When the management of a block has broken down, leaseholders can feel trapped. Repairs may be repeatedly postponed, accounts may be unclear and service charges may continue to arrive without any confidence that the money is being used properly.
Complaining about the managing agent does not always solve the problem, particularly where the landlord refuses to replace them or is itself responsible for the failures. In serious cases, a leaseholder can ask the tribunal to appoint an independent manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
This is a powerful remedy, but it is not simply a way of voting out an unpopular managing agent. The applicant normally has to prove a statutory ground, give the landlord a proper opportunity to put matters right and identify a suitable person capable of taking over the management of the building.
Quick answer: A leaseholder can ask the appropriate tribunal to appoint an independent manager where there has been a breach of management obligations, unreasonable service or administration charges, failure to follow an approved management code, or other circumstances making an appointment just and convenient. One leaseholder can apply, but a preliminary section 22 notice will usually need to be served first. The tribunal decides whether an appointment is justified, whom to appoint and what powers the manager will have.
What is the appointment of a manager?
Sections 21 to 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 allow a tenant of a flat to ask the appropriate tribunal to transfer specified management functions to a manager appointed by the tribunal.
The legislation can be read at section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
The appointed manager may take over functions previously exercised by the landlord, a management company named in the lease, a Right to Manage company or their managing agent. Exactly what transfers depends upon the terms of the tribunal’s order.
The freeholder does not lose ownership of the building. Nor do the leaseholders collectively acquire the management rights for themselves. Instead, an independent person is placed between the parties and given authority to manage the property in accordance with the order.
This distinction matters. The process is intended to correct a serious management problem, not simply to replace one agent with another preferred by a group of residents.
For an overview of the wider legal relationship, see my leasehold property guide for England and Wales.
Who can apply?
An individual leaseholder can apply. There is no general requirement to obtain support from half the flats or to form a special company before beginning the process.
That is one important difference from Right to Manage. Nevertheless, support from other residents can strengthen the evidence, spread the cost and demonstrate that the problem affects the building rather than reflecting a purely personal disagreement.
The application must relate to all or part of premises containing at least two flats. The order manages the relevant building or part of it; it is not made merely to resolve the management of one flat in isolation.
Buildings and landlords that are excluded
The statutory right does not apply in every case. An application cannot ordinarily be made where the landlord is a local authority, a registered provider of social housing, a fully mutual housing association or a charitable housing trust.
An exclusion can also apply where the landlord lives in the building, the building was converted into flats and fewer than half of the flats are held on long leases.
Business tenancies and some unusual occupation arrangements may fall outside the scheme. Eligibility should therefore be checked before a preliminary notice is served or money is spent preparing an application.
What if a Right to Manage company is already in control?
A leaseholder—or the landlord—can apply where an RTM company is managing the building and the statutory grounds are made out. If the tribunal appoints a manager, the RTM company’s right to manage ends.
The route can therefore be used where resident control has itself broken down. An RTM company is not immune from independent intervention simply because it was created by the leaseholders.
When can the tribunal appoint a manager?
The tribunal must be satisfied both that at least one statutory ground exists and that it is just and convenient to make the order.
Proving one mistake will not necessarily be enough. The tribunal considers the seriousness of the problem, its effect on the building, whether it has been remedied and whether appointing an external manager is a proportionate solution.
Breach of management obligations
An appointment may be made where the landlord or another person with management responsibilities under the lease has breached those obligations.
Examples may include failing to insure the building, neglecting necessary structural repairs, refusing to provide accounts, failing to maintain common parts or disregarding duties imposed by the leases.
The applicant needs to identify the relevant obligation and the evidence showing that it has been broken. A general complaint that the building is badly managed is less effective than linking a specific failure to the lease or legislation.
Unreasonable service charges
The tribunal may intervene where unreasonable service charges have been made or are likely to be made.
A separate tribunal decision declaring the charges unreasonable is not essential, although such a determination can provide powerful evidence. Persistent overcharging, poor procurement, unexplained expenditure or charges for substandard work may all be relevant.
My detailed guide explains leasehold service charges and what can be challenged.
Unreasonable administration charges
The statutory grounds also extend to unreasonable variable administration charges. These may include individual fees connected with consents, late payment, an alleged breach of lease or the provision of information when a flat is sold.
Failure to follow an approved management code
A relevant failure to comply with an approved code of management practice can support an application.
The principal general code is the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code. A separate approved code applies principally to retirement housing managed by members of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers.
A code does not replace the wording of the lease or legislation, but it can provide an important benchmark for competent and transparent management.
Other circumstances making an appointment just and convenient
The tribunal also has a wider power where other circumstances make an appointment just and convenient.
This can matter where management has become unworkable even though the problem does not fit neatly into a single breach. Serious conflict, an inability to make essential decisions, persistent accounting confusion or a complete loss of trust may form part of the overall picture.
The power is broad, but it is not an invitation to bypass the evidence. The tribunal will still need to understand what has gone wrong and why a management order is the appropriate answer.
What evidence will you need?
A successful application is usually built over time. The tribunal is unlikely to appoint a manager merely because one party gives a more forceful account of events than the other.
The starting documents normally include the leases, title information, service-charge demands, accounts, budgets, insurance papers, repair records, consultation notices and relevant contracts.
Correspondence can be particularly important. Emails and letters may demonstrate that repeated concerns were raised, promises were made and deadlines passed without action. They can also show whether the landlord was given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond.
Photographs and dated videos can record deteriorating common parts, water penetration, defective work or failures in cleaning and maintenance. For technical building problems, an independent surveyor’s report is usually more persuasive than residents’ opinions alone.
A clear chronology is invaluable. It should identify what happened, when it was reported, how the landlord responded and what consequence followed. A tribunal faced with several years of disorganised emails should not be expected to construct the case for the applicant.
Not every disagreement proves mismanagement
A landlord does not necessarily act improperly by choosing a more expensive contractor, delaying non-urgent work while obtaining professional advice or reaching a decision with which some residents disagree.
The evidence needs to demonstrate more than a difference of opinion. It should show breach, unreasonable charging, failure to meet recognised standards or circumstances sufficiently serious to justify transferring management authority.
The preliminary section 22 notice
Before applying, the leaseholder must normally serve a preliminary notice under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
The notice must be served on the landlord and on any other person who has relevant management obligations. This may include a management company named in the leases.
The notice should state the applicant’s intention to seek the appointment of a manager, identify the statutory grounds and describe the evidence relied upon. Where the problem can be remedied, it must also explain what the recipient should do and give a reasonable period for doing it.
The notice has a practical purpose. It gives those responsible for the building a final, clearly defined opportunity to correct the management failures before tribunal proceedings begin.
The government-funded Leasehold Advisory Service provides a template preliminary notice for the appointment of a manager.
What happens if the problems are corrected?
If the landlord properly remedies the matters in the notice, the basis for an application may disappear or become much weaker. The legislation is intended to improve management where possible, not to make a tribunal appointment inevitable once a notice has been sent.
Cosmetic or temporary action may be different. Where a landlord claims to have remedied the problem, the applicant should consider whether the underlying failure has genuinely been resolved and whether the improvement is likely to continue.
Can the notice requirement be waived?
The tribunal can dispense with the preliminary notice where it would not be reasonably practicable to serve it. An application for dispensation will require evidence explaining why service is not reasonably possible.
A missing or unresponsive landlord does not automatically remove the requirement. Reasonable tracing and service efforts may still be needed. My absent landlord guide explains some of the wider issues arising where a freeholder cannot be found.
Choosing a proposed manager
An applicant should identify the proposed manager before making the substantive application. The tribunal is not simply asked to find a managing agent after deciding that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory.
The applicant’s nominee is not guaranteed to be appointed. The tribunal must be satisfied that the person is independent, competent and suitable for the particular building.
The position in England
The current English application form requires a named individual rather than only the name of a management company.
