Leasehold Advice Centre

05/02/2026

As an update to our previous post, it is understood that whilst Eagerstates Limited are no longer a member of the Property Ombudsman they have been able to join the Property Redress Scheme

17/01/2026

Eagerstates Ltd - evidently may have been expelled from The Property Ombudsman Redress Scheme?
It is understood that under the Redress Schemes for Lettings Agency Work and Property Management Work (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) (England) Order 2014, it is a legal requirement for anyone carrying out property management work “in the course of business” to join a government-approved redress scheme (e.g., The Property Redress Scheme or The Property Ombudsman).
“Property management work” includes (among other things): Managing residential premises on behalf of another person, which explicitly covers managing a block of flats — including things like arranging services, repairs, maintenance, and dealing with common areas — when done for payment as a business. If a company or person manages a block of flats commercially (e.g., appointed by a freeholder or managing agent and conducting management duties as a paid business), that activity counts as property management work and must be covered by membership of an approved redress scheme. However, it is understood that Eagerstates Limited may have been expelled from The Property Ombudsman and it is asked if this is correct whether they are therefore now currently entitled to therefore be managing premises at all? See

If you have a complaint about your letting or estate agent, or another property professional, we may be able to help.

16/09/2025

⚖️ Tribunal Case: Assethold Ltd / Eagerstates Ltd Case reference: CHI/43UG/LSC/2024/0116 – July ‘25

Applicant:
• Leaseholder - challenging service charge demands

Respondents:
• Assethold Limited (landlord – not in attendance)
• Eagerstates Limited (managing agent – not in attendance)

🔍 Key Findings from the Tribunal [available in the public domain]

• Representation:
Mr Gurvits (of Eagerstates) was corresponding with the Tribunal. Although he holds an LLM and is registered as a solicitor with the SRA, the Tribunal noted he was not acting as a solicitor in this case.

• History of Cases mentioned by the Tribunal in their determination:
Eagerstates Ltd has appeared in 169 recorded Tribunal decisions as a managing agent.
Assethold Ltd has been named in over 280 Tribunal decisions, sometimes represented by Eagerstates, sometimes by solicitors or Counsel.
There may be crossover between the two of course but this level of repeat involvement may be considered unusual for one landlord / managing agent?
The Tribunal commented that "the Respondent [Assethold Ltd] is a regular litigant with access to high level legal expertise and the resources to seek specialist advice and representation"

• The Tribunal determined that significant sums demanded from the applicant leaseholder were not payable & were disallowed in this Case which include:
o £1,770.92 (2021 charges)
o £1,957.23 (2022 charges)
o £5,186.11 (2023 charges)
o £8,402.21 (2024 charges)

Total disallowed = over £17,000

✅ Takeaways for Leaseholder

• Check your lease: Service charges must be allowed by the lease – if they’re not, you don’t have to pay them.
• Scrutinise demands: Just because a demand looks formal doesn’t mean it’s valid.
• Challenge early: Don’t ignore unclear or inflated charges – query them in writing.
• Get advice before paying large sums: Legal threats and demands can be intimidating, but Tribunals often disallow charges if they’re not properly justified.
• Buyers beware: Ensure your conveyancing solicitor investigates service charge history and disputes before you buy a leasehold property.

📞 Need Help?
For implementation of Right to Manage (RTM), Lease Extensions, Buying the freehold (Collective Enfranchisement) or on Tribunal applications for RTM Handover or the reasonableness of service charges;

The Leasehold Advice Centre
📧 [email protected]
📞 01483 890672

Call now to connect with business.

21/06/2025

AM Surveying & Block Management Your Landlord / Managing Agent?

