• BWRA held its second informal meeting on 23 March 2023 at 7:30PM
• The meeting was held online via Zoom

• Introductions
• Update from BWRA Secretary
• Progress of official formation of BWRA
• Current building issues: Building Issues
• Situation regarding Management etc.
• Any other matters

• Update from BWRA Secretary
  • Another long one, sorry. (!)
  • RL went through situation regarding management and how leaseholders might be able to regain control (summary below)
  • Formation of Residents Association:
    • RL started on standard constitution Draft Constitution
    • It's somewhat dry and formal. We probably want to modify it to allow for things like:
      • Online voting, Online meetings, Electronically signed joining forms etc.
      • Make some of the meeting / accounts / reporting requirements less onerous or not apply while the RA is small / in start-up mode.
        • (e.g. a clause that the financial / audit requirements do not apply until members vote for this and/or significant sums or money are held etc.)
        • Relax the meeting requirements until the membership is above a certain number, but still require minuted online meetings and but with less formality.
        • Less formality until the RA is legally recognised. (If it has no legal power, much of the constitution seems unnecessary until it does.)
        • Clause to appoint new committee member if they are not able to carry out their duties or do not respond for a given period (e.g. if they do not attend meetings).
      • I would welcome anyone's input into this. Please feel free to make notes / amendments in the document above.

• We spent a long time discussing the current situation, including:
  • EWS / Taylor Wimpey / Cladding - Read below for update re: MP / Taylor Wimpey.
  • Management situation
  • Energy Bills - IW to look into what we can claim. We need to forward this to MDB.
    • Energy Bills Relief for Heat Networks
    • Guidance on the Energy Bill Relief Scheme pass-through requirements for heat networks in the UK

The situation is still largely unchanged as outlined in January 2023, so I won't type it all again here. Response from MP / twitter etc below.

• Building issues - nobody raised any new building issues.

• No service charge accounts
  • Nothing received despite letters and emails
  • It is not that easy (or useful) to actually try to enforce s.21 of LTA 1985.
    • It's all mounting evidence though, so I encourage leaseholders (At least in blocks A+B) to send their own S.21 letter.
    • Feel free to use mine as a template or the wording / more info is available at LEASE (Leasehold Advisory Service)

• Possible, but can be a long and expensive process.
• We have to prove fault with the existing MA and give them the opportunity to address the issues.
• It can take a long time to get a court date, and they do not take the decision lightly. They will want to see evidence of serious, sustained malpractice.
• We would likely have to pay high legal costs (our legal costs and that of the company, even if we were to succeed!)
• Any new managing agent is appointed for a limited period by the court. They answer to the court, and not leaseholders.
  • They can only do what was agreed by the court.
  • It can revert to the original MA who has the right to apply / appeal.

• Having taken further advice on this, I am not convinced this is the right approach.
• With the RMC, (BWMC Ltd), we effectively already have the right to manage our own development.
• We'd have to get at least 50% of the leaseholders to agree.
• Adding an RTM company on top of the existing RMC doesn't seem practical. RTM is designed for leaseholders to gain control from a freeholder or developer.
  • As we are effectively our own landlord, we'd only be trying to get control of ourselves!
  • There are some further problems where leaseholders who have gained “Right to Manage” when developers/freeholders have been able to pass on the full liability for cladding remediation to the leaseholders via the RTM company. This situation would need to be clarified.
    • (This was not the intention of the Building Safety Act, but developers have found various loopholes.)

• As the current directors do not respond, there is not really any other option left but to request a meeting to remove the current directors from office, and appoint new directors.
• Unlike the various housing and leasehold law, The Companies Act 2006 is much clearer in what we can do:
• Under s.303 of the CA 2006, the members can request a general meeting:
  • At least 5% of the members to sign the request
  • Submit resolutions to appoint new directors and remove the current directors.
  • The directors must send a notice calling the meeting within 21 days, to be held not more than 28 days after this notice.

It was agreed that Option 3 would be the best course of action:

• We can call a meeting without having to involve solicitors or courts etc.
• We need only 5% of members (e.g. 4) to sign the s.303 notice to request the general meeting.
• We need at least two people willing to be appointed directors. (preferably 3 or 5.) - subject to the requirements to become a director.

An L&Q shared ownership leaseholder sent me a copy of their lease and the associated head lease.

I had been told that the L&Q residents were not entitled to be directors of BWMC Ltd / were not members.

I have now clarified that this is not true. Their lease requires that they become members of the company within 7 days of completion.

- RL to draft S.303 notice and resolutions etc.

My reply was as follows:

Follow-up: