Tag Archives: Block Management

31Aug 2012

Current property News: Montague report offers the Key for growth? Part 2

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

In looking at the second part of the Review of the Barriers to Institutional Investment in private Rented Homes, I have read and will comment on the sections headlined; The Barriers and Conclusion and The Recommendations.

 The Barriers.

 Most of these sections concentrate on the land and planning permission needs, but do refer to some rather confusing detail. Such as that Management costs are as high as 30% for Residential property. Now I know that National Companies specialise in offering services for Companies with large property portfolios, but when you consider the normal cost for Management on a local level would average at 10%, I find it difficult to see how this rises to 30% when managing from afar.

 Total Costs.

 I may of course be wrong, but it rather looks as though it is the cost of maintaining the property that has been added to the running costs, however, as the report confirms that it is normally Capitol growth that is considered to be the income from residential and not the rental income, whereas with Commercial investment it is the opposite way round. Surely then, if Commercial values drop over time, the cost of maintenance should be offset against Capitol growth and it is both that should be considered, as they are real income, when comparing residential to Commercial? Is this where encouraging Tax breaks can be made?

 Local market.

 Otherwise, once again, local Management will answer the cost issue, rather than distance Management having to find a local Agent to carry out the role of providing a Tenant, let the Local agent be the sole property Manager. Costs halved? – probably!

Lack of Experience.

The report then states that there is a lack of experience in knowing how any scheme would operate. But this does not exist in the market place; rather this confirms that in compiling the report, the Property Management Industry has not been approached. A fact confirmed by the later statement in Recommendation Five: that the market would benefit from; the professionalism of the management service. Had the Industry been spoken with (also confirmed in the Terms of Reference) then Sir Adrian Montague would have been aware that one already exists.

Right Model.

I also believe that the right model already exists as well. There are numerous professional Letting agents, who also operate as Property Managers as well, looking after leasehold sites (Block Management) throughout the UK. Providing that any incentives in profitability and land availability are made available Nationwide and providing there exists Agents with the ability to run both, then costs can be controlled, the whole Industry will benefit and progress can be made throughout the UK.

Professional Management.

But I believe that this is another opportunity for the Government to change their attitudes towards the rental sector, which is growing at the same speed home ownership for individuals is declining giving a thriving rental sector the opportunity to be part of the growth if not the very reason for it, that this country desperately needs. Tied with ensuring the Industry moves forward in a professional self managed, or Government managed (although I believe this is where the lack of motivation currently exists) manner, ensuring the scheme meets all the requirements listed in this report and that the properties concerned will continue to give the profitable long term return institutional investors require.

25Jun 2012

Property Landlord advice: Explaining who is who in Block Management. Part 2

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

In part two of this Blog having explained the possible Management structures your property could be controlled through, I now move on to the reasons why the situation can cause confusion.

Different rules for different schools.

This is at the hub of this Blog because of my experience with so many sites from Management Company controlled to sites where the Freeholder still appoints the Managing Agent and the site is therefore not run by a Management Company Limited. So until you know the way in which the site you are considering is run you will not be able to understand for yourself. Not that any decision should be made to buy or not, rather by being aware, you will better understand how your property and your responsibilities fit in with the site. 

Residents Committees.

What bought this matter to mind at present and the reason I stated I would return to Freeholder managed with site participation, is because we have become involved with a site where the Freeholder allowed communication with the Residents through a Residents committee. The problem that occurred on this site was a lack of trust between one half of the residents of the site and the other half containing the committee. In this case the Freeholder has stepped in and instructed us how to manage the site which will allow us to look after our Clients interest as Managing Agents. This kind of scenario is unusual and would never be explained by the questions asked by your Legal Representative.

Legal position.

More importantly to me is the total lack of explanation of the legal position surrounding the obligations the Leaseholder now holds. Of course those that ask do not understand. Conversely, those who do not ask probably do understand. So we only hear from those who do not, but that is still too many. The Lease that they have entered in to explains fully their financial obligation and rights surrounding the charges they must now pay. As these include buildings insurance, grounds and internal area maintenance, as well as any funds being held in reserve for costly requirements that may be required at a later date, explains why these obligations should be explained in full prior to completing any purchase.

Speak to those who know.

What never happens is the purchaser phoning and speaking to the existing Managing Agent to enquire about the site and how it is run and to have the financial idiosyncrasies of the particular site explained yet the legal representative of the purchaser does ask a series of set questions surrounding this very subject, including current and past accounts. For me it is a simple step from this position to that of speaking with us and of course what could be better than an introduction and explanation of the manner in which the site is currently run.

Conclusion.

What I believe all of this misunderstanding dictates is that as a potential buyer of a leasehold property, it is right and correct that you not only rely upon the information gathered by your legal representative, but also ask to speak to the Managing Agent, because whichever side we work for and to be able to do both is not straight forward, we can at least ensure you understand how the site is run and that you fully understand what you pay and more importantly why. We will also be able to point you in the direction of the lease, which is designed to be the rule book for the way in which all parties must operate, but that is probably for another Blog!

21Jun 2012

Property Landlord advice: The responsibility for Tenants in rented leasehold property.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

It is strange how issues worthy of writing about as far as Block Management are concerned have been somewhat thin on the ground and then within the space of two weeks several matters arise which  are worthy of note. This time it is the question of Fire and Health and Safety information in a block of leasehold flats.

The Story.

What happened here is we received a letter from the Fire Brigade, telling us of a call out they had received from a resident at a block that we manage because an alarm was set off over the bank holiday weekend. The problem here was that the letter was accompanied by an invoice for a wrongful call out, effectively billing the site for wasting the Fire Brigade’s time. A fine in effect, which they priced at (and no doubt the courts would uphold) £500.00.

The Impact.

We phoned the Landlord, who self manages the flat (looking after the Tenant themselves) and informed them that their Tenant had failed to read the notice displayed on the ground floor, or that the Landlord when moving somebody in had failed to point out the correct procedure, which clearly stated that when the alarm sounded, the first person to contact was our service providers Chubb Fire. This was the mechanism put in place to ensure the Fire Brigade were not called out as a false alarm.

The Responsibility.

As I have confirmed here, it is not our role to advise sub-let Tenants how the site runs. Their contract is with the Landlord and his agent and that is clearly where the legal duty lies. But this was not the reason given as why the Tenant did not deal with the incident in the manner instructed. Rather because they were Polish they were unable to understand or read clearly the instructions. I will leave aside the course of action any Landlord should take in ensuring their Tenant is well advised although the answer does lie partly in that fact.

The Information.

Several years ago during our first Health and safety check of the site, I had held a heated debate with the Company charged with carrying this inspection out, about the need to have notices in several differing languages, to ensure we were seen to do our best to ensure everybody on the site understood the necessary safety  instruction. My point was that the walls of the corridors were only so big and it would be impossible to supply sufficient translations to cover all possible nationalities and there subsequent language needs.

The Solution.

There is a serious point here, which is that it is impossible to supply a copy for all possible language requirements. Therefore our solution was to offer free translation, which it is not that difficult to do, for all requested languages. This way, whilst the legal responsibility does not lie with us, as stated, the relationship is between the sub Tenant and the Leaseholder, we could be seen to do our best for our Leaseholders and to reinforce what was happening, we wrote confirming this as part of a change to what have been called site rules, which we advised all owners are to be handed over to all subsequent owners. We also confirm this when we are able through requests for information for new owners as purchase questions are raised by the legal profession.

The Outcome.

All of this though definitely confirmed that the current Landlord is wrong in their assumption that the cost was not the responsibility of the Polish Tenant who called the Fire Brigade in the first place because he could not read the instructions correctly, therefore they will remain liable for this cost. The fact that we were accused of failing to supply a translation sits squarely with the Landlord as we had not been asked to supply one. What remains a fact is that It is impossible for us to cover every eventuality, and Landlords should realise that they are the party, as the second signatory to the agreement along with the Tenant, that carries the responsibility for ensuring the Tenant is correctly informed.

18Jun 2012

Property Landlord advice: Explaining who is who in Block Management. Part 1

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

As a Letting agent who also offers Block Management services, it is a common scenario for us to have Landlords who have just purchased a Leasehold property to question what is behind the charges that are linked to Leasehold properties. We feel this is because, whether purchased new from a developer or through a Private sale, it seems the information given by the legal profession in explaining why and what the charges cover can lack depth.

Part one- who does what.

So this Blog which is in two parts is to confirm the differing scenarios you can be faced with when buying a Leasehold property. You would think this part would be straight forward, but it is not, as we fulfil a role where we can be employed by either side of a responsibility fence and at times made to look as if we are on the side of the Freeholder and at others holding up the rights of the Leaseholders. Complicated it is, but here as ‘Part one’ are the differing Management structures.

Freehold Controlled.

The Freeholder, if a Right to Manage (RTM) Company has not been set up, will control who does run the site, usually through a Managing Agent that they appoint and this is where the major difference lies. The Agent is therefore beholden to its client the Freeholder. The Leaseholders still pay in the same way as they would under any RTM but it is the freeholder and not the Leaseholder that has the power to control the budgets. It can therefore seem to the uninitiated that the Agent is working against the Leaseholder especially if the Leaseholder does not get their way when considering the site requirements.

Freeholder controlled with Resident input.

This is why on many sites where a Management Company has not been set up either by the Freeholder or the  Lessees through RTM a Residents Committee will exist enabling lessee input into day to day decisions about the running of the site. This is where problems can occur, because clear lines of authority become vague concerning who can request what and with what authority. It is a situation I shall return to.

RTM

More often than not nowadays, plans are drawn up for the site to be handed over to the control of a Management Company Ltd, who will be written into the Lease as the organisation responsible for running the site and appointing a Managing Agent. Handover would normally happen once a site is complete; this allows the builder to run the site until completion, although the payments and expenditure items will be a liability of the Leaseholder from day one. The Management Company would then take over the formal running of the site and be run by Directors appointed from Leaseholders with again, the Lease directing how such appointments are made. These positions are confirmed through the AGM attended by all Leaseholders once a year. Once the site is completed, the Freehold is then also passed on to the Management Company, who may or may not as the Company decides, continue to collect Ground Rent.

 RTM with Freeholder.

The other manner in which sites are run is where the Freeholder retains the Freehold and collect Ground Rent, however the RTM Company continues to run the site is exactly the same manner as the Freehold owning RTM and in fact little will be heard of from the Freeholder under this style of Management. This would normally happen on a smaller site developed by a smaller builder, but once again the Lease will dictate the rights and requirements of the parties concerned.

01May 2012

Block Management Advise: Sub Letting can lead to problems.

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

 

As an agent who act as both a Letting Agent and a Block Management Agent, we are in a fortunate position especially when renting property on sites that we manage as well, of being both aware and able to ensure that the rules of the site in question are adhered to in our Tenancy rental agreements. This was highlighted last week when a Tenant that we had turned down for a property because we knew pets were not allowed, was moved in to the same site through a different Agent, but still with pet dog at heel!

Clarification.

 

Let me first of all clarify the situation regarding the owners of Leasehold property. In law, they are Tenants of the property but on a lease which normally lasts in the region of 90 plus years. Therefore, when they let a property, they are in effect sub-letting to a second Tenant on a short term lease, usually an assured shorthold agreement. The important part of this clarification is that the Leaseholder has an agreement, the Lease, which he must abide by. This Lease will confirm what is allowed and what is not allowed to happen on site through covenants included within the lease, from the basic permission for the Leaseholder to sub-let, to such items as the use of the Car Park, balconies, use of common areas and of course the all important item for this Blog, permission for pets to be kept on site or not as the case may be!

