‘ Vote of no Confidence’
Discussion
Is the management company independent of the flat owners and profit making are the directors paid? Who owns the freehold?
When I owned a flat the flat owners owned the management company and we were all directors. There was an amount of work (though not huge) and all the management fees were put back into the building. We also bought out the freehold.
The neighbouring new build flats were all managed externally by a profit making company... I believe you have the right to self manage. It is slightly more work, but considerably more effective.
When I owned a flat the flat owners owned the management company and we were all directors. There was an amount of work (though not huge) and all the management fees were put back into the building. We also bought out the freehold.
The neighbouring new build flats were all managed externally by a profit making company... I believe you have the right to self manage. It is slightly more work, but considerably more effective.
CubanPete said:
Is the management company independent of the flat owners and profit making are the directors paid? Who owns the freehold?
When I owned a flat the flat owners owned the management company and we were all directors. There was an amount of work (though not huge) and all the management fees were put back into the building. We also bought out the freehold.
The neighbouring new build flats were all managed externally by a profit making company... I believe you have the right to self manage. It is slightly more work, but considerably more effective.
Tks for the reply Pete.When I owned a flat the flat owners owned the management company and we were all directors. There was an amount of work (though not huge) and all the management fees were put back into the building. We also bought out the freehold.
The neighbouring new build flats were all managed externally by a profit making company... I believe you have the right to self manage. It is slightly more work, but considerably more effective.
Yes the management company are an independent company that were appointed by the directors after the last management company threw the towel in and so they are paid a fee by the residents that come out of the company funds from annual fees.
All owners have a share of freehold and the current lease is close to 1000 years.
A management company was appointed a few years back after the building was being miss managed by a resident that was being paid by the other residents.
Since then that managing agent left and a new managing agent was appointed without consultation by the current team of directors at additional costs.
The issue isn’t the managing agent it’s the current team of directors.
Who owns the management company, split between the flat owners or a separate entity? If it’s the latter then bin the company off, if it’s the former then you need to call an EGM for which you’ll need a majority of the voting share (either 60% or 75%, I can’t remember which) and vote all of the directors off. You’ll find the process required in the articles of association.
Si1295 said:
Who owns the management company, split between the flat owners or a separate entity? If it’s the latter then bin the company off, if it’s the former then you need to call an EGM for which you’ll need a majority of the voting share (either 60% or 75%, I can’t remember which) and vote all of the directors off. You’ll find the process required in the articles of association.
The management company is an independent firm appointed by the residents . They are NOT owned by the residents. We don't want to bin the MA off as we need them to do all the work pertaining to annual duties and 75% of the flats are owned by 2nd home owners.
We think once a meeting is called its likely the current Directors will bail as they won't want to go through contest
GT3Manthey said:
The management company is an independent firm appointed by the residents . They are NOT owned by the residents.
We don't want to bin the MA off as we need them to do all the work pertaining to annual duties and 75% of the flats are owned by 2nd home owners.
We think once a meeting is called its likely the current Directors will bail as they won't want to go through contest
I assume the directors are employees of the management company? A letter, signed by all/vast majority of residents, to the management company should be enoughWe don't want to bin the MA off as we need them to do all the work pertaining to annual duties and 75% of the flats are owned by 2nd home owners.
We think once a meeting is called its likely the current Directors will bail as they won't want to go through contest
Si1295 said:
I assume the directors are employees of the management company? A letter, signed by all/vast majority of residents, to the management company should be enough
Sadly not no. The Directors are volunteers that are also flat owners.
Currently they virtually refuse to communicate with residents and of late one has turned aggressive to one of the residents.
Obviously this is unacceptable so there is a gathering band of owners that want to look at a way of dismissing one of them.
Its a tricky situation so they are wondering if there is a way in which the motion can be brought anonymously for protection and a letter send to each resident asking them to vote, again in confidence
C350Akra said:
I am confused. You have 2 residents that are 'directors'. Directors of what? You also have a company acting as the management company for the flats? How are the two connected?
Ok so the building is a limited company that's how its set up. There are two owners that act as the Directors. The appointed MA are NOT owned by the Building they are paid for by the fees that the Building generates. We are wondering of we can contact the MA and ask them to act in a confidential fashion and write to all other owners ( again guaranteeing confidentiality) asking them to vote on the problematic Director.
My initial thoughts are that there has to be an already majority that want the change although it might be easier, and less dangerous for all concerned, for the MA to issue a letter to everyone bar the problematic Director.
Hope that's clearer
I think you may have this rather about face.
The managment company is appointed to do its thing by the limited company owned by the flat owners.
The flat owners appoint the Directors of their limited company.
It is down to the flat owners to fire and replace the current directors by whatever means are laid down in the articles etc. A vote of no confidence is a red herring, just do what the articles tell you to do.
The relationship between the managment company and the flats' company would not change if the directors of the flats' company changed, unless the new directors wanted it to, so there is no need to consult or involve them at all.
The managment company is appointed to do its thing by the limited company owned by the flat owners.
The flat owners appoint the Directors of their limited company.
It is down to the flat owners to fire and replace the current directors by whatever means are laid down in the articles etc. A vote of no confidence is a red herring, just do what the articles tell you to do.
The relationship between the managment company and the flats' company would not change if the directors of the flats' company changed, unless the new directors wanted it to, so there is no need to consult or involve them at all.
Ean218 said:
I think you may have this rather about face.
The managment company is appointed to do its thing by the limited company owned by the flat owners.
The flat owners appoint the Directors of their limited company.
It is down to the flat owners to fire and replace the current directors by whatever means are laid down in the articles etc. A vote of no confidence is a red herring, just do what the articles tell you to do.
The relationship between the managment company and the flats' company would not change if the directors of the flats' company changed, unless the new directors wanted it to, so there is no need to consult or involve them at all.
Sure all understood. The managment company is appointed to do its thing by the limited company owned by the flat owners.
The flat owners appoint the Directors of their limited company.
It is down to the flat owners to fire and replace the current directors by whatever means are laid down in the articles etc. A vote of no confidence is a red herring, just do what the articles tell you to do.
The relationship between the managment company and the flats' company would not change if the directors of the flats' company changed, unless the new directors wanted it to, so there is no need to consult or involve them at all.
So then we need as you say to consult the articles then great .
Many tks
GT3Manthey said:
Tks all .
Got hold of a copy of the articles and sadly they won’t help.
No provisions for the removal of directors or any systems in place.
Quite bizarrely they even allow the directors to borrow against the company with loans etc.
Back to the drawing board .
Tks for all the replies
Makes it easier in a way. Any company is required to call a general meeting upon request of at least 5% of shareholders with voting rights. Hold a meeting with the single agenda item of removing existing directors and appointing new ones.Got hold of a copy of the articles and sadly they won’t help.
No provisions for the removal of directors or any systems in place.
Quite bizarrely they even allow the directors to borrow against the company with loans etc.
Back to the drawing board .
Tks for all the replies
Edited to add, it is under section 303 of the Companies Act 2006.
C350Akra said:
Makes it easier in a way. Any company is required to call a general meeting upon request of at least 5% of shareholders with voting rights. Hold a meeting with the single agenda item of removing existing directors and appointing new ones.
Edited to add, it is under section 303 of the Companies Act 2006.
Many tks. Edited to add, it is under section 303 of the Companies Act 2006.
Didn't actually know this makes it very interesting
No worries. Provided you have a quorum (as per the articles, or 5 members in your case if the articles are silent) you can hold the general meeting even if existing directors are not present. You can call the meeting yourself under section 249F but you must send the notice of meeting to all shareholders.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff