At present, leaseholders at Chandlery House have little say in how our development is managed. All power lies with the freeholder and the managing agent they appoint—whose only visible interest is collecting fees. We are left voiceless, unable to influence decisions that directly impact our homes, finances, and daily lives.

By forming a Right to Manage (RTM) company, we, the leaseholders, gain the legal right to take over the management of the building from the freeholder. This does not mean we need to manage the building ourselves — we can appoint a professional managing agent who works for us, not the freeholder.

This means:

  • The managing agent is directly accountable to the leaseholders, through the RTM company.

  • Decisions around maintenance, service standards, contractors, and costs are made in the best interests of residents, not the freeholder's profit.

  • We gain control over budgets, contracts, and priorities, ensuring transparency and value for money.

Overall, RTM gives us the opportunity to improve service quality, reduce unnecessary costs, and ensure the building is managed in a way that reflects the needs and concerns of the people who actually live here.

Reasons for Seeking Right to Manage (RTM)

We are pursuing Right to Manage due to ongoing dissatisfaction with the current management arrangements. The issues faced include:

1. Rising Service Charges with Poor Value

  • Significant and unjustified increases in service charges year on year.

  • Building insurance costs have become disproportionately expensive.

  • These rising costs are not reflected in the quality of maintenance or service provided.

2. Poor Quality of Service and Neglected Maintenance

  • Long-standing issues such as a broken lift being out of service for several months.

  • Rodent infestations left unresolved.

  • Deteriorating condition of the car park and communal areas.

  • General neglect of the building and surroundings.

3. Lack of Transparency and Accountability

  • Delayed annual accounts and poor communication on financial matters.

  • Ongoing failure to resolve the deed of variation required to correct the service charge apportionment (from 114% to the correct 100%) following the addition of a penthouse — an issue inherited from previous managing agents.

  • Attempts to push through major works despite significant leaseholder opposition (e.g. decking replacement across all floors), which was only partially resolved after months of pressure.

4. Concerning Attempts to Reclassify Building

  • Recent efforts to reclassify the building’s height to over 18 meters without clear justification or leaseholder consensus, potentially impacting safety regulations and insurance premiums.