Residential Management Group Ltd — tribunal record

“The application contains a duplicate copy of the application form and some other documents meshed, within the principal copy: It adds nothing but is confusing to the reader.”

“there appears to be an error in so far as the specification requires hardwood decking but the price inserted appears to be that for the softwood option”

“Before the hearing, the Applicant failed to address the issue of service on Vivid at all, let alone adduce any evidence of service. This was a surprising omission given that it had been set out clearly both in the solicitor's letter and in Vivid's statement of case.”

“The explanation given at the hearing was not only very late, but was confused and carried little credibility. The Applicant at first said it was not sure whether it had been posted or emailed, then quickly contended it had been posted, but was unable to say who had posted or what the process would have been.”

“The Applicant has made life more difficult for themselves and Vivid by ignoring correspondence and issuing these proceedings late, and then failing to comply with various directions, with the result that Vivid was not provided with the material information until shortly before the hearing.”

“notwithstanding the unusual estate management approach taken by the Applicant's managing agents”

“In this case, there have been shortcomings in the consultation process, which the Applicant acknowledged at the hearing.”

“the Respondent in response has quoted from clause 3(vi) of the sample lease in the hearing bundle although it has not quoted enough of that clause for the part quoted to make grammatical sense.”

“The tribunal is surprised that the Respondent is unable to provide evidence of market testing. The standard commercial form of communication is email rather than telephone and the tribunal would have expected to see email communications in connection with evidence of market testing. In any event, the Respondent was not able to tell the tribunal who it was who had spoken to the broker about this, nor the date on which it happened, nor provide any note or other record of any call made. In the light of the absence of evidence the tribunal concludes on the balance of probability that there was no market testing of the insurance.”

“The Respondent appears to have been passive and allowed a detrimental financial situation to arise. The tribunal agrees with the Applicants that the Respondent was careless about the accrual of additional charges”

“The Applicant's agent has stated in its statement of case that prejudice arises if the Works were unnecessary or inappropriate, were carried out to an inappropriate standard or have resulted in an unreasonable amount of cost. The Tribunal respectfully disagrees. The prejudice being considered in this section 20ZA application is any prejudice arising from the failure to consult, so that could include matters such as loss of opportunity to challenge the rationale for carrying out the Works, or the methodology that is to be adopted for them, or the loss of opportunity to nominate a contractor, or to challenge the price quoted. Under a section 20ZA application, the Tribunal expressly does not consider whether the cost of the Works was reasonably incurred, or whether they were carried out to a reasonable standard.”

“The Applicant misread Beara's quote as £1,250 excluding VAT which placed it below the threshold for section 20 consultation. Due to the misread of the quote and the perceived urgency of the works an order was placed for the works which were undertaken on 10 April 2025.”