‘Impartial’ chartered surveyor Dominic Reader failed to demonstrate size of commercial area were a disqualification
Attempt to argue that shared owners did not qualify contradicted by Court of Appeal ruling
Death of one of the participating leaseholders was not an impediment to RTM
Sterling Estates Management has failed to block a second attempt at a right to manage application by 135 leaseholders just north of the City London and failed to win permission to appeal.
In addition, its expert “impartial” witness chartered surveyor Dominic Reader, who argued that the RTM should be refused on the grounds of excessive commercial space did not actually provide evidence but relied on his “strong opinion” that it exceeded 25%.
Sterling Estates Management once managed nearby Imperial Hall, at Old Street, where it was also ejected:
The tribunal ruling of November 2023 – the appeal was refused last month – references the site at Balmes Road N1 as 135 flats, including live-work units and shared owners, divided into three connected blocks and including commercial property such as a Tesco supermarket on the ground floor.
Both the leaseholders and Sterling Estates Management, representing freeholders Cedarcrest Limited and Brookvine Limited, were represented by barristers.
Sterling Estates Management argued that the site involved three separate blocks, but this was rejected following a site visit by the tribunal judges.
Also, that the RTM company did not have sufficient members because it included shared owners, although this point was conceded given the Court of Appeal ruling that they do qualify for RTM.
One of the qualifying leaseholders had also died, before the hearing last November, but the tribunal did not consider this an impediment as the flat still belonged to his estate.
Sterling Estates Management appeared to place the burden of its argument on a written report by Dominc Reader, called ‘Expert report of Dominic Reader MRICS on the rules of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002’.
The tribunal noted: “Mr Reader, who had produced the report, which was introduced at late notice, did not attend …
“It is said that his investigations included a site visit and a review of buildings documentation. He records that his overriding duty is to be impartial, and that the duty overrides the obligations to the freeholder.”
Although Mr reader could provide no evidence that the site’s commercial property exceeded 25%, he did give his opinion that it did so:
“He takes the view that having visited the premises, apparently surveyed some of the defined areas, viewed various leases and documents and taking findings into consideration that his professional opinion is that the non-residential parts do exceed 25% of the total internal floor area. He refers to draft calculations although we could not see that those draft calculations were included with his report. He does accept that only a full measured survey will reveal the exact percentage figures.”
The tribunal added:
“We were not impressed with the experts report as little attempt if any had been made to properly measure the extent of the units, which could have been done as we believe the Respondents would have had the necessary plans both perhaps from the original erection of the buildings but certainly in respect of fire and other issues which would need to have been updated during the passage of time. He has also strayed into opinions on the law.”
The full ruling and the refusal of appeal can be read here:
Related posts:
Imperial Hall beats off £12,366 claim from Sterling Estates Management
Richard Davidoff fails to block right to manage – from a residents’ management company where he is the only director
Imperial Hall fights back … booting out Sterling Estates Management and the freeholder
Israel Moskovitz fails – again – to appeal against the Regent Court right to manage
Brixton Hill Court wins right to manage after first effort cost £25,000
Leasehold Bill: What a missed opportunity, with just about every MP wanting to go further …
Congratulations to the Leaseholders of Balmes Road for achieving Right to Manage and for your tenacity in over coming all those obstacles.
I hope that your Right to Manage will spread the word far and wide about the benefits of selecting a managing agent of your choice including the the obvious financial benefits.
I recently carried out a local survey of service charge costs for residential apartment blocks built specifically for the over 55’s – 60’s etc. The results came as no surprise to me but were quite shocking.
I noted two almost identical residential apartment blocks built around the same time only a few miles apartment with similar apartment square footage and noticed a considerable difference in service charge.
The first residential apartment block pay £ 2, 373.96 per annum for the service charge and the other apartment block pay more that £ 4,990.40.
The only logical reason I can arrive at for the huge difference in service charge cost is that the first example is managed by a Right to Manage Company with a managing agent of our choice and the other is not.
May the “Exodus” away from the imposed managing agents continue for the obvious benefit of Leaseholders and others, which may prompt the establishment to do more to resolve the United Kingdoms decades old HOUSING CRISIS. Thought, why not follow Scotland’s example? It work for them why not in England & Wales?
In my humble opinion, the remedy to the present complete and utter shambles is the introduction of Commonhold and full regulation of managing agents.
I don’t know if the discussion included half-shared-owners but I am in a continuing quandary, at the age to 86, where the housing society Retain Price index charges mean that, with a £6OO current charge per this year, and £900 last year, I am paying over £1400 in rent,service charge and utilities before I spend my pension. I cannot get any help from anyone including BPHA. Whom I took to the Ombudsman two years ago and failed. Any one out there able to help please? Peter Durrant.
Hey there, I just wanted to leave a comment on this blog about the recent ruling regarding the right to manage application for 135 leaseholders in North London. It’s quite appalling that Sterling Estates Management, represented by chartered surveyor Dominic Reader, failed to provide any evidence to support their claim that the commercial area exceeded 25% of the total internal floor area. Instead, they relied solely on Mr. Reader’s “strong opinion” without any actual measurements or calculations. It’s clear that their “impartial” witness was not being impartial at all. The tribunal was right to reject their argument and allow the right to manage application to proceed.