UPDATE: 5 November 2021
Leaseholders have passed this decision by ARMA to LKP:
“ABC Estates expelled from ARMA The Board of Directors 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.
“There is no right of appeal against the decision under our Articles of Association.“
Major works bill ballooned from £10,000 to £100,000 without justification
Leaseholders and freehold owner unite to reclaim payments
The property tribunal ruling prompts formal complaint over ABC Estates to ARMA
Leaseholders who sought the protection of a section 24 court appointed manager were aghast when projected major works estimated at his appointment at £10,000 were revised upwards to nearly £100,000.
Leaseholders were even joined by the freeholder with whom they had been in dispute in criticising the performance of Richard Davidoff, managing director of ABC Estates.
In a devastating ruling of August 12 the tribunal found that Richard Davidoff had failed in his fiduciary duties, was not a “satisfactory witness”, was arrogant and dismissive of the leaseholders and had proposed to entrust the major works to a company whose sole director was the wife of the head of block management at ABC Estates.
The tribunal reported the freeholder describing Richard Davidoff’s cash calls as “outright extortion” after receiving “six demands totalling £59,613.70, with no explanation justifying these charges”.
It concluded that Richard Davidoff’s appointment had been a complete failure and that no work had been done to improve the four-flat and commercial unit property in the two years of his appointment.
The tribunal, under Judge Robert Latham, made these observations after noting: “Any criticism of the conduct of the manager will be examined with care, because they are made against the manager in his capacity as an officer of the tribunal.”
Richard Davidoff left the site, 112 Blackheath Road in south east London, in January.
“Mr Davidoff failed to fulfil his duties as the tribunal would expect from a tribunal appointed manager who acts as an officer of the tribunal,” the ruling said.
Most unusually the property tribunal also apologised to leaseholders for ignoring their emails that matters were seriously awry at 112 Blackheath Road under its own tribunal appointed manager.
The tribunal ordered that the two leaseholders who brought the case be refunded £11,844.32 and £12,196.92. The freehold owner, required to pay £59,614, “has not paid one penny. She took the view that the sums demanded were “outright extortion”; she would not be “held to ransom” on her own property”, the tribunal noted.
A host of other charges, billed to ABC Estates, were ruled inadmissible. The company is a member of ARMA, and the tribunal ruling has been forwarded to the trade body as the basis of a separate official complaint.
“The relationship between the tenants and the manager broke down irretrievably when they discovered that the company who had provided the lowest quote was owned by the wife of the person [Mark Reed, head of block management at ABC Estates] who had served the statutory Notice of Estimates,” the tribunal says
One of the leaseholders emailed ABC Estates in February 2020 pointing out that the proposed contractor, Valens Limited had been dissolved in 2018. Mark Reed, of ABC Estates replied that the company was in fact Valens Contractors Limited.
“Can you confirm whether any staff members of ABC Estates have any connection to any of the companies that were asked to tender for the work?” the leaseholder asked.
Mr Reed replied: “Not that I am aware of.”
This was surprising as the sole director of Valens Contractors Limited was then Lisa Velenski, Mr Reed’s wife, the tribunal noted.
In March, Mr Reed responded to the leaseholder: “It should be noted that I am not a director, shareholder, nor do I receive any financial remuneration from Valens Ltd.”
Richard Davidoff’s puffs his services on YouTube here:
The tribunal noted:
“There is only one consolation from this sorry saga. The tenants and the landlord are now united in common cause against the tribunal appointed manager.”
The tribunal stated: “The Applicants’ primary case is that the Respondent [Richard Davidoff] has sought to inflate the fees that he can claim through the Management Order. Regardless of whether he sought to do so, the Tribunal is satisfied that his actions have led to inflated and wholly unreasonable sums being demanded …
“Mr Davidoff failed to fulfil his duties as the tribunal would expect from a tribunal appointed manager who acts as an officer of the tribunal.
“We can see no justification for the agreement which Mr Davidoff signed with ABC. This seems to have been no more than a device to enable Mr Davidoff to levy charges and to deal with service charge funds outside the scope of the Management Order.”
The tribunal ruled that Richard Davidoff pay the leaseholders £300 application fee to the tribunal, and issued a section 20c order under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 barring him from passing on any legal costs through the service charge.
The tribunal issue these cautionary words to leaseholders seeking a court appointed manager:
There is a mistaken belief that if tenants have a rogue landlord who has neglected their flats for many years, all they need to do is to apply for a tribunal appointed manager pursuant to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“the 1987 Act”) and their problems will be resolved. This application highlights the limitations of what can be achieved by
such an appointment.
The full ruling is here:
Related posts:
Property tribunal tightens up how it appoints section 24 court-appointed managers after the Richard Davidoff debacle
Richard Davidoff of ABC Estates expelled from IRPM
Property tribunal chamber president Siobhan McGrath says Richard Davidoff has two other section 24 court appointments – ‘as far as I can ascertain’ – and proposes a new practice code to encourage section 24 appointees to behave
Well, can Sir Keith Lindblom do anything about Richard Davidoff’s continuing role as an officer of the property tribunal?
Sir Peter Bottomley calls on ministers to listen to ‘whistleblower’ ex-employees of Richard Davidoff (of ABC Estates)
FirstPort charges leaseholders 33% commission on temporary staff recruitment
Disgraceful.
This is not the first time that Richard Davidoff’s performance as an FTT Appointed Manager has been panned by the Tribunal. In a report dated 21-07-2021 concerning another building, the Tribunal explained that Richard Davidoff had previously been given a 3 year management order for that building which had expired in August 2020. The Tribunal explained that no application had been made to extend the management order before it expired in August 2020 but now (in June 2021) Richard Davidoff was seeking a new 3 year management order for the same building.
The Tribunal did not give Richard Davidoff a new 3 year management order but instead said it would adjourn its decision for 3 months – remarking that:
1. The management order had ‘manifestly failed’.
2. Richard Davidoff had achieved nothing at all at the building during the 1st 3 year management order.
3. Richard Davidoff had breached the terms of the 1st management order anyway by not sending the Tribunal a brief report and final account within 28 days of the end of the management order e.g. by end of September 2020.
4. By the date of the Tribunal hearing on 28-06-2021, Richard Davidoff had still not provided the Tribunal with a brief report and final account.
5. Richard Davidoff had left the Tribunal unclear what sums of money he held for each of the leaseholders.
A link to the report is here:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkKBm3fxCVLJcQOrYcVLOzviGy8
Please keep us informed of developments in this case, where the ruling can also be read here:
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Appointment-of-a-Manager-FTT-case-34-36-Prescott-Place-SW4-6BU.pdf
Will do.
Gulliver I have posted the Regional Judges contact details on this site.
I have contacted him several times over the past year in relation to clearly inappropriate appointments of Managing agents by the tribunal under his jurisdiction ( London) .
Initially I received what I thought were rather pompous replies eg ‘ please do not contact the tribunal’. …….. I was recently informed by Tim Powell’s office that they are regularly reviewing MA appointments. Seems ABC slipped through the net.
The only way root and branch reform of the FTT will occur is if people who are disgusted with agencies such as ABC contact the man ( in this case) at the top.
I would have posted this information on ‘118’ but I have been blocked……
Hi, I appreciate that I’ve arrived late to this party, but I’m sad to advise that the Davidoff gravy train continues to trundle on. Happy to share notes – but seriously can’t anything be done to stop this man?
Late to the party or not, your notes would be welcome @Malcolm Raven. What is your experience of Richard Davidoff and ABC Estates?
Just imagine that if similar ‘inflation of costs’ are occurring at all 150 buildings that Richard Davidoff claims to be managing, this could run into millions of being unjustly taken from leaseholders and even freeholders each year. This is only a 5 unit building and Richard Davidoff has been made to repay c. 25K – which could have been more had the leaseholders and the freeholder not dug their heels in.
Imagine the amounts that could be taken from much larger buildings of 20 or even 100 units? The FTT should have an internal system for referring these cases to the appropriate bodies ….
Interesting how the FTT report is seeking to absolve the FTT of any blame for the actions of its own appointed officer – especially in view of the fact that in the last 4 years alone, the London Region of the FTT has made Richard Davidoff Appointed Manager of at least 5 buildings. These are the ones that I have managed to find online but there may be others that for one reason or another have not been uploaded to the online database ….
LON/00AY/LAM/2017/0015 – DECIDED ON 01-09-2017
Address = 34-36 Prescott Place, London SW4 6BU
Period of management order = 01-09-2017 to 31-08-2020
LON/00AC/LVM/2018/0013 – DECIDED ON 20-09-2018
Address = 36 West Heath Road, London NW3 BUR
Period of management order = 01-10-2018 to 30-09-2020
LON/00AL/LAM/2018/0012 – DECIDED ON 03-01-2019
Address = 112 Blackheath Road, London, SE10 8DA
Period of management order = 01-02-2019 to 31-01-2021
LON/00AM/LAM/2019/0007 – DECIDED ON 01-11-2019
Address = 11 King Edward’s Road, London E9 7SF
Period of management order = 01-01-2020 to 31-12-2022
LON/00AW/LAM/2020/0019 – DECIDED ON 26-02-2021
Address = 178 Holland Road, London, W14 8AH
Period of management order = 26-02-2021 to 26-02-2024
LON/00AY/LAM/2021/0001 – DECIDED ON 21-07-2021
Address = 34-36 Prescott Place, London SW4 6BU
Period of management order = N/A, Tribunal adjourned application for 3 months
The FTThas a duty of care to contact each leaseholder affected by its appointment of ABC Management Agency. It must then review its appointment of ABC and allow each leaseholders to give their opinion on Davidoffs conduct ,otherwise it is knowingly leaving leaseholders in possible harms way eg finacial loss.
Whilst this Tribunal ruling is certainly a victory for the leaseholders and the freeholder, the victory feels a little hollow.
The upshot of the ruling is that Richard Davidoff has been ordered to repay the excessive sums that he had forced the leaseholders to pay him under threat of forfeiture. In real terms this still leaves the leaseholders out of pocket. According to the Tribunal report, the leaseholders had solicitors fees to pay during the early stages of the dispute when they thought that a solicitor’s letter might make Richard Davidoff back off. Who or what repays the leaseholders for these solicitors fees; the 2.5 years of stress under Richard Davidoff’s mismanagement and the cost to their mental health?
The real sting in the tail is that Richard Davidoff remains a Tribunal Appointed Manager at several other buildings and he and his 20-30 companies (including the supposedly dormant ones) manage 150 buildings in total.
This Tribunal report makes it clear that none of these 150 buildings can be safe in Richard Davidoff’s hands.
The leaseholders in the Blackheath Road FTT case are to be commended on their sleuthing efforts. This uncovered all of Richard Davidoff’s hidden connections and saw the FTT admitting that they had got things wrong by not responding to the leaseholders’ concerns that Richard Davidoff had turned rogue!
I have never before read a decision report in which the FTT apologises to the leaseholders and nor have I ever seen an LKP article with so many comments as this one (43 and counting). Is this a record?
By his conduct in this and many, many other FTT cases, Richard Davidoff is thumbing his nose up at all the gate-keepers e.g. the FTT, the PRS and ARMA.
What is required is for all the above organisations to do what they are already empowered to do and do it with alacrity and consistency.
For example, in 2015 a certain freeholder was given a 12 month prison sentence for failing to comply with the order of the FTT to hand over documents to an FTT Appointed Manager.
