As can be seen from the "comments" section those developments wishing to excercise their legal Right to Manage have received letters from Leighanne Miller representing E&M warning residents that excecising their legal rights could lead to many problems for the RTM company.
In her letter she gives examples of what could go wrong, offers to appoint a managing agent of E&M's choosing and points out the advantages this could bring to the residents.
So let About Firstport set the record straight.
First and foremost Leighanne Miller may represent E&M on behalf of the freeholder, but she is NOT EMPLOYED by E&M. Other than two directors E&M do not have ANY EMPLOYEES.
Where About Firstport agree with Miss Miller is that managing a development is a complex matter with many laws governing how management shopuld be undertaken.
It is not for the faint hearted.
Indeed About Firstport would never recommend any residents to manage a development themslves.
Right To Manage is often spoken about. Maybe the expression" Right To Manage" is very off putting.
So think of it differently? Not as a Right To Manage, but as a Right To "Appoint" a managing agent.
Sudenly the picture changes?
All that is now required is for enough residents to get together, form a limited company (with £1 shares) find a reputable managing agent that will carry out a Right To Manage, either for a fixed fee or free in return for a management contract.
And that's it really?
You have a couple of meetings a year with the managing agent to discuss what you want doing and what needs doing. The managing agent does all the rest.
In her letter Miss Miller talks of "economies of scale". That is true. A larger managing agent can of course achieve those economies of scale.
However what she fails to mention (and About Firstport have obtained a copy) is that the management contract with Firstport specifically allows Firstport to KEEP ALL PROFITS arising from any bulk purchase savings.
She mentions "contractor prices" and yet when independently quoted against a Firstport recommended contractor residents have saved thousands of pounds.
She does not mention the undisclosed up to 40% commissions E&M help themselves to for "placing" insurance?
She mentions VAT, writing that VAT is saved by being managed by the freeholder.
That is true. But as she full well knows, this is misleading as it implies that the freeholder and Firstport are still connected companies. THEY ARE NOT!
So the VAT argument is risible.
What is true is that the parent company of E&M Fairhold Services are in default on many of their loans. They are in the process of rescheduling those loans from long term investors. Indeed post balance sheet E&M announced they wre giving Fairhold a £16,000,000 dividend to keep them afloat.
The letter from Miss Leighanne smacks of desperation.
Please do not fall for it.
If you are minded to carry out a RTM, go for it?
Money is hard to come by? Why simply thow away 30% of your service charge money simply to finance the debts of your freeholder?
