Inspired Property Management (IPM) — tribunal record

“IPM's actions betray a reactive approach. Each time something came up, they sought to react in such a way that the issue would recede to the background for at least a while.”

“IPM brought in specialist consultants, Ilecs, to advise but, with all due respect, in these particular circumstances their advice appears to have been otiose. Although they used more words, their conclusion and recommendations went no further than Murray's findings more than 2 years previously.”

“IPM needed to have taken a step back earlier than this to identify a path forward – if they had, it is likely that TKE would have been brought in to inspect and advise long before the flood in August 2021. Delay resulted in yet more delay.”

“They simply assumed, mistakenly as it turned out, that Mr Ward was keeping his fellow lessees informed of whatever IPM told him. Also, it did not occur to them that staying silent during the periods of delay would just generate more anxiety – they did not realise that an absence of any action or progress for a sufficiently long time is also news of which the lessees would like to be informed.”

“the Respondent has not thought to grant a similar benefit to the other lessees”

“While this is within the range which the Tribunal might expect to find in the market for a property with this number of units, it is on the high side. The Tribunal would expect to find a service which fits that level of fees. Instead, IPM's service has fallen short in relation to both lift maintenance and communication about that lift maintenance.”

“None of these accounts provide an accurate description of how the judgment debt of £4,914.39 was computed.”

“This is a matter which should have been resolved by the managing agents without the involvement of lawyers, had the basis of the claim had been explained to the Respondent in simple terms.”

“The transfer of the accounts between Brunsfield and IPM was far from satisfactory.”

“Mr Peters gave evidence that IPM did not carry out a calculation in accordance with the RICS Code in order to ascertain the appropriate level of the reserve fund contributions.”

“The Tribunal found that IPM have not undertaken their managing agent's responsibilities to the standards required by RICS, in the delay in producing accounts. In fact, the accounts were only finally produced due to this application.”

“The accounts added to the continued confusion by comparing the old, estimated amounts (inclusive of 21 Lord street) with the new method of calculating the actual amounts (separating out 19 and 21 Lord street, though still including figures for 21 Lord street). In addition, there does not seem to be as yet a clear break down with a total amount payable for each block.”