• 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
    • JB Leitch
    • 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
      • JB Leitch
      • 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 / Latest News / Section 24 court appointed manager orders can be the last resort for leaseholders, but beware messing them up

Section 24 court appointed manager orders can be the last resort for leaseholders, but beware messing them up

March 15, 2021 //  by Admin4

By Peter Cobrin

Peter Cobrin

Going to the Property Tribunal to have a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is often the last throw of the dice for leaseholders fed up with intractable disputes with game-playing landlords. It places control of a property into the hand of a manager accountable only to the Tribunal – and not to the landlord or leaseholders — and removes control from the landlord.

But leaseholders will only secure this result if they demonstrate that management has been incompetent and that appointing a manager is ‘the right and proper” thing to do. They must understand this manager is an officer of the court, and that they can be likened to a ward of court, in need of protection as the previous ‘regime’ has become so delinquent that ‘guardianship’ is necessary.

At the heart of this process is the management order, the document that provides the structure, framework and principles under which all parties must operate, but above all, the manager. This is an order of the court, to be treated with respect and strictly adhered to, or else!

Sadly, these orders can, and do, go wrong, and when they do, it’s bad and expensive news for all parties. Two comments I have heard in the last two days, after writing the rest of this article, reinforce the point I will be making about poorly drafted management orders. The first came from a leading property barrister who wrote to me saying “that many management orders are very flimsy indeed.”

The second came from a lay tribunal member questioning a putative manager about the management order that was put before this particular tribunal.


Some background reading on The Grand, Folkestone:

Buyer Beware!

Any lingering doubts about the survival of Michel Stainer’s Grand empire disappeared on Saturday afternoon. For two hours, process servers acting for the administrators of Hallam Estates Ltd, who now own the entire freehold, trudged up and down the staircases, hand delivering envelopes to every flat.

A Grand Failure and a Grand Fantasist

The Grand, Folkestone, Insolvency, Arrest, HMRC, Robert Richardson, Michael Stainer, Doris Stainer, Debt, Hallam Estates,

The lay member stated that there was an attempt to bring some “standardisation” to management orders.
In confirmation of this, it appears the tribunals are sending out “precedent management orders” for adaptation by applicants.

On the other hand, I understand that Martin Rodger QC, Deputy President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), has been critical of “off the shelf” management orders and their provisions. In other words, unsurprisingly, they have to be fit for the specific situation.

For my part, I wear two hats when it comes to management orders. First is a result of my own experience in this minefield area, and trust me, I carry the battle scars!

In 2016 I became the chairperson of the residents’ association at the Grand in Folkstone.

This building has been in and out of court since 1985, invariably over the conduct of the freeholder, both as an individual and later as director of the landlord company, in relation to unpaid service charges and lack of maintenance.

As far back as 1985 he was fined in the magistrates’ court for not complying with numerous leaseholder requests for the summary of costs for service charges.

After 10 years of battling leaseholders, he ended up insolvent and entered into an IVA (Individual Voluntary Arrangements). The Grand was repossessed, only for him to buy it back through a company he controlled.

Finally, in near desperation, in 2014 a group of residents secured a tribunal-appointed manager.

Sadly, the management order failed to provide the manager with the powers to rein in the landlord or to enforce leasehold covenants that were being breached daily by the landlord, and its directors, in their personal capacity.

This is the key point: management orders issued under the Landlord and Tenant Act are intended to provide a tribunal-appointed manager with the legal framework and the tools to do the job of:

• Stepping into the shoes of a landlord
• Resolving the issues that brought this case in front of the Tribunal
• And, hopefully, to then stepping aside to allow good practice to prevail for the benefit of all parties, without the need for further legal intervention.

Fast forward to 2017, we gained formal recognition as a residents’ association in the teeth of bitter opposition.

Within months, we also secured a determination that found the landlord’s directors (same people) liable in their personal capacity for over £170,000 of unpaid service charges on their 19 flats. Finally, in July 2018, we secured a new management order which I initially drafted and which the tribunal then tweaked.

This gave the new manager real powers, described repeatedly as ‘draconian’ in subsequent failed appeals against the order, right up to Judicial Review.

For example, the order had a penal notice attached to it which stated:

“‘If you the within-named, XXX do not comply with this Order you may be held in contempt of the Tribunal which made the Order and fined or your assets be seized.”

It also gave the manager the right:

“The manager is permitted to revoke consents and licences previously granted … ”

In other words, our manager had enforceable powers written into the management order, and believe me, they have been exercised.

Illegal subletting of flats as holiday lets stopped, and in pursuit of over £200,000 in service charges owed under the new order, the landlord was put into administration and its directors face eviction and fresh bankruptcy proceedings for the second time in 20 months.

However, in sharp contrast, I have seen two orders submitted in other equally disputatious cases, drafted by lawyers, which frankly are as much use as a fig leaf in a sandstorm.

Any manager accepting an appointment under these orders is frankly doomed to fail and the hopes of the applicants shattered – along with their bank balances! A typical application to appoint a manager can cost £30-£50,000.

This would be in contested section 24 actions in large blocks, not resolving disputes at dysfunctional smaller sites where management needs to be removed from a landlord. But here is the example of the war of attrition at Canary Riverside with its court appointed manager: https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/category/news/canary-riverside/

And to my second hat: I am now a senior property manager – gamekeeper turned poacher? – and I read the decisions of the First and Upper Tier Tribunal decisions with great interest. I am still surprised at the number of times applicants are making return visits, because something has gone wrong and applicants think a change of manager will solve the problem. Wrong!
 
So here’s my guide for the perplexed and puzzled, so that if you have go down this route, you will get it right the first time. It should also be helpful to would-be tribunal appointed managers:

• Leaseholders: make sure your proposed new manager carries out a thorough investigation of all the issues in advance
• Expect to pay a reasonable fee for the would-be manager to undertake that work
• Would be managers: see the above!
• Make sure all of applicants’ support both the new proposals and the choice of the manager
• Enlist as many additional leaseholders as possible to support the application
• Make sure there a realistic Management Plan for the new regime
• It’s essential that a draft Management Order is prepared for the Tribunal otherwise it will be “here’s one we prepared earlier” that fails to address all issues
• The would-be Manager must be satisfied that he or she can operate successfully under that order
• Expect it to be tweaked by the Tribunal
• Safeguard your new manager, especially in contested applications, by provision of an indemnity in the event of an adverse cost awards
• If there is a risk that the previous Managing Agent or Landlord may refuse to cooperate, you can ask for a Penal Notice to be attached to the Management Order, but be warned, the Tribunal will not enforce this Order if violated, so a trip to the County Court will be necessary.

All of the above are based on direct personal and professional experience and should be the Ten Commandments for a successful management appointed under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

peter.cobrin@westburyresidential.com

Website: www.westburyresidential.co.uk

Related posts:

War of attrition continues between Canary Riverside freeholder John Christodoulou and the court-appointed manager … Battle for Canary Riverside resumes after court appointed manager steps down Canary Riverside freeholder told to co-operate with court appointed managing agent Feuding Chelsea leasehold owners find a court-appointed managing agent makes all decisions Billionaire John Christodoulou and his lawyer David Marsden accused of ‘little short of harassment’ of court-appointed managing agent

Category: Latest News, NewsTag: Peter Cobrin, Section 24 manager, The Grand Folkestone

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 (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) 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 (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) 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 (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: «Ballymore Crisis in UK flats at last prompts Ballymore leaseholders to rebel and speak publicly about rocketing service charges to the FT
Next Post: APPG leasehold chairs call on Lords to support McPartland-Smith amendment tomorrow Bishop of St Albans»

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. stephen

    March 16, 2021 at 11:26 am

    I note the following comment:-

    “Any manager accepting an appointment under these orders is frankly doomed to fail and the hopes of the applicants shattered – along with their bank balances! A typical application to appoint a manager can cost £30-£50,000 ”

    I find that very surprising indeed and would be very interested to know how costs build up to that figure

    • Sebastian O'Kelly

      March 16, 2021 at 3:22 pm

      Well, here is the war of attrition at Canary Riverside:

      • Stephen

        March 16, 2021 at 8:47 pm

        That is a case I have read about and of course understand that legal costs could climb up to that level

        The author of the articles states that typical costs are of the order of £30 – £50,000 and these presumably are cases where there is not an outbreak of war such as the case you were involved in – I am curious as to what the costs are I n a typical case

  2. Peter Cobrin

    March 18, 2021 at 9:14 am

    Our costs in a contested application in 2014 exceeded £45,000 but in 2018 only came to £10,000 because we ran the whole case ourselves and achieved more than a barrister who reviewed our management order evert believed we could. Another contested case I observed two weeks ago lasted 3 days and costs exceed £60,000. When the stakes are high, the costs escalate.

    • Kim

      March 22, 2021 at 5:01 pm

      Hi Peter, excellent piece. I note that you have been appointed senior property manager at “ Urang”. The CEO of Urang is also a director of West residential ltd the Tribunal appointed manager of “ The Grand”. In addition, your contact address at the end of your excellent is
      Peter.cobrin@ westbury resi etc .
      Just out of interest, would the leaseholders of ‘ The Grand’ consider purchasing the freehold at Auction on 22 June ? You seem very knowledgeable and I’m sure that alongside your fellow leaseholders and whatever makes managing agent you choose, ‘ The Grand’ would once again become Grand!

  3. Kim

    March 22, 2021 at 5:05 pm

    Hi Peter, In addition to previous comment. Apologies for mangled txt….
    what I meant was, were you appointed Senior property manager by Urang or Westbury residential Ltd.?

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