Right to Manage a Leasehold: experiences of Leaseholders?

Sjwest

Hi all,

In my block of flats we are considering applying for Right to Manage our block, so we can appoint a management company who are answerable to us.  Presently, we have a management company who are slow to answer about service complaints, and not very open about contracts or costs at all.

I have read that Right to Manage is often much better, but it can lead to tensions between leaseholders.  If anyone has any experience of moving to Right to Manage, I'd love to hear your experiences so I can gauge the benefits and drawbacks of moving to this management system.

Thanks!

eddddy

Sjwest said:

I have read that Right to Manage is often much better, but it can lead to tensions between leaseholders.  If anyone has any experience of moving to Right to Manage, I'd love to hear your experiences so I can gauge the benefits and drawbacks of moving to this management system.

I guess it really depends on the attitude of people that get appointed as directors of the RTM company and/or how decisions are made.

For example, I'm involved with one RTM company where the directors aren't keen on spending money. So repairs are only done when they become critical, and the building always looks scruffy. Maybe some leaseholders like that approach because it saves them money, but maybe it really upsets others who want to spend more on making their building look presentable.

It's good that you'll be hiring a management co - they can advise the directors, and hopefully stop them doing anything 'inappropriate'.

There are occasional posts here which have mentioned misuse of service charge funds by RTM company directors who either misunderstand the law - or have dodgy moral compasses.

(e.g. Directors wanting to pay themselves secret salaries out of service charge funds, or spend service charge funds on things that benefit themselves and/or are outside the scope of the lease.)

canaldumidi

As edddy says, there are excellent examples and dodgy ones. So much depends on the individuals, and as we all know, individuals vary!

There again, so-called managment companies can vary to equal extremes.

My only example is a friend who manages a private road  with 29 houses. Not exactly the same but the principle is.

It used to be farmed out to a 'professional manco' who made pathetic attempts to obtain annual service charges, paid ludicrous amounts for gardening that was rarely done and never well done, etc etc. Over 3 years, the sinking fund for major repairs went from over £30K to less than £10K due to unpaid service charges and no real road improvement at all.

After discussion they sacked the company and agreed 3 directors, my friend one of them. Twoyears later and every house is paid up to date, the sinking fund is up £30K again, major repairs to the drains have been done (after an extended fight to force the water company to take responsibility), and the gardening, shared autumn roof-clearing, and other maintenance jobs are now done regularly, efficiently and to a fair cost.

Downside? My friend is fed up! She fields regular calls from house-holders complaining about parking issues, puts in hours of effort, and OK is much appreciated by some but gets taken for granted by others.

Oh and every time a house changes hands she has to deal with solicitors enquiries, all in her own time.

If she resigned, it would be back to employing a company as whilst a few people help, no one else would do any thinke as much as she has to......

So you need someone, or ideally several someones, like my friend, who is not only willing, but reliable too.

LeaseExpert

You haven't explained your current legal set up, but you've written as though you have no control over the current managing agents. Presumably, they have been appointed by the freeholder and take instructions from him/her/it. Have you contacted the freeholder to explain your concerns and request a change of managing agent? If not, you should. An agreed change would be cheaper than a forced change.

Furthermore, RTM adds the complication that you only take on the management clauses of these - so far as they relate to "the Building". This often leads to grey areas of control. It's not ideal, in my opinion.

Ultimately, whether the building is managed properly or not, depends on individuals. The system is the system - whichever system. How that system is applied depends on the proactivity of the property manager ... the managing agent company ... and the client directors instructing them. Try changing the attitudes of the people ... before incurring costs on changing the system.

MEM62

We manage our own as the ten flats in the block each own 10% of the leasehold. From time to time a 'strong' personality from within the group can make thing awkward but, at the end of the day, we each have a vote and the majority rules.  Our monthly maintenance cost is currently £65 per month including buildings insurance, which is much lower than some so worth doing.