 

The rights of the Tenant.

 

What is important for the Leaseholder is the need for such covenants that impact on the second Tenant to be included in the shorthold agreement, so that they can be enforced. Fail to state in an agreement that all covenants included in the site lease apply and such covenants cannot be enforced. I have had situations before where a second Tenant stored a caravan on the car park, which was against the lease and as Block Managing Agent it was our role to enforce the covenant. Fortunately the Tenant was very understanding as they wanted to stay long term and found alternative storage for the caravan. If they had not, the guilty party would have been the Leaseholder, as it is their responsibility to ensure, if allowed to sub let, that the terms of the Lease are upheld.

 

Back to the Dog.

 

So now we are faced with a situation where a potential Tenant had been turned away from the site because they had a pet. Correct on our part, we manage the site, we are aware of the covenant. The person concerned, because he wanted to live on this particular site, followed up another flat available through a different agent and because they said nothing, has moved in to the flat with dog ensconced. Now it is our duty to inform the Leaseholder that they have moved a pet in too a flat against the lease and that they must enforce the provisions of the covenant and remove the pet.

 

Implications.

 

Of course, providing the agreement is the normal six month Assured Shorthold agreement, then notice can be given and the matter dealt with sooner rather than later, although the reaction of the Tenant may not be as understanding as we achieved with the Caravan. I cannot foresee him finding somebody else to look after the animal having engineered a situation where he achieved his initial objective.  For the Landlord, somewhere along the line, the potential of greater costs and or loss of rent will be significant. If I were him, then a discussion with the agent would be forthcoming, again, sooner rather than later.

 

Conclusion.

 

What should always happen on any leasehold site is the lease should be checked, or at least the question asked of the Landlord, what are the restrictive covenants for the site concerned? For the Tenant in such situations, whether carried out with knowledge or not (although some would say in this case the action as carried out with full knowledge that pets were not allowed because we had already informed him) there is the question of compensation for at least moving costs and / or the cost of dealing with whatever the implications are of complying with unknown covenants at the time of signing the secondary lease.  These could of course be significant depending upon the situation, but the bottom line is that as Leaseholder the fault lies with allowing the situation to develop without sufficient safeguards in place. The question that has to be asked is why was the Tenant moved in without the Agent giving the Landlord best advice? Probably a question the agent may find difficult to answer!

02Feb 2012

Property Landlord advice: Block Management: LVT wash their hands.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Before Christmas this year, I wrote about an LVT case where having proven that the RMC we were acting for were correct in their actions, the remaining Leaseholders had been left to pay the not unsubstantial costs for fighting the case bought by one Leaseholder against the RMC. These costs, as pointed out at the time, were mainly bought about because of the manner in which the LVT instructed us to respond to each and every point raised by the Leaseholder, both in substance and number of points raised.

No recourse.

I have spent several weeks, again making sure no further costs were generated in investigating the situation and without charging for my own time, discovering, that even though the case brought against the Management Company failed in every point, that there is no re-course what so ever to the leaseholder responsible, at all. I am staggered by this, because it now means that the remaining Leaseholders will all share the resulting liability between them and be forced to pay for one persons inability to understand the Landlord and Tenant act and its implications when applied to accounting methods.

Wring case, wrong time.

It would be impractical to list the case as presented to the LVT, but I really cannot understand how, with the knowledge of what the case was based upon, we were instructed by the LVT to have to go to the lengths we were instructed to go to, when had they insisted upon a pre-trial hearing, which is in their power to call, the facts behind what the Leaseholder wanted from the action bought, did not fall within the remit of the LVT in the first place. Having requested such a hearing, I do not believe it fair either to hide behind any lack of request ‘with specific detail listed’ as the LVT should direct in these matters, exactly as they did during the three day hearing!

This is a result?