The Property Chamber’s practice statement on proposed managers explains what the tribunal will usually expect.
The proposed manager should normally have appropriate professional membership and management experience, understand the RICS code, carry suitable professional indemnity insurance, operate a proper complaints procedure and belong to a client-money protection scheme or equivalent reputable arrangement.
Before the substantive hearing, the nominee will ordinarily be expected to have inspected the building, read the leases and tribunal papers, understood the problems requiring correction and prepared a management plan.
The plan should address matters such as the handover, service-charge accounts, insurance, urgent and planned repairs, existing contracts, staffing, communications and proposed remuneration.
Can a leaseholder become the appointed manager?
The legislation does not make professional qualifications an absolute condition in every case. However, the English tribunal’s stated practice is that, save in exceptional circumstances, it will not usually appoint one of the leaseholders as manager.
That approach reflects the need for independence. A resident closely involved in the dispute may find it difficult to act impartially between the landlord, supporting leaseholders and residents who opposed the application.
Check that the nominee understands the role
Managing a building under a tribunal order differs from accepting an ordinary agency appointment. The manager must understand the order, report appropriately, avoid conflicts and be willing to seek further tribunal directions where necessary.
The cheapest nominee is not necessarily the best choice. The building may need someone with experience of major works, historic accounting problems, fire safety, difficult handovers or entrenched disputes.
How to apply to the tribunal
Applications in England
Applications in England are made to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) using Form Leasehold 2.
The application should clearly identify the property, parties, statutory grounds, proposed manager and remedy sought. A copy of the section 22 notice should be included unless the application concerns dispensation from serving it.
The applicant must send the application to the respondents and relevant interested parties as required by the form and tribunal directions.
As at July 2026, the English application fee for the appointment of a manager is £114 and the hearing fee is £227. Help with fees may be available for those who qualify. Tribunal fees can change, so the current form should always be checked before submission.
Applications in Wales
In Wales, the application is made to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal using Form LVT8.
The forms and Welsh guidance are available from the Residential Property Tribunal Wales leasehold disputes page.
The same underlying Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 remedy applies, but the tribunal name, application form, fees and procedural rules differ from England.
What happens after the application?
The tribunal will normally issue directions setting out the steps required before the hearing. These may cover statements of case, witness evidence, expert reports, disclosure of documents, the proposed management plan and a draft management order.
The landlord and any existing management company can oppose the application, challenge the alleged failures and object to the proposed manager or proposed terms of the order.
The tribunal may inspect the property where that would assist. At the hearing, it considers both whether the grounds for intervention have been established and whether the proposed arrangement offers a workable solution.
What does the management order do?
If the application succeeds, the tribunal makes a management order defining the manager’s appointment, responsibilities and authority.
The order may empower the manager to collect service charges, establish budgets, maintain accounts, arrange insurance, commission repairs, enter into contracts and deal with health and safety or regulatory matters.
It may also permit the manager to investigate past events, recover arrears or pursue claims arising before the appointment. Those powers should not be assumed: they need to appear in the order.
The order can require the landlord or outgoing manager to hand over contracts, accounts, service-charge money, insurance records, keys, building information and other documents needed for an orderly transfer.
The order can modify the existing management arrangements
The leases remain in force, but the management order can take precedence where its provisions conflict with the existing management terms.
This gives the tribunal flexibility to solve problems that could not be addressed merely by instructing another agent under the same defective arrangements. The order should nevertheless be drafted carefully so that everyone can understand what authority has transferred and how money is to be collected.
How long does the appointment last?
The tribunal decides the period of appointment. An order may be made for a fixed term or without a fixed end date, although fixed-term orders are common.
The duration will depend upon the work required. A building needing financial reconstruction and a major repair programme may justify a different term from one requiring a shorter stabilisation period.
Who does the appointed manager work for?
The appointed manager is an officer of the tribunal and must act independently. They are not the personal agent of the applicants, the landlord or the leaseholders collectively.
This can surprise residents who invested considerable time and money in obtaining the order. Success does not entitle them to direct the manager’s decisions or require the manager to agree with them.
