Our block is managed by an RTM company and I think it is being managed badly. Can the Tribunal appoint a manager even though the leaseholders control the company?
Yes, potentially. The existence of an RTM company does not prevent a qualifying leaseholder from applying to the First-tier Tribunal for the appointment of a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, because Part II is adapted for RTM companies by paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Tribunal will not appoint a manager simply because some leaseholders disagree with the RTM directors or would prefer a different agent. The applicant must establish an available statutory ground and persuade the Tribunal that an order is just and convenient. A preliminary notice under section 22 will normally need to be served first, identifying the matters relied on and allowing a reasonable opportunity to remedy them where they are capable of remedy. The Tribunal can dispense with that requirement in limited circumstances.
Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 lets the First-tier Tribunal appoint a manager for premises where a statutory ground is established and the Tribunal considers it just and convenient to make an order.
Where an RTM company has acquired the right to manage, Part II is expressly adapted by paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. That paragraph provides that references to the landlord are read as references to the RTM company, that references to a tenant include a person who is landlord under a lease of the whole or part of the premises, and that the exceptions in section 21(3) do not apply. In other words, Parliament contemplated applications against RTM companies.
The Upper Tribunal confirmed the same position in Benthan v Lindsay Court (St Annes) RTM Company Ltd [2021] UKUT 4 (LC), a binding decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dated 8 January 2021. Judge Cooke observed that RTM companies are not always successful and that the Tribunal may appoint a manager to take over from an RTM company, but only where the procedural and substantive requirements of sections 21 to 24 have been satisfied against that company on a fresh application.
The Tribunal will not appoint a manager simply because some leaseholders disagree with the RTM directors or would prefer a different managing agent.
An RTM company and its managing agent are not the same thing.
An individual leaseholder cannot dismiss an agent appointed by the RTM company. If the complaint is really about the agent's performance, the more direct route is usually to raise it with the directors, who may be able to change the managing agent.
Section 24(2) of the 1987 Act sets out when an order may be made. In summary, and subject to the full statutory wording, the Tribunal may appoint a manager where it is satisfied that:
Paragraph 8(6) of Schedule 7 adds that the circumstances under the final ground include any in which the RTM company no longer wishes to exercise the right to manage.
Not every complaint, delay or communication failure meets a ground. Poor communication may be evidence of a wider failure, but on its own it is unlikely to be enough.
Evidence carries these cases. Depending on the allegations, that may include leases and the RTM company's articles, service charge accounts, demands and budgets, bank and reserve fund information, contractor invoices and procurement records, compliance and fire safety reports, evidence of disrepair, correspondence showing issues raised and the response, and company records. This is illustrative rather than a fixed checklist, and the relevant evidence depends on the grounds relied upon.
A preliminary notice under section 22 of the 1987 Act will normally be required before an application. Read with paragraph 8 of Schedule 7, that notice is served on the RTM company as the relevant person, and on any other person owing management obligations to the tenant under the tenancy.
Section 22 requires the notice to identify the tenant and the tenant's address, to state that the tenant intends to apply for an order, to specify the grounds and the matters relied on, and, where those matters are capable of being remedied, to require remedial steps within a reasonable period.
How much detail is required, and what period is reasonable, are fact-sensitive. The Upper Tribunal considered both questions in Ata v Sinclair [2024] UKUT 423 (LC), which we cover in our guide to Section 22 preliminary notices. A defective notice can create serious procedural problems.
Section 22(3) allows the Tribunal to dispense with service where it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to serve the notice, and section 24(7) deals with orders made despite a notice that gave an unreasonable period or was otherwise defective. Neither should be assumed. Take legal advice before serving a notice or applying.
Under section 21, a tenant of a flat in premises to which Part II applies may apply for the appointment of a manager. An application may be made by one qualifying tenant, and section 21(4) allows a single application to be made jointly by tenants of different flats. There is no general statutory requirement for a majority of leaseholders to take part, which is a real difference from acquiring the right to manage, where participation thresholds apply.
Where an RTM company has acquired the right to manage, paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 7 also allows a person who is landlord under a lease of the whole or part of the premises to apply.
Support from other leaseholders can matter practically and evidentially, but it is not a statutory majority test.
An application normally identifies a proposed manager. Matters the Tribunal may weigh include relevant management experience, independence and any conflict of interest, understanding of the building, the proposed management plan and fee structure, professional indemnity insurance, redress and regulatory arrangements, ability to handle service charge funds properly, and willingness and capacity to comply with the terms of the order. This is a practical list drawn from how these applications are run, not an exhaustive statutory checklist.
Leaseholders cannot appoint the manager themselves. They can propose a manager. The Tribunal decides whether to appoint that person, on what terms and for how long.
Section 24(1) allows the Tribunal to appoint a manager to carry out the management functions, or the functions of a receiver, that the order specifies. Under section 24(4) and (5) an order may make incidental and ancillary provision, deal with contracts, rights and liabilities, provide for remuneration, and be made for a specified period or without limit of time. Orders can later be varied or discharged under section 24(9).
A management order does not dissolve or strike off the RTM company. The company continues to exist, and company law duties, membership and filing obligations continue.
What changes is management. Section 105(4) of the 2002 Act provides that the right to manage ceases to be exercisable by the RTM company when a manager appointed under Part II of the 1987 Act begins to act, or when an order that the right to manage is to cease to be exercisable takes effect. Paragraph 8(7) of Schedule 7 gives the Tribunal a separate power, in the circumstances in section 24(2), to order that the right to manage is to cease to be exercisable by the RTM company, and paragraph 8(8) allows provision about incidental matters such as existing contracts and accrued claims.
The precise effect always depends on the wording and scope of the particular order, the leases and the circumstances. No one should state the position for a specific building without reviewing those documents.
Depending on the problem, leaseholders and RTM members may first consider:
Section 24 is not simply another way of changing managing agent.
Take advice from a solicitor experienced in residential leasehold law before deciding whether a ground exists, before drafting or serving a section 22 notice, and before making any application. These cases turn on the leases, the evidence and the wording of the order sought.
East Valley provides property-management expertise, not legal advice. Section 24 applications are fact-sensitive and applicants should obtain advice from a solicitor experienced in residential leasehold law.
Where it is appropriate, we may carry out an initial management assessment, review the state of the management records, set out the information needed to understand the building, prepare a proposed management approach and fee, consider whether we are willing and suitable to be nominated as proposed manager, work alongside the applicant's solicitor, and manage the building in accordance with an order if the Tribunal appoints us. We cannot guarantee that statutory grounds exist or that the Tribunal will appoint any particular manager, and we do not act as manager before an order is made.
You can read more about how appointed management works on our page covering Tribunal appointed management, or about day to day support for resident-controlled companies on our RTM company management page. If the underlying issue is agent performance rather than statutory failure, see changing managing agent and our guidance on the Right to Manage.
Yes, potentially. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 7 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adapts Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 so that references to the landlord are read as references to the RTM company. The applicant must still establish a statutory ground and satisfy the Tribunal that an order is just and convenient.
No. The company continues to exist and its company law duties continue. Section 105(4) of the 2002 Act provides that the right to manage ceases to be exercisable once an appointed manager begins to act, or when an order that the right to manage is to cease takes effect. The precise effect depends on the wording of the order.
Section 21 allows a tenant of a flat in qualifying premises to apply, and section 21(4) allows tenants of different flats to apply jointly. There is no general requirement for a majority of leaseholders, although support from others can matter practically and evidentially.
A notice under section 22 will normally be required before an application. Section 22(3) allows the Tribunal to dispense with service where it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to serve the notice, but dispensation should never be assumed.
Yes. Where the matters relied on are capable of being remedied, the notice must require remedial steps within a reasonable period. Directors who act promptly on a compliant notice may remove the basis for an application.
No. Leaseholders can propose a manager, and the application would normally identify one, but the Tribunal decides whether to appoint that person, on what terms and for how long.
No. Changing the managing agent is a decision for the RTM company under its management agreement and its own decision-making rules. Section 24 is an evidence-based statutory remedy that requires a ground to be established against the relevant person.
If you are considering proposing East Valley as a Tribunal-appointed manager, send us a summary of the building, the management concerns and the current stage of the matter. Initial case screening is free and we will confirm what information we need before deciding whether we can assist. Please do not send legal or confidential documents through the form.
Request a Free Section 24 Case ScreeningSection 24 is a serious remedy for serious failures, and preparation determines whether it is worth starting.
Treating Section 24 as a quick fix
It is an evidence based statutory process, and appointment is at the Tribunal's discretion.
Serving a template notice
A notice that omits the remedial steps or a reasonable period may undermine the application.
Applying with no proposed manager
The Tribunal needs a credible manager and a workable draft management order.
Assuming costs will be recovered
Success does not guarantee recovery of all professional costs.
Most questions on this topic are management questions rather than legal ones, and the two are worth separating. A managing agent can tell you how something works day to day and what it will cost. A solicitor tells you what your rights are and how a Tribunal is likely to view them.
East Valley Properties provides management expertise, not legal advice. Where a matter turns on the wording of your lease or on formal proceedings, we will say so and work alongside your solicitor.
The official material behind this guide. We summarise it in plain English rather than reproducing it.
Who may apply to the Tribunal for the appointment of a manager, including joint applications.
The preliminary notice, its required contents and the power to dispense with service.
The grounds for appointment, the terms of a management order and variation or discharge.
How Part II of the 1987 Act is modified where an RTM company manages the premises.
When the right to manage ceases to be exercisable by an RTM company.
Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 8 January 2021. Binding. A manager may be appointed to take over from an RTM company, but only on a fresh application meeting the requirements of sections 21 to 24.
Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 20 December 2024. Binding. The contents of a section 22 notice and what amounts to a reasonable time to remedy.
Current First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) application forms and guidance.
We act as managing agent for RTM companies across Greater London and Essex, covering service charge accounting, compliance and contractor management on fixed fees.
Answered by Romain Maillard - Director, East Valley Properties
Affiliate member of The Property Institute
Romain manages residential blocks and estates for RTM companies, residents' management companies, share of freehold developments and freeholders across East London and Essex.
Published · Updated
Based on the legislation and official guidance cited on this page.
General property management information, not legal or professional advice. Where a decision depends on an individual lease, building, dispute or technical assessment, obtain specialist advice. See our editorial standards.
This answer has been anonymised. Personal details, addresses and company names have been removed. Guidance is general and does not replace advice from a solicitor or surveyor on your specific block. East Valley Properties is a managing agent, not a firm of solicitors or legal advisers.
Whether you're an RTM Director, RMC Director, Freeholder or Leaseholder, our experienced block management team is here to help.
If your question could help other property owners, we may publish an anonymised version of the answer in our Knowledge Centre.
Book a free consultation with East Valley Properties to discuss your building, service charges, compliance or managing agent requirements.