Dudley Joiner, of the Right To Manage Federation and Team Property Management, has resigned the management contract at Quadrangle House in east London citing a “dysfunctional relationship” with the RTM company.
His decision last week ends months of worsening acrimony at the 102-flat site in Stratford, which in 2010 he took to right to manage through the RTMF, which is a commercial organisation not a federation.
Mr Joiner became a director of the Quadrangle House RTM Company and his own property management company Team was appointed to manage the site.
Following the resignation of two resident directors, Mr Joiner ended up as the only director in situ in September last year.
This placed him in the conflicted position of being the sole director of an RTM company employing his own services through Team Property Management. Subsequently, he resigned his directorship earlier this year.
Meanwhile, six new directors were chosen from among the residents. Mr Joiner has now given six-months notice that Team will cease to manage the site.
It is understood that three LKP managing agents have been approached to tender for the management of Quadrangle House: HML Andertons, Premier Property Management and Rynew.
Mr Joiner claims that in February this year service charge arrears stood at £80,000.
Mr Joiner was contacted prior to publication and sent the following:
Dear Sebastian,
You have enquired about events at The Quadrangle House. I refer you to information I supplied in response to your earlier article posted on October 22nd 2014. This includes my posted responses and our email correspondence on the subject which commenced on 24th September 2014 and ran until about 6th October.
I will not repeat the history of the RTM or the appointment of Team Property Management as it is adequately covered in the above correspondence and posts. I would ask you to review that information before publishing your further article.
As you noted at the time I was keen to ensure that those that became RTM directors were not in breach of their leases.
A meeting of members took place on 25th November 2014 for the purpose of electing new directors. Due to the failure of members to follow the statutory procedure the meeting was not empowered to make appointments. In order to get additional directors appointed without further delays I exercised my powers as a director and agreed the appointment of all the nominees subject to the caveat that no candidate that was in breach of the lease or in arrears of service charge would be appointed. As a consequence 6 new directors were appointed and the appointment of the remaining nominees was held over due to their non-payment of service charge arrears.
I agreed to continue as a director for an interim period to assist the board with procedural issues. I attended board meetings at The Quadrangle on 21st January and 19th February 2015. On 19th February I informed the board that service charge arrears stood at £80,239. I also highlighted the fact that there were severe maintenance issues, the most critical of which was the failure of the flat roof, which was causing continual water leaks into the building.
One of the directors proposed that he go on to the roof to inspect its condition and instruct a contractor he knew to provide a quote for repairs. It was suggested that this director and the husband of another director were qualified persons to undertake a survey. I explained to the board that I could not sanction anyone going on the roof without insurance and a risk assessment. I further explained that we needed to initiate the statutory s.20 consultation requirements relating to major works, which would take several months and required giving leaseholders the option to nominate contractors. I further stated that Team would like to requisition an independent roof survey along with a specification of works to be used for the consultation and tendering. I was immediately accused by all the directors of putting up ‘roadblocks’, ‘delays’ and ‘push backs’ and having a ‘negative attitude’. (These events are accurately recorded in the minutes)
The directors then suggested that in order to raise funds for the repairs Team should cut out ‘inessential costs’. It was proposed that Team cease certain services, including the MET Car Parking, gardening of the common parts and window cleaning. I did not agree with this suggestion and explained that Team and the RTM Company were contractually required to supply these services under the leases.
In view of these disagreements and the general attitude of directors I decided to resign as a director of the RTM Company, which I did on 17th March 2105. I was invited to attend some subsequent board meetings, which I did as a representative of Team Property Management. These meetings became more and more acrimonious. I subsequently advised the board that whereas I would happily attend review meetings I would not attend future board meetings.
The directors persisted in unreasonable demands resulting in frequent arguments. These arguments included changes to the concierge services, the request to provide a business centre, the need for a building survey, the handling of noise complaints, the frequency and scope of accounts information and the confidentiality of directors meetings. Team office staff were being subjected to rudeness on the telephone. Unrealistic demands were also being placed on the concierge by individual directors.
