Right to Manage vs Tribunal appointed manager: what's best?
Jul 27
3 min read
0
45
If you're a leaseholder struggling with a badly managed block, you may have come across two possible solutions: forming a Right to Manage (RTM) company or applying for a Tribunal-appointed manager. These the the biggest alternatives to simply buying the freehold through collective enfranchisement.
Both routes give leaseholders more control—but the legal processes, eligibility criteria, and outcomes are very different.
In this blog, we explain the benefits of each option so you can decide which route suits your block best. Often, the circumstances will make the decision for you.
What Is the Right to Manage?
The Right to Manage (RTM) allows qualifying leaseholders to take over the management of their building without proving fault on the part of the freeholder.
It’s a no-fault process introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
Once you complete the process, your RTM company becomes responsible for:
Arranging insurance
Collecting service charges
Hiring contractors and managing repairs
Dealing with compliance and fire safety
Crucially, you don’t need to prove mismanagement—just meet the legal criteria.
📌 Learn more about the legal process on our Right to Manage service page.
What Is a Tribunal-Appointed Manager?
This option is available under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, hence this right has been around a while but it may not be something you have heard of and there are not many lawyers that have handled these cases.
It is very different in approach to a more straightforward RTM Claim because this is a fault-based process where leaseholders apply to the First-tier Tribunal to have an independent professional manager appointed due to the freeholder’s serious failings. The bar is high and minor mismanagement or poor service may not be enough to succeed at the FTT.
You must provide evidence of mismanagement, such as:
Failure to maintain the building, leading to significant disrepair
Not insuring the building or providing evidence of insurance
Not providing accounts or consultation
Breach of lease obligations
If successful, the Tribunal will issue an order specifying what the manager can do—this often includes full control of service charges and maintenance.
It can also include a requirement for each property owner to contribute a lump sum to the sinking find, so the manager can get on with appointing in depth building surveys that will assist them in preparing a program of works. Hence this route is not one that is taken to save money, it is a route that is taken to install an experienced and accountable professional to look after your building. We offer a comprehensive FTT manager service with a proven track record.
Key Differences
Feature | Right to Manage | Tribunal-Appointed Manager |
Fault required? | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
Who manages? | Leaseholder-run company which usually appoints a professional manager | Independent professional |
Cost? | Leaseholders fund legal and setup costs | More expensive and unlikely to recover costs from freeholder |
Duration | Indefinite | 2 - 3 years |
Common use | Blocks with engaged leaseholders | Serious mismanagement |
Which Route Is Right for You?
Choose RTM if:
Your building qualifies (2+ flats, 75% residential, etc.)
There is not going to be an obvious problem with non-payment of the service charge by a flat owner
You want long-term control
You have leaseholders willing to run a company
The poor management of the freeholder isn't bad enough to warrant the effort of an FTT manager application
Choose a Tribunal Manager if:
You’re dealing with neglect, missing funds, or health/safety risks
You are acting along as a single leaseholder or a small group that doesn't meet the numbers required
Leaseholders can’t agree on forming an RTM company
There are persistent non-payers within the building, no matter who manages the building
You need quick, independent intervention
Can You Do Both?
In some cases, yes. Leaseholders may start with an RTM claim but find that it doesn't work in practice if there are problems in receiving service charge payments from one or more flat owner.
In that case it may be best to move to the FTT manager route, to ensure the manager will have authority to sue any none payers that are crippling the ability of the RTM to manage the building effectively. But it's rare to run both processes side-by-side, as the Tribunal may question the need for both.