Directors of rmc have breached the s.24 tribunal order to hand over management

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The RMC is the party named in the lease, so it would be normal for the FTT to make a direction that it discloses any documents within its possession or power to obtain. If the RMC does not comply with the direction, you should be able to bring action against the directors for not taking the necessary steps,


      The rules of the Tribunal are contained within a Statutory Instrument 2013/1169 the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013
      Paragraph 6 deals with the case management powers
      You could have objected to the statement not being issued to you prior to the meeting but the Judge would have had the power to continue regardless or allow a short adjournment of 10 minutes for you to read it or say that you could read it during a break.
      Paragraph 14 allows a party to appoint a representative, so there is nothing to stop the Manager from appointing you


        I have said to the Appointed Manager I should represent her for proceeding as we share the same goal. I have asked her to send the letter to Tribunal to notify them of me Representing her. He reply is as follows:-

        "I have considered your proposal and discussed it in-house. Whilst I completely appreciate where you are coming from, it would certainly be unusual for me to appoint you, in your capacity as a leaseholder, as my representative particularly in view of the rather long-term and difficult relations between your good-self and the Directors of management company. I am sure the Tribunal would not view this well either and as touched on by the judge at our recent hearing, we need to keep the emotion out of this matter and fight our case with facts. I know this is not what you will want to hear but I have to act completely independently as a court appointed manager in the best interests of the property and so as not to blur the lines and maintain that independence, I am unable to agree to your proposal."

        I have managed to win my s.27a and s.24 case and was awarded costs for both applications so I have demonstrated I am capable of fighting the case and I resent that her comment " we need to keep the emotion out of this matter and fight our case with facts." Which is what I did and the reason for my success in all circumstances.

        She demonstrated at the hearing that she was incapable of dealing with the Respondent - she was awful and I am not prepared to let my success go down the drain so, what are my options now? Make an application to remove the manager and appoint another one?


          I suggest that you try to persuade her to change her mind. Perhaps you can say that her duties and your desire are identical, you both want her to manage the building properly, obtain the information and collect service charge arrears which she needs for that purpose. It is not you who is obstructing her or refusing to pay contributions. If you represent her, you would need to accept instructions from her, so if she disagreed with you, she could overrule you. It may be unusual but there is nothing untoward in your proposal.

          It is disappointing that she does not seem to possess the experience of dealing with Tribunals and difficult individuals so if she refuses your assistance, you could apply for a new manager to be appointed. When does her term of office expire?


            Her thinking is not three dimensional so she is unable to think outside the box. It is so frustrating because me representing her is the perfect answer and permitted in the rules. I have already told her we have the same goal.

            I am trying to work out what is the best strategy now.

            I will resent paying her fees to represent the proceedings, which will be set against the service charge, when she is not qualified and will clearly make a pigs ear out of the whole thing.

            The Directors can now write their own Decision for this case and my efforts for the s.24 application will come to nothing. I am excluded from proceedings so they can now proceed without challenge. I will be in worse position than before I started the whole process.

            The Directors have already managed to change the identity of the "Respondent" because the Appointed Manger did not refer the Judge to the s.24 Application form. I had named the Directors personally, together with the RMC on the s.24 Application form because I knew they would be obstructive and not comply so I wanted to be able to enforce them not the RMC.

            1.What can I ask the Tribunal to do now?
            2. What position am I allowed to play within the rules for the proceedings to ensure a fair and just hearing.
            3.Does a Witness get copied with the correspondence for proceedings? How much time at the proceedings do I get to put my counter arguments forward.
            4.The overriding objective in Rule 3 of the 2013 Procedural Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly.
            5. Am I better to let these directions for the disclosure of bank accounts go ahead or make an application to change manager now?
            6.I am very aware once a Decision is made and not corrected it is set in stone. I think it is important to ensure the identity of the Respondent must not be changed. This will absolve the Directors from all responsibility.


