The findings presented below have been made after many years of intensive research - starting in 2020, and which continues - and much consideration.
The research is presented in the report - which as they say "names names". However the report is factual with every item verified, unless explicitly stated otherwise, by communications and other documents all of which were lawfully obtained.
About Injustice and Justice
The following article was first written many years ago. It applies to regulators [mostly unregulated], trade associations who claim to keep their members under control [generally they don't], and ombudsmen services [mostly unregulated].
It was first published in 2011, and it remains true today. Click here to read the latest version.
The Leasehold Advisory Service 
Strictly the LAS are NOT a regulator, but they may be classified as being not only an excellent interpreter of the law, but a body which will provide sage advice in a given situation. It is strongly recommended that written advice be sought - you have 3,000 characters, or some 500 words.
Dealing with a Section 20B Notice
The Brief - Made on 1st July 2026
- Our estate is of 50 flats at SW15 3HE, Garden Royal, Kersfield Road.
- The freeholder is Kersfield Maintenance Ltd, whose shareholders are all lessees.
- All lessees are shareholders.
- Lessees are elected to the Board.
- However, democracy has died and we have a Board, one of whom [xxxxxxxxxxxx] effectively controls the estate.
- Annual Meetings have been cancelled since the last meeting on 10th June 2025 ended when at the start of the meeting xxxxxxxxxxxx refused to allow notes of the meeting to be made. All further meetings have been cancelled on the grounds of cost.
Our lease contains an explicit clause requiring accounts to be provided as soon as possible after two months after the end of the accounting year which is 31st December.
For several years the accounts have been rendered late.
We suspect "frauds" and have calculated that dome £500,000 has been unlawfully accrued by some members of the Board over the last decade.
We have managed to get some of the scams stopped in particular the letting out of garages for commercial purposes with the help of Wandsworth Council.
We have just received notification that a Section 20B notice has been posted on MyBlockman which the managing agent uses. Many of the older lessees [age about 70] do not use it and thus have not been able to read the notice.
Nevertheless, the question is whether a Section 20B notice is superior to the explicit terms of the lease.
These read:
9. The Lessor shall keep proper books of account of all costs charges and expenses incurred by it in carrying out its obligations and an account shall be taken On the Thirty first day of December next and on the Thirty first day of December in every subsequent year during the continuance of this demise and at the termination of this demise of the amount of the said costs charges and expenses incurred since the date of the commencement of the term hereby demised or of the last preceding account as the case may be.
10. The account taken in pursuance of the last preceding Clause shall be prepared and audited by a competent chartered or incorporated accountant who shall certify the total amount of the said costs charges and expenses (including the audit fee of the said account) for the period to which the account relates and the proportionate amount due from the Lessee to the Lessor pursuant to clause 19 of the Sixth Schedule
11. The Lessor shall within two months of the date to which the account provided for in Clause 9 of this Schedule is taken or so soon thereafter. [Page 13 to 14] as possible serve on the Lessee a notice in writing stating the said total and proportionate amounts certified in accordance with the last preceding clause
The Response - Made on 3rd July 2026
Thank you for your enquiry of 01/07/2026.
To clarify section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is a separate matter from the clause in your lease requiring accounts to be provided as soon as possible after two months after the end of the accounting year, 31st December.
Under section 20B(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 freeholders (managing agents acting on their behalf) have 18 months from when they incurred a service charge cost (e.g., received an invoice or paid it) to demand payment from a leaseholder, otherwise the service charge item is not payable. Case law qualifies the 18-month rule under. OM Property Management v Burr [2013] provides that costs are incurred from one of two trigger dates. The trigger dates are the date your landlord (managing agent) received the invoice or when your landlord (managing agent) made the payment. If any of these trigger dates fall within 18 months of the you receiving your invoice then you will be liable to make the payment in so far as a valid demand has been issued.
The exception is that under 20B(2) if your landlord (managing agent) sent a written within 18 months of the major works costs being incurred stating that a demand for payment will follow in due course, the 18-month rule would be disapplied and you would be liable to pay.
Serving a Section 20B(2) notice only preserves the right to demand money later. It does not grant an extension to the service charge accounting deadline dictated in clauses 9 and 10 of your lease.
I do understand that the problem you may have is that the section 20B(2) notice is treated as an accrual for accounting purposes and accruals can delay the production of service charge accounts. The other problem is that even in cases with lease clauses requiring service charge accounts to be
produced by a certain time, courts have not been helpful as they have found time not to be of the essence. In the case of West Central Investments v Borovik (1977), the lease required the landlord to have accounts prepared and served within two months of the end of each accounting year.
The accounts for the years 1970 to 1973 were not prepared until 1974. The court held that the two-month stipulation did not make time of the essence for the production of the accounts, and the landlord was entitled to recover the service charges shown on those accounts as owing.
So how can you resolve your situation? I would suggest if you have no confidence in the director and the director refuses to call a general meeting, you could compel a general meeting under sections 303 to 306 of the Companies Act 2006 You would need at least 5% of the members of the management company (so at least 3 leaseholders) to sign a requisition notice stating the resolutions you would like to vote on at the general meeting (this can include a vote on whether to re-elect the current director), and then nominate (a) replacement leasehold director(s) and send this to your managing agent.
Statutory rights to service charge information
Even if the service charge accounts have not been finalised, you have certain statutory rights to obtain a summary of your service charge expenditure from your management company under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (and regulation 3(9) of The Service Charges (Summary of Rights and Obligations, and Transitional Provision) (England) Regulations 2007)) and further information (invoices and receipts) under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
This right is limited to service charge expenditure relating to the last 12-month accounting period ending no later than the date of your request. Here is a link to our template letter for making a section 21 request, which you are welcome to use. Similarly, under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, within 6 months of receiving a summary of your costs, you can request invoices, receipts and other supporting documents for your service charge. Your management company must provide facilities for you to inspect and take copies or extracts of the accounts, receipts, and other supporting documents related to your service charge, after receiving the summary under section 21 of the Act. Here is a link to our template letter for making a section 22 request, which you are again very welcome to use.
If your managing agent instructed and on behalf of your freeholder fails to comply with sections 21 and 22 they commit a summary offence and are liable on conviction to pay a fine. Section 34 of the 1985 Act expressly enables a local housing authority to initiate criminal prosecutions for offences under the 1985 Act, including failing to comply with section 21/22 obligations without reasonable excuse. Violations can lead to a fine, with current penalties allowing for fines of up to £2,500. If your freeholder/ managing agent is a body corporate, section 33 allows for directors or managers to be prosecuted alongside the company.
However, please note, this is at the discretion of your local housing authority and there is no other body that can bring this prosecution under the current legislation. I understand your council is already involved with your property in bringing various enforcement notices against them but if you approach them and request them to, they have the power to bring a prosecution against your freeholder for non-compliance with sections 21 and 22. However, realistically most local authorities won’t have the resources to bring such a prosecution.
Reforms to statutory service charge information rights
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (LAFRA) 2024 would, when brought into effect (it is largely not yet in force and we cannot advise when it might be brought into force) implement improvements to service charge transparency including:
- Standardised Service Charge Demands: freeholders and managing agents will be required to issue service charge demands in a prescribed, standardized format, making them easier to understand and compare.
- Annual Reports: freeholders and managing agents must provide an annual report in a prescribed form within one month of the end of the accounting period.
- Greater Access to Information: the rights to request a summary of costs and to inspect supporting documents (sections 21-23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) are extended, allowing leaseholders easier access to information about their building's management.
- Insurance Commission Disclosure: the Act removes the ability of freeholders and managing agents to hide insurance commissions, requiring them to be replaced by an 'insurance handling fee' based on work actually undertaken.
- Administrative Charge Schedules: freeholders and managing agents will have a duty to publish an administration charge schedule and update it whenever it changes.
- Improved Accounting Standards: for buildings containing four or more dwellings, a written statement of account must be provided within six months of the end of the accounting period, and it must include a qualified accountant's certification.
I hope my comments prove helpful.
About service of a Section 20B Notice
The Brief - Made on 3rd July 2026
Use of MyBlockman software for service of documents.
The lessee does NOT use, and has not signed up to use software called MyBlockman used by HES Estate Management Ltd, 2 Chartland House, Old Station Approach Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7TE.
Noted that HES has created an account for the lessee which account has never been accessed.
HES has sent an email to the lessee which says
Quote
HES ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD has uploaded new information to your account.
- A new document, "ATTACHMENT TO SECTION 20B LETTER" has been added to Block Documents in Garden Royal
- A new document, "SERVICE CHARGE ACCOUNTS SECTION 20B NOTICE" has been added to Block Documents in Garden Royal
End Quote
The lessee is seventy years old, and keeps immaculate written records. She owns three flats which are let out. One flat in London at SW15 3HE has major management problems which have been ongoing for many years. The lessee has advised HES that all communications and notices etc are to be sent in hard copy by post to her address in Scotland.