So the LVT instruct us to put a great deal of time and effort into answering to the case, which has the effect of generating cost that the LVT awarded, so they can be recovered, but not from the Leaseholder who brought the case in the first place, apart from their equal share, but from the remainder of the Leaseholders on the site, when the actual wishes of the Leaseholder who brought the action, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the LVT !! We have done our best to gain instruction from the LVT of our options to seek direct recourse, but rather than tell us the law will not allow such actions, we were again advised to seek the information elsewhere, which, if not for relationships called upon from our contact base, could have caused further cost in discovering the RMC is powerless under these circumstances.

Some may call that justice; some may say that the LVT exists to protect Leaseholders, not by my book, not in this case!

16Dec 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management: Who does the LVT really serve?

⋅ Leave a Comment

By Steve Roulstone

If a Leaseholder of a site managed by an RMC has a complaint about costs and services, the traditional route for that complaint, if the Leaseholder feels the Management Company has failed to address the issues concerned, is the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) whose job, as stated in the title, is to ensure that Leaseholders are receiving value for money in both the charges levied, money spent and services provided.

On behalf of the Leaseholder.

Therefore, when a Management Company is the subject of a tribunal bought by a Leaseholder, you would assume that the process is there to protect Leaseholders and ensure they ARE getting value for money and that their interests are being taken care of. Especially for investment Landlords, who have of course utilised property as their chosen route of investment, probably of their pension or main asset to be realised upon retirement. But this has proven not to be the case for a tribunal that has just reached determination by the LVT for all of the leaseholders of the site concerned.

Initial problem.

When the paperwork arrived at our office the first thought that entered our heads was why this action was being bought against the RMC concerned (we received it as the Managing agent of the site in question) and upon investigation, realised that the case the Leaseholder had bought was not only wrong in our opinion, but that it was going to take a lot of time and effort and professional advice to fight it on behalf of the RMC. Indeed specialist knowledge was most important and must be required for nearly every Agent in our position, because such matters whilst not rare are not common occurrences and as the LVT Chairman stated in this instance, rarely reach such complicated levels as was produced by the Leaseholder concerned.

Long story short.

The case itself and the detail surrounding it are not central to my main point here, but midway through the process, having answered in a way that we felt was relevant and confirmed what we believed to be the truth behind the case, we were clearly instructed by the LVT to give more information against every point raised in this complicated claim and in much more detail. This we did, but the outcome was that the amount of time and therefore cost that we were generating to fight the case was rising by the week. Indeed, to put together the response requested by the LVT took a total of 65 hours in one week alone. Add the cost of the professional advice, which required two trips to London by three people on two occasions and the time spent writing, processing and gathering data prior to the week spent compiling the reply and the eventual bill would amount to several thousand pounds. On top of this, the three day tribunal, again for three people just kept the cost mounting up.

To fight or not to fight.

Of course, we could have left the case alone and allowed the tribunal to make a decision based upon what they managed to gather from the Leaseholder alone, but the risk, considering the claim was for over £150,000 was just too great. Then there is the position of the RMC Directors to be considered. I know why such people take up the role of Director and one requirement they should not expect to have is the kind of specialist knowledge needed to fight a case such as ours. An argument of mine during the case was that if all Directors were supposed to be as knowledgeable as the Leaseholder who bought the case against them obviously was, then 90% of the sites in this Country would never attract a Director at all!

To the outcome!

Now here is my point in all this. We won the tribunal on all counts and were given permission to claim full costs through the collection of fees from the whole site. Now the Directors are left having to explain why the Leaseholders will all face an increase of nearly 25% on next year’s Management fee and all because of the actions of one Leaseholder. But if the LVT is duty bound to listen to such cases, then the Management Company must have the ability to claim the cost of fighting the case and their only route is through Management fees as they have no other source of income. So the obvious point is in what way does this outcome protect the interest of the Leaseholders on this site? The answer unless somebody can tell me differently, is that it does not and I know full well, that the costs generated were very reasonable, having pulled in favours and attracted the support of specialists in Block Management for at least one full day for nothing (purely because of the subject matter itself)

Better way.

For me the Management Company should have a better route for recourse and if the LVT can demand such a high level of input from the respondent then they should have more powers in determining where the responsibility of the costs generated should lie. Perhaps if that were the case then those bringing such actions in the first place would take in to consideration the possible implication of their actions before bringing a case, which unless we find out otherwise, will have no more impact on them than the rest of the property owners on the same site!

30Jun 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management: The importance of local services.

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

I have written before about why so many Block Management sites, when the existing site Managers are failing through the eyes of the site Directors, end up in the hands of local Letting Agents, who can quickly make the adjustments to carry out the role of Managers for a site rather than for a Landlord, especially where maintenance is concerned. This is one of the major advantages for local Agencies, because in the nature of their day to day business, they will have developed working relationships with the whole gambit of building craftsmen who can help cement the Agencies new Property Management work.

 Local services for Local people!

 It is also not just that by being a local Company it is highly probable that there will be some relationship either privately with the Leaseholders or just by the very fact that the people concerned live in the same location. In Stafford for example, one of my main ‘fix all’ contractors, lives looking over a site that we manage. The relationship that this has developed between the Directors, some of whom already knew the chap concerned and the Contractor is so strong that they now insist he carries out the annual balcony maintenance programme we organise for them. The trust in his work and the way in which he deals with both the problems that occur and the people living on site is the reason the relationship has developed in this way. I believe what helps make this kind of situation possible when dealing with local trades, is the fact that they are Neighbours. Everybody feels more comfortable than the unknown quantity of a visitor from out of town!

 Time is not a factor.

And then of course, there is the ability to react quickly to any emergency situation, and I have known many schemes that operate Nationally for Letting Agents to deal with those Emergency call outs (and I know at first hand, that the level of performance from Contractors attending through such schemes leaves a lot to be desired) All of whom do not react in the same manner as a Contractor who is not only going to start the job to hand, but probably visit again to complete it. Not to mention being the Contractor who will have visited before and will no doubt be needed to visit again! All of these things make the local chap the choice for me.

 Not just Contractors.

 Of course other services are needed through the offices of Block Management and white collar trades also benefit from knowing the area. I have witnessed myself how the local Solicitors have been able to give more appropriate advice when legal issues have arisen, even benefiting from staff living on the site, in this case being able to clear a very difficult recognition problem for us, simply because when typing correspondence, they were able to answer the issue through personal knowledge of the person we were trying to trace. A situation which ended up benefiting all of those concerned and avoided higher costs to boot!

 No comparison.

 So being looked after by a Local Company has many advantages and I cannot see how the largest of the many major City based specialist Block Managing Companies can compare, and even though they may not advertise such services initially, if I were looking in relation to any property owned on a Leasehold site, I would not hesitate to check the local options first. Of course, they must also have a clear understanding of how to run a site in the proper manner, both legally and financially, on behalf of the owners, but I still believe that most organisations in our trade, if they knew they could not do a good job, would say no from day one. But then we all have to start somewhere as did I when I took my first site on back in 2003. But then I had the advantage of being part of a National Company who could offer me both training and other Franchisees who were already undertaking the role themselves, as they say, you cannot beat knowledge!

16Mar 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management and Letting Agents (Part 2)

⋅ 2 Comments

By Steve Roulstone

There are several areas where having somebody who is qualified to understand the implications of renting leasehold property managing the site is to the advantage of the other Leaseholders and the running of the site (Block Management Company) in general. One of these is the need to ensure that any secondary agreement offered to a Tenant by a Leaseholder carries the requirements of the original lease within it, to ensure many basic stipulations of the site can be upheld.

Upholding the rules          

 

Without such inclusions, (which can be dealt with reasonably easily by anybody who understands the implications) such basic site rules as ‘No Caravans’ or ‘No Commercial Vehicles’ cannot be enforced as the agreement of the lease is with the leaseholder, not their Tenant The Tenant is only answerable to his legal agreement and if the clauses are not included, then the original Leaseholder in allowing the Tenant to break the lease and is the person therefore answerable to the Management Committee.

