Maharaj & Lo Porto v Richard Davidoff (Tribunal appointed manager) LON/00AL/LSC/2020/0111 (decision here)
A cautionary tale of a Tribunal appointed manager behaving badly and a reminder that the appointed manager’s duty is to carry out what is in the order appointing them, and that they answer to the Tribunal as an officer of the Tribunal.
In January 2019, Richard Davidoff was appointed by the Tribunal as manager, with the order to expire on 31 January 2021. The purpose of the order was for the manager to execute a package of internal and external works that had been identified and costed by a surveyor. Davidoff had produced a draft budget for year 1 of £26,000, with major works of £10,000.
The appointment was on the leaseholders’ application as the freeholder had not carried out the works. The freeholder, by the Tribunal’s order, was to pay 50% of costs of internal works and 60% of external works (holding two flats and commercial premises in the building.)
In June 2019, the leaseholders received the first service charge demands, totalling more than £106,000, with £93,000 for a reserve fund for future works. The projected works were far more substantial that the original surveyor’s schedule and costing.
The leaseholders paid some, though not all, of the amounts demanded. The freeholder did not pay anything, but protested vigorously at the increase in amounts.
Relations between the leaseholders and the manager broke down completely when the leaseholders discovered that a company which had provided the lowest quote for various works was owned by the wife of a Mr Mark Reed, an employee (or as Mr avidoff had it, a self employed contractor) of ABC Block Management Limited, of which Richard Davidoff was the director and shareholder and which company Davidoff had told the leaseholders ‘was instructed to commence management of the building’. Mr Reed had served the s.20 notice of estimates for the works, and had denied any connection to the company. (More on this below).
No works were done before the expiry of the management order in January 2021.
I won’t go into detail on the application by the leaseholders (supported by the freeholder with whom common cause had been found), but will list the Tribunal’s findings on Davidoff’s actions.
i) The management order appointed Richard Davidoff as manager, but permitted him to delegate to other employees of ABC Block Management. The order specified a fixed management fee of £1875 plus VAT, plus 5% and VAT of estimated costs of major works.
Mr Davidoff then entered a contract with ABC appointing it as managing agent at an annual fee of £2,250. The Tribunal found that the quality of management fell far short of what would be reasonably expected, and substituted an annual amount of £900
Mr Davidoff’s contract with ABC also allowed for supervision costs of major works at 10% and ‘abortive fees’ of £2011.50 and £819 were charged. The Tribunal found:
It is unacceptable for a Manger to seek to subvert the express terms of a Management Order in this way. No works have been commissioned. The Manager has incurred these costs in connection with a specification of works which was outside the scope of what was contemplated in the Management Order. These sums are not payable by the Applicants.
ii) The contract provided for £360 pa for an ‘out of hours helpline’. The Tribunal held:
This is not a service for which a fee was sought in the Management Order. The welcome letter (at A.896) made no reference to this service. The Applicants state that they were not informed of this service, did not need it and never made use of it. No repairs were executed during the two years of the Management Order.
Mr Davidoff referred the Tribunal to the contract which he had signed with ABC. It is not open to a Manger to subvert the express terms of a Management Order in this manner. We disallow this sum.
iii) The original surveyor had not provided a specification of works. After the manager’s appointment, the surveyor withdrew from further involvement. Davidoff, with the Tribunal’s permission, appointed a new surveyor. However, the scope of works was far broader than that in the original surveyor’s report or contemplated in the management order itself, predicted on the original report. Mr Davidoff had proceeded to section 20 consultations on this extended scope of works without making any application to the Tribunal for directions:
It should have been apparent at this stage that the Management Order was doomed. The Manager was proposing a Schedule of Works completely outside the scope of what was proposed when the Management Order was made. The tenants were unable to afford the sums demanded. The landlord was refusing to pay. Mr Davidoff should have brought the matter back to the tribunal for further Directions. He gave no explanation for his failure to do so.