The question is whether the above documents been satisfactorily served ?
Note it appears that the provisions given in the court rules have not been followed:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06
The Response is awaited.
The London Fire Brigade
The London Fire Brigade have been without any doubt the most useful of all bodies who have regulatory powers.
Once advised of the cladding at Garden Royal which was on 29th June 2021, they arranged to visit and make a detailed inspection.
Having completed the inspection, on 6th September 2021 they served a notice on the "responsible person" at Garden Royal.
The notice required that the necessary works should be completed by 7th March 2022. At September 2024 no works to ensure the safety of the Protected Fire Routes has been carried out.
The Financial Conduct Authority
The Financial Ombudsman Service
On 14th January 2026, the Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS] were contacted and assisted in raising a complaint on the telephone.
On 4th February 2026, the FOS advised that the matter is being taken forward.
On 11th March 2026, the FOS advised that Accelerant Insurance Europe SA/NV UK Branch has eight weeks to respond [that is by 6th May 2026] and or "make things right" viz ensure the insurance is made valid.
On 7th May 2026, FOS advised that the next steps have commenced.
Wandsworth Council But . . .
Please see the article about Monies re Letting out Garages
Wands worth have been investigating but no report has been received. However an email was received from Grace Miller indicating an inspection had taken place and no evidence found. Please see the third paragraph of Correpondence Item 43 - Parking and Leasing Garages - 25th Sept 2025.
On 20th March 2026, an FOI was raised asking Wandsworth for their formal findings. The results were unsurprisingly surprising:
- Haley Willkom is "off the job" and has been replaced by Edward Appah
- Edward Appah replied on 23rd March 2026 indicating:
- That Wandsworth have taken some action namely they have issued some "Planning Contravention Notices". To whom and regarding which garages remains unclear, but that information has been requested. Click here to see his letter.
- That Appah would recommend closing the complaint. In response it has been suggested that this is delayed pending further research.
- That Grace Miller's email of 25th September 2025 is shown to be false and misleading. See Correspondence Item 43
- That further research is required to discover whether A H Peck and the decorator to whom they sublet have quit Garden Royal's garages; also Chiltern Doors.
On 25th March 2026, the author was telephoned by A H Peck's MD who advised that three of the five garages that they rented had been cleared, and that the fourth would be cleared on the 27th March 2026. He advised that the fifth sublet to a decorator had also been cleared.
Edward Appah has been thanked for his attention to this serious breach of the planning regulations by Thoxoula Charalambous of Flat 41 Garden Royal; noted that at this time she remains a director of Kersfield Maintenance Ltd.
However, it is noted that when advised that Chiltern Doors were still using a garage, he retorted that a separate complaint must be made. This might indicate that:
- That he is probably in touch with Charalambous, and
- Chiltern Doors might probably be the contractor for the Fire Door replacement scam.
On Easter Sunday 5th April 2026, the FOI to Wandsworth Council was in effect refreshed.
The following link to Edward Appah was found: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communication_to_and_from_mr_edw
The MGAA
The Managing Agents Association - or MGAA.
Insurance problems are always unwelcome for insurers, and those who arrange them. In this case it was effectively 12th July 2025. The affair is reported in the comments adjoining the communication with the managing agents dated 8th July 2025 [Correspondence item 24].
After what might be termed a polite interchange with Julia Coakley, Chief Operating Officer, an email was received from Michael Keating, Chief Executive Officer [Email:
Dear Sir,
I refer to your recent correspondence with Julia Coakley regarding the above matter.
We have now received further information regarding your alleged involvement and action taken against you and, as a result, will not be engaging in any further correspondence.
I would appreciate if you would adhere to this request.
Kind regards,
Mike
In simple terms, it appears that the Board of Kersfield Maintenance Ltd [probably the Chairman] have been in touch to disparage the author as has been their usual practice. Disparage means "belittle, decry, and depreciate. While all these words mean "to express a low opinion of ", disparage implies depreciation by indirect means such as slighting or invidious comparison."
This might be better described as "Post Office Syndrome", and has had no impact on resolving the problem of an invalid insurance policy.
It begs the question "Are lessees bound to pay for invalid insurance ?"
