Rethinking Property Management
for Residential Blocks
Many flat owners lack visibility into how their buildings are managed. Greater transparency, collaboration, and oversight can significantly improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs.
Overview
How Property Management Typically Works
If you own a flat, either the block it’s in is self-managed or a property management company is running it on your behalf. The block will have its own company and each owner will own one share in the company. That company will have Directors who are Owners who volunteer. Typically three Directors, but it can be any number. These Directors liaise with the Property Management Company.
Owners
Rely on the Directors to represent them.
Are generally not interested in how things work.
They get the bill and pay.
Some are not even aware that there are Directors representing them.
Often left unsure what they are truly paying for.
Directors
Rely on the Property Management Company to take care of things.
Very often don’t question what or why things are done.
Attend AGMs and make decisions on advice of the Property Management Company.
Responsibility sits with them, but operational control often does not.
Management Company
Prioritize financial outcomes.
Administrative Charges.
Often Building Work is overpriced.
Building Work quality assurance may not be done.
Their primary obligation is to deliver the service profitably.
Challenges
Where the Structure Often Breaks Down
While the governance model appears sound on paper, practical challenges often emerge due to limited transparency, passive oversight, and misaligned incentives.
Owners
Rely on the Directors to represent them.
May or may not take interest in how things work.
Are often unaware that Directors represent them.
Receive the bill and pay.
Often left unsure what they are paying for.
Directors
Rely on the Property Management Company to take care of things.
Very often do not question what or why decisions are made.
Attend AGMs and make decisions based on provided advice.
Management Companies
May prioritise financial outcomes.
Administrative service charges can be high.
Building work may be overvalued.
Quality assurance for building work may be inconsistent.
Real Case
What Financial Oversight Can Change
After transitioning to self-management, a project originally quoted for between £210K - £290K in 3 quotes was completed for £100K.
Independent quote obtained after taking control of the project.
Quotes sourced through standard management processes.
This reflects a real project comparison between traditional management and self-management.
Better Approach
A Transparent & Structured Alternative
A modern governance model should combine clarity, financial transparency and structured oversight — without adding unnecessary operational burden.
Transparency
Clear financial reporting, visible service contracts and traceable building work decisions.
Accountability
Defined roles and measurable responsibilities between Directors and Management Companies.
Cost Control
Structured tender processes and independent validation of building works and service charges.
Who We Are
From Leaseholders to Structured Self-Management
"We are leaseholders who collectively chose to take responsibility for managing our own building."
At the point of handover, the property was in poor condition. Despite years of substantial service charges, standards had declined and confidence among owners had eroded. While the managing agent carried much of the responsibility, limited transparency and minimal owner involvement also contributed to the situation.
Across the UK, many buildings have transitioned to Resident Management Company (RMC) structures for similar reasons. By taking a structured approach — reviewing accounts, ensuring health and safety compliance, and resetting key obligations at the start of the fiscal year — the transition proved more straightforward than expected.
One significant advantage was having a fellow leaseholder who is a professional builder. Works were properly specified, competitively tendered, and independently validated. The result was improved workmanship, clearer cost control, and renewed confidence.
It was also considerably cheaper.
We recognised the need for ongoing transparency — allowing owners to see, at any time, the costs incurred, works completed, and the financial position of the building at a glance.
That commitment to openness and accountability is what ultimately brought us here.