FTT Appointed Manager in Doghouse. Now what?

FTT Appointed Manager in Doghouse. Now what?

9:42 AM, 23rd August 2021, About 3 months ago 85

Text Size

A friend has just forwarded me a copy of a recent service charge case where the First Tier Tribunal makes 5x references to the Appointed Manager subverting the management order and another 5x references to the Appointed Manager breaching his fiduciary duties. The report concludes that the Appointed Manager did this for his own financial gain.

I have highlighted in yellow the most relevant portions of the 35-page report: Click here to view the report. Some examples given in the report are:

1. Charging £93,000 for major works that should have cost no more than £25,000.
2. Entering into a ‘management agreement’ with his own daughter’s block management company – where he is the sole shareholder.
3. Granting major work contracts to companies that the Appointed Manager had an undeclared financial interest in – and denying the connections when explicitly questioned on the matter.
4. Transferring service charge and reserve fund monies into his own ‘non-trading’ company bank account – and denying any connection with the company when explicitly questioned on the matter.
5. Using leaseholders’ reserve fund contributions to offset the service charge arrears of the freeholder.

Although this Appointed Manager’s management order is at an end at this particular building, my friend informs me that the Appointed Manager is the First Tier Tribunal Appointed Manager at another 7 buildings; manages c.150 buildings through his daughter’s block management company – where he is the sole shareholder and continues to operate without a care in the world.

Is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

Paul



Comments

by BernieWales

12:37 PM, 5th November 2021, About 4 weeks ago

UPDATE : The grapevine advises, via forwarded emails, that :

"The Board of Directors [of ARMA] have now Under the Bye-Laws of the Association have hereby expelled ABC Block Management Limited as a member as of the 4th November 2021.

In addition to this, they must cease using ARMA’s logo and remove any reference to membership on any business notepaper, website or any other published or public material whatsoever and return their ARMA membership certificate."

I have not heard directly from ARMA as yet.
I have not heard from IRPM on their on-going investigations.

by Vivienne Somerville

14:54 PM, 5th November 2021, About 4 weeks ago

Good on ARMA for expelling them as members. ARMA must have seen through Richard Davidoff and ABC Estates' nonsense which has gone on for years and devastated the lives of many.

Come on IRPM. You know it makes sense. What are you waiting for?

by BernieWales

15:32 PM, 5th November 2021, About 4 weeks ago

Reply to the comment left by Vivienne Somerville at 05/11/2021 - 14:54
The problem now, Vivienne is ... now that ARMA has expelled ABC from membership ... who polices their activities? Nobody! They're free to carry on as before.

We need @MichaelGove in his Housing role, to bring in the Regulation of Property Agents. This is the only hope for curbing the activities of rogues who abuse the systems.

by Vivienne Somerville

15:42 PM, 5th November 2021, About 4 weeks ago

Reply to the comment left by BernieWales at 05/11/2021 - 15:32
My euphoria at their expulsion is because ABC may lose existing and new instructions because of the expulsion.

Leaseholders, freeholders and developers alike are always told to use an ARMA or RICS managing agent. Therefore the ARMA logo is very valuable to a managing agent and is the main tool that they use to attract new business and retain existing business.

A wily managing agent (such as ABC Block Management Limited) would always be able to do just enough to satisfy any gate-keeper anyway. How else do you think ABC Block Management Limited has been able to fool the FTT/PRS/IRPM and ARMA for so many years?

by Gulliver

19:28 PM, 22nd November 2021, About A week ago

I hear that Sir Peter Bottomley MP has tabled an Early Day Motion focusing on Richard Davidoff's actions and conduct:
EDM 672, tabled on 19-11-2021 reads:

“That this House questions whether the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has effective power to investigate the actions and conduct of the court appointed property manager Richard Davidoff; recognises the need for urgent action to implement statutory regulation of the leasehold property management sector outlined in Regulation of Property Agents: working group report, chaired by Lord Best, published on 18 July 2019; seeks an effective Government response to the recommendations; and calls on the Government to listen to the former employees of Mr Davidoff raising whistleblowing details of his business practices”.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER