This is simply a list of outstanding matters of great concern to some lessees - whereas some do not seem to be concerned in the least.
For each concern, there is a management failure which can be formed into a complaint of some severity - from "Extremely Serious" to "Minor".
Failure to designate 'The Responsible Person under the Fire Safety Regulations'
Concern
Google AI reports as follows:
Under UK fire safety regulations (such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005), the "Responsible Person" (RP) is designated by control, not necessarily ownership . You do not need to formally appoint an RP; it is automatically whoever has the primary duty for the premises .
The designated Responsible Person is determined by the type of property:
For residential buildings/common areas: The landlord, freeholder, or managing agent is the RP for communal areas like stairwells and hallways.
Core Legal Duties of the Responsible Person
The Responsible Person is legally liable to ensure the premises comply with fire safety laws. Key responsibilities include:
- Fire Risk Assessments: Ensuring a suitable and sufficient Fire Risk Assessment is carried out and regularly reviewed .
- Safety Measures: Identifying and implementing general fire precautions, including adequate escape routes, fire doors, and extinguishers.
- Maintenance: Ensuring all fire detection, alarms, and emergency lighting systems are maintained .
- Information & Training: Providing clear fire safety instructions, training, and information to employees or residents.
- Competent Persons: Appointing competent individuals to help carry out preventive and protective measures, although the ultimate legal liability remains with the Responsible Person.
Status - Major
The requirements are laid down by law.
Failures to obey the law can result in either a fine or a short prison sentence of up to two years.
Failure to provide 'A Fire Risk Assessment under the Fire Safety Regulations'
Concern
Leasehold Advisory Service
https://www.lease-advice.org/building-management/fire-safety/fire-risk-assessments/
HM Government
Status - Major
Failing to make a Fire Risk assessment is simply unlawful.
Failing to issue this is again unlawful.
London Fire Brigade Notice to 'Make safe protected [fire escape] routes'
Concern
The main concern is that the London Fire Brigade issued a notice to Kersfield Maintenance Ltd on which has been ignored.
That the Managing Director of Rendall & Rittner considered this simply to "be their opinion" with which he disagreed is amazing - A Chartered Surveyor has neither the training, qualification nor experience to make this observation. The London Fire Brigade is the lawful regulator in such matters.
The notice was issued on 6th September 2021 and required that remedial works be completed by 7th March 2022.
As at 2nd August 2026, no works have been even planned let alone carried out.
Status - Serious
Refusing to obey a notice issued by an appropriate authority is unsatisfactory to say the least.
When it compromises the safety of people it is socially wholly unacceptable behaviour.
Buildings Insurance - Validity of policy
Concern
The investigation into the insurance is covered in two papers on this web site, viz:
Status - Extremely Serious
The matter has been referred to and is under investigation by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The process undertaken followed advice from the Financial Conduct Authority.
It appears that neither of these bodies has come across the concept of a Managing General Agent, nor of their Association.
Buildings Insurance - Additional costs attributable to cladding
Concern
Noted that the existence of cladding on the buildings forming the Garden Royal Estate erected in 2017 with neither planning permission nor the the approval of lessees under The Landlord & Tenant Act was NOT advised to the insurers until 2021, when Messrs Allianz promptly withdrew the policy and as allowed under the law kept the full premium on 10th August 2021.
Status - Major
Had the cladding not been erected, the premiums since 11th August 2021 are probably to date about £100,000 more than they would have been.
Replacement of Flat Front Doors on upper stories
Concern
This is best described as a cover up of the fact that compliant doors were replaced in about 2016 with non-compliant ones.
The estimates are far too high by a factor of at least two, possibly three. Noted as follows:
- The accounts of the three firms who have submitted tenders are inadequate.
- The persons in charge of the three firms all appear to be Surveyors.
- The remuneration of the above persons seems excessive.
It would appear that the estimates are probably "anti competitive" contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
Status - Serious
Put simply, this is effectively a well planned and executed fraud.
It brings the concept of certification of products into disrepute.
One cannot be surprised to discover that a group of Surveyors is at the heart of it.
About anti-competitive tendering
AI Overview
Anti-competitive tendering law - commonly known as bid rigging or collusive tendering - is illegal under the Competition Act 1998 in the UK. It happens when competing businesses manipulate a contract bidding process, destroying genuine competition and resulting in inflated prices or predetermined outcomes for public and private buyers.
Common Types of Illegal Tendering
- Bid rotation: Businesses take turns being the designated winner of a tender while others submit intentionally high or uncompetitive "cover" bids.
- Bid suppression: One or more competitors agree to refrain from bidding or withdraw a submitted bid so a specific company wins.
- Price collusion: Competitors secretly coordinate on the exact pricing, fee structures, or specific commercial conditions they will submit.
- Market allocation: Firms divide up contract opportunities by geographic region, customer type, or specific project sectors.
Legal Enforcement and Penalties
- Regulatory authority: The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigates and penalises collusive tendering behaviour in the UK.
- Corporate fines: Companies found guilty can face severe financial penalties reaching up to 10% of their annual global turnover.
- Personal consequences: Individuals involved can face criminal prosecution, director disqualification orders for up to 15 years, or prison sentences for hard-core cartel fraud.
- Procurement exclusion: Under regulations like the Procurement Act, suppliers found in violation face mandatory exclusion and risk placement on a central debarment list, barring them from public sector contracts for up to five years.
Editors Note:
It is the "resulting inflated prices" which make possible "commission payments" to the parties involved in awarding contracts.
Refusing to hold an Annual General Meeting
Concern
The concern is simply about the loss of democracy. Since inception, regular annual meetings of shareholders [viz the lessees] have taken place.
At the meetings both the procedural business of Kersfield Maintenance Ltd [the Freeholder of the Garden Royal Estate] has been conducted and lessees were able to air their concerns and make proposals. Since the unlawful erection of cladding in 2017, meetings have become more and more acrimonious. Many of the responses made to lessees concerns were to put it simply grossly inaccurate.
The minutes of the meetings did not accurately represent what was said. In 2022 a journalist represented a lessee. The result was an article in the Daily Mail's on line edition, and a plethora of false complaints against the author of this web site. The article was removed - to no-one's surprise.
A recording was made of one meeting to demonstrate the falsity of the minutes. The meeting of 10th June 2025 was abruptly cancelled when a lessee refused to give up their mobile phone.
Status - Minor
If no meeting is held, then no complaints can be aired, let alone motions to remove and replace the Board be put forward. Noted that since 2025 three directors have abruptly resigned. Another director has been appointed but without due process.