Are tenants entitled to attend Management Company meetings?
I am a Director of the management company of a development of fourteen flats. There are three other directors who are owner occupiers, I own a buy to let flat. 
There are only four flats on the development which are rented out. An investor has bought one of the rented flats and we have found out that on top of the rent he is charging the tenant the service charge.
Does this entitle the tenant to come to our management meetings which until now have only consisted of owners?
The feeling is that a tenant will not have an interest in the development as a whole or in establishing a sinking fund which is what we are trying to do at the moment.
Any thoughts people have would be helpful.
Many thanks
Sheila
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Ex tenant problemsNext Article
Growing my small BTL business
Member Since August 2013 - Comments: 2
2:53 PM, 31st August 2013, About 13 years ago
The tenant does not have a right to attend meetings and it is highly unusual for a landlord to obligate the tenant to cover the service charge payments; these costs are usually factored into the rent charged under the tenancy.
The important fact is that the tenant is not actually paying the service charge. He/she may be paying the landlord an amount to cover the service charge but that is not the same as actually paying the service charge. It is the leaseholder who is legally bound to pay the service charge.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 3
7:16 PM, 15th November 2015, About 10 years ago
When I was director of a management company a few years ago we had a similar issue. We decided that tenants could attend, with approval from the owner but they had no vote or right to speak unless invited to do so. Essentially they were there as observers only which seemed to work quite well. It was also made very clear that they did not ‘represent’ the shareholder in any way. The situation did not arise the following year, but I can’t necessarily draw any conclusions from that as it was a few years ago now.