A Property Management Regulatory Failure in SW15 London
An analysis of the events at Garden Royal
Executive Summary by
Eur Ing Richard Townsend-Rose MA CEng MICE
23rd July 2024, London. Executive Summary of the Report submitted by Richard Townsend and published by JNNetwork in public interest. This report examines the regulatory landscape of property management in England with particular focus on events that have unfolded at Garden Royal, a residential estate in Putney, Wandsworth.
In summary, it concludes that effective regulation is lacking and highlights deficiencies in the manner in which residential estates are managed and maintained by appointed property managers – that the plethora of rules and regulations are not being enforced by
the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors [RICS], who have in effect taken upon themselves the role of regulator.
These failures are to the detriment of the owners and tenants of the UK’s largest asset – property, much of which is housing.
The conclusions of this report mirror the findings of two recent and wide-ranging reviews of RICS.
Namely, Lord Best’s report of July 2019 – which recommended that an independent regulator, similar to the Financial Conduct Authority, should be created – and recommendations by Lord Bichard in June 2022 that broadly supported root-and-branch reform of RICS.
To date, not all of Lord Bichard’s recommendations have been implemented and the biggest problem [lack of regulation] remains unaddressed.
The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this report although it is hard to resist speculation that one might be a lack of cooperation from some of the UK’s biggest property management firms.
These associations and links are highlighted in the following pages. This report also seeks to highlight inappropriate examples of property management at Garden Royal, which are unlikely to be unique to this estate.
These include excessive charging for maintenance works and conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts – whereby a firm is awarded a contract by an individual who has an interest in that firm. The most common effect is simply to increase service charges, which in the case of Garden Royal have doubled since 2018. These increases have been unilaterally imposed by the Board on residents/owners with no consultation and it is contended that this – in tandem with changes to the Articles of Association that make it extremely difficult to remove the existing directors – constitutes an abuse of position by the estate’s Board.
However, there are other serious effects and in respect of Garden Royal, these are examined in detail by this report.
Dated: 29 Mar 24 Page 1 of 2 Version 01
They include:
● installation of potentially flammable cladding on the estate that was done so without consultation with residents/owners and without planning consent. The cladding has impacted property values, driven up insurance costs and compromised protected fire escape routes for dwellings on the upper floors.
● installation of a door entry system in 2016 that was carried out without formal consultation with residents/owners.
● roof repairs, initially estimated at a cost of more than £1m, that roughly doubled annual service charges
● a contract awarded for electrical re-wiring in garages which was unnecessary and cost £18,500
● leasing of garages in contravention of the rules Finally, this report draws attention to the difficulties that can be faced by an individual,
or individuals, who attempt to challenge the decisions and/or conduct of property managers.
One former resident of Garden Royal who questioned the decision to erect cladding was accused of intimidating a Board member and reported to the police. This caused much anxiety for the former resident who has since left the UK, yet has to date been unable
to sell his flat on the estate.
As this report shows, other residents who challenged the board’s decisions believed that they were subsequently singled out as “troublemakers”.
In his endeavours to highlight events at Garden Royal, the author has been reported by Kersfield Maintenance Limited (KML) for misconduct to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), of which he has been a member for some 50 years.
The author has been accused of “egregious breaches” of the ICE Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics, as well as misogyny and malicious behaviour.
CEO of ACE awards silent on awarding Rendall and Rittner
KML also submitted a complaint to the Worshipful Company of Skinners of which the author has been a Liveryman since 1972.
This complaint has been quite rightly ignored by the Company on the basis that the author’s investigations into property management have no bearing whatsoever on his membership.
An article published in the Daily Mail that highlighted concerns over cladding erected on shorter buildings, with reference to the author and Garden Royal, resulted in a complaint to IPSO, the press regulator, by KML. After careful consideration, this complaint was thrown out by IPSO.
The complaint to the ICE is still under consideration and while the author is confident that he will be exonerated, these matters are highlighted to demonstrate the fierce “pushback” – or what might also be described as bullying – that can be expected when
the conduct and practices of property managers are challenged.
The full report is available on request by email to Richard AT tdoc.net (Please use@ in place of AT)
Dated: 29 Mar 24 Page 2 of 2 Version 01
NOTE: Although inflated service charges are common in the UK, however, the views in the above article/report expressed are of the author Richard and not of Journalism News Network. If you disagree with anything, kindly write to us with your point of view and we can publish that too. Also, feel free to contact the author at the above-mentioned email address.
Related News:
RESI AWARDS Controversy for property management firm Rendall and Rittner as Judges silent