The arguments also resulted in disagreements among the directors themselves. During the course of 2015 the chair of the board and two other directors resigned. The remaining directors have recently appointed two new directors. None of the directors have been democratically appointed by members. No Annual General Meeting has been held. In my opinion the current board of directors is dysfunctional and dominated by one or two individuals with private agendas. I came to the view that despite our best endeavours, we were unlikely to satisfy the directors expectations. In addition the Quadrangle has some difficult financial issues and maintenance challenges that in my opinion are now better addressed by a London based management company.
On 1st December 2015 Team gave 6 months notice of the termination of its management agreement with the Quadrangle RTM Company, as required by that agreement. In the interim I have offered to cooperate fully with the company in the appointment of a new managing agent.
I trust this will allow you to present a balanced report on the sad sequence of events at the Quadrangle. I am disappointed we have not been able to achieve our goals since RTM and wish the RTM company good luck and success in meeting the various challenges ahead.
Kind regards
Dudley
Related posts:
Dudley Joiner: Not relevant that I was disqualified from being a company director for 7 years
Pensioners tell Dudley Joiner to give them back their £27,000 sinking fund
Only one director of Quadrangle House RTM … and he is the property manager
Quadrangle House residents seek to regain control of their RTM
Dudley Joiner’s Team Property Management made insolvent by Quadrangle House RTM
Leasehold flood risks and how to make 4.1 million homes disappear …
Clearly, the history of Quandrangle House shows it was an utter shambles.
Possibly anyone involved at the time may have struggled.
On the bright side, it leaves Mr Joiner with more time to attend to his other companies.
Such as the RTMF (net worth £41k) who recently had a strike off notice published in the London Gazette.
Such as Harrison Property Management (net worth £20k) who recently had a strike off notice published in the London Gazette
Or, such as Team Property Management (net worth £27k) who recently had a strike off notice published in the London Gazette.
Dear Michael
You are right. The Quadrangle is an utter shambles. I hope there is a manager prepared to take it on, but I fear it is a poison chalice.
For the record, all the notices you refer to were withdrawn by Companies House.
Harrison Property Management is a dormant company. It was acquired from a third party and not traded.
I wish to correct a factual inaccuracy in the above article.
It is incorrect to state that “Dudley Joiner, of the Right To Manage Federation and Team Property Management, has resigned the management contract at Quadrangle House”.
I was not personally a party to the management contract. Neither was The Right to Manage Federation a party to the management contract.
The contract was between Team Property Management Limited and The Quadrangle RTM Company Limited. I am a director of Team, but that is different to my being a party to the contract.
As explained in earlier posts, Team reluctantly took on the management because there was no other credible party willing to take it on and because the leaseholders were not able to pay the RTMF its standard fee for acquiring RTM.
I was left as the sole director of the RTM company because the two other directors sold their properties and no longer qualified as RTM members.
Of course it isn’t inaccurate.
Your email to the directors of the Quadrangle House RTM Co make it clear that it is your decision to resign the management as MD of Team and you cite a “dysfunctional relationship”.
You are the sole director of Team (and the RTMF and RTMF Services Ltd, for that matter).
Your comment just confirms what the article already states: that is, the two legal entities involved are Quadrangle House RTM Co and Team Property Management.
I beg to differ. Your article headline is misleading insofar as it states “Right to manage promoter calls it a day” and the article starts by saying “Dudley Joiner of The Right to Manage Federation….has resigned the management contract…”.
The term ‘resigned’ the contract is also misleading as it is not a legal term. I stand to be corrected but I am not aware that a party can ‘resign’ a contract. One can terminate, rescind or repudiate.
On 1st December Team Property Management gave notice of termination. The Right to Manage Federation was not a party to the contract and had nothing to do with its termination.
I am sorry if this sounds pedantic. I think clarification was necessary.
