Residential Management Group (RMG) — tribunal record

“Mr Amodeo could not explain why no-one at RMG had noticed the situation with the electricity at Cabot24 Apartments prior to 2020/2021. He confirmed that RMG manage thousands of similar properties and he conceded that there had been justified criticism of their handling of the issue of electricity in this case”

“Because of the unsatisfactory and inexact nature of the material provided by the Respondent, the amount of the electricity charges for the period 23.02.22 – 31.12.22 (a period of just over 10 months) had to be calculated by taking the average monthly figure from the British Gas bills produced in respect of the period from February 9th 2022 - 23rd January 2023 (a period of just over 13 months).”

“Given the failings of RMG which led to the electricity being cut off in February 2022, and the misleading and incorrect information which was provided by RMG to the Applicants, the Tribunal finds that the management service that year was not of a reasonable standard”

“The result has been a significant delay, but one which was ultimately largely down to the applicant's failure to pay the fees and to include all relevant documents in the hearing bundle.”

“It also drew his attention to what it termed the 'misleading information' on the demands which refers to a risk of RMG charging different administration charges ranging between £34 and £40 in respect of unpaid service charges.”

“Mrs Roberts-Cossey told the Tribunal during the hearing it appeared to her that the super invoice was issued because historically the manging agents had not divided service charges between the 12 leaseholders correctly in accordance with the lease.”

“The Tribunal finds that the Applicant carried out works at a very substantial cost with total disregard of its legal duty to consult with leaseholders.”

“The Tribunal found that no meaningful attempts to consult had been made.”

“Even in its application to the Tribunal RMG failed to provide the correct information about the contractors they had instructed to carry out works and the costs that had actually been incurred.”

“It appears from RMG's response to Mr McKay of Flat 151 [140] that copies of the costs estimates had still not been provided to the leaseholders even by the date of the application for dispensation in March 2025 more than a year after works were completed. This is despite Ms Jones confirming that the leaseholders had already been billed for the costs of the fire stopping works and the waking watch through the service charge.”

“It was unclear why witness statements with no evidence had been submitted late and why there was no application for relief from sanctions.”

“The Applicant could not provide information on this and could not provide information as to why the Respondents had not been billed gas for the heating and hot water for 2.5 years.”