The Resident Management Company is a legal entity which acts as a person in its own right and it is the Company Director(s) who exercise all powers on its behalf. Just like their commercial counterparts, all residential management companies are governed by the Companies Act 2006.

The RMC will take one of two forms: those established by collective enfranchisement, and new builds who’s RMC’s are established by the use of tri-partite leases.

Collective Enfranchisement

Collective enfranchisement is where the leaseholders group together and buy the freehold from the previous freeholder under s1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Leaseholders and the building are required to meet certain criteria in order to exercise the right.

More on collective enfranchisement can be read here.

Tri-Partite Leases

The most common form of lease for new builds today is that of the tri-partite lease. Up to the 1980’s there used to be only two parties to a lease: the leaseholder and the freeholder, but by then being a freeholder had lost much of its attraction due to the ever-increasing rights of leaseholders. So, in yet another game of ‘cat and mouse’, freeholders created the tri-partite (tri-party) lease consisting of the freeholder, the leaseholder and the resident management company which is itself comprised of leaseholders. The reasons for the introduction of this type of lease were two-fold:

  1. To ensure a direct relationship between the lessees and management and introduce stability and continuity of the manager from the ‘build phase’ so that more effective maintenance could be achived, in other works the company manages and maintains the common areas of the building on behalf of the freeholder (i.e. any areas that do not belong to each leaseholder).
  2. Give leaseholders the feeling that they are more in charge of how their buildings are managed.

However, the reality is a bit different. Because the developers/freeholders keep the freehold they are able to carry out minimal duties which make them money, such as collecting ground rent (their investment income) and placing buildings insurance (where they make money on commissions). They leave the RMC to deal with the more complex and time-consuming elements such as service charge collection (under which the demands have to comply with statutory requirements), and lease breaches which often lead to legal action.

If the RMC is party to the original lease then it’s obligations are expressly set out according to the lease terms, which makes a contract between itself and the freeholder unnecessary. This is because its contractual rights lie directly with the leaseholders.On the other hand, if the RMC is directly responsible for performing the landlord’s covenants but another party is carrying out maintenance duties then that other party is merely the agent of the landlord. If the tri-partite lease says that the freeholder must also appoint a managing agent, then that must also be complied with.


Both types of RMC are usually established as being limited by shares as this is the most common choice of company formation.  The individual share price can be of any value but the usual nominal value (very small and far below the real value or cost) of a single share will be £1 and should be limited to one share for each unit in the property. Where a unit is held in joint names, a single share in the company will be held in those joint names. The company’s articles (see below) provide that shares may be held only by someone who owns a unit in the property and that anyone selling their unit must transfer their share to the person buying it. No other shares may be issued.

Because of ‘limited liability’ the company exists as a separate legal ‘person’, disconnected from the shareholders and the directors.  Just like a real person, the company can own property (such as money, land, intellectual property etc) and undertake contracts such as employment contracts and contracts for buying goods. It is also responsible for its own debts so when they are incurred in the course of its business, the liability of the Directors and shareholders is ‘limited’ in that a) they are not responsible for company debts and b) their liability extends only to the ‘stake’ that they have in it.


The RMC can also be a company limited by guarantee and like a company limited by shares, a guarantee company also has a clear and separate legal identity with the Company Directors exercising all powers on its behalf but the difference is that it can’t be formed by share capital under s5 of the Companies Act 2006 making it unsuitable for commercial enterprise but making it less likely to become insolvent.

Without shares there can be no shareholders. Instead, the company will have ‘members’, each of whom can be issued a non-transferable certificate of membership which makes them guarantors with ‘limited’ liability for the company’s debts, usually up to a fixed sum of £1. So, should the company be wound up whilst people are still members (or within one year of their ceasing to be a member) their personal liability is guaranteed to that specific amount.

Details of Membership

  1. Unit holders apply to become members (membership form needed);
  2. Directors pass (written) resolution to admit unit holder as member. An entry is made in the register of members of the date of cessation of membership and the name of the new member;
  3. No share certificates are issued but a certificate of membership could be, which would be surrendered for cancellation on sale of the unit. However, there is no legal requirement for a certificate and as the member’s name would have been removed from the register the certificate has no value;
  4. Usually one member has one vote. Not all articles are clear on this and problems could arise should one member own two units.
  5. No requirement to submit details of members with annual return (which has been abolished) to Companies House.

There are however exceptions to personal liabiliaty being guaranteed to a fixed sum:

  1. If the memorandum states their liabilities to be unlimited;
  2. If they have been guilty of acting in a wrongful way;
  3. If directors exceed the powers conferred on them by the company Articles they can be liable to recompense from the company for any loss incurred;
  4. If a director gives a personal guarantee;
  5. If any director enters into a contract in their own name and not “for and on behalf of”;
  6. If a director misleads a supplier as to whom the true customer is to be;
  7. Issues a cheque, upon which the company name is not clearly stated, and which the bank refuses to honour;
  8. If found guilty of fraudulent or wrongful trading, the court may instruct a director or shadow director to contribute to the assets;
  9. A person who has been disqualified from acting as a director under the Directors Disqualification Act 1986, or another person who knowingly acts under instruction from that person.

Another difference is that a guarantee company is only ‘controlled’ because there are no shares or other security in the company that can be sold to someone else. The certificate of membership will automatically lapse on the sale of a flat.

Profit Distribution

Whilst the company is not prohibited from profit distribution (should it make any) by the Companies Act (or any other law), or it chooses to keep them for use elsewhere, it is commonplace for restrictions to be put on profit distribution in the company’s Articles. These will not only apply to any profits while the company is running but also to the distribution of assets (after paying creditors) should the company be wound up. Sometimes the restrictions are also reinforced by the prevention of payment of salaries or fees to the directors but not all the time.


Whilst the legal obligations of the company are governed by company law, at the heart of all companis lies the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

The Memorandum will state the following:

  1. The company name;
  2. The company type;
  3. If the company has shares, its share capital and the value of each share (unless the company is limited by guarantee);
  4. It’s objectives (what it will do). Since the mid 1980s the objects clauses have been simplified and expressed to be for flat management or commercial objectives;
  5. Shareholder names;
  6. Where the registered office is situated.
  7. A statement of limited liability to warn anybody dealing with the company that the liability of its shareholders is capped, normally to the value of the authorised capital.

The Articles set out the rules for running the company’s internal affairs and every company formed under the Companies Act 2006 will have them. They are designed to give a series of checks and balances between shareholders and directors such as:

  1. The issuing and transferring of shares;
  2. The calling of general meetings, procedures and members voting rights;
  3. The calling of Directors’ meetings, voting at board meetings, the disclosure of personal interests and the process for appointing and removing Directors;
  4. An indemnity which means that directors and other officers will be indemnified if, through their actions, the company makes mistakes.

Note: Companies registered from 1st October 2009 (or adopting new articles from that date), do not have a traditional memorandum of association but new Model Articles that simplify the way a company is run and which is a replacement of Table A. Provisions that were in the memorandum are now to be treated as if they were provisions of the articles. Companies registered before this date can continue to run under their old memorandum and articles, but need to be aware that these do not show current legislation under the Companies Act 2006.

Before registering an RMC with Companies House, form INO1 must be completed which requires the following;

  1. The proposed company name;
  2. The UK address of the registered office (which doesn’t have to be within the block of flats but it must not be fictitious;
  3. A list of names of the proposed officers, Directors(s) and Company Secretary.

Changing the Articles

Whilst the company can set up its own rules, because they are legally binding on the company and its shareholders/members they cannot include rules that are against the law. Having said that, the majority of companies, especially small ones, tend to rely on model articles instead of drawing up their own. The company’s articles are not set in stone and sometimes the need to change them can arise for a number of reasons.

Any change must be in the genuine best interests of the company, not just designed to meet the needs of some members. While this doesn’t mean that every member must agree to a change to the articles, any change cannot be used by a majority to discriminate against the minority or deprive minority shareholders/members of their statutory rights.
Retrospective changes need to be both legal and fair. In particular, s25 of the Companies Act 2006 (effect of alteration of articles on company’s members) does not allow the company to insert retrospective provisions that need members to increase their shareholdings or give further funds to the company without the members specific agreement in writing.

The Articles also can’t be changed to remove the ability to make further changes to them in future. Having said that, there may be conditions attached to making alterations such as a contractual arrangement (like a shareholders’ agreement) for example which may effectively restrict the ways in which the articles can be amended.

Once a legitimate need to update the articles of association has been identified, this change can be implemented by:

  1. Amending the wording of one or more clauses in the existing articles;
  2. Adding in new or removing clauses from the existing articles; or
  3. Adopting an entirely new set of articles (completely replacing the previous set of articles).


There is now no statutory requirement for a private company to hold any general meetings, not even an Annual General Meeting. This change was introduced when Part 13 of the Companies Act 2006 (resolutions and meetings) came into effect on 1st October 2007. Before that, all companies were required to hold an Annual general Meeting, though since the 1989 Act came into effect it has been possible for private companies to opt out if holding AGMs, by passing a (now defunct) elective resolution.

Some companies’ articles will require them to hold an AGM and any such provision will continue to be binding on the company until the articles are amended. A company may hold an AGM even though not bound to by the Act or its articles.
The former statutory requirement to lay accounts before the general meeting has been replaced by a provision requiring them to be sent to the members through s423 (duties to circulate copies of annual accounts and reports), s424 (time allowed for sending out copies of accounts and reports) and s425 (default in sending out copies of accounts and reports: offences) of the Act.


%d bloggers like this: