© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
In the Government's lofty view the justification for regulation arises from risk and this is directed more toward protection of life and limb than financial integrity. The fantastically named Better Regulation Commission concluded: “The BRC takes risk to mean the full range of social, environmental, economic, technical, health and other threats, large and small, that we as a society recognise and believe the Government should protect us from.” (Monty Python, where are you now?) The fact that unregulated managing agents handle £1.5 billion a year in clients' funds doesn't seem to feature in this noble sentiment. The advice to Government is that there is not enough risk to the flat owner to justify regulation as existing legislation provides sufficient protection.
We're all familiar with the legislation the manager has to deal with, mainly arising from the 2002 Act, but flat owners probably don't appreciate all the secondary loadings including Health and Safety, Disability Discrimination, the Working Time Regs, COSHH, Legionella etc.
But, all those statutory provisions assume competence in compliance, that the manager knows what he is doing. This is where the argument falls apart; even the RICS Code of Management, relates throughout to what a manager should do, with no reference to how it should be done. There is no protection for the flat owner in the competence of the manager to carry out the legislative requirements providing his protection.
The risk, of such concern to Government, remains entirely with the flat owner yet he is also responsible for policing the legislation. Consider that there is very little leasehold legislation providing for prosecution of a defaulting manager. If he does something really, really bad like allowing a flat owner to smoke in the entrance to his own block then the full weight of the local Council falls on him and he can be prosecuted and fined up to £2,500. But if he totally fails to consult or screws up a building contract, then who's it down to? If the manager is utterly useless only the flat owners are able to act, either seeking the appointment of a manager through the LVT or exercising RTM. Then their remedy is to appoint a new manager, equally unregulated.......
The Government's view that the legislation provides adequate protection against risk of mismanagement is totally skewed, only a proper scheme of regulation can enforce standards of competence and training and keep the incompetent from practicing. It will also provide better protection and a well-needed layer of professionalism to an industry doing its best in difficult circumstances.