PBC to Begg_10-8-16 (3pp) -

59_Begg to PBC (s22)_16-8-16 (19pp) -

60_Begg to PBC_23-9-16 (2pp) -

61_PBC to Begg _29-9-16 (2pp) -

62_PBC to Pemberton_29-9-16 (1pp) + ATTACHMENTS -


62a_Pemberton 12-9-16 (2pp) Witness Statement (received in bundle 30-5-17)

63_PBC to Begg_20-10-16 (2pp) -

64_RBK&C to PBC_26-10-16 (2pp) -

65_PBC to RBK&C_27-10-16 (2pp) -

66_PBC to Begg_1-11-16 (2pp) -

67_PBC to Begg Addendum_31-10-16 (24pp) -

68_Basement ref_31-10-16 (1pp) -

69_Begg to PBC_7-11-16 (7pp) -

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

71_PBC to MH Anniversairs_26-11-16 (1pp) -

72_Begg to PBC_9-12-16 (5pp) -

73_PBC to Begg_9-12-16 (20pp) -

74_PBC to Begg_13-12-16 (22pp) -

75_EMAIL 2017 CORRESPONDENCE to 7-4-17 -

76_First - Tier Initial Docs -

77_First - Tier Directions - as in above -

78_Synopsis re Amanda Gourlay -

79_Head Lease

80_MH Witness Stmt OCR 1-11-16 (20pp_ -

80a_MH Witness Stmt orig dated 10-8-16 -

80aa_Tony White first effort -

80b_Tony White Witness Stmt dated 8-7-16 -

81_Begg’s s22 OCR_1-11-16 (dated 8-8-16 received 26-8-16) -




​83_to all lessees 25 May 2017 fees affair_1 etc


​84_to all lessees 27 May 2017 fees affair_2 etc


​85_Pemberton TRAFFIC EMAILS to 1 June 2017


86_Disclosure court 2-6-17 & reply 3 June 2017 incl. email flats 8 and 3

87_Court Reply 4-6-17

88_Court Maunder 5-6-17

89_D-DAY 6-6-17


​91_The Design Book Briefs

​92_The 12-6-17 Email, Claim & Pemberton pdfs

93_to clp & mis 12-6-17 NO AUDIO

94_to Begg email 14 June 2017 Don’t Worry no audio

95_A_Court letter - no pdfs -

​96_B_Court Draft Order + pdfs -

​97_C_Prejudice + pdfs -

98_Audio Expert Witness Statements -

99_Incontrovertible Audio Authenticity Confirmations -

100_Skeleton Argument (ref First Tier Tribunal 26/6/2017)_

Last update 9 September 2017 - 2.18 pm - 



WELCOME TO THE MITRE HOUSE FOYER - yes we agree, looks more like a Morgue's Reception...?

"Better Dead Than Taupe, surely?"

(Refer to Legals & Ref)

Comments to the Correspondence received and sent to date (13 December 2016) from Mrs Hillgarth and her Solicitor- updated weekly since initial letter received 23 March 2016

And if you don't know who this is, don't call us, we'll call you in future...maybe!

He just happens to be Mitre House's most liked, most infamous, most successful restauranteur and club owner that Kings Road Chelsea has ever known... for the uneducated, have you ever heard of the Aretusa or Alvaro's? Of course not because you ain't olde look it up as that's what books are for if you're computer retarded.


Approx Additional Costs to date (20 August 2017) due to Appointment Of A Manager

New Mitre House Management Limited Company set-up - one off £300 per lessee + annual fees approx £55

Revised Management Fees £7800 (from £4995) - plus £312 per lessee per annum

Revised Quarterlies £1250 approx (from £750) - plus £2000 per lessee per annum

Impending Major Works - Mains Electrics Console/Lift Ropes etc - approx £12,000 - £20,000 (from Reserves)