RICS Information Sheet: Whose Documents are they Anyway (2013)

[Novice Freeholder]

I hope that someone is able to point me in the right direction of where to find a RICS information sheet called "Whose Documents Are They Anyway?"
This is mentioned in the RICS Property Management Code and relates to documents held by the Managing Agent.
Many thanks

[HazeltonLane]

There is a very distorted version on a site called yumptu.com—it's titled "Who's files are they anyway?" I tried to post the link but my post was censored.
Apparently you can download it from there if you register, but I haven't tried that.

[Gordon999]

This is the latest version of the RICS Residential Management Code ( 2016 ) :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0160518_en.pdf

[Novice Freeholder]

HazeltonLane I saw that, but ignored it because of the poor grammar. Thank you, anyway.

[leaseholder64]

This is the latest version of the RICS Residential Management Code ( 2016 ) :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0160518_en.pdf

Which in section 5.5 on page 22 says "You should, in any event, refer to the RICS UK information sheet Whose files are they anyway? (2013)"!

[Gordon999]

Is the information you are seeking , mentioned in the latest version released in 2016. ?

Poor grammar is what you have to accept in today's confusing world since state funded comprehensive schools have now replaced many past grammar schools and secondary schools.

[leaseholder64]

I've just posted where it is mentioned!

My guess is that a membership benefit and not supposed to be seen by clients, and may have been leaked. But the version referenced is readable and doesn't say anything obviously surprising.

[Novice Freeholder]

This is the latest version of the RICS Residential Management Code ( 2016 ) :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0160518_en.pdf

Thank you.
I was looking at an older version.

[josepha333]

This is the latest version of the RICS Residential Management Code ( 2016 ) :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0160518_en.pdf

Hi Gordon999,

I have no idea why you constantly refer posters to here because in reality it has no validity what so ever.

I have personally been through the RICS regulatory process twice and they do not even abide by their own code.

Actually in the last complaint Head of Regulation informed me that they are not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of establishing a liability to disciplinary action against the Firm in relation to these matters.

These matters concerned delay in circulating Service Charge accounts, delay in responding to correspondence, not ensuring sufficient directors were appointed to the MLC, failing to provide statutory accounts to the members, failing to respond to expressions of interest to become a director of the MLC, failure to arrange an AGM, failure to hold the AGM that had been duly called, failure to promptly rearrange the AGM that had been cancelled, failure to comply with it's own CHP and finally a delay in filing the Confirmation Statement.

It concluded by saying I appreciate this may be disappointing for you and may not be the outcome you had hoped for. RICS takes all complaints seriously and has commissioned a full investigation, however, not all complaints result in disciplinary action and, in this instance, RICS will not be proceeding with any action.

[eagle2]

Which in section 5.5 on page 22 says "You should, in any event, refer to the RICS UK information sheet Whose files are they anyway? (2013)"!

The correct reference is 6.6 in the latest version

[eagle2]

Hi Gordon999,

I have no idea why you constantly refer posters to here because in reality it has no validity what so ever.

I have personally been through the RICS regulatory process twice and they do not even abide by their own code.

Actually in the last complaint Head of Regulation informed me that they are not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of establishing a liability to disciplinary action against the Firm in relation to these matters.

These matters concerned delay in circulating Service Charge accounts, delay in responding to correspondence, not ensuring sufficient directors were appointed to the MLC, failing to provide statutory accounts to the members, failing to respond to expressions of interest to become a director of the MLC, failure to arrange an AGM, failure to hold the AGM that had been duly called, failure to promptly rearrange the AGM that had been cancelled, failure to comply with it's own CHP and finally a delay in filing the Confirmation Statement.

It concluded by saying I appreciate this may be disappointing for you and may not be the outcome you had hoped for. RICS takes all complaints seriously and has commissioned a full investigation, however, not all complaints result in disciplinary action and, in this instance, RICS will not be proceeding with any action.

I think that Gordon999 is quite right to refer to the RICS code of conduct, it remains the standard to which managers are supposed to comply and is used by Tribunals.

Compliance is another matter and I agree that the regulatory bodies are not dealing properly with complaints. To be fair, some of the matters you have raised may not be necessarily the fault of the RICS member eg the client would be responsible for complying with the Companies Act and its own Articles.

[Novice Freeholder]

Which in section 5.5 on page 22 says "You should, in any event, refer to the RICS UK information sheet Whose files are they anyway? (2013)"!

(In this edition, it is in Section 6.6 on Page 42)

There is still no information about how to get this information sheet! Having said that, it does give details about which documents belong to the client.

Is the information you are seeking , mentioned in the latest version released in 2016. ?

Poor grammar is what you have to accept in today's confusing world since state funded comprehensive schools have now replaced many past grammar schools and secondary schools.

I am suspicious of downloading material from some websites. The poor standard of grammar was just the start with the website mentioned. In addition, I do not want to register with a site to see information which should be readily available.

[Novice Freeholder]

I think that Gordon999 is quite right to refer to the RICS code of conduct, it remains the standard to which managers are supposed to comply and is used by Tribunals.

Compliance is another matter and I agree that the regulatory bodies are not dealing properly with complaints. To be fair, some of the matters you have raised may not be necessarily the fault of the RICS member eg the client would be responsible for complying with the Companies Act and its own Articles.

Gordon999 is right to refer to the RICS Code of Conduct. Especially since I had not located the latest version of it.

[Novice Freeholder]

I have personally been through the RICS regulatory process twice and they do not even abide by their own code.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

[leaseholder64]

(In this edition, it is in Section 6.6 on Page 42)

I mis-copied the section number. However there are two print layouts for this document. One is that used by the RICS and is how a print copy from them would be formatted, and the other is the version published by the government. I think that explains the page number differences.

My suspicion is that any site publishing the Whose Files document on the web is doing it in breach of copyright and probably NDAs, but the site in question has been doing it for months, without Google flagging it as dangerous. I could view a scanned image, online, without registering. I am using a non-Windows system so cannot comment on any Windows virus risk.