At the Leasehold Advice Centre, we frequently encounter a number of well-known landlords and managing agents—such as FirstPort, Assethold, Warwick Estates, Southern Land, Together, Tapestart, Mainstay, Rayners, Promixa, Westleigh, Pier, Trinity, Regis, Remus, Morelands, and others but another name that is now appearing frequently is:

AM SURVEYING PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED
(also trading as AM Surveying & Block Management)
Current Address: Penelope House, Westerhill Road, Coxheath, Maidstone, ME17 4DH
Previous Address: 42 New Road, Ditton, Aylesford, ME20 6AD

We have recently acted against this company, including filing a First-tier Tribunal application related to Right to Manage (RTM) claims.

If AM Surveying Property Services Ltd or AM Surveying & Block Management is your current managing agent or landlord, we’d be very interested to hear from you.

✅ Take control of your building through Right to Manage
Let us help you navigate the process and remove ineffective or unresponsive management.

Contact The Leasehold Advice Centre:
🌐 Website: www.leaseholdadvicecentre.co.uk
📧 Email: [email protected]
📞 Phone: 01483 890672

The Leasehold Advice Centre provides a highly efficient and competitive service for flat owners including lease extensions, RTM and collective enfranchisement

17/06/2025

Is AM Surveying & Block Management Your Landlord / Managing Agent?

At the Leasehold Advice Centre, we frequently encounter a number of well-known landlords and managing agents—such as FirstPort, Assethold, Warwick Estates, Southern Land, Together, Tapestart, Mainstay, Rayners, Promixa, Westleigh, Pier, Trinity, Regis, Remus, Morelands, and others but anotherr name that is now appearing frequently is:

AM SURVEYING PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED
(also trading as AM Surveying & Block Management)
Current Address: Penelope House, Westerhill Road, Coxheath, Maidstone, ME17 4DH and 42 New Road, Ditton, Aylesford, ME20 6AD

We have recently acted against this company, including filing a First-tier Tribunal application relating to Right to Manage (RTM) claims.

If AM Surveying Property Services Ltd or AM Surveying & Block Management is your current managing agent or landlord, we’d be very interested to hear from you.

✅ Take control of your building through Right to Manage
Let us help you navigate the process and remove ineffective or unresponsive management.
Contact The Leasehold Advice Centre:
📧 [email protected]
📞 01483 890672

12/06/2025

The Leasehold Advice Centre has very recently been instructed on another Right To Manage claim where the Landlord is Assethold Limited & the Managing Agent being Eagerstates Limited [considered by the FtT to be ‘being inextricably entwined’].

In this specific case currently being investigated, serious concerns arise about possible overcharging / potentially unlawful demands, which underscores the importance of carefully reviewing the term of your lease or better still having an expert do so.

🔍 Key Issues being investigated

1. Contrary to the terms of the Lease - the flat owners are being billed for a whole array of things including:
o Fire safety checks
o Monthly Window cleaning
o Insurance
o Repairs / Maintenance
o Drone Survey
o Electrical tests
o Drain tests
o Gutter clearing
o Management fees
o Penalties and debt collection fees
o Accountant’s fees

However, the leases explicitly state that the flat owners are individually responsible for maintenance, insurance and repairs, not the landlord Assethold Limited or their agent Eagerstates Limited

2. Threats of Legal Action & Forfeiture
Eagerstates have threatened Court Proceedings and forfeiture for non-payment of these charges—even though they may not be legally due or even entitled to lawfully demand them provided the leaseholders maintain the building of course but they have presumed that if Eagerstates issue a demand that the obligations to repair rest with the Landlord - when in this case they don't.

3. Notice of Assignment Overcharging
When a flat is sold a Notice of Assignment is served, on the Landlord, usually via their managing agent. In most cases the lease will state what the fee is for this & in this particular case it clearly states a fee of £40. However, the fee paid to Assethold / Eagerstates for the Notice, still relating to the same building, we are told was a massive £300 and then apparently, as the Notice was served later than the 30 days required a fine imposed of a further £420 – a total of £720.

4. Potential Solicitor Oversight
The solicitor involved when the flat was sold a few years ago may have failed to notice these inconsistencies—despite no doubt receiving financial statements in the management pack and oif course the lease.

⚖️ Legal Action Underway
The Leasehold Advice Centre is preparing to apply to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) to:
o Investigate Eagerstates' demands in relation to this matter
o Recover any unlawfully charged amounts.

✅ Key Takeaways for Leaseholders
• Always check your lease before paying any charges. Don’t assume charges are legitimate just because they look official.
• Question any demand that seems unclear, inflated, or not backed by your lease terms.
• Seek expert advice before paying large sums or when facing legal threats.
• For buyers: Ensure your solicitor thoroughly checks the lease and any service charge history.

📞 Contact for Help
If you’re facing similar issues or need advice regarding:
• Right to Manage (RTM)
• Lease extension
• Enfranchisement (buying the freehold)

Contact The Leasehold Advice Centre:
📧 [email protected]
📞 01483 890672

29/05/2025

Yet Another Success Against Assethold at Tribunal

The Leasehold Advice Centre has secured another victory in a Right to Manage (RTM) claim, once again against Assethold Ltd, represented by Mr Ronni Gurvits of Eagerstates Ltd.
As in previous cases, Mr Gurvits claimed that a counter-notice had been served, allegedly hand-delivered in June 2024, supported only by photographs of an envelope and a letterbox. However, he failed to produce the actual counter-notice until 30th October 2024, and only after prompting from the Tribunal. Despite the counter-notice objecting to the RTM on several grounds, the Tribunal remarked that those grounds, even if proven, were unlikely to invalidate the claim. Nonetheless, Mr Gurvits insisted on continuing Assethold’s opposition.
Throughout the proceedings, the Respondent repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions. The Leasehold Advice Centre made multiple applications for the Respondent to be debarred. One key requirement was the submission of a Statement of Case, meant to explain the objection in detail and include any relevant legal authority. Instead, the Respondent submitted a single-page document with three brief, unsupported paragraphs. It lacked any legal citations, witness statements, or documentary evidence, failing entirely to meet the criteria outlined in the Tribunal’s directions. The Tribunal remarked “There weren’t even any details, let alone any documentary evidence, of the forfeiture proceedings referred to in paragraph 3 of the Respondent’s statement”
The Tribunal concluded: “The Respondent failed to comply with the directions and, therefore, was automatically barred in accordance with the Judge’s order of 6th March 2025. The Respondent has produced nothing sufficient to bring into question the Applicant’s entitlement to acquire the RTM, irrespective of having been barred. Therefore, the Tribunal confirms that entitlement. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant £110 within 28 days of this Decision, in respect of the reimbursement of the Tribunal fees paid by the Applicant.”

This decision marks yet another in a series of successful outcomes for The Leasehold Advice Centre in challenging improper objections to RTM claims.

19/05/2025

ASSETHOLD FAIL AGAIN AT TRIBUNAL
In this case, The Leasehold Advice Centre represented flat owners in a successful Right to Manage (RTM) application. The RTM company formally acquired the right to manage the building on 30 March 2022.
Despite this, Assethold / Eagerstates continued to issue invoices to the flat owners for building insurance covering the periods 2022–2023 and 2023–2024. Their justification was that the responsibility for insuring the ground floor commercial unit had not transferred to the RTM company. They argued that this required the freeholder to “step in” and insure the entire building, thereby entitling them to recover those costs from all leaseholders as a service charge.
The flat owners disputed this, asserting that the obligation to insure the entire building transferred to the RTM company upon acquisition of management rights on 30 March 2022, and that the costs demanded were not recoverable as service charges.
As flat owners refused to pay, Eagerstates escalated matters, adding late payment fees, fines, and other charges to the demands.
However, the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) ruled decisively in favour of the leaseholders. It found Assethold's/Eagerstates’ interpretation to be misconceived. The commercial unit is part of the building, not separate or appurtenant. The tribunal also clarified that while Section 96(6)(a) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 excludes functions solely relating to non-qualifying premises, insurance obligations relate to the entire building and therefore do pass to the RTM company.
The Tribunal determined that none of the sums demanded by Eagerstates—neither as service charges nor as administration charges—were payable.
________________________________________
Commentary:
This ruling marks yet another failed attempt by Assethold Limited to impose unjustified fees and insurance premiums.
Leaseholders should be aware of their rights and be prepared to challenge unlawful demands.
For expert assistance with RTM, enfranchisement, or lease extension claims, contact:
The Leasehold Advice Centre
📧 [email protected]
📞 01483 890672

24/04/2025

ASSETHOLD FAIL AGAIN AT TRIBUNAL
Another RTM success handled by The Leasehold Advice Centre

A claim notice dated 12 March 2024, and sent on 15 March 2024, was prepared and served by LAC on all relevant parties, including Assethold Limited, believed to have recently acquired the freehold. The notice set out the RTM Company's intention to assume management responsibilities as of 26 July 2024.
The Tribunal held that:
1. No valid counter-notice was served for the purposes of section 84 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
2. The Right to Manage Company automatically acquired the RTM as of 26 July 2024, as stated in the claim notice, pursuant to section 90 of the Act;
3. Assethold Limited must reimburse the RTM Company for the FtT application fee.
Background
A claim notice dated 12 March 2024, and sent on 15 March 2024, was prepared and served by LAC on all relevant parties, including Assethold Limited, believed to have recently acquired the freehold. The notice set out the RTM Company's intention to assume management responsibilities as of 26 July 2024.
On 26 March 2024, Scott Cohen Solicitors, acting for Assethold Limited, raised enquiries regarding the claim. These were answered in full. However, the only response that followed was a purported counter-notice dated 25 April 2024, signed by Ronni Gurvits, who claimed to act as a "duly authorised agent of Hawkley House Ltd"—a company that, as the Tribunal later noted, had been dissolved over two years earlier.

Tribunal Findings
The Tribunal questioned the legitimacy of Mr Gurvits’s authority to act on behalf of a non-existent company, noting that no explanation had been offered.
Mr Gurvits attempted to claim that the RTM company’s notice was invalid for specifying a “too early” acquisition date—citing section 80(6). However, the dates clearly showed that the claim notice, issued on 15 March, allowed more than the required one-month period before the counter-notice deadline of 25 April 2024.
Evidence confirmed that all parties, including Assethold and their agent Eagerstates Ltd, were properly served with the claim notice on 15 March 2024.

Concession & Costs
After procedural delays and a refused extension request on 11 March 2025, Eagerstates Ltd, on behalf of Assethold, conceded the application. In a letter dated 21 March 2025, Mr Gurvits acknowledged:
“Our client conceded this application and is content for there to be a determination in favour of the RTM company.”
The also considered Rule 13 regarding cost reimbursement and concluded that Assethold’s actions—or those of its agents—delayed proceedings unnecessarily. As no explanation or opposition to the fee order was submitted, the Tribunal ordered Assethold to pay the RTM Company’s application fee which had also been applied for within the original FtT application prepared &* submitted by The Leasehold Advice Centre.

Commentary
This is yet another failed attempt by Assethold Limited to resist an RTM claim, despite a lack of legal standing or valid counter-notice. The Tribunal's judgment reaffirms the importance of serving valid counter-notices and the consequences of obstructive or unsubstantiated resistance.
A further application for reimbursement of costs and potential claims relating to previous service charges by Eagerstates Ltd on behalf of Assethold Ltd may follow.

For assistance with RTM, Enfranchisement or Lease Extension claims, The Leasehold Advice Centre can be contacted at:
📧 [email protected]
📞 01483 890672

22/04/2025

YET ANOTHER ASSETHOLD CASE SUCCEEDS AT TRIBUNAL
In yet another successful RTM application against Assethold, the Tribunal has confirmed that Right to Manage (RTM) was validly acquired by operation of law in August 2024 despite a purported counter notice being served.
The RTM claim notice was served on the legal owner of the block in May 2024, with a copy also sent to Assethold Limited.
No counter-notice was received, and LAC [The Leasehold Advice Centre] wