Warwick Estates Property Management Limited — tribunal record

“The Tribunal found that the Managing Agent's demands for payment were so confusing that it led to the Applicants failing to pay their charges because they did not understand what was being demanded. Therefore, the standard of management was not reasonable.”

“The Tribunal found that on taking over the Building, the Landlord and its Agents, Warwick Estates and Pier Management and later its solicitors JB Leitch could have done far more to explain matters to the Applicants, as it was obvious, they did not understand the situation.”

“it was obtuse of Warwick Estates to refuse to hand over to Pier Management the £400.00 paid by the Applicants knowing that these funds were for the Ground Rent.”

“The Tribunal is of the opinion that all the Administration Charges could have been avoided if in accordance with good management the Managing Agent had explained the situation, thereby avoiding what was, for the Applicants, a confusing correspondence.”

“However, in future the report needed to be more Building specific and focused on the obligations under the Lease as well as any statutory requirements.”

“the Respondent and its Managing Agent demanded a Service Charge that was not in full compliance with the Lease and that the Applicants were justified in bringing the matter to the Tribunal. Although the appointment of a new Managing Agent had been some reason for the error it was not right that the Applicants should have to pay for it.”

“Regrettably this Tribunal has seen similar failures by this particular agent on behalf of its client, to comply with Directions in other cases, and despite its being an RICS registered firm presumably as a mark of quality.”

“The applicant had not sent any of the substantive documents which formed the application for dispensation, to any of the leaseholders, merely their cover letter.”

“The applicant did not include a list of the names and addresses for service of all leaseholders of the 3No. flats at the Property to this Tribunal.”

“The applicant did not confirm that there had been no objections from any leaseholder.”

“The correspondence showed that the applicant failed to comply with simple Directions in a timely manner even after being granted an extension of time to do so. In their (final) email of 19 November 2025 to the Tribunal, they wrote "Please find attached a copy of the indexed bundle as outlined in the 'Bundle for the determination' section of the directions, we have not issue this to the leaseholders as no leaseholders opposed the application."”

“The application was not particularly involved and should have been simple for the applicant to complete in a competent and timely manner but, it failed to do so even after a time extension.”