Questions raised over tenants' 'right-to-manage'
Other Housing stories
- Pickles blasts prayers ban ruling - 'worship is hard-fought British liberty'
- Fact or Fiction? Tower blocks
- Council wrapped over revealing tenants' 'social housing status'
- Crowded Oxford shelter lets rough sleepers use floor
- Private landlord fined for allowing tenants to live in 'hell-hole' home
Advertisement
An increasing number of tenants are opting for the ‘right to manage’ the property they live in.
But, according to Adams & Remers Solicitors, they may be saving a few pounds now at the cost of large financial and legal headaches ahead.
“The right to manage, where tenants take over running a building themselves, has been seen as the panacea for financial disputes with landlords,” said Geoffrey Wolfarth, senior
solicitor in Adams & Remers’ property team.
“But what’s happened in practice is that tenants are using the right to avoid carrying out legally-required safety checks and repairs.”
The right to manage was made possible by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 in a bid to try and relieve the perceived injustice that private landlords were exploiting tenants and carrying
out unnecessary works at unnecessary expense.
Mr Wolfarth added: “But now many tenants are abusing this right and deciding not to undertake regular checks on, for example, asbestos and fire precautions.
"This might save them money in the short-term, but in the longer-term they could be exposed to huge risk if, for example, someone died in a fire and the insurance company refused to cover them
because precautions hadn’t been taken.”
According to Adams & Remers, another problem is that the ‘right to manage’ can be effected by a majority of tenants.
“This means that, as in a case I am handling at the moment, 11 out of 20 tenants elect to manage their property and effectively ignore the wishes of the other nine," said Mr Wolfarth.
In addition, tenants tend to overlook how time-consuming managing a property can be.
“Often one or two very active tenants with time on hands initiate the right to management, but then move elsewhere. Because of this, we are seeing a growing number of tenant managers
choosing to hand the management back to a management company," said Mr Wolfarth.
“There can be a lot of pros in choosing the ‘right to manage’ a property, but tenants need to be made aware that there are a number of cons too. Too many tenants are using
the right to evade their obligations to keep their property safe and secure, thereby exposing themselves and many others to possible huge expense and real danger.”
For further information on the ‘right to manage’ legislation, including your obligations if you choose to manage a property, contact Geoffrey Wolfarth and his team by emailing
Geoffrey.wolfarth@adams-remers.co.uk or by visiting www.adams-remers.co.uk.
The UK's most up-to-date social housing and public sector news website

Sharon - http://sharon@leaseholdlife.info
Commented 143 weeks ago
It's perhaps not suprising that this has happened although somewhat short sighted. Although it might be tempting to forgo the costs of regular checks and assessments, especially if funding is an issue, RTM Directors would be held accountable if an accident occurred as result of these having not been carried out.
As Advisor to our Right to Manage Directors, we faced with the unenviable task of having to prioritise works on a development that had sustained the best part of two decades of neglect. An absent (and convicted criminal) landlord and family members acting as managing agents who simply failed to file at Companies House leading to them being struck off, forced us to take this option although it was some time before we met the relevant criteria.
It is true that without RTM legislation our development would have been left to rot but anyone taking it must be aware that there is an enormous amount of responsibility that comes with it. It is also essential to be aware that it is a 'no fault' process' whch means that it avoids court by leaseholders not having to prove fault on the part of the landlord. There is premium payable by the leaseholders making it a more attractive financial option than approaching the LVT. However, because it is often used to replace bad management, when the new management takes over, the ousted landlord is entitled to be part of the new RTM Company! This was because it was felt that if he wasn't at fault then he should still be entitled to make decisions as the landlord.
RTM may well work for smaller development that wish to self manage but larger developments should be mindful of long term considerations.
Regards
Sharon
Leasehold Life