Sir Peter Bottomley, Father of the House and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold and commonhold reform, has asked judge Sir Keith Lindblom (above), the court of appeal judge who heads the tribunal service, his views on controversial property manager Richard Davidoff continuing as an officer of the court.
Property Tribunal judge Siobhan McGrath has informed LKP that Mr Davidoff has two further roles as a court-appointed property manager – “as far as I can ascertain” – but appears powerless to do anything about them.
In August the property tribunal ruled against Mr Davidoff at a south London site where he was the court-appointed agent.
The tribunal found that Richard Davidoff had “breached 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.
Projected major works estimated at the time of his appointment at £10,000 were revised upwards to nearly £100,000.
In reply to leaseholders who raised the similar complaints to LKP, Judge McGrath replied 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.”
As a result, Sir Peter has asked Sir Keith for his views on the matter.
He writes:
“I have raised a number of questions in the House of Commons on this matter and I should be grateful if you might kindly confirm what measures the tribunal is taking to allow inquiries into the conduct and where necessary the removal of unscrupulous/incompetent tribunal appointed officers abusing their position and indeed undermining the integrity of the tribunal.”
He adds:
“I should be grateful if you might kindly confirm what measures the tribunal is taking to allow inquiries into the conduct and where necessary the removal of unscrupulous/incompetent tribunal appointed officers abusing their position and indeed undermining the integrity of the tribunal.”
Judge McGrath is due to publish a “Practice Statement” in respect of applications under section 24 for the appointment of managers to give guidance on the tribunal’s expectation of proposed managers and the standards required of tribunal appointed managers.
Further controversies surfaced in October, where leaseholders at a site in Battersea had to launch a right to manage application to obtain control of the site where there was in fact a residents’ management company. However, Mr Davidoff was the sole director.
In November the trade body the Association of Residential Managing Agents expelled Mr Davidoff’s company ABC Estates from the membership.
Sir Peter has called upon the government on November 19 in an Early Day Motion “to listen to the former employees of Mr Davidoff raising whistleblowing details of his business practices”.
Mr Davidoff and ABC Estates are embroiled in the high court in a libel action against two former employees who wrote disobliging Google reviews of the businesses and practices.
A ruling is expected shortly on whether this action may go ahead.
Related posts:
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
Sir Peter Bottomley calls on ministers to listen to ‘whistleblower’ ex-employees of Richard Davidoff (of ABC Estates)
Richard Davidoff, of ABC Estates, ‘breached his fiduciary duties’ after disastrous performance as a court-appointed manager, rules property tribunal
Richard Davidoff fails to block right to manage – from a residents’ management company where he is the only director
Parliament told the Property Tribunal ‘stinks’: it lets down leaseholders again and again
Data tells us sprinklers work, waking watch doesn’t, and freehold punters aren’t picking up the tab, Martin Boyd tells ODI
So much has happened since LKP reported on the 112 Blackheath Road, SE10 case. It is shocking that First Tier Tribunal officers are content to sit on their hands and do nothing to end Richard Davidoff’s remaining Tribunal appointments:.
On 04-11-2021 ARMA expelled ABC Block Management Limited from membership because complaints were made after the tribunal found that Richard Davidoff had breached the terms of the management order and breached his fiduciary duties.
On 10-11-2021 the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership was informed that the Institute of Residential Property Management (IRPM) were concluding an investigation into Richard Davidoff and would be making a ruling soon. The IRPM ruling has yet to be announced.
On 16-11-2021 Propertymark terminated ABC Estates’ membership “due to a failure to pay costs associated with a disciplinary hearing held on 08-09-2021”.
On 19-11-2021 Sir Peter Bottomley tabled Early Day Motion 672 calling the government to listen to the former employees of Richard Davidoff “raising whistleblowing details of his business practices”.
On 23-11-2021 the tribunal in the Falcon Road RTM case awarded the leaseholders full costs against the Respondent and found that Richard Davidoff had displayed “extreme” levels of unreasonable conduct and had “used inappropriate tactics to try to prevent the leaseholders acquiring the right to manage and to pressurise the leaseholders to drop their service charge application”.
On 26-11-2021 Propertymark stated that it has opened an investigation into Richard Davidoff’s company, ABC Estates because “new allegations have been brought to light […].”
On 05-12-2021 The Sunday Times published an article about service charge abuses and the lack of an independent regulator for managing agents. The article mentioned Sir Peter Bottomley’s Early Day Motion and also stated that Richard Davidoff “is at present in a dispute with former employees who allege that his company, ABC Estates, was creating fraudulent invoices for services to leaseholders”.
Link to Sir Peter Bottomley EDM dated 19-11-2021
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/59161
Link to Property Week article dated 26-11-2021
https://www.propertyweek.com/news/propertymark-launches-investigation-into-abc-estates/5117654.article
Link to Sunday Times article dated 05-12-2021
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-is-managing-the-managing-agents-fv8v2pn98
“Projected major works estimated at the time of his appointment at £10,000 were revised upwards to nearly £100,000”.
If similar ‘inflation of costs’ are occurring at all 150 buildings that Richard Davidoff’s companies claim to manage, this could run into millions of pounds being unjustly taken from leaseholders each year.
Blackheath Road, SE10 was only a 5 unit building and Richard Davidoff was made to repay c. 25K to the leaseholders. This could easily have been more had the leaseholders and the freeholder not dug their heels in. Imagine the sums that could be taken from much larger buildings of 20 or even 100 units?
At the very least, the First Tier Tribunal should have an internal system for referring cases like these to the appropriate bodies ….
The FTT is better placed than anyone else to conduct a review into controversial managing agents, such as Richard Davidoff.
The FTT has access to all cases that have come before it involving Richard Davidoff and his companies – from which patterns of conduct can be identified and conclusions drawn as to Richard Davidoff’s suitability to remain a Tribunal appointed manager.
The findings of the Blackheath Road case alone should be sufficient grounds to conclude that Richard Davidoff is not suitable.
Siobhan McGrath’s letter to LKP dated 16-11-2021 implied that the FTT’s position is:
1. The FTT cannot of its own volition remove Richard Davidoff from his 2x remaining Tribunal appointments.
2. The FTT must 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’? So why can’t the FTT act to remove Richard Davidoff from the 2x remaining Tribunal appointments?
Is the FTT perhaps waiting to receive a Section 24(9) 1987 application from the FTT?
The legal system over the years has been the enabler of injustice for too long, and now they are going to have to do something about it.
The London region of the First Tier Tribunal is aware that Richard Davidoff’s conduct as a Tribunal Appointed Manager has been criticised before (Prescott Place, SW4).
Under the circumstances, the very least that the First Tier Tribunal could do in respect of the 2x buildings where Richard Davidoff is still a Tribunal Appointed Manager is write to the leaseholders in question offering them a quick and easy discharge and replacement of Richard Davidoff.
It is wholly unfair of the First Tier Tribunal to sit back and wait for the leaseholders in question to find discover for themselves about Richard Davidoff’s conduct and then make a fresh Section 24 application to discharge Richard Davidoff and appoint a replacement. If the First Tier tribunal is so pedantic that it insists on the service of a Section 22 notice as a precursor, the whole process could take a year. And what is to say that the leaseholders in question will ever discover for themselves the raft of negative reporting on Richard Davidoff’s conduct?
A Section 24 appoint a manager application is an extremely onerous undertaking. The leaseholders at the 2x buildings have already done this once before and presumably nominated Richard Davidoff in good faith having satisfied themselves that ABC Block Management Limited was a member of ARMA and ABC Estates was a member of Propertymark.
All that has changed though. ARMA expelled ABC Block Management on 04-11-2021 following complaints about the Blackheath Road, SE10 decision. Propertymark terminated ABC Estates’ membership on 16-11-2021 due to a failure to pay the costs of a disciplinary hearing in September 2021 and then Propertymark launched an investigation into ABC Estates because fresh allegations were received after termination.
Link to Property Week article:
https://www.propertyweek.com/news/propertymark-launches-investigation-into-abc-estates/5117654.article
Link to Prescott Place FTT decision report dated 21-07-2021:
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Appointment-of-a-Manager-FTT-case-34-36-Prescott-Place-SW4-6BU.pdf
The latest development is that the Institute of Residential Property Management (IRPM) has expelled Richard Davidoff and is actively investigating Mark Reed (Head of Block Management at Richard Davidoff’s company).
The IRPM email confirming Richard Davidoff’s expulsion reads as follows:
Dear XXXX
I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the IRPM’s investigation into the professional conduct of Mr. Richard Davidoff.
The IRPM’s Compliance Sub-Committee has now concluded its investigation. It has determined that Mr. Davidoff should be expelled from the IRPM forthwith. That expulsion took effect on 17 December 2021.
An email containing the Sub-Committee’s decision, including his expulsion, was sent to Mr. Davidoff on 17 December 2021.
Yours sincerely
On behalf of the IRPM.
In view of all the above, can the FTT continue sitting on its hands?