The manager must act fairly between the interested parties and manage the property in accordance with the order, the leases where applicable, relevant legislation and recognised professional standards.
If uncertainty or conflict arises, the manager or another interested party may ask the tribunal for directions or seek variation of the order.
Service charges may increase
Replacing poor management does not guarantee lower charges. The new manager may discover that insurance is inadequate, accounts need reconstructing or repairs have been deferred for years.
The first properly prepared budget can therefore be higher than the charges issued under the failed management. That does not mean the appointment has been unsuccessful. The relevant question is whether the building is now being managed competently, transparently and in accordance with the lease and law.
How much does the process cost?
The tribunal fees are only one part of the expense. Applicants may need legal advice, a building surveyor, an accountant or other expert evidence. The proposed manager may charge for inspecting the property, reviewing the documents, preparing a management plan and attending the hearing.
Once appointed, the manager is entitled to be paid for managing the building. The order should state how the fees and expenses are to be funded and whether they are payable by the leaseholders, landlord, another relevant person or a combination of them.
Can the landlord recover its legal costs?
The First-tier Tribunal does not ordinarily apply the usual court rule that the losing party pays all of the winner’s costs. It can make limited costs orders where a party has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings.
There is a separate risk where the leases contain wording allowing the landlord to recover litigation costs through the service charge or directly from particular leaseholders as an administration charge.
Applicants in England should consider asking for:
- an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 preventing the landlord from adding its litigation costs to the general service charge; and
- an order under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 reducing or extinguishing an individual leaseholder’s liability for litigation costs charged as an administration charge.
The current Leasehold 2 form includes sections dealing with those applications. The orders are discretionary and should not be assumed to follow automatically from success.
How long does it take?
The process normally takes several months. Time is needed to gather evidence, identify a suitable manager, prepare and serve the section 22 notice and allow a reasonable period for the problems to be remedied.
Once an English application has been made, the current form says that a standard-track case will usually be heard within about 20 weeks. Complex cases involving extensive accounts, expert evidence, several parties or major building defects can take longer.
The proposed manager also needs sufficient time to inspect the building and produce a credible management plan. Rushing that stage can leave the tribunal convinced that management has failed but unconvinced that the proposed replacement will solve the problem.
Appointment of a manager or Right to Manage?
These remedies are sometimes treated as interchangeable, but they serve different purposes.
Right to Manage
Right to Manage is a collective, no-fault process. Qualifying leaseholders form an RTM company and take over prescribed management functions without having to prove that the landlord has done anything wrong.
The leaseholders then control the company and are responsible for ensuring that the building is managed properly. They can appoint a professional managing agent, but the RTM company remains responsible.
My guide explains the Right to Manage process and qualification rules.
Appointment of a manager
A section 24 appointment is generally fault-based. One leaseholder can apply, but the tribunal chooses and supervises an independent manager. The leaseholders do not acquire direct control merely because they brought the application.
This route may be more suitable where there is serious mismanagement, insufficient support for RTM, a dispute within an existing resident-controlled company or a need for independent authority between entrenched parties.
Right to Manage may be preferable where there is enough collective support and the main objective is resident control rather than proving serious failures.
Other alternatives
Appointment of a manager is a significant intervention. Before proceeding, leaseholders should consider whether a more focused remedy would address the real problem.
Challenge a service charge
Where the dispute concerns a particular bill, the tribunal can determine whether the charge is payable and reasonable without transferring management of the building.
Use the managing agent’s complaints process
A formal complaint may resolve poor communication, delay or administrative mistakes. Where applicable, an approved property-redress scheme may consider complaints about the managing agent’s service.
Exercise Right to Manage
Where sufficient qualifying leaseholders want direct control, RTM avoids the need to prove fault.
Buy the freehold
Leaseholders who qualify may acquire the freehold collectively, giving them long-term control over management and lease extensions. See my collective enfranchisement guide.
Seek appointment of a receiver or other court relief
In unusual circumstances, insolvency, company disputes or urgent risk to the building may require a different remedy. Section 24 should not be assumed to answer every form of management failure.
How does an appointment end?
An interested party—including a leaseholder, landlord or appointed manager—can apply to vary or discharge the management order.
The tribunal will consider whether changing or ending the order is just and convenient and whether doing so risks recreating the circumstances that led to the appointment.
If the order has a fixed expiry date, anyone seeking its extension should act before it expires. The English model order suggests applying in good time, preferably at least three months before the end date, supported by a report explaining how the building has been managed.
When an order ends, responsibility does not always transfer smoothly by itself. Accounts, contracts, service-charge funds and records must be dealt with, and the tribunal may need to resolve disputes about unspent money or continuing obligations.
Can leaseholders later acquire the landlord’s interest?
In limited circumstances, leaseholders may seek an acquisition order under Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Where the application relies upon a section 24 manager having been appointed, the appointment must have been in place for at least two years. Further qualification and procedural requirements apply, and this is a specialist court remedy rather than an automatic next step.
Does leasehold reform affect this remedy?
The existing section 24 procedure remains available under the law currently in force. The recent leasehold reforms have not replaced it with a general right for individual leaseholders to dismiss their landlord’s managing agent.
Government proposals are intended to expand management protections in other areas, including a separate substitute-manager remedy for some homeowners on privately managed freehold estates. That is not the same as the existing section 24 right for flats.
The proposed expansion of commonhold would also create a different management structure for buildings that become commonhold. Existing leasehold buildings remain governed by their leases and current statutory remedies unless and until their legal structure changes.
Frequently asked questions
Can one leaseholder apply to appoint a manager?
Yes. A majority is not generally required. The application must concern all or part of premises containing at least two flats, and support from other leaseholders may strengthen the practical case.
Do I need to prove that service charges were unreasonable first?
No. A previous tribunal determination is not essential. However, it can provide strong evidence where unreasonable charges form part of the section 24 application.
Can the tribunal appoint a different manager from the one nominated?
Yes. The applicant proposes a manager, but the tribunal decides whom to appoint and is not bound to accept the nominee.
Does the appointed manager replace the freeholder?
No. The freeholder retains ownership. The manager takes over only the functions and powers specified in the tribunal order.
Can the existing managing agent remain involved?
That depends upon the order and the appointed manager’s decisions. The tribunal-appointed manager may engage contractors or delegate tasks, but remains responsible for carrying out the management order.
Can a manager be appointed where residents already own the freehold?
Potentially, yes. Shared ownership of the freehold does not prevent serious management failures or deadlock. The relevant leaseholders may still be able to seek a section 24 appointment where the statutory conditions are met.
Can a manager be appointed where an RTM company runs the building?
Yes. A successful appointment will end the RTM company’s right to manage.
Will the new manager reduce the service charge?
Not necessarily. Charges may initially rise where neglected work, inadequate insurance or defective accounts must be corrected. The purpose is competent and lawful management rather than guaranteeing the lowest possible budget.
Can the landlord remove the appointed manager?
Not unilaterally. The landlord can apply to vary or discharge the order, but the tribunal decides whether a change should be made.
Is the appointed manager accountable to the leaseholders?
The manager should communicate properly and comply with the statutory rights of leaseholders, but is ultimately governed by the tribunal’s order and must act independently of all parties.
Independent management must be workable
Section 24 can rescue a building from serious and persistent management failure. It can place repairs, insurance, accounts and service charges in the hands of someone with the authority and professional distance needed to restore order.
It is not, however, enough to prove that the existing arrangements are poor. The tribunal also needs confidence that the proposed replacement is capable of managing the building and that the terms of the order will work in practice.
My practical approach would be to build the evidence carefully, use the preliminary notice to identify precisely what must change and choose the proposed manager before proceedings begin. A strong application does more than describe the past failures. It presents a credible plan for what happens next.
Last legally reviewed: 29 July 2026
This guide is based on general principles of English and Welsh law, is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or establish a professional relationship.