If the FTT saw to it that that freeholder received a 12 month prison sentence for disobeying an FTT order why is the FTT in this case allowing Richard Davidoff to get away with a strongly worded decision report – which is no more than a simple slap on the wrist?
http://www.flat-living.co.uk/advice/1286-dont-ignore-the-ftt-you-could-end-up-behind-bars
I think that the FTT could have been firmer when dealing with the Blackheath Road case. There is certainly more that a Tribunal can do to a failed FTT Appointed Manager if they are minded to. It is most unsatisfactory that the FTT in the Blackheath Road case gives the impression that they cannot do any more than give Richard Davidoff a tap on the wrist. This is not strictly accurate.
The FTT in the Blackheath Road case found that Richard Davidoff failed to produce a final report and accounts by the time of the hearing in the Blackheath Road case. The FTT also found that Richard Davidoff had subverted the terms of the management order and breached his fiduciary duties. The FTT found that Richard Davidoff’s insubordination resulted in financial gain to Richard Davidoff and his chosen contractors – which happened to be companies in which he and a member of his staff had a financial interest in. Despite all of this, the FTT panel went on to consider the reasonableness of the service charges that Richard Davidoff and ABC Estates had demanded from the leaseholders and made findings that the leaseholders should reasonably have paid ‘x’ for the management fees and ‘y’ for the buildings insurance etc. etc.
In July 2021, another FTT panel when faced with a failed FTT Appointed Manager referred the failure to the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal then ordered the FTT Appointed Manager to personally pay back every penny that the leaseholders had paid to him during his appointment – regardless of whether any of the money had actually been spent on the building.
A link to that case, Suchorski & Ors v Norton UKUT 2021 is here:
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2021/166.html
In any other line of work, Richard Davidoff’s conduct as determined by the FTT in the Blackheath Road case would be more commonly described as insubordination, deception, profiteering and fraud.
All of the above would be grounds for gross misconduct and dismissal in any other line of work and yet Richard Davidoff’s remaining Tribunal appointments are being permitted to continue. At the very least, the First Tier Tribunal and/or the Upper Tribunal and/or ARMA should intervene …
The FTT has powers to attach weighty penal notices to management orders and has done so before in circumstances where the terms of a management order have been or are in very real danger of being subverted. The following cases are examples where the FTT has attached penal notices to management orders. The penal notices in these examples are against a group of leaseholders and a freeholder though. I can find no example of the FTT ever having attached a penal notice against a Tribunal Appointed Manager.
See para 51
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ddd5e12ed915d0177cee001/Ditton_Place_Decision_April.pdf
See para 1
https://decisions.lease-advice.org//app/uploads/decisions/act85/12001-13000/12368.pdf
In the latter example, the penal notice reads:
IF YOU THE WITHIN NAMED RESPONDENT CONSTANTINE BATIN DO NOT COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND IMPRISONED OR FINED, OR YOUR ASSETS MAYBE SEIZED.
Why has the FTT never attached a similarly worded penal notice against Richard Davidoff?
It is highly likely that this is how Richard Davidoff behaves at all 150 buildings that he manages. There are potentially millions of pounds each year being unjustifiably taken from leaseholders and freeholders alike. If Richard Davidoff’s actions can be so brazen at a building where he is an Appointed Manager, imagine how more brazen his actions would be at a building where he is merely the managing agent and not subject to the additional level of scrutiny that being a Tribunal Appointed Manager brings.
The very same themes contained in the Blackheath Road FTT decision report are contained in the FTT decision report in the case of 502 Harrow Road, W9 – which was decided on 14-08-2020. In the 502 Harrow Road, W9 case, the FTT questioned ABC Estates’ arrangements with contractors. This time the contractors were Sinclair Builders and Hammer & Chisel Limited to whom ABC Estates awarded the major works contract and paid 100% of the major works costs before they even commenced work!
The Tribunal found that ABC Estates had ignored the quotes from the leaseholders’ and freeholder’s nominated contractors – whose quotes had come in at a significantly lower price. The Tribunal found that many of the contractors that ABC Estates had selected to tender for the major works were actually insolvent, shelf companies.