After the first tenders, a company that hd previously not being willing to tender, suddenly did so, and at the lowest amount (albeit still far in excess of the amounts contemplated in the management order. What was described as Valens Ltd by ABC, was discovered by the leaseholders to be Valens Contractors Ltd. One of the leaseholders emailed ABC to ask
“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?” Mr Reed replied: “Not that I am aware of”.
About a month later in March 2020, the leaseholder
sent a further email, having discovered that Lisa Velenski, Mr Reed’s wife, was the sole director and secretary of Valens Contractors Ltd. On 2 March, Mr Reed responded: “It should be noted that I am not a Director, shareholder, nor do I receive any financial remuneration from Valens Ltd”.
The leaseholders had paid some £28,000, under protest, toward the service charge demands. This was far in excess of what the Tribunal determined that they were liable for – figures below.
iv) Davidoff/ABC had transferred some £13,000 out of the reserve account (to which only the leaseholders had contributed). These transfers were for
a) sums that were due from the freeholder
“We are satisfied that Mr Davidoff was not entitled to draw on the contributions made by the tenants to the reserve fund to meet the shortfall of the sums due from the landlord. Mr Davidoff cannot rely on his agreement with ABC to subvert the express terms of the Management Order.”
b) £720 to ABC apparently for accountants for the final accounts which the Tribunal had directed must be prepared before the hearing, but had not been. This was a breach of fiduciary duty.
c) “On 20 January 2021 sums of £2,011,50 and £819.50 were transferred to RD Estate Services Limited, a company in which Raziel Davidoff is the sole director. Mr Davidoff was unable to provide an explanation for these transfers.”
d) On 12 January 2021 £600 was transferred to ABC, apparently in respect of a ‘handover fee’ on the expiry of the management order, “albeit that no provision was made for this in the Management Order and no handover has yet occurred.” This was a breach of fiduciary duty. Moreover the Tribunal refused Mr Davidoff’s application for authority to charge such a fee.
The reserve funds were held on trust for the leaseholders for the proposed major works. It was not open to the manager to utilise them in this way.
The Applicant Tenants seek a Direction that the Manager repays the sums that are due to them. We are satisfied that Mr Davidoff was not entitled to draw on the contributions made by the tenants to the reserve fund to meet the shortfall of the sums due from the landlord. Mr Davidoff cannot rely on his agreement with ABC to subvert the express terms of the Management Order.
The Tribunal rather turns to the terms of the Management Order which are discussed in Section 8. The Order grants the Manager the power to establish a reserve fund (see (42(v)) above). However, the Manager is required to deal with those funds separately. Specific reference is made to Section 42 of the 1987 Act. Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Order (at (47(iii)) above), requires the accountant to certify any over or under payment. Any overpayment is to be credited to the payee; any underpayment is to be recovered as a debt.
We reject Mr Davidoff’s contention that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider how the two service charge accounts have been handled. We follow the guidance provided by the Upper Tribunal is Suchorski v Norton. The Manager has held these on trust for the tenants pursuant to section 42 of the 1987 Act. We are satisfied that he has been in breach of his fiduciary duties towards the Applicants.
The Tribunal has computed that Mrs Maharaj is entitled to a refund of £11,844.32; whilst Mrs Lo Porto is entitled to one of £12,196.92. We direct that the Manager refunds these sums to the Applicants. They should have been refunded on the expiry of the Management Order on 31 January 2021. If these repayments are not made, the Applicants will be able to recover them as a debt in the County Court.
The Tribunal apologised to the leaseholders for not responding to three emails in Dec 2019/Jan 2020 setting out concerns about the scope of the management order.
On Richard Davidoff’s (and ABC) conduct generally, the Tribunal found:
(i) The Management Order has failed. None of the works identified by Mr Dobson have been executed. Our enquiries revealed that no money had been spent on improving the physical fabric of the Property.
(ii) Mr Davidoff must accept the primary responsibility for this failure. We were surprised by Mr Davidoff’s limited knowledge of the details of this case. Whilst it is open to a Manager to delegate, he retains ultimate responsibility to ensure that the outcomes sought through the Management Order are delivered.
(iii) Mr Davidoff failed to have sufficient regard to the terms of the Management Order. The outcome to be secured was the execution of the relatively modest package of internal and external repairs and decorations which had been identified by Mr Dobson. A period of two years was considered sufficient for the Property to be put into proper order and to give both IDM and Mrs Nasr time to come to grips with their management responsibilities.
(iv) The Applicants’ primary case is that the Respondent 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 from the Applicants and the landlord/freeholder. 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.
(v) 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
As a coda, one perhaps still further illustrative of Richard Davidoff’s approach, he sought a direction from the Tribunal in this application that he should be entitled to recover his costs in this application of £9,360 from the freeholder, Mrs Nasr.
He states that as a “gesture of goodwill” he has only billed for 50% of the time spent on the preparation work.
We refuse to make this Direction for two reasons. First, the Interested Party has played a limited role in this application. Mrs Nasr has not sought any specific relief from the Tribunal. Her involvement has not led to any significant costs. Secondly, the basis of the application is that the Management Order failed because Mrs Nasr refused to pay the contributions that were due from her under the Management Order. Mrs Nasr refused to pay the sums of £59,613.17 which were demanded on 11 June 2019 because she considered them to be excessive. She described them as “outright extortion”; she would not be “held to ransom” on her own property. The total sums demanded exceeded £106,500. The Management Order had been premised on a Year 1 Budget of £25,805. The sums demanded were outside the scope of what was contemplated by the Management Order. Had a sum been demanded in line with that contemplated in the Management Order, it may be that the landlord would have paid. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to make any finding on this point.
The manager was given authority to sue Ms Nasr, the freeholder, for arrears arising under the management order. But the application for this should have been made during the currency of the management order. As such, the manager would be personally responsible for any costs relating to such an action. It was no longer appropriate to require the leaseholders to indemnify the manager for any such costs.
Comment
There might well have been a suggestion on how things might go in the original Tribunal decision making the management order, in which it was observed
The Tribunal noted that Mr Davidoff’s evidence had been delivered “in a somewhat arrogant manner”. He would need to reflect on this as “some harmony and good working relationship” with Mrs Nasr was essential to his appointment.
Instead, it appears that Richard Davidoff continued in the somewhat arrogant (and wrong) belief “that the Management Order gave him complete discretion as to how he managed the property. His duty to engage with the tenants was limited to that required by the 1985 Act.”
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.
This is a sorry tale. It is a shame the FTT cannot take proactive action in respect of Richard Davidoff’s other appointments … or can they?
Technically the manager is an officer of the Tribunal, which would suggest some potential for that. I don’t know. But most MOs require annual reports from the manager, and that could be a trigger.
I’ve referred the case to Siobhan McGrath, FTT President to she if there’s anything she can do.
I’ve also referred ABC to Nigel Glen at ARMA to see if pro-active action can be started there.
There is a very interesting UT case on similar facts here: https://landschamber.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=1727
Though that one is more sad than bad, I feel. It is interesting on the UT as enforcer.
Yes, the Norton case is disappointing too. Why allow yourself to be appointed, if you don’t intend to manage? Better to walk away in the first place.
Reading between the lines, I suspect something went wrong in his life and his professional work suffered. The interesting part (at least to me) is the UT on the scope of its powers as regards managers.
This is a regular occurrence. I am currently corresponding with the regional judge of London FTT..,IT IS A SCANDAL
It thankfully isn’t a regular occurrence. But any occurrence is too many.
By “ Regular occurrence” I was referring to the FFT ‘ regularly ‘ appointing managing agents whose previous companies were a watchword for venality and roundly castigated by these same tribunals. I have been corresponding with Tim Powell who stayed that the FTT regularly review its appointments.. Really?
Again, not regular. And it is the leaseholders who put forward the appointee, not the FTT itself.
