After complaints were raised to the property tribunal about Richard Davidoff, one of its own court-appointed managers, chamber president Siobhan McGrath has confirmed – “as far as I can ascertain from the tribunal records” – that he still has two other section 24 court appointments.
This means that Mr Davidoff is still in position at two other sites in spite of a property tribunal ruling in August that he had failed in his fiduciary duties, was not a “satisfactory witness”, was arrogant and dismissive of the leaseholders and had proposed to entrust some major works to a company whose sole director was the wife of the head of block management at Mr Davidoff’s own ABC Estates.
That case can be read here:
Siobhan McGrath informs LKP:
“As far as I can ascertain from the Tribunal records, you are correct to say that there are two other properties where there are extant management orders under which Mr Davidoff has been appointed as a Tribunal manager in London.
“The case references are LAM/2019/0007 and LAM/2020/0019.
“In each case, if any person interested applies to have the orders varied or discharged under the provisions of section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, then the Tribunal will be able to consider the merits of such an application and to make a determination.”
In reply to leaseholders who raised the same complaint, Judge McGrath writes that she “cannot comment on Tribunal determinations or the reasoning given for any decision. Nor do I have power to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of Mr Davidoff in respect of any other property where he been appointed as a manager.”
She informs LKP that the property tribunal is working on a “practice statement” outlining what the property tribunal might expect from section 24 managers, which will be issued before the end of December.
“For some time now I have been working with colleagues to produce a Practice Statement in respect of applications under section 24 for the appointment of managers. The purpose of the Practice Statement is to give guidance on the Tribunal’s expectation of proposed managers. Additionally, it will have a draft order annexed which provides a template for the consideration of parties and of the Tribunal when making appointments. I believe that the Practice Statement will assist in providing a benchmark for the standards required of Tribunal appointed managers going forward.
“The documents have now been submitted for the next stage of governance and I hope that I will be able to issue the Practice Statement before the end of December.”
Related posts:
Richard Davidoff, of ABC Estates, ‘breached his fiduciary duties’ after disastrous performance as a court-appointed manager, rules property tribunal
Property tribunal judge chairs sector-driven code of practice review that is boycotted by leaseholders
Richard Davidoff fails to block right to manage – from a residents’ management company where he is the only director
Judge Siobhan McGrath apologises over Mire debacle
Insiders carve up code of practice for property managers – having been silent on systemic abuses for years!
Financial Conduct Authority under pressure to force open secretive insurance commissions, so leaseholders can see what they are paying for
If I understand the contents of Siobhan McGrath’s letter correctly, the First Tier Tribunal’s (FTT’s) position is:
1. That despite the numerous outrageous findings about Richard Davidoff’s conduct in the 112 Blackheath Road FTT case, it cannot of its own volition remove Richard Davidoff from his 2x remaining Tribunal appointments.
2. That the FTT must sit on its hands and wait for the interested parties in the 2x buildings to make an application to remove Richard Davidoff.
3. That if an interested party makes a Section 24(9) 1987 application, the FTT will then decide whether it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to remove Richard Davidoff.
In the case of a Tribunal appointed Manager, isn’t the FTT an ‘interested party’ in the 2x buildings because it was the FTT that appointed Richard Davidoff to these 2x buildings in the first place? So why is the FTT stating that it cannot act and remove Richard Davidoff from these 2x buildings? Is the FTT perhaps waiting to receive a Section 24(9) 1987 application from the FTT?
If the FTT is not willing/able to proactively review these 2x appointments, the very least they should do is write to all the affected parties to notify them of ABC Block Management Limited’s expulsion from ARMA – attaching a copy of the 112 Blackheath Road FTT decision report.
“This means that Mr Davidoff is still in position at two other sites in spite of a property tribunal ruling in August that he had failed in his fiduciary duties, was not a “satisfactory witness”, was arrogant and dismissive of the leaseholders and had proposed to entrust some major works to a company whose sole director was the wife of the head of block management at Mr Davidoff’s own ABC Estates”.
Unbelievable!