Route forward for mixed developments wanting to get rid of PMC

[jeffrey]

If they can say who owns the freeholds of all areas except the houses.

In the leases and the houses who and how provides services and recovers and their cost.

Please re-organise that into English sentences (before Mind The Gap arrives and boxes your ears).

[Stroof]

Jon - as per my post on TTAS (where I have to say it is much easier to find and follow threads), my own experience of this issue on a small mixed development in Surrey under Peverel/OM Property Management has identified the 5 or 6 options available to you. I have also been in touch with another, larger development nearby who have successfully achieved it after learning some important lessons. I would not recommend some of the advice given here. I have not yet completed the work on my situation, so I would rather not give full details here just yet, but I would be happy to correspond with you privately if you ask the site admin to provide you with e-mail address.

[Gordon999]

The RTM Company can replace the PMC whether appointed by LL or is a party named in the Lease. This point is covered in Section 97(clause 2) in the RTM section of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. ( which can be downloaded from www.opsi.gov.uk ). See below :


97 Management functions: supplementary E+W.

(1)Any obligation owed by the RTM company by virtue of section 96 to a tenant under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises is also owed to each person who is landlord under the lease..

(2)A person who is—.
(a)landlord under a lease of the whole or any part of the premises,.
(b)party to such a lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or.
(c)a manager appointed under Part 2 of the 1987 Act to act in relation to the premises, or any premises containing or contained in the premises,.
is not entitled to do anything which the RTM company is required or empowered to do under the lease by virtue of section 96, except in accordance with an agreement made by him and the RTM company

[leaseholdanswers]

The RTM Company can replace the PMC whether appointed by LL or is a party named in the Lease. This point is covered in Section 97(clause 2) in the RTM section of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. ( which can be downloaded from www.opsi.gov.uk ). person who is landlord under the lease..

Yes that right as posted. What I was at pains to explain that where the manager is a party to the lease eg a managing agent or in older leases " the chartered surveyor for the block", if RTM is exercised, then later on it might be worth negotiating, as the lease normally allows, the removal of that party and for the RTM to replace them as party to the lease, not merely an RTM that has removed their rights & obligations. They would cease to be an RTM company however their articles can be altered with ease.

[Gordon999]

Don't suggest to OP tinking with the lease to get the RTM to replace PMC as a party in lease.

The RTM is really all powerful as any income under the lease as due to LL or PMC after handover date , now becomes due to RTM except for ground rent income and execise of forfeiture. "Any income " includes fees charged for flat transfer approval etc & subletting / consent becomes income due to RTM.

After RTM takes legal control, appoint another managing agent ( or leaseholders can self manage small blocks ) to administer the service charge account according to RICS Residential Managment Code Standard. ( Code costs about 21 pds from RICS online Bookshop ) for one year term and thereafter on 90 day notice.

Get rid of all previous suppliers ( & Building Insurance policy ) used by Solitaire /Peverel and also demand handover of uncommitted service charge funds.

The RTM has the right to demand disclosure of recipient party and the amount of commission charged on building insurance.

Then organise the leaseholders to collectively buy the freehold as the leasehold title is only a long term rental contract of slowly diminishing value.

[leaseholdanswers]

Don't suggest to OP tinking with the lease to get the RTM to replace PMC as a party in lease.

My view is well posted that control as you outline is enough in most cases. I felt that this is an option as it is a means of eliminating future confusion, and is simply achieved. RTM is still newish and like RMCs I dont think we have seen the nature of failures that are going to occur. Certainly in some leases is greatly strengthens the ability to start foreiture proceedings with the landlord.

But I agree it's one for a year or two down the road after RTM!