The Tribunal concluded that ABC Estates had not in fact served the major works notices on the leaseholders or the freeholder, contrary to the signed witness statements of 4x ABC Estates staff members. The ‘inconsistent’ evidence that ABC Estates staff gave about the window envelopes was central to the unravelling of this point!
The bottom line is that the Tribunal determined that ABC Estates had inflated the major works costs for the benefit of themselves and their chosen contractor – whom incidentally shared the same registered office address as ABC Estates. The Tribunal worked out for itself that ABC Estates staff had lied in their evidence in an attempt to mislead the Tribunal and the Applicants.
I have highlighted the most significant parts of the report.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkKBm3fxCVLJd4nqe0vbaQApcPM
So who is going to break the news to poor Larry? Watch the ABC Estates block management 30 second advert below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRHZWfNwvY4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRHZWfNwvY4
Hi Gulliver,
That’s Nick Ferrari in the advert not “ Larry”….. If Managing Agents were strictly regulated then the possibility of Master Davidoff and numerous other tribunal appointed MA’s pulling their scams with ease would cease.
Btw, are the originator of 118 property site?
I refer to ‘Larry’ because the narrator in the advert which Nick Ferrari features in says that if you use ABC Estates for your block management, you too could be ‘as happy as Larry […]’
Thanks for clearing that up.
If you are the Gulliver on 118 Property site which is for freeholders and Property investors could you please unsubscribe me as the site will not allow me to do so. I notice that email exchange with Bernie Wales about ‘ Shaving Cream Splitting the freehold title’ has been removed.
As an activist for leaseholders rights 118 property is not for me thank you!
To clarify, I am the Gulliver that started a discussion on the Property118 site but other than that, I have nothing to do with the Property118 site.
Never mind poor Larry – who is going to break the news to the leaseholders at 178 Holland Road? The FTT appointed Richard Davidoff as manager on a 3 year management order which commenced in February 2021 ….
A link to the FTT decision report is here:
https://www.gov.uk/residential-property-tribunal-decisions/178-holland-road-london-w14-8ah-lon-slash-00aw-slash-lam-slash-2020-slash-0019
Whilst it is true that it is the leaseholders that have to nominate a manager for the FTT to appoint, this is not a case where the leaseholders made an inappropriate nomination. Quite the opposite.
In this case the leaseholders took all the precautions that they could have taken. They nominated someone who had already been a Tribunal appointed Manager and ensured that the nominee’s company was an ARMA member that (on the face of it, at least) had lots of 5 star Google reviews and a PR budget large enough to pay for an LBC radio campaign and TV advert ….
Blimey, I can think of another “Tribunal appointed appointed Managing agency” whose reputation is so awful that they couldn’t be trusted to be left in charge of a graveyard.
I contacted the tribunals in question to inform them of the lack of due diligence carried out by case workers on prospective MA’s touting for business….. I was informed that only the leaseholders directly affected or the MA can effect any investigation into the appointed of the MA. Tribunals are putting Herod in charge of kindergartens.
Root and branch reform is required. It is a scandal of epic proportions.
LKP has reported on ABC Estates before for double charging and overcharging leaseholders at a Bristol building two years in a row. In the 2017 FTT report on the Bristol building, the Tribunal said that some of the demands for payment made were ‘not lawful’.
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/floorweald-and-abc-estates-overcharged-leaseholders-27000/
It is staggering that the FTT case workers do not carry out due diligence. It seems RICS ASSOCIATE MA’s are automatically regarded as respectable……I think leaseholders hold a different view.
The TIm Powell who is regional judge for the London FTT informed me that only the leaseholders or MA’s directly affected by the appointment of the FTT can voice their concerns.
I replied and said that was nonsense as many leaseholders are intimidated by the thuggish MA’s appointed by the FTT and therefore do not want to make a fuss. In addition I informed Mr Powell that I am aware of FTT appointing MA’s with appalling back stories despite protestations of the leaseholders involved. It is beyond belief that FTT are appointing individuals whose previous management companies have been lambasted by the same FTT?
C’mon this needs addressing. Leaseholders are let down and every turn.
This ‘ Hail fellow well met’ bonhomie between FTT white, male and pale panels, and the freeholders must END!
Are you the Kim who contributed to this site some time back, and then went away? You had problems with a managing agent and were due to go to a tribunal?
The one and only!! And yes I was VICTORIOUS! I was deemed so ‘ dangerous’ by some ‘ big guns’ in the resi management trade that I was sued for ‘ Harassment’ …
Two days in the witness box at RCJ…Won on every charge. Judge said I could leave with my reputation unsullied. The Managing agent on the other hand had to pay my legal fees which amounted to tens of thousands……
Delighted to hear that Kim, it is rare to win a victory in our rigged system. It appears that you have the guts to fight these twats. At the time I thought you were being foolish, you proved me wrong.
It occurs to me that you either slept with the judge or are a freemason, which is it?
Yup!
Gulliver -Useful Information.
The regional judge for the FTT involved in this case is Tim Powell and can be contacted via email address Mary.Mansuri @justice.gov.uk
David!!! How very dare you. I would never use my sensational seduction technique on a Judge. My fight for the strict regulation of managing agents forges ahead. I have an FB “ REGULATION FOR MANAGING AGENTS’ site. I shall be supporting the NLC protest on 16th September. I will never allow myself to be intimidated by residential Managing agents tradespeople or anyone else for that matter!
When I appeared on behalf of my daughter and others before HH Geoff Latham in the London FTT against Southwark Council, HHJ GL declined to hear my allegations of fraud stating “this tribunal does not hear allegations of fraud”. However, I had clear evidence of just that in that … REDACTED … contractors of Lewisham had, as agent of REDACTED of SLBC’s Camberwell Major Works Office, lied to SLBC’s planning department by supplying a Certificate A of ownership when they well knew there were leaseholders with the residues of 125 year right-to-buy leases. (Lessees with more than seven years remaining unexpired on their leases are ‘owners’ for this purpose and ‘owners’ are required by the T&CP Rules to be sent copies of the planning applications. It is a criminal offence knowingly or recklessly to supply an incorrect Certificate:s.65 T&CPA 1990. For two people to agree to breach s. 65 is a criminal conspiracy: s.1 Criminal Law Act 1977. See also Fraud Act 2006 and s.9 which says no one can refuse to answer questions which tend to incriminate, but they cannot later face prosecution on the basis of such answers. Despite this HHJ GL allowed REDACTED to refuse to answer any of my questions where such answers, assuming he told the truth, would be incriminating and I had the evidence of such wrongdoing in black and white on his planning applications forms)
I have discovered at least ten other examples of SLBC having done the same, most notably, and notoriously, in the case of the Lakanal House refurbishment when REDACTED … played the same trick 18 July 2005 resulting in six deaths 3 July 2009. The scam is, of course, so that such leaseholders do not learn of the planning application until it is too late to apply for a JR and to make any objections or representations.
In my daughter’s case windows which I can buy on the internet for c. £250 were charged at £1,234 per item! The window fitter … REDACTED told me the day before the hearing “This is a complete farce. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these windows”. I asked if I could borrow one of the outgoing windows to take to the FTT the following day and he agreed on condition I brought it back (presumably for resale). Later that day … REDACTED another SLBC employee, came to see me and said no windows were to leave the site.
So the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Work is being done which need not be done;
2. Such work is being overpriced by about a factor of 5;
3. SLBC anyway will not allow the real evidence to leave its sites;
4. S.65 T&CPA 1990 is being routinely breached;
5. Prima facie conspiracies to breach s. 65 TCPA 1990 are routine;
6. Fraud Act 2006 ss. 1-4 is routinely being breached
7. I have been threatened with prosecution for harassment of … REDACTED
Well I do declare ! Not the old “:Harassment Threat’. They don’t have a leg to stand on!