Over the years I have read with interest all the posts made by Dudley Joiner on this site and others. He doesn’t have much humility does he? Not once have I known him admit to being wrong. He is always defensive, bordering at times, on the arrogant. Nothing is ever Dudley’s fault, even the strike off notices for his companies, the Quadrangle House debacle, his disqualification as Director etc etc.
It must be lovely having such a high opinion of yourself!
It is a pity that these differences have to be aired on this website, when we are all fighting the same battle. There seems to be some big personal issues between LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and Dudley Joiner which should be resolved privately.
He gets attacked regularly on these websites, so I assume he is going to fight back. Who are we to know who is right or wrong.
Michael, thank you for your comments. I am not sure we are all fighting the same battle. LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has devoted itself to the exposure of abuses in leasehold and the frequent over-sensationlised reporting of them. The RTMF and more recently the Leaseholder Association are organisations both pledged to solving leasehold issues and doing something positive to make things better. They might appear to be the same but in my opinion they differ.
Over the last decade RTMF has assisted over 7000 leasehold owners to get RTM. That is positive, beneficial help. We are frequenlty criticised for being a ‘commercial’ organisation but that is the only way to achieve lasting changes. I don’t think we deserve the constant haranguing we get from Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP. We do not initiate it. We go quietly about our business, without seeking publicity. When we do get publicity I believe it is only right to ensure inaccuracies or ambiguities are corrected.
In reply to insider…
In my experience people who have a low opinion of themselves rarely achieve anything!
You’d be surpsied what I have acheived…but I don’t boast about it!
Reply to insider (whoever you are)
I don’t think I have accused you or anyone else of boasting have I?
The dictionary defines boasting as an act of talking with excessive pride and self-satisfaction. To the extent that I am extremely proud of and very satisfied with our achievements, I guess I am guilty of boasting. I am sorry if this offends you.
Enjoy your weekend.
I must agree with Mr Joiner: we come from different points on the compass.
He routinely criticises our reporting, forgetting his fulsome praise for our articles featuring his nemeses Mr Gurvits and Mr Moskovitz (who, understandably enough, don’t see him as a leasehold champion at all, but simply as a commercial rival).
It suits Mr Joiner now to try to diminish LKP by referring to sensational articles. In fact, they have helped drive an agenda for leasehold reforms and have resulted in these issues being considered by ministers, Number 10 and Parliament.
In addition, LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation can demonstrate a track record of helping hundreds of leaseholders get reimbursed thousands of pounds. Given that we overturned the forfeiture of Dennis Jackson’s £800,000 Battersea flat here, the overall amount would be substantial, and possibly over a million.
I disagree with Mr Hollands. This is not a personal issue – although there was a historic falling out between Mr Joiner and Melissa Briggs, one of our trustees.
That is not a serious concern, but these are:
1/ Mr Joiner’s business record and disqualification for seven years as a company director, as outlined by Judge Edward Evans-Lombe here
2/ Taking Quadrangle House RTM; becoming a director; the appointment of his own company Team Property Management to manage the site; ending up as the sole director of the Quadrangle House RTM and therefore employing himself. Mr Joiner’s disinvolvement in this site is very welcome, not least to the residents of Quadrangle House.
3/ The litigation surrounding Elim Court, a retirement site whose RTM application failed at the lower and upper tribunals and now appears to be heading to the Court of Appeal in December next year. Neither the RTM Co – let alone all the Elim leaseholders who may end up paying for this – is in charge of the litigation.
Mr Joiner says that he will cover the legal costs come what may (the landlord’s costs are conservatively estimated at £25,000 so far). We question this breezy assurance.
What if this action fails again, at massive cost? That could mean the liquidation of the RTMF and the Elim RTM Co and the bill landing on the laps of all the leaseholders (including those who have bought since this action began). Could they end up with their flats being forfeited? (This is not fanciful: residents at two park home sites, Oxwich Leisure Park, Gower, and Point Curlew, Cornwall, have come away badly mauled in the Supreme Court.)
For whose benefit is this litigation being pursued? The residents, or the RTMF, which undertook to pick up the landlord’s legal bill?
Mr Joiner was furious when Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP questioned the wisdom (and cost) of appealing the first tier tribunal decision three years ago, where the landlord’s costs were only £10,000. Had that been paid up, Elim could have started another RTM and would very likely be managing itself by now. Then, the leaseholders cheered Mr Joiner and wanted to fight on with his flawed RTM application. They are a good deal more subdued now.
Everyone in the leasehold sector who is aware of the Elim case believes this litigation is extremely worrying. No one believes that a retirement site should be fighting this out in the Court of Appeal.
4/ Federations and associations: Mr Joiner is in a commercial frame of mind today saying this is the “only way to achieve lasting changes”. Fine. We would have no issue with Dudley Joiner Enterprises, similar to those of many other commercial players in the leasehold world.
But we are wary of these enterprises being described as some sort of representative federation or association when they only have Mr Joiner as director (and in the RTMF’s case, no federation structure at all after many years trading).
We have some concerns about the Right To Manage Federation business model: most seriously when things go wrong as at Elim, but also with the fees for a site’s management contract paid by an incoming managing agent.
At a south London site, for example, where in the summer of 2014 LKP advised the residents to employ Mr Joiner, a tendering managing agent was asked to pay £14,300 to the RTMF to secure the site.
The management company declined to tender at all, because of this charge.
Mr Joiner, whose interest in this sector arose because his mother lived in a Peverel-run retirement flat, is undoubtedly a talented entrepreneur. Many sites are now enjoying RTM because of his efforts. But he was rewarded.
It is simply nonsense to think that LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation raising substantive concerns about these activities in the leasehold sector is motivated by ill-feeling, or a pointless craving for journalistic sensationalism.
Sebastian O’Kelly
LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation
I do not recall giving ‘fulsome praise’ for any article written about Mr Gurvits or Mr Moskovitz. When was this? They might be your obsession but they are not ours, or our ‘nemesis’. They are no different to the scores of other landlords who regularly fight against us in the tribunals. To suggest these gentlemen are commercial rivals is absurd.
I do not agree that sensationalized reporting is the only way to get political attention. In any event legislative change takes time, even if there is a will to do so, which the current government has resisted. The CMA did a very thorough job reporting on the state of leasehold and concluded that that early education was vital and RTM was one positive solution. Through my two organizations, LA and RTMF, we are targeting those two remedies. Our goal is to provide immediate solutions to the millions of flat owners who have already bought into the leasehold system and the thousands each year that become new leasehold owners.
Your assistance to Dennis Jackson and Charter Quay are well publicized on your website although it is arguable that Mr Jackson got into that situation through his own stupidity. If you take the thousands of leaseholders we have helped through RTM few of these cases is especially headline grabbing, but on a conservative estimate if we have saved each flat owner service charge reductions of just few hundred pounds that adds up to tens of millions of pounds of savings every single year.
The historic falling out you refer to was my refusal to become an equal shareholder in LKP and donate £300,000 per year to LKP. Your ‘trustee’ Melissa Briggs recently put up a post flatly refuting this. I assume that if I send you the documentary evidence you will publish it along with an apology for disputing the integrity of my statement. It might not be a serious concern to you but your repeated factual inaccuracies and your trustee’s denials are a concern to me because they are damaging to my business and my reputation.
Your constant haranguing of me and my companies and your continuous highlighting of my disqualification without any consideration of the background events has inevitably attracted the wrong attention. There is invariably a few individuals on each estate that object to our help and seek to oppose the democratic wishes of the majority of leaseholders. This thread started because you chose to write another article about the Quadrangle. I doubt you have spoken to anywhere near a majority of residents. I suspect you have listened to the comments of a mere few including the current RTM directors who are in disarray themselves and have repeatedly shown a disregard for their management obligations. Or does LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation support the view that s.20 procedures should be ignored or that residents would welcome our stopping their window cleaning and gardening as the RTM directors proposed?
Your comments about Elim Court betray your total naivety and ignorance of the legal process and the issues involved. Do you really think that if we had withdrawn the first claim and issued a second claim that the landlord would have accepted it? Of course not! We would have faced one counter notice after another and still be in the same position.
The leaseholders at Elim have been kept fully informed and are unwavering in their support. Every step we have taken on their behalf has been preceded by a meeting between residents and their solicitor, who explained the issues and answered questions. Each time leaseholders have voted unanimously to continue with the action. It is their decision, no one else’s.
There has been a great deal of activity in relation to Elim Court that we have not disclosed and there are facts about the case that are not currently in the public domain. While proceedings are continuing it is not appropriate to have a public debate about the merits of Elim’s case, especially on this website.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP might not like our business model but it does work and has achieved thousands of very happy customers who have broken free from landlord monopoly. Nobody other than this website has criticized the way we facilitate RTM. Provided every management company is tendering on the same level playing field it makes perfect sense to ask them to make an investment into the management of the estate. It is evidence of a manager’s commitment to the contract and gives a measure of confidence that the manager intends to do a good job. RTMF charges a fair and competitive fee for the work it does and leaseholders can get RTM at minimal costs to themselves. Our scheme is successful because it makes sense and because it works.
It is disingenuous of you not to state that the ‘South London site’ you refer to was Brixton Hill Court and it was LKP who recommended RTMF to them after numerous failed attempts to get RTM using a solicitor. As you also know we agreed to take their case on a contingency fee basis as they had run out of funds. In the event a substantial part of our fee was paid out in legal costs. Their RTM was acquired though our diligent attention to detail and the readiness to challenge a litigious landlord in the tribunals, the same as we are doing at Elim Court.
Brixton Hill Court is now successfully managed by a reputable managing agent who won the tender by a democratic vote of members. One of the companies tendering was an LKP listed manager who clearly had no issues with paying the RTM fee. Why hasn’t LKP published the letters sent to you by the Brixton Hill Court directors in response to your recent criticism of my activities? They are all extremely happy with our services.
Contrary to your report my mother, who died in 1986, never lived in a retirement flat or a Peverel flat.
The code of practice of the national union of journalists requires that journalists strive to ensure information is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair and that journalists should do their utmost to correct inaccuracies and differentiate between fact and opinion. If Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP continues to distort the facts through omission, implication or innuendo it should expect to be challenged.
would it not be prudent before using any service that may involve considerable financial outlay, to assure yourself of the track record of the person/firm entrusted with the safekeeping of my money.
Is it not therefore relevant if such a person has been banned as a director or has filed accounts late?
Dear Dudley,
What a list: I am disingenuous; Dennis Jackson is stupid; Melissa Briggs is dishonest; the Quadrangle House RTM directors are incorrectly appointed, dysfunctional and have private agendas …
Missing here is your astonishing claim that Sir Peter Bottomley is behind a “witch-hunt” against you; and Martin Boyd, of LKP, is naïve and wrong-headed.
It becomes ever more clear to me why you are the only director of your “federations” and “associations”.
To deal with your points:
1/ Although you don’t like LKP now because it has been critical of your interests, you have indeed praised our articles about your Plymouth battles with Mr Moskovitz and Mr Gurvits, and helpfully emailed us the tribunal rulings. It would be reasonable for them to regard you as a commercial rival, rather than an uninterested party, as you take sites right to manage through the Right To Manage Federation, broker a fee for the management contract from an incoming managing agent or, at times, end up managing the site yourself through Team Property Management.
2/ As for you being asked to make a £300,000 investment in LKP, I have only ever heard of this preposterous proposal from your comments here. It most certainly was not the cause of the end of your friendship with Melissa.
3/ You are not being harangued by this site, and the report of your disqualification as a director has been accompanied by the full judgement of Judge Edward Evans-Lombe here
4/ Your points about my concerns regarding Elim Court heading for the Court of Appeal are simply bombast. You are appealing a flawed right to manage application; the less high-risk solution is/was to apply again without making mistakes.
The residents are stuck: if they stop the action you will, one assumes, pass them the c£25,000 landlord’s legal bill, and possibly that of the RTMF as well. Or, they can continue to support your litigation and hope that you succeed in the Court of Appeal.
I do not believe that all the residents at Elim Court are in a position to be involved in potentially high-cost litigation. I question your claim that “Each time leaseholders have voted unanimously to continue with the action. It is their decision, no one else’s.” I assume you mean: a unanimous decision of those leaseholders present at meetings. Or, have you obtained unanimous written consent for this course of action?
Leaving aside your role, or that of the RTMF, I question whether this decision to proceed to the Court of Appeal should be taken by the members of the Elim Court RTM Co. The RTM Co has no assets, and if the action fails it will almost certainly impact on all residents.
What about those who have bought since the action began in 2012; or those families whose elderly relatives now require expensive care?
The RTMF gives a breezy assurance that it will cover all legal costs of an RTM action, which is fine when it is successful – and highly problematic, as here, when it is not.
We would welcome private discussion of this matter, perhaps including Sir Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick, to do our best to ensure that the interests of all the residents are fully considered.
At the FoPRA annual meeting a year ago, we discussed Elim Court and I told you that if you wanted to make a point about right to manage in the Court of Appeal you should do so with an affluent site of young professional leaseholders, who fully understand the consequence of their actions.
5/ I do not believe that LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is alone in having concerns about the RTMF approach to right to manage. I would welcome clarification about the appointment contracts of incoming managing agents that may be longer than one year – and whether section 20s have been issued in these cases – as well as six-month notice periods, which are twice the length of the norm.
6/ The reason we have not published Brixton Hill Court directors’ correspondence is that they were private communications. If they want to communicate publicly on this website they can do so. Anyone can; and you do repeatedly. This contrasts with your decision partially to quote my private email to one of your clients as an endorsement on the RTMF website, even though you have been asked to remove it. I am sorry, but I do not endorse the RTMF.
7/ It is a long time ago since we discussed your involvement in leasehold at Melissa’s house in Chichester, and I believed you – like her – had an elderly relative living in a Peverel-run site and this prompted your involvement in the sector. If it were instead solely the commercial opportunities, I am happy to be corrected.
Sebastian O’Kelly
LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation
I didn’t quite understand the business model of the RTMF up to now. It’s troubling given a) that achieving RTM is quite straightforward and doable with little expense, b) that managing agents can do the job for free in return for a one year appointment.
In most cases there is really no need for an intermediary..
In our development achieving RTM cost us £65 each. The hard bit was getting all of the contact details and then the participation of the leaseholders. Once that was done the rest was quite straightforward.
We now pay no commissions, no contributions to overhead, no incentives etc.. to anyone. If a creature claiming to represent a Federation visited we’d direct it to the nearest cinema.
The bulk of RTMF work is retirement housing. Management fees for retirement flats are ridiculously high, often £350 to £400 a unit. RTMF typically takes 50% of the first year’s management fee income and so for a 50 unit block that is quite a lump sum. It is debatable the RTMF process is a “level playing field”. I’ve spoken to a couple of agents who have been asked to take part in the tender process (or beauty parade) and they had the distinct impression they were being asked along simply to make up numbers. Interestingly, the bulk of the contracts, via RTMF, have been won by Kingsdale or Millstream, both of whom charge a high management fee and so it is perhaps in Dudley’s interests to promote their cause. I also note that Kingsdale’s website actually endorses the RTMF. I wonder why.
As Paul states, there are plenty of agents out there who will do the RTM work free of charge in return for a one year contract to manage. The only organisation to be disadvantaged by this would be the RTMF.
