• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / ARMA / ARMA-Q: a qualified welcome, but it is not a new dawn

ARMA-Q: a qualified welcome, but it is not a new dawn

September 21, 2012 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

COMMENT

The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership broadly welcomes the draft ARMA-Q initiative, which may help resolve the less poisonous disputes in blocks managed by ARMA members.

It has also made suggestions to improve it: first, to make the disciplinary procedures public, like ours; secondly, to strengthen the requirement to declare ‘conflicts of interest’ to leaseholders.

It cannot be disputed that managing agents should tell leaseholders that their company is owned by the freehold-owning landlord. Or, that a managing agent is employed predominantly by one freeholder. These would be bars to LKP accreditation but, unfortunately, they exist with some of the ARMA membership.

It is also worth emphasising that many property managers have no intention of joining ARMA, which they believe has been collusive in the abuses of leasehold. The most spectacular examples in monetary terms of over-charging have been the handiwork of ARMA members. Nottingham-based Walton and Allen, an LKP member, “resigned from ARMA membership in 2011 as it became evident that its council is controlled by those very managing agents whom leaseholders want removing from their buildings”.

Omertà, the Sicilian vow of silence, has been a part of ARMA’s unwritten code for far too long.

One might have thought a trade body concerned with ethical standards would have commented after a series of LVT cases involving hundreds of thousands of pounds – at St George’s Wharf, Vauxhall, £1 million – being paid back to residents after systematic, industrial-scale over-charging. Or when a managing agent went off to prison in July for stealing £122,000 of leaseholders’ money. Instead, ARMA says nothing at all. It addresses itself to its membership. Privately. So why should leaseholders believe ARMA-Q is for their benefit?

Inevitably, the more commercially predatory ARMA members will trumpet the ethical scheme and pronounce it a new dawn, with all the issues of leasehold now resolved.

This would be nonsense. It is a positive step by a trade body whose customers are freehold-owning landlords, not leaseholders – and one that has stressed since 2010 that statutory regulation is required. This is the closest ARMA comes to acknowledging that abuses within the leasehold sector are endemic.

But if statutory regulation is required, as ARMA is arguing, then its fanfare for ARMA-Q can only be for something that is second-best.

Many leaseholders may be unpersuaded by a regulator on the ARMA payroll, although the appointment is likely to be from outside the sector and of proven calibre. For all its nose-in-trough feebleness of the past, there is a serious commitment within ARMA to make ARMA-Q effective, and the more thoughtful members know it is necessary.

The major hurdle is whether the regulator’s rulings are to be private, as the old guard would prefer, or publicly available. This is a sector that hides its dirty washing in mediation schemes, ombudsmen and other secret redress arrangements, while at the same time spouting pious drivel about “transparency”.

The complicit deal involved in this process is that the management company or landlord knows that you know it has been cheating you, but it will stop if you keep quiet about it. Secret mediation and ombudsmen benefit only one complainant.

Leasehold Valuation Tribunals are not without their flaws, but they are the only language some landlords and their managing agents understand.

However, it is possible that the ARMA-Q regulator will make public its disciplinary rulings. If so, that will have been an achievement worthy of respect by the ARMA reformers.

But stop this ‘Bungs ‘r’ us’ nonsense

It is obviously depressing that the ARMA annual conference on October 11 where ARMA-Q is being unveiled is being sponsored by an outfit called Energy Renewals. It is offering incentive payments to managing agents to switch energy providers – in other words, it is offering them bungs to spend leaseholders’ money and leaseholders almost certainly will not benefit at all. We reported this here in June

As one ARMA member said: “It is this sort of thing that so undermines trust in the organization, and it ought to be stopped.”

The full ARMA announcement of the draft ARMA-Q is below in pdf:

ARMA-Q

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailStuff the leaseholders and win an iPad – from one of the sponsors of ARMA-Q What does LKP think of ARMA reforms, we were asked. As the annual conference begins in London today, here we go … Stop keep asking who our members are, ARMA tells pensioner Peverel Retirement up before the ARMA regulator before it can join ARMA-Q Default ThumbnailARMA-Q solves ARMA’s problems, not those of leasehold

Category: ARMA, ARMA-Q, NewsTag: ARMA, ARMA-Q

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (44) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (39) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (39) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (64) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (47) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (200) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (42) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « ARMA-Q: an ethical facelift for a flawed trade body
Next Post: Undercover pensioner ‘spy’ to lift the lid on retirement leasehold 8pm tonight »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Lesley Newnham

    September 22, 2012 at 11:47 am

    I have read the ARMA-Q initiative recently and see nothing to convince me that anything will change except leaseholders paying for it!!

    ARMA has had 21 years to improve things for leaseholders but although they talk the talk by providing very useful information on how managing agents/freeholders SHOULD behave unfortunately they do not walk the walk in actually abiding by it!!

    I was incensed to read the comment in the next post ‘While mutinous,RTM-minded residents are a nuisance’!!!!! Whatever context it was meant under it is totally un acceptable given that residents are receiving such a raw deal.

    Those of us that have gone RTM may have been considered a nuisance especially as we deprive managing agents of thousands of pounds but we would likely not have done so IF our managing agents had been applying everything in the ARMA and RICS code!!

    With regard to the ‘Bungs ‘r’ us’ post in June I have already asked a question under that and would still appreciate any replies as I spent almost all of yesterday trying to discover why suddenly our block of 6 flats has been charged a different electricity tariff to the rest of a total of 18 flats. Naturally I was pushed from pillar to post and now have to wait until Monday for an answer. Having chosen to manage ourselves because we did not trust any managing agents after our experience with an ARMA member it means I have to use my time, which I would much rather be spending elsewhere to sort problems like these out. Having said that our building is so much improved now it has to be worth it.

    • admin

      September 22, 2012 at 6:29 pm

      Hello Lesley, I hope it is clear from the context that is managing agents who work for some the more monetising landlords who would regard RTM-minded residents as a “nuisance”. Losing a few blocks is irritating, but it is curtains for a managing agent to be dumped by a big landlord. With Peverel, for example, mutinous leaseholders are far less a concern than keeping on side Estates and Management, which runs the Tchenguiz freeholds (1 per cent of the country’s total).

      • Lesley Newnham

        September 25, 2012 at 1:41 pm

        I’m sorry admin but I still stand by my feelings this comment should not have been made in ANY context. It is derogatory and no different to “dribbling geriatrics” or “barrack room lawyers” in my book.
        Surely this is the whole issue that leaseholders are fighting against, the fact they are treated as second class citizens or patronized because of their age as seen in the Dispatches programme.
        Personally I don’t think this programme was anywhere near strong enough and only covering retirement leasehold is just the tip of the iceberg. It needs a programme on BBC1 or 2 to reach a wider audience.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web