I’m sure the FTT do review appointments – an annual report to the FTT is a usual requirement of an MO. That doesn’t mean an annual investigation of the agent by the FTT.
I’ve just read other ftt cases on this agent online Seems like the same thing over and over again.
I respectfully wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Karen I totally agree with you and disagree with Giles Peaker.
Managing agents with with “ disgraceful “ histories whose previous management companies have been lambasted by tribunals are being appointed caretaker managers by those same tribunals. It is an absolute travesty!
Leaseholders are lambs to the slaughter. This ‘ Hail fellow well met’ bonhomie between pale , male, stale, tribunal panels and freeholders with their shady legal mob must end. Enough!
Kim, who do you think proposes managers to the Tribunal? Hint – it isn’t the freeholders, who are the ones losing their ability to manage their ability to manage the building.
You appear to have no grasp as to the actual role of the Tribunal, I’m afraid. If an application for a Tribunal manager is made (by the leaseholders), the FTT can realistically only decide on that application. It can’t propose alternative managers, or turn down a proposed manager unless there is enough (or not enough) in the application and evidence to do so.
The answer is, quite simply, that leaseholders should stop putting forward Davidoff and ABC as prospective Tribunal appointed managers, and if they have mistakenly done so, apply to the Tribunal to end the appointment (preferably with a proposed alternative manager).
And you can disagree with me all you like. But you are wrong. Most Tribunal appointed managers are OK, so this is not a ‘regular’ thing.
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
It is true that it is the leaseholders that have to nominate the appointed manager and in this case the leaseholders took all the precautions that they could have done such as ensuring they selected an ARMA member who (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. Speaking of which, who is going to break the news to poor Larry? Watch the ABC Estates block management 30 second advert below:
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
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
If any of the affected leaseholders need support in applying to the FTT to remove Richard Davidoff, or if they wish to pursue missing funds – I am willing to assist. Contact me initially via Bernie @ BernieWales .co.uk with an overview of your proerty address and the circumstances you’re unhappy about. I’ll review and reply.
There might be the possibility of consolidating similar cases together, but that depends upon the fine detail obviously.
Let’s hope so. So many desperate leaseholders have been wanting this for so long. It’s quite shocking how he got away with this behaviour for so long. As a leaseholder our hands were always half tied, it was such a hard battle to get anywhere. Even when we did have successful FTTs against Richard and ABC , they basically ignored them.
Need some advice regarding Service Charges
If it is general service charge advice that you are looking for then you can contact the Leasehold Advisory Service. https://www.lease-advice.org/topics/
If it is service charge advice connected to Richard Davidoff / ABC Estates, then please say what the issue is in broad terms – someone here or elsewhere may be able to assist you given the amount of interest there now is on Richard Davidoff’s practices.
The decision concludes that there were dubious motives in seeking the appointment, justified by his rather dubious actions. If say the facts were that extended works were required , it is open and indeed right for a professional appointee to assess the situation and discuss it with the appointees so that they jointly apply for a representative management order. Where an agent is to be appointed, the tribunal I am not sure have the scope, on their own initiative, to consider the agent’s or contractor’s, history, however the suitability of the manager and his past or present associations, are completely in their scope. As practical matter applicant leaseholders should consider all aspects of this inc an agent, before application. This is in part because the tasks of an agent are often broader than an order anticipates and this too should be considered as part of the application and order. This is something for us all and LAS, to consider in their advice and approach.
I agree with the condemnation and I see the FTT’s role to consider the suitability of the manager and arguably their associations and past actions ought to be a factor in that, especially where behaviour has been consistent in being inappropriate or egregious breaches. Id rather the RICS ARMA and IRPM take a closer look.
As a personal note aren’t your pale male and stale stereotypes just as damaging and inappropriate as the old female nice to look at and good for a bit of typing in a frock- or hail fellow well met is just all us girls together men are useless without us ? :) Aren’t they too as damaging to the integrity of our sector as a whole so that the good bad and indifferent among as are judged by that? That is the function of the Equalities Act and not a bad way to act as a professional towards others- otherwise we are just flipping the script back to the 70’s and before into entrenched positions.. But maybe thats another thread ? :)
We have gone through three FTT hearings to appoint a s24 manager (one in 2016 and two in 2019) and at each the FTT and the landlord’s legal representative have cross-examined the proposed manager(s) to assess suitability for the role.
At the 2nd hearing (to replace the existing manager who was being discharged due to ill health) the FTT determined neither of the two* proposed managers were suitable and declined to appoint any of them, instead directing the parties to nominate alternatives. *a third manager, proposed by the s24 applicant lessees, withdrew after the hearing.
Here’s the FTT decision not appointing:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d288ef1e5274a14e9f6bb7a/Canary_Riverside_Reasons_for_Decision_on_New_Managers_18062019_issued.pdf
Another hearing was held where four managers were proposed and cross-examined by the FTT (which sat until gone 7pm in order to allow the landlord’s barrister to complete his questioning). Our website tells the tale (can’t find the decision on the FTT website but it’s on ours) https://www.canaryriverside.london/section-24-legal-update
I’m sorry, I’m rather lost as to the ‘pale male and stale stereotypes’? I can’t see anything in the post or the comments that would merit such a description?
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?
I think you seriously misunderstand the role of the FTT, (and indeed an appointed manager) and how penal notices happen, I’m afraid.
A penal notice isn’t just added by the tribunal. It has to be requested by one of the parties (usually the leaseholders) and for there to be evidence that it is likely that one of the parties (usually the freeholder) will be difficult about complying with the requirements on them under the management order. It would obviously not be possible or indeed appropriate to have a peal notice directed at a Tribunal appointed manager at the very start of their appointment.
And then the Manager’s powers and duties are only those set out in the management order (as this case makes clear). The manager cannot validly do anything else. If they do, then the parties can bring the matter back to the Tribunal for directions. The appropriate action in a serious case would be to terminate the appointment and replace the manager. A penal notice doesn’t add anything to that, in fact the reverse.
Lasting, the manager is, as this case makes clear, an officer of the Tribunal. The Tribunal would and indeed should not add penal notices directed at its own officers. A Tribunal officer who fails to follow an order should – in serious cases – be dismissed, which is a far greater sanction.
mentioned by Kim. :) “This ‘ Hail fellow well met’ bonhomie between pale , male, stale, tribunal panels and freeholders with their shady legal mob must end. Enough!”
Thanks – I’d rather lost that in between the misunderstandings of Tribunal powers and process.
Happy to help if I can. Bernie Wales
I would be grateful for your advice on service charges which I have paid to ABC and they shouldn’t have billed me. Thanks
Surf across to BernieWales.co.uk and we’ll take it from there.
ABC (Richard Davidoff) claimed double amount to me , I need some legal advice . could you please contact me by email.
We can’t give advice or take instructions through the site.
Kamlesh – email me >>> Bernie@BernieWales.co.uk
The latest news is that ARMA has expelled ABC Block Management Limited. The precise wording of the notification email is:
“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 has been no update from the IRPM yet.
Problem is … now that ARMA has expelled ABC from membership, they are free to carry on with their tricks and corrupt practices. ARMA can do nothing about it.
We need #MichaelGove (wearing his Housing hat) to bring in the Regulation of Property Agents. That’s the only way the rogues’ activities can be curbed.
There is still good reason to be glad about their expulsion. This is because ABC may lose existing and new instructions because of the expulsion.
Leaseholders, freeholders and developers alike are always told to use an ARMA or RICS managing agent. Therefore the ARMA logo is very valuable to a managing agent and is the main tool that they use to attract new business and retain existing business.
A wily managing agent (such as ABC Block Management Limited) will always be able to do just enough to satisfy the existing gate-keepers anyway. How else do you think ABC Block Management Limited has been able to fool the FTT/PRS/IRPM and ARMA for so many years?