Our Petition is Cited in Government Letter to Rendall and Rittner! Answers demanded by 11th July.
Following Rendall and Rittner’s appearance before MPs in May, which I attended as an observer, they have now been called on by the Housing, Communities and local Government Committee to answer some key questions (see letter below) by July 11th.
The letter also references our petition to Rendall and Rittner, so thanks for being part of that and helping to create the pressure for action on Rendall and Rittner.
Let’s not forget that the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents Association tried to have this petition closed when they were protecting and supporting Rendall and Rittner and Richard Daver, until fairly recently, while telling residents that Right to Manage was not possible.
Those same people are now the (unelected) directors of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage company and continue to engage in the same dysfunctional behaviours with the new managing agent.
Here is the letter to Rendall and Rittner and it shows that when we come together and tell the truth in public we can make a difference.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/48574/documents/254668/default/
House of Commons
Palace of Westminster
London
SW1A 0AA
to: Catherine Riva and Richard Daver
Co-CEOs
Rendall and Rittner
By email
1 July 2025
Dear Catherine and Richard,
On 17 June, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee held
an evidence session looking at property management companies. Witnesses gave
evidence of complaints over the reasonableness of fees charged by management
agents, over the transparency of fees, and over complaints and dispute resolution
procedures of management agents.
The Committee is concerned about the practices and fees charged by some property
management companies and is therefore writing to some management agents. As
Rendall and Rittner is one of the largest management agents in the country managing
over 90,000 homes, we would be keen to understand what Rendall and Rittner does to
ensure it provides fair and reliable services to customers at reasonable and justifiable
fees.
We would therefore be grateful if you could provide a response to the following
questions.
Transparency over service and estate charges
Members of the Committee have heard complaints about the reasonableness of fees
charged by some management agents and the lack of transparency over how they are
calculated. One witness told us that the management agent for her estate charges
“around £25,000 per annum to have the grass cut on a field that is half the size of a
football pitch”.1
We are also aware of an open petition with nearly 6,000 signatures which raises
concerns about, amongst other things, Rendall and Rittner having “unjustifiable price
rises… with little to no evidence of quality maintenance or resident satisfaction”.
We would therefore be grateful if you could explain:
• By what amount the average charge of a Rendall and Rittner-managed property
has gone up in the last year.
• How you justify price increases, and what, if any, action is taken to communicate
this justification to residents.
• The level of detail that is provided to residents on how their charge has been
calculated (if they do not specifically request a breakdown).
• Where residents have requested a breakdown of their service or estate charge,
in what proportion of cases this has been provided within one month.
• Finally, whether Rendall and Rittner offers redress for residents who have to wait
more than one month to receive a breakdown of charges.
Engagement with residents
We have heard from constituents that they have complained to their estate’s
management agents about charges, transparency and the standard of work carried out.
In many instances, our constituents reported feeling that their complaints had not been
taken seriously across various management agents, and that they found it difficult to
escalate their complaints to senior leadership to reach a resolution. During our evidence session on 17 June, a witness stated that they had “been trying to get my managing agent to sit down and talk to me for 10 years.”
We would therefore be keen to understand the levels of service you provide to engage
with residents. In particular, please set out:
• How regularly members of your senior leadership team proactively meet with
residents or resident groups who raise complaints.
• Whether you have a policy setting a minimum standard for senior leadership
engagement with residents.
• Whether there is a formal process by which residents who have not received a
resolution for their complaint can escalate it, up to the level of Rendall and
Rittner senior leadership where necessary.
Value for money and customer satisfaction
The Committee has been told that residents have faced sharp increases to their service
and estate charges and that it “is very difficult for homeowners in many cases to
monitor the quality of the work, what they are getting for their money”.
Members of the Committee have also heard from constituents of instances where residents’ complaints to their estate’s management agents had been ignored or removed without any resolution.
We would be grateful if you could therefore explain:
• What internal review mechanisms you have in place to ensure that the service
and estate charges which residents have to pay represents value for money,
particularly when residents face an increase in charges.
• How your charges and rate increases compare to the industry standard.
• What proportion of residents who have raised complaints with Rendall and
Rittner have reported being satisfied with the outcome.
• How customer satisfaction for leaseholders and freehold homeowners is
measured.
• Whether you will commit to sending the latest version of this data to the
Committee alongside your response to this letter.
Dispute resolution
Finally, during the evidence session on 17 June, the Committee raised the issue of some
management agents initiating legal action when residents raised formal complaints, in
an attempt to get residents to “back down”, only for the legal action to later be
withdrawn when residents dispute the case.
We would be grateful if you could therefore explain:
• What your overall approach is to dispute resolution with residents.
• What your process is for deciding when legal action, including the sending of
legal letters, is started, and what your process is for deciding to end legal action.
We would be grateful if you could reply to the above questions by Friday 11 July.
We consider it an ongoing priority to ensure that all management agents provide clarity,
transparency and value for money to residents. The Committee may therefore revisit
this topic later, and may wish to invite Rendall and Rittner to appear before us so that
we can better understand how, as one of the largest management companies in the
country, you operate to provide the best possible outcomes for residents.
Yours sincerely,
Florence Eshalomi MP
Chair, Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Rendall and Rittner’s lame reply to Florence Eshalomi MP
Chair, Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/48892/documents/256624/default/
LikeLike
Anslysis of Rendall and Rittner’s reply:
The Committee’s July 2025 letter asked R&R to explain transparency and reasonableness of service and estate charges, including specific data on year-on-year charge increases, how these are justified, how cost breakdowns are provided, and what redress exists where residents request breakdowns. R&R provides aggregate 5-year data, showing average service charge increases (~8.4% per year) and contextualises drivers (e.g., insurance, utilities, Building Safety Act costs), but fails to provide a clear year-to-year change for the most recent full financial year alone, which was explicitly requested by MPs. The response instead emphasises sector-wide trends and external drivers, lacking a direct statement of how much charges rose on the average R&R-managed property over the last year.
On value for money and customer satisfaction, R&R explains RICS regulation and internal reviews, but again does not provide recent data on resident satisfaction outcomes, nor a clear comparison of rates to industry benchmarks beyond broad index alignment.
On charge transparency, R&R reiterates that guidance notes and portals exist and that communications are being reviewed. However, it does not provide the proportion of cases in which a requested breakdown was provided within one month, nor does it clearly state whether any formal redress exists for delays beyond one month, beyond noting an intention to improve processes.
Concerning resident engagement, R&R outlines informal accessibility of senior leadership and complaints timelines, but does not commit to a minimum standard or frequency of proactive leadership engagement, as queried. While a formal complaints procedure is described, R&R does not detail how unresolved complaints are escalated to senior leadership, beyond generic process steps.
Finally, on dispute resolution, the response repeats internal procedures and ombudsman access but does not specifically address concerns about the practice of initiating legal action in response to complaints, only stating a preference for dialogue.
R&R completely fail to mention the 6,100+ signature petition against them to which they have not responded in any meaningful way. The petitiondemands greater transparency, lower service charges, and improved management from Rendall & Rittner. Key grievances include, but are not limited to, unreasonable fee increases, poor communication, failure to provide, and inadequate building maintenance. Residents demand an end to high, often unjustified, service charges and have sought to use the Right to Manage (RTM) to remove them, supported by widespread, ongoing campaigns.
In summary, while R&R’s response includes contextual explanations, it lacks the clear, specific, and measurable data and commitments the Committee sought on last year’s charge increases, timeliness of breakdowns, minimum engagement standards, and complaint escalation outcomes.
LikeLike