RTM Scaremongers!

Comments

1. Lesley Newnham

   October 26, 2015 at 10:48 am

   The only case possible to cause a problem is the one Triplerose Ltd v Ninety Broomfield Rd RTM Co in which it was decided NOT to allow RTM companies to manage more than one block. I contacted LEASE on 15th July asking how this decision would affect those RTM’s already doing so? Their response on 11th August was ” this does create an uncertain situation for those who have already exercised RTM in this respect and it remains to be seen whether landlords will challenge the entitlement of such companies”!!

2. Dudley Joiner

   October 26, 2015 at 4:29 pm

   LKP omits to mention that the letter referred to is being circulated by the Right to Manage Federation (RTMF) which has helped over 7,500 properties acquire RTM.

   Our letter is not scaremongering. The RTMF has acted responsibly, devoting adequate time to devise a strategy to protect leaseholders from the impact of the Court of Appeal decision known as Triplerose. Our experienced legal team has acquired an enviable reputation for championing the rights of leaseholders in battles with obstructive landlords. Our solicitor Margarita Mossop, Mayfield Law, is well qualified having spent the last 4 years winning RTM cases in the Tribunals and for 6 previous years was a legal adviser for the government organization LEASE.

   The RTMF has come up with a positive course of action for RTM companies affected by Triplerose. Is it not commendable to inform leaseholders about the law and prepare them for the consequences?

   Disingenuously, LKP neglects to say that on 30th March 2015 it posted its own report of the Triplerose decision headed ‘Right to Manage in chaos after Court of Appeal decision’. Some might consider that scaremongering. The article stated the following: –

   “Right to manage legislation is in chaos following Friday’s Court of Appeal decision to prevent RTM companies from managing more than one building at a site. The decision drives a hole through current RTM legislation and, in LKP’s view, can only be addressed with primary legislation. It means that any detached buildings on a site cannot be managed by the same RTM company.”

   As a consequence of this Court of Appeal decision, which reverses the earlier interpretation of the law and applies retrospectively, any RTM Company managing multiple blocks is now doing so without any legal authority.

   There is nothing speculative about this. It was recently confirmed to us by the Land Registry Lawyer, who has expressly stated that the Land Registry will no longer accept the registration of RTM companies managing multiple blocks regardless of whether RTM was acquired before or after the Court of Appeal decision.

   LKP suggests leaseholders may be “better advised” to seek advice elsewhere yet a year ago it recommended our services to an estate that had failed to get RTM using a reputable firm of solicitors and was desperate for help. In its article posted on October 2nd 2014 LKP reported the following: –

   “The residents of Brixton Hill Court have won their right to manage application after their first attempt saw them looking at legal costs of £42,000, subsequently reduced to around £25,000. After the disaster of the first application, the residents contacted the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership… The residents application had been handled by a London solicitors’ practice, which had made successful RTM applications in the past, but not against a freeholder determined to resist.

   LKP advised the residents to use the services of the Right To Manage Federation, headed by Dudley Joiner. It has taken around 250 blocks to right to manage, including more than 70 retirement blocks, and has successfully fought against freeholders using every legal stratagem to hold on to the property management.”

   RTMF’s record speaks for itself. [… REDACTED] We are now offering our knowledge and experience to help all RTM companies affected by the ‘Triplerose’ decision. We stand by the advice in our letter. Taking precautionary action is better than doing nothing.

   I invite any solicitor, FPRA adviser, LEASE adviser or representative from DCLG to contact the RTMF if they would like to discuss how RTM companies should react to the retrospective effect of Triplerose.

3. Dudley Joiner

   October 29, 2015 at 9:55 am

   The article recommends contacting the Department of Communities & Local Government. DCLG has confirmed to RTMF in writing that it does not give advice. The article recommends contacting the Federation of Private Residents Associations. The chairman of the FPRA has confirmed that the FPRA can only give advice to its small number of members. The Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) has not made any public statement on the issue other that to suggest we must wait and see.

4. Bob Smytherman

   October 29, 2015 at 9:35 pm

   I would just like to clarify the Federation of Private Residents Associations (FPRA) position. We have over 40 years experience of providing impartial and independent advice to our members which include many RTM and RMC Companies as well as Residents Associations. Our own Directors, Committee Members and Hon Consultants have many years experience in the Leasehold Sector and use this experience to volunteer their services to provide others with impartial advice. As our organisation is funded almost solely from member subscriptions and receive no Government funding at all we are sadly unable to offer our services to non-members, however our membership subscriptions for RTMs are very reasonable and proportionate to the size of the development and all for the annual cost much less than a few hours with a legal professional.
   If you would like further information about our work please email me direct at bob@fpra.org.uk
   Thank you
   Bob Smytherman
   Volunteer Hon Chairman
   Federation of Private Residents Association (FPRA) Ltd

5. martin

   November 15, 2015 at 1:02 pm

   Readers may like to read the article on the ARMA conference for some slightly more measured comments on the position of multi block RTM’s