Ignorance is no excuse.

 

There is no way around this as I have found in my own experience, indeed it was only because one Tenant who parked a caravan on a site we Manage was very understanding, that we managed to have the rule enforced. The Leaseholder and therefore Landlord’s only excuse was lack of knowledge, because his Agent had not taken the time to check, which of course must be the situation up and down the country. But there are many clauses which can fall fowl of this problem, such as pets and of course the biggest problem of all, the permission to sub let in the first place.

Permission to rent.

 

Permission cannot be unreasonably withheld of course for any matter, but if the Leaseholders who live on the site as well as the Freeholder (if not self managed) who’s lease we are discussing here, did not intend the property to be available for rent, then by having a Letting Agent acting as block Managing Agent, whether acting for the Freeholder or the Block management Company (Residents) it is probably in the best interest of all concerned that the rule can be upheld.

Check before signing.

 

So the golden rule is to check before any sub-let is agreed and yet in all of my time as a Letting Agent who operates as a Block Managing Agent as well, I have never once received a phone call to request confirmation of the contents of the Lease or indeed ask if Permission is given on site, from either other agents or Landlords running their own Management. It begs the question just how many ticking time bombs exist out their?

25Feb 2011

Property Landlord advice: Block Management and Letting Agents. (Part 1)

⋅ 1 Comment

By Steve Roulstone

Henley Grange Halesowen.

Over the years of running a Letting Agency, several different opportunities come to light and most Agencies do at some stage along the way, get the opportunity to advice or run a Block Management Company. This is exactly what happened to my Company and we now look after a total of 14 sites throughout the Franchise area of Staffordshire.

Block Management explained.

For those in the know, this is well understood, but if you have never had anything to do with what are mainly leasehold properties, or lived in a location where there are shared facilities, it may not be so obvious, so let me explain: In simplistic terms, Block Management Companies are set up to oversee the running of Leasehold properties such as apartment blocks (nowadays nearly always with Freehold properties attached, because of Planning authorities insisting on new sites having a cross section of affordable as well as ‘Executive’ type housing) appointing and therefore paying for such services as Cleaners and Gardeners, organising insurance cover and also giving a platform for all who live within the site to comment or even assist in the day to day running by standing as a site Director. Companies such as ours carry out the collecting and payment of services rendered and stands as Company Secretary to carry out the formal running of the site in line with any and all legal requirements and are appointed by the Directors.

Why Letting Agents?

What normally happens is one of our Landlords will get frustrated at the lack of contact or accountability of the existing Managing agent (Professional appointed body) and ask if we can assist. This is how we started and all of our business has come about through recommendation since that first site in 2003. This is because as Companies, Letting Agents are set up to operate in a very similar way and of course we can soon adjust our services to take Block Management on board.

Training and Professional standing.

Within Castle Estates, we offer training for all of our offices whenever opportunity presents itself, this is to ensure that the training is given when it is needed and therefore better utilised by the offices and the customer of course benefits as well from up to date information. Our professional bodies also recognise the services we give as Block Management Agents but there is a separate body ARMA Association of Residential Managing Agents (as opposed to ARLA) which it is wise to apply to join when numbers of sites increase. In our case, when we developed to the stage of having a separate division within the Company, just for Block Management.

So what advantages to the customer.

The normal reason and this I am sure is countrywide, is lack of approachability and poor communication that results in  a lack of trust, but of course the disillusioned owners and directors nearly always look to their own locality for a solution. And this is exactly why so many Letting Agents come to look after so many local sites. This is exactly what we can offer, accountability and easy simple approachability and communication. OK there are people who do not communicate well no matter where they are located, so I guess that is my hint to anybody taking over a local site because of problems with the existing agents – communicate with your new customers. We do and have shown considerable growth because of it!