RTM Changing Management company

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    RTM Changing Management company

    The RTM are in the process of changing management company following a vote by leaseholders, at present we are on hold regards signing the new contract, because the old company want to TUPE over the development manager who has an appalling sickness record, if fact the DM is still sick at present, and is undergoing sickness procedure from the company, and we can understand a new company do not want to be taking over problem's of the DM . but that is not the only problem, one of the director has brought to light the code of practice of ARHM saying we did not hold the poll in accordance with ARHM so is void, he said under the code a change of managing company's acting on behalf of the RTM would amount to a significant variation of ;Custom and Practice; the Code requires that a custom and practice should not be varied unless : A meeting held to inform and explain the proposal to vary the Custom and Practice.: A secret Ballot : The Ballot to achieve a result of 66%of those voting where at least 51% of those eligible to vote. failure to follow the code would be grounds for an application to First-Tier Tribunal to appoint a new manager or to end the RTM. Not sure if this Director is throwing a spanner in the works as he do not want to change company's

    #2
    What poll? You do not need a member vote to change managing agents.

    I read this through twice and I'm still confused. I think you are assuming that we know lots of things about your situation that we simply do not!

    Comment


      #3
      Your confused so am I , In January 2019 we had a residents meeting to find the consensus of opinion on changing Management Company's , the result was lets get rid of Firstport and tender for a new company, Three company's applied and gave presentations after the presentation the leaseholders were asked to vote for their chosen company , this was by ballot and the votes were counted in front of the residents. Then a newly retired resident asked to become a Director . he comes from a city council employment. we contacted the new company and drew up a contract. when I say the Development Manager was being TUPE over, when the new company was told of her appalling sickness record they said it would be in our interest to get rid of the DM and have one of their staff as a DM. so we decided to put the contract on hold until Firstport sort out the present DM. At this point the new Director stated that the ballot was not held in accordance with ARMH code of practice so it was void. , he wants to hold another ballot , and if the leaseholder refuse on the ground that they have already voted, he then stated we should stay with Firstport, He also stated we could be taken to a tribunal for not adhering to the code of practice. the other to lady Directors think the sun shines out of his ….

      Comment


        #4
        If it is not too late, please edit out the name of the "management company", otherwise a moderator, e.g. Moderator2 will need to do it.

        The company mentioned is normally associated with retirement developments; is that the case here?

        I think you also need to step back and describe how your lease works with regard to management.

        Comment


          #5
          just need these questions answered:

          In the matter of change of managing agents which varies changes , and reduces the availability of an visiting on-site development by 50%

          Is the RTMCo bound by ARHM or RICS Code of Code of Practice, if yes

          Would the removal of the existing managing agent in favour of a new managing agent , in the terms outlined above, fall within the remit of Chapter 7 of the ARHM Code of Practice and if yes.

          Would the RTMCo need to adhere to the provisions of paragraphs 7.1-7.7 of the ARHM Code of Practice in relation to a ballot

          Comment


            #6
            Nobody is bound by the RICS code, although parts of it that use the word "must" are generally restatements of statute law which people are bound by. The RICS code has a similar status to The Highway Code.

            RTMs are not bound by the ARHM code unless something in the lease requires this. I would thing that very unlikely.

            In fact, this is the first time I've heard of the ARHM code and I imagine most managing agents aren't bound by it, either.

            Looking it up, it only applies to retirement homes, which is a specialist market, anyway.

            I don't believe the choice of managing agent would be considered a matter of custom and practice. This section seems to be more to do with what are referred to as regulations in some general needs leases.

            https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/right-manage/ says that the ARHM code has the same status as the RICS one, in relation to retirement properties, although, if RTM is a member of ARHM, it would be contractually bound to follow the "should" rules, whereas I don't believe there is any such contract for RICS members and their code.

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X