RTM company not working well

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    RTM company not working well


    Since we formed an RTM company around 10 years ago, management of the block of flat has gone worse.

    * RTM company selected a new property manager, who has been absolutely dreadful (not answering emails, taking 6 months to fix something broken, random work being done etc.). RTM company has confirmed many times their property manager was "appaling", but haven't decided to replace them after many years (who knows why)

    * I have been asking the RTM company to provide past minutes of their meetings, but they have rejected it. I believe, as a member of the RTM company, that I am entitled to see minutes and other documents (article 41) and they have to keep those for 10 years (article 20)

    * Talking about articles of association, the RTM company created doesn't follow the expected RTM template, but more the standard Ltd template. Is that even legal?

    * The service charges demand sent over the last 10 years don't include the name of the freeholder. The manager in my property title is still the previous one, not the new one (they never updated it). I believe this makes the demands invalid.

    * They have made calculation mistakes for the last 10 years in service charges, and they know about it.

    * As the freeholder, they have failed to enforce most terms of the lease despite repeat requests (e.g. noise, parking, littering)

    It's basically a perfect example of a bunch of people taking control of an RTM company, but having no clue on how to manage anything or even get a property manager to perform.

    Any advice on what I could do? Most people not directors of the RTM company have no interest in conflicts, and therefore overthrowing the board is probably not an option.


    They can't be both RTM and freeholder. I believe the actual freeholder is the only one that can really enforce the lease. Enforcing the lease is risky unless the lease provides that the complainant indemnify the company against all costs of enforcement. Leases often don't have a covenant between lessor and lessee requiring the lessor to enforce the lease.

    If it is an RTM, then they must use the RTM model articles. If they are not using those articles your reference to specific article numbers is meaningless without a copy of the articles. Can you give a specific example?

    RTM article 41 just wouldn't appear in a normal company's articles, as that sort of information is normally confidential. For an RTM they are required to provide a redacted copy unless a general meeting has decided otherwise.

    There are only two options:

    1) overthrow the board;

    2) have the FTT appoint a manager.

    You will not be popular if you do the latter, unless the other leaseholder perceive things to be in a really bad way.

    You can challenge reasonableness of service charges or even seek an injunction for specific performance of the repairing obligations, but, one way or another, the cost will come back to the leaseholders.

    The Law Society report on RTM notes that, once the initial enthusiasm goes, things can go awry.



      It's complicated, as they acquired the freehold to some parts at the same time as taking control of the management. There is a resident association, which is a bunch of directors of that Ltd company (Ltd company is actually called "resident association Ltd").

      I have checked the articles of association of the company, and they don't match at all the RTM template. The word "RTM" is not even present.

      Maybe the Ltd company is just the new freeholder, and there is no RTM company at all. Maybe the freeholder appointed a new property agent.

      It's all confusing, as my property title was not changed/updated, so still refers to the previous freeholder and previous manager.

      To be honest, I don't really understand the point of a lease if it can't be enforced by leaseholders.

      I was advised that the First Tier Tribunal has very low expectations when it comes to property agents, and therefore they may not even see them as incompetent.

      What do I need to do to take them to FTT, apart from paying a £300 fee? Do I need legal representation or instruct a surveyor? What are the chances of success to


        Don't bother with the FTT, you will find them more incomptetent than the management company and even if you get a half sensible ruling you will be luck to enforce it.
        I am in a similar boat and think the only solution is to overthrow the board and get a competent set of directors who can look after the property and appoint the appropriate professionals.
        good luck.


          It can be enforced by the leaseholders but only parts that are promised to the leaseholders. You can almost certainly enforce the bit that says they must repair certain things, and the bit that says they must pay for the communal lighting electricity.

          Other parts are there to protect the freeholder.

          Finally, some parts are there to give the freeholder to enforce for the benefit of the other leaseholders, but at the freeholder's discretion.

          As I said, unless there is a provision that a complaining leaseholder provide the money for any actin against another leaseholder, the freeholder could easily be bankrupted if they were forced to enforce covenants just because leaseholders wanted them to do so.


            Actually, I believe I was wrong: we don't have a RTM company, but a Resident’s Management Company, RMC (putting the residents in a management role). However, my property title was never updated.


              I don't think the leasehold title does get updated; you have to follow the title number for the freeholder to find the current freeholder.


                Yes, I don't believe the freeholder gets updated. The property manager was not updated either on my property title.
                If I follow the title number to find the current freeholder, there is no mention of the RMC company either, it's a different freeholder.
                The service charges demands are for the RMC company (and its new property manager), and the freeholder doesn't show.

                I guess that makes them invalid.

                Shouldn't my lease have been updated to show that service charges are due to the RMC as opposed to freeholder?


                  Originally posted by Tomtomato View Post
                  The service charges demands are for the RMC company (and its new property manager), and the freeholder doesn't show.

                  I guess that makes them invalid.
                  Do you have a tripartite lease? If you pay your SC to the RMC or its agent then the freeholder does not have to be included on the SC demand.

                  The demands are therefore valid.


                  Hope this helps.


                    Sorry, my point is my lease says I need to pay service charges to the lessor (freeholder) or its agent.
                    Neither are the RMC, but service charges demands only show details of the RMC. I don't believe there are any legal links between the lessor/freeholder and the RMC.


                    Latest Activity