Noted on 14th August 2025:
- The article referencing the development of an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Policy is no longer visible.
- An amazing reference to a Programme Recording dated 16th August 2024 entitled "Governance: preventing personal liability for board members".
The RICS
The RICS is not a competent regulator.
This is what Lord Best found in 2019. Sadly Lord Bichard's reforms have, to date, totally failed.
"Prince Andrew" syndrome is considered wholly acceptable . . . "I cannot remember . . ."
The RICS accepts that any instruction, unlawful or not, should be obeyed.
TPOS
TPOS found that the Property Management firm had not provided the specification of the cladding but ought to have done.
They were duly fined the paltry amount of £300 in recompense for the absence of such data. The award letter states:
The award of £300 was for the aggravation caused . . . failure to provide information relating to the panels. It was set with reference to what we generally award for shortcomings of this nature. It was not intended to compensate her for any financial loss or expense in relation to the issues complained about. We were not able to determine that financial loss or expense has been caused. It was not for any other leaseholders as they were not parties to the complaint. It was not a fine, as I am not a regulator of the property industry and I am unable to make punitive awards of compensation, or impose fines on agents
Noted that the increase in insurance due to the cladding exceeds £400 annually !
It should be noted that TPOS in no way resolves the problems complained about.
Thus one might conclude that TPOS have totally failed to provide what is termed "administrative justice" which of course is what complainants are seeking.
The Property Redress Scheme
Ownership
HF Resolution Ltd. is a private limited company in England that operates several schemes, most notably the Property Redress Scheme and the Cosmetic Redress Scheme. It is a trading name for HFIS Limited and was incorporated on April 14, 2014. The company's registered office is in London, and it employs various staff members to manage its alternative dispute resolution services
Company number: 08994516
Incorporated: April 14, 2014
Registered office: 7th Floor Corn Exchange, 55 Mark Lane, London, EC3R 7NE
Nature of business: Activities of other membership organizations not elsewhere classified
Parent organization: HFIS Limited
Subsidiary: Landlord Action Ltd [https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08067511]
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03252806
EBITDA stands for Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization
Find out more here: https://www.hfis.co.uk/our-brands
One has to ask whether it is right and proper for an "Ombuds Service" to own a firm of litigation lawyers . . . Indeed is it right and proper for an "Ombuds Service" to be owned by a firm specialising in property ?
A conversation
This is simply my contemporaneous note, which I often make in reverse order - i.e. last comments at the top.
The text is copied from their "chatbot".
Fore more information visit https://www.propertyredress.co.uk/
A stupid and stubborn response
Good night.
Unfortunately Glasgow University's research has no impact on how we investigate or our procedures, for a complaint to be raised to us first it needs to be raised to the agent in writing, through their complaint procedure if they have one, from the date the complaint is raised they get 8 weeks to resolve the complaint, if they cannot resolve it within 8 weeks it can be raised to us, alternatively if they offer a non-suitable resolution as their final stance it can then be raised to ourselves at that point to investigate.
Once the above has been met you can then raise the complaint to us to investigate
And I have told you that Glasgow University's research is what we all agree with.
AFTER to have read the paper come back to me
I have explained the procedure of how to raise a complaint with us
Brown & Brown is the company that owns Property Redress through Hamilton Fraser
Having indicated your intention of being useless - not a lot.
But get wise - see what is being said about you.
And just who are Brown and Brown ???
Is there anything I could assist with?
The evidence is on the web site in plain view for all to see . . .
And you guys wonder why the leasehold community thinks you are ALL a waste of space . . .
Unfortunately we are evidence based and have a set procedure that needs to be followed so we can investigate the agents service formally, once the complaint is raised online to us
Had complaining - It would save everyone a lot of effort if you rang grace miller and read the riot act . . .
They will say "we are [unlawfully] instructed to ... [break the law]" and you will do nothing !
So what ????
Josh - expect to see your name on the web !
You will need to complete the online form to raise the issues to us if you want us to investigate the members service
Prefer the FCA route . . .
BUT if you want to make yourselves useful, which I doubt, the get he missing data sent to me.
THIS IS a RECORDED Message
https://www.portal.propertyredress.co.uk/Complain
If they have responded to the formal complaint with an unsuitable resolution the complaint can be raised to us, we have an online complaint form you will need to complete
Have done that . . .
They say that it is not them . . . they are only advising our Board.
The Story is here:
https://tdocplus.co.uk/01_ROPA/index.php/from-1st-april-2025/on-insurance
The correspondence is alongside . . . they have refused to supply all the ingredients of the insurance contract - especially the declaration / statement of fact and the terms and conditions.
Great thank you for confirming, you would first need to raise the complaint with the member, they will get 8 weeks form the date the complaint is raised to resolve the complaint, if they cannot resolve this within 8 weeks or offer a non suitable resolution and it is their final stance you can then raise this with us, ensure moving forward all communication with them is done in witing as this will help support your case.
Grace Miller - they are members of Property redress.
Please may I have the companies name as if they are not members of a redress scheme, the only thing we could is advise you to report them to Trading Standards.
Our estate is not insured what do we do ?
IRPM
The Institute of Residential Property Management is now part of TPOS - see above. Note: IRPM.org.uk forwards to TPI.org.uk
The matter of "false insurance declarations" is covered in the report. Prior to the IRPM joining TPI, and when regulation was under the direction of Amanda Gourlay, an Associate Barrister with Tanfield Chambers, they did actually censure one member - Ms Varzegi. [you may need to scroll up a bit].
Manually: see The Report section called "Principal Unlawful Instructions at Garden Royal", and scroll down to "Insurance and the Lease" - towards the end of that part.
ARMA
The Association of Residential Managing Agents is now part of TPOS - see above. Note: ARMA.org.uk forwards to TPI.org.uk
The CEDR
The CEDR is simply not fit for purpose of resolving disputes in the Property Management Industry, one known for the belligerent behavior of many firms supposedly regulated, and this is caused of course by the behavior of its staff and management.
Noted that, like many, CEDR is an unregulated organisation.
CEDR’s disclaimer is as follows:
Please note that the outcome cannot be reviewed or appealed under any circumstances, nor is CEDR able to enforce compliance with the outcome. CEDR is also unable to apply further sanctions to the Member for failing to comply with the outcome. The IRPM Complaints Committee retains sole discretion to determine whether or not the outcome has been complied with by the Member.
The cause of CEDR’s failure is outstanding and needs to be determined, and rectified
The ICAEW
The Problem
If a property manager provides a set of figures with little or no supporting documentation, it is clearly not possible to "certify" the amount due.
The selection of documents MUST be made independently by the "auditor" [see below], not provided by the client as a typical sample.
The process of certification is one which requires that the amount to be certified is verified - that is the process of audit as would have existed in 1960 when the lease was drawn.
Messrs Kirk Rice failed to certify which strongly suggests to the Author that they had failed to carry out an audit of any nature.
The Author considers that the wording of the typical certificate [included at page 35 of Tech 03] item (b) says it all.
The summary is sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts and other documents which have been produced to me.
If no documents were examined, or if the ones proffered for examination were not chosen by the person issuing the certificate then there is a problem.
It is to be noted that a court may well accept an unsatisfactory certificate: and that can only be said to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Changes of Managing Agent also result in chages of auditor. This can lead to an unsatisfactory situation.
Results
The ICAEW censured and fined Kirrk Rice.
Update 28th April 2026
The ICAEW have concluded their investigations into Messrs Carter Coley, and Watsons. The latter "undid" a couple of iniquities created by Carter Coley, but have stll made some other [minor] errors - due to the data that they were provided with on Insurance in particular the renewal date.
It must be stressed that in all cases the data provided by Kersfiled Maantenance Ltd was at fault.
The conditions of the lease require as follows:
The account taken in pursuance of the last preceding Clause shall be prepared and audited by a competent chartered or incorporated accountant who shall certify the total amount of the said costs charges and expenses.
The word audited has been downgraded from meaning what might be described as "a sensible and reasonable check" to something much lesser. This allows improper accounting to be certified.
That is what is wholly unacceptable.
Sadly the ONLY remedy [apart from proceeding to a Tribunal at considerable expense, and time] is to complain to the ICAEW. After all it is their rules and regulations [viz Tech 03] which are inadequate. Accounts should be required to state if there any disputes have been raised, and whether they have been resolved.
It is worth reporting that the ICAEW are fully aware of the dilemma which the accountants of many leasehold estates face. Advice should be provided in Tech 03's successor document as it is a matter of the conduct of the profession.
The ICE
The Institution of Civil Engineers is not involved in any way whatsoever in the regulation of the property industry, and thus has no experience of the Property Management Industry, from which experience and knowledge might be obtained.
The only knowledge they have is of design and construction.