              You haven't explained the purpose of the latest hearing, was it the manager seeking further directions? I do not understand why you were not allowed to speak because you are one of the parties involved.

              Subject to the above, it is probably best to let the manager try to obtain the information from the Company and then apply for further directions if and when she fails. You will need to apply to the Tribunal before the fixed term of her appointment expires otherwise the management will revert to the Company, so you would need to either extend the term or seek a new manager,

              It is the Judge who decides if the hearing is just and fair, you can only request that he takes your comments into consideration. Normally correspondence is copied to all parties involved.The Judge will decide how much time to allow you to put forward comments, he/she should not intervene as long as you have prepared before the hearing and your comments are relevant,


                Can I make an application to be added as Party to the Applicant's case because her case is related to my case.


                  What is the current case? Is it the manager v the RMC? i thought that your case had been completed when the manager was appointed. .


                    The Appointed Manger's application "order 1" is a subsequent applicant to the lead case (s.24) to request further directions to obtain the service charge information which has still not been handed over 12 months in breach of the s.24 order and a penal notice to aid enfocement if hey still don't comply . We have still no management at the property, while the Directors give her the run around, but she is charging her fees.


                      You can reasonably apply pressure on the manager to arrange maintenance etc, it is up to her to chase the directors for information and collect service charge monies from them. If the lease allows it, she can borrow monies if necessary, otherwise she can seek permission from the FTT to borrow monies.

                      If she does nothing, that will give you grounds for replacing her.


                        The Appointed manger has no knowledge of the Directors or the building or the structure of the management as the Directors have not given her any information or bank accounts and she has already failed miserably at the Tribunal hearing because she was unable to answer any of the Tribunal's questions correctly and she will never be asking the correct directions from the Tribunal because she does not understand the structure of the management. She won't listen to me as she fears she is not being impartial.

                        If anyone has been to Tribunal you will understand that the Tribunal will only direct for what has been requested on the Application form and the Tribunal manager has already made this mistake at her first hearing.

                        She was not specific with her request for further directions and the Tribunal have only directed for the "Respondent" and/or the previous managing agent to hand over the bank accounts and no other handover information such as starting balances, accounts etc. She was not clear about her definition of "Respondent" so the Tribunal have said the the definition of Respondent will be the "RMC" which means she will have no one to enforce if the bank accounts are not handed over.

                        The Directors are successfully misleading the Tribunal and indirectly lying about the signatory of the bank accounts through vagueness and omission and are managing to to pull the wool over the Appointed Manager and Tribunal eyes.

                        They are using the husband of the Director with Alzheimers, as an accessory. He is neither a leaseholder, member of RMC or Officer of the RMC so conveniently escapes the definition of "Respondent".

                        He is LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for the Director with Alzheimers financial affairs so has now taken responsibility as signatory of the service charge Trust bank account which all service charges and ground rents have been paid into in advance and quarterly. This is the bank account that the Director with Alzheimers has always had the signing rights.

                        The Respondent (RMC) have categorically said in their statement for Tribunal, they have no signing rights for the bank accounts. They continue to pass blame to the previous managing agent who has said his firm set up the other two bank accounts. These hold no monies on account and he is not party to the order.

                        Taken literally the Directors are confident they can escape any penalty for lying.
                        - They do not have signing rights because the husband does and he is not Respondent.
                        - They have passed blame to the Previous manager for not handing over the bank accounts, without being specific about which bank account holds all the monies, so they can legitimately claim they had not mislead the Tribunal because he does hold two bank accounts but they are purely vessels into which the Directors transferred enough money to enable the previous manager to pay small bills. These accounts will not show the Director's service charge arrears.
                        - Through ambiguity one Director (without Alzheimers) can claim he did not know about the LPA as he has never been a signatory.
                        - The Director with Alzheimers is not at the Hearings in any event and it is unlikely someone with Alzheimers in going to be punished.
                        - The Directors can easily escape penalty through ambiguity.

                        You will see why the Tribunal is not clear. It is so frustrating because no one can see through the Directors tactics and I have now been excluded. I have been dealing with their same tactics for 16 years so I know their every move.

                        Can anyone advise how I now have a voice with the Tribunal. I have written a statement to point out what the Directors are doing to mislead but I have had no response.

                        We are not going to get anywhere with this appointed manager. If she was purely manning the building without having to deal with the tricky directors it would be fine but, she is not cut out to deal with these characters.

                        The only solution for this building is to do what I suggested at post #37 - I need to manage it. Who ever we can find to manage the building will be up against the same problems and it will not be easy finding anyone who is interested.

                        I have demonstrated my tenacity with my success at Tribunal up against some very tricky characters and the Judge has already recorded their unreasonable conduct in the Cost decisions, I own a freehold block with 5 flats and garages so have the experience, I have the determination to see this through because I have a vested interest in the property and I am watching my investment free fall while everyone allows the Directors manipulate the Tribunal. No Manager will have the same interest in this property as me - his fees will be his primary concern.

                        Does any one know of any previous cases where the First Tier Tribunal have appointed a leaseholder as manager?


                          It is unusual for the FTT to appoint a leaseholder to manage a block, they request details of qualifications, associations to which you are affiliated eg ARMA and previous practical experience before appointing someone but you may be able to find an example if you trawl through the previous decisions. It seems to be perfectly reasonable for the RMC to be the respondent because documents and information are within its power of control but perhaps the manager needs to be more specific as to what precisely she requires. I am not convinced that a manager appointed by the FTT is ever the best solution but you appear to have no alternative as the majority leaseholders are mismanaging the building.


                            I have just been notified the Director died yesterday so there is only one Director with Alzheimer’s in charge.

                            What do I now have to do to be appointed a Director.

                            1. Do I notify the breaches team in relation to the s305 meeting?
                            2. Do I send an AP01 form to Companies House?
                            3. Or do I need to make an application to court to disqualify the Director with Alzheimers. Clearly a Director with Alzheimer’s is not fit for office.

                            Her husband is now her LPA. He has been the cause of all the problems at the building and now has control of the service charge bank accounts but is neither a leaseholder, member of RMC or officer of the Company so escapes the identity of Respondent.

                            What happens to the Tribunal proceedings now? There is no one to act as Respondent?

                            The 2018 and 2019 accounts have still not been filed at Companies House.


                              Unfortunately your Articles state that only one director is required.
                              1 The breaches team is unlikely to become involved regarding the s305 meeting, however it should be taking action regarding the late filing of the accounts. It has discontiued the striking off action but it should still chase the late accounts.
                              2 If you were appointed at the meeting, you should send the AP01 form to Companies House. It is likely to be challenged so you should ensure that the manager will be willing to confirm that you were appointed.
                              3 I suspect that legal action will be required but I suggest that you follow step 2 first, You would need to ensure that you were appointed before the director was removed in order to satisfy the minimum number of directors.
                              The RMC remains the respondent in the Tribunal proceedings, it can appoint someone to represent it at hearings and it can take steps to comply with directions. If the sole director is not acting reasonably, it strengthens your case.


                                The appointed manager refuses to get involved in Company matters because she says she needs to remain impartial so I can’t rely on her to confirm my appointment to be a Director.

                                I will need to take legal action to disqualify the Director with Alzheimers (she has full time care and is not good)

                                Her husband who escapes the definition of Respondent is obviously holding all the bank accounts and information now so the latest Tribunal hearing has been a waste of time because the Tribunal directed the Respondent and Previous manager ( 2nd Respondent ) to hand over the bank accounts but neither the previous manager or Respondent are signatory to the bank accounts it is the “husband” who holds all the information now and there is no one fit for office who can act for the Respondent.

                                The husband is not a member or officer of the Company or a leaseholder and ironically he is in total control!!

                                Can anyone advise what application I need to make to disqualify the Director. Is it a county court application?


                                Latest Activity