Is Millstream part of the McCarthy & Stone Organisation?
Millstream is part of Churchill Retirement PLC rather than McCarthy and Stone.
As you know, John McCarthy sold his interest in the original McCarthy and Stone firm many years ago.
A number of operational firms in Churchill group are normally seen as being run by John McCarthy’s children Spencer and Clinton. However, John McCarthy still seems to own 93% of the shares in the controlling Churchill Retirement PLC company.
.
Insider is incorrect. The bulk of RTMF work is not retirement estates. Further RTMF dopes not take 50% of the first years income. It has a standard fee of £100 per flat. In the past this has included legal representation at tribunals. Our management selection process os democratic and thorough. Leaseholders choose there manager not RTMF. The fact that Millstream and Kingsdale have had success with retirement estates is because of the testimonials of other estates. Their fees are competitive otherwise estates would not choose them.
A number of managing agents do offer to get RTM for clients. Some succeed abut many come to us after their first attempts have ended in failure. In my opinion one should also ways beware when someone offers to do something for free! Very little in life is free.
Are you saying that Millstream and Kingsdale have never paid commissions to the RTMF for management contracts?
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation receives few complaints about the McCarthy family’s Churchill Retirement / Millstream, and it contrasts with the trail of havoc left by the historic McCarthy and Stone, with associated OFT inquiries into exit fees, sale of freeholds to Tchenguiz, Peverel/ Cirrus collusive tendering, court cases and the rest.
But by retaining the freeholds and owning the management, Churchill/Millstream have total control over their sites. This includes Millstream’s in-house estate agency branch, which in this example charges 3 per cent
Leaseholders who have broken free from their landlord with an RTM perhaps should be aware of Millstream’s preponderant position in the retirement sites owned by its proprietors.
In response to Admin, Dec 18th…
For the avoidance of doubt let me say it clearly and unambiguously. Neither Millstream nor Kingsdale, nor any other managing agent has paid RTMF commissions in return for management contracts.. In my opinion they get the contracts because they are good at what they do. We do not seek commissions and have never received any.
You criticise Millstream yet in the same post you acknowledge you get very few complaints about them. That is our experience as well. I believe that Millstream and Kingsdale have been successful in acquiring RTM’s because enquiring leaseholders get positive testimonials, Success breeds success.
Unless you have proof (which you won’t have because its untrue) please desist from alleging that RTMF is paid commissions. It is totally incorrect and is damaging to our business.
Well, what’s this if it is not a commission?
The management companies pitching for Brixton Hill Court had to pay a fee to the Right To Manage ‘Federation’, according to the RTMF’s executive Nick Bignell.
Is this email incorrect? Was it not the case that Warwick Estates paid the RTMF for the management of Brixton Hill Court?
If so, is this the only occasion when a payment has been demanded by the RTMF for a management contract?
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RTMFemail2.jpg
The agents who undertake RTM in return for a one year management contract are not doing it for free, so your comment is disingenuous. And the agents I spoke to, who admittedly have not done any RTMF arranged presentations for some time, say they were invited on the basis they paid 50% of the first year’s annual management fee. You may have changed your business model since, but that is their claim.
We have never required a managing agent to pay 50% of their management fee. That has never been our business model. It is false and should be retracted. Our inclusive fee for RTTM has remained fixed throughout the last 10 years. It is £100 per flat.
Our manager section process is probably the most thorough that there is. There are many managing agents who just can’t be bothered to go through our selection process and submit the detailed information required to tender. I suspect they are the ones being disingenuous.
RTMF does not take 50% of a managers income. Our fee structure is £100 per flat maximum. We do not take commissions.
The statements on this thread suggesting we ate a commission or a percentage of management fee are wholly incorrect and slanderous.
Well, what’s this if it is not a commission?
The management companies pitching for Brixton Hill Court had to pay a fee to the Right To Manage ‘Federation’, according to the RTMF’s executive Nick Bignell.
Is this email incorrect? Was it not the case that Warwick Estates paid the RTMF for the management of Brixton Hill Court?
If so, is this the only occasion when a payment has been demanded by the RTMF for a management contract?
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RTMFemail2.jpg
Why did LKP remove the response to the accusations made by Dudley which it had on here yesterday ? There was a detailed response which has now been removed. Clearly something is going on which is not being. reporterd. An explanation would be most appreciated .
Thrle point missed here is that Dudley Joiner has ensured he obtains 6 more months of fees at the site. It does not take 6 months to transfer the management. This is simply another way of TEAM extracting more money to line the pocket of Dudley Joiner.
The comment is now published above.
Paul Joseph is correct, acquiring RTM is quite straightforward and Gov. approved formation agents exist to facilitate this..Fees are minimal and the procedure is best left to such companies.. The names can be obtained from LAS [Lease].
The only problem with RTM at present is the practice of unscrupulous freeholders and their equally unprincipled advisers seeking to frustrate such formations.on any pretext.
And I have a problem with anyone who describes “my companies” as either an “Association” or “Federation”.
In reply to interested…
The 6 months notice of termination operates both ways. Over the last year I repeatedly made the offer to the RTM directors to let them appoint another managing agent. To suggest we have been hanging on to extract more money is absurd. Team never wanted to manage the Quadrangle in the first place and has always been ready to hand over to a reputable manager if that was leaseholders wish.
Not once to date has anyone at Quadrangle asked us to stand down from managing or cooperate in the appointment of another manager. in the end we had to make that decision ourselves and we had to do it legally and follow the termination notice period set down in the contract.
There are things happening which are not being reported on this website.
Dudley . That’s your version. The current Directors actually don’t agree with any of the comments you make. They have asked for termination and do not agree to the 6 months. Indeed there are things not reported and if the Directors reveal all it would put TEAM and Dudley Joiner in bad light. No doubt Dudley , you will once again respond with the usual criticism of all involved and typical failure to accept responsibility. Must be great living in fantasy Dudley.
Some of the things not reported in the site include:
Once upon a time, just as everyone was getting ready for Christmas, there was a stakeholder meeting about leasehold issues. A meeting which took place not too far from where a Christmas Carol was being performed.
It was a meeting that took place on a not too cold and a not too frosty morning. It took place at 11’oclock on 16th of December, if we’re being precise. There were lots of important people there, as representatives from various official bodies and groups in the LEASEhold sector. All were wondering what the future might hold for poor Bob Cratchit.
Everyone in the room was shocked and aghast to hear one person in the room demanding that if Bob Cratchit wants his RTM he will have a contract with a two-year ‘honeymoon period’.
“No no, cried the rest of the room”, “We can’t regulate like this”, “No surveyor would approve”, “We have not trained for this sort of thing,” cried another.
What was not said at the meeting, but which the ghost of Jacob Marley whispered in the darkened corridors, is that poor Bob might face even worse. Some of these contracts actually run for five years, with penalty clauses for early termination.
The room was also shocked at the idea that Bob would somehow face a 6 month termination clause at the end of his “honeymoon”. A 12 month contract with three months termination clauses for both sides was sufficient said all – but the one. What is the point of poor Bob Cratchit escaping from his landlords control if he then has to bind himself to a new master?
Poor Bob thought he was getting all this help for free. Only later did the nightmare unfold. No coal for you this year, Bob.
There are many issues and evidence to be put forward against Mr Joiner, which is not worth my time. He just bats it back with yet another fabricated sob-story, without anything substantial or constructive ever coming of it. A point in his favour are certainly his impressive marketing and presentation skills, not to mention his confidence. It is certainly a pity that he does not invest this much time dealing with leaseholder issues (or complying with his legal obligations) as he does in personal vendettas on this forum. I hope everything goes well for The Quadrangle, in any event.