Thanks, Kim, I am happy to say I agree entirely. But they did threaten my daughter, who they knew was self-isolating with Covid symptoms in March 2020, with forfeiture of her lease. She was at a low ebb and so pleaded with me to compromise her case on terms which I am required not to disclose…
Anyone dealing with SLBC needs a large pinch of salt and to hold his nose very firmly…and don’t believe a word they say, check everything for yourself. Those threatened with large refurbishment bills in particular should challenge everything in particular their Certificates of Ownership: see s. 65 T&CP Act 1990 and the Rules made thereunder and the Building Regulations.
N B 1. As for uPVC windows and panels Class 0 (zero) is no longer permitted: Building Regulations (Amendment ) Act 2018 w.e.f. December 2018.
2. Annabel Sidney now works for Martin and Co. estate agents 70 Church Road, Crystal Palace.
3. SLBC pleaded guilty to four Building Regulation charges as a plea bargain where 20 others were not proceeded with in 2017 following the Lakanal House fire and inquest of 2013 after. trying, and failing, to have London Fire Brigade removed as prosecutors… You couldn’t make it up!
Well I do declare! Not the old forfeiture threat….. Been there got the T Shirt.
“ FORFEITURE “ is regularly used as a THREAT by unscrupulous MA’s/ Shady solicitors/ Offshore freeholders/ et al to intimidate leaseholders.
In reality the courts very rarely implement the draconian feudal forfeiture law.
REGULATION OF MANAGEMENT AGENCIES MUST BE IMPLEMENTED.
It is the Wild West out there in the Residential management trade.
The days of Rachmanist practices are obsolete and must remain so.
These days, freeholders use crooked MA’s and shady solicitors instead of criminal thugs with Alsatians to bully and intimidate leaseholders. FIGHT BACK!!!!
May we please get back to the subject matter of this article e.g. Richard Davidoff and ABC Estates and the implications of the decision report on the Blackheath Road FTT case?
Speaking of which, I have just come across an article by Giles Peaker (Partner at Anthony Gold Solicitors and ‘Nearly Legal’ blogger).
Giles Peaker’s final paragraph really says it all: “The many breaches of fiduciary duty, the attempted contractual justification for his company to charge higher and additional fees than those specified in the management order, and the failure to understand the trustee’s duty to the reserve funds, instead dipping in to them whenever it suited him (or ABC), are disgraceful behaviour for a supposedly professional manager, let alone one who is acting as an officer of the Tribunal.”
A link to Giles Peaker’s article is here:
https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2021/08/who-manages-the-managers-tribunal-appointed-manager-behaving-badly/
Our block in South London has 2 upcoming FTT cases against Mr Davidoff/entities related.
The first relates to service charges that we believe are unreasonable in previous years. After purchase of flats, the freeholder resigned from one of the parties to our lease (a management company) and Mr Davidoff took over. ABC are in turn instructed as block managers. This puts residents in an invidious position.
The second is a RTM claim. We are getting there and have the requisite qualifications. Mr Davidoff (as one of the parties to our lease) has continued to object, despite the freeholder accepting the claim.
Do you mean to say that you have a Residents’ Management Company as a party to your lease?
If so, then it sounds as though the freeholder’s intention was for the leaseholders to control the Residents’ Management Company. I don’t understand therefore why you have had to make a Right to Manage application unless Richard Davidoff has somehow hijacked your Residents Management Company? Please explain.
Actually Lesley,
I believe David Crawford’s comment to be pertinent to this subject matter for obvious reasons!
Thank you, Kim. But surely while the article was in part Davidoff specific, its was also addressed generally at the efficacy, or otherwise, of FTTs, their powers and the exercise and policing of those powers, breach of fiduciary duties, etc. etc.
Furthermore, there comes a point when overcharging, and conspiring with others to overcharge, in particular in breach of contractual agreements or Tribunal Orders, must amount to breaches of the criminal law. Simply to limit the discussion to breach of fiduciary duties is to overlook this point, isn’t it?
Thanks, Kim, for your supportive remarks. While the article is initially Davidoff specific it then broadens out into a discussion of the duties of a FTT appointed block administrator and its policing of those duties, fiduciary and otherwise, . In the social housing sector such ‘managers’ are by definition the local authority. Southwark’s neglect of its housing stock was detailed in HHJ Jan Luba’s report on The Condition of Social Housing in Southwark presented to that Council October 2012.
If the victims of such maladministration, whether in the private or public sector, do not stand up to the wrongdoers we deserve all the wrongdoing they dish out. “Quis custodiat ipsos custodies?” Answer: we do, or rather we should, but sadly tend not to do so, we take ‘the easy way out’, ‘anything for a quiet life’, ‘don’t want to rock the boat’, ‘teacher knows best’ route. Is it any wonder we get our Jimmy Savills, Dr. Shipmans and now perverts in religious institutions?
Kim, it sounds as if you and I are on the same wavelength. My phone no. is:07813 067519 and email: david.crawford@buyingfrenchproperty.com if you want ‘a frank exchange of views’. “If we do not learn the lessons of history we are made to relive them”, Santander. We must ‘call out’ these wrongdoers and if that leads to litigation, then that will be one more forum in which we can tell the world what they are up to.
David, the apathy of leaseholders astounds me. It is all very well them voicing their opinions on forums, however do they actually take action by writing to Jenrick demanding that the promised regulation of managing agents as recommended in Lied Bests ‘ Final Report’ submitted to Jenrick’s good office in July 2019?
I wonder how many contributors to this thread will write to Tim Powell the regional judge for the London FTT making clear their outrage that ABC management company was appointed by the FTT and leaseholders complaints about Davidoffs conduct ignored by the FTT. I have provided the email address for Tim Powell on this thread to assist the commenters.
I have the victory battle scars from refusing to be intimidated and bullied by managing agents whose methods can be described as litte more than rachmanesque. It is shocking that these individuals can exploit and cheat leaseholders with impunity. They must be strictly regulated and arrested and charged where evidence of fraud is provided.
The many not the few of residential management agencies are on the make and on the take. ENOUGH!
David, you and I do seem to be on the same wavelength- I’ll be in touch!
Kim, I seem to have been repeating myself, which has been heard of before, but on this occasion the monitor was gagging me, but I am now free to talk. It seems to me that if those who have (some idea of) what is going on do not speak out, or ‘call it out’ as we are won’t to say these days, or ‘worked’ to say, then we become a part not of the solution, but of the problem. Millions of people are suffering in their leasehold properties from overcharging and under performing, their properties are losing value and all of that quite apart from the risk to their health from fire hazards. If you want to get in touch to compare notes as to tactics and best ways forward I am at LL302LP. Are you going on the demo 16 September?
David, for fear of sounding like a bumper sticker, leaseholders apathy is the managing agents
Nuclear weapon ! I most certainly will be at the rally on 16 th September brandishing my banner. I do hope that tens of thousands of the 4.5 million UK leaseholders attend.
NO EXCUSE for them not too.
What is LL302LP ?
Please refer this to Economic Crime Unit on 0208 201 2646 / 0208 201 2827 .FTT and ARMA do not have the power to act on this.
Will do! This is an appalling state of affairs.
Not sure that I agree that the FTT and ARMA do not have the power to act on this. If it was minded to, ARMA could withdraw the membership of ABC Block Management Limited whose sole shareholder is Richard/Raziel Davidoff.
If it was minded to, the FTT could refer Richard Davidoff’s failings in the Blackheath Road case to the Upper Tribunal – which has the same powers as the High Court.
Also, if the FTT were minded to, it could collate and release all the data it had on Richard Davidoff’s failed and failing FTT Appointed Manager positions. Collectively these data could make a civil matter turn into a criminal matter as it would show a pattern of behaviour consistent with enriching himself and his associates at the expense of innocent leaseholders.
Thing is, ARMA & FTT will never be “ minded” to do as you very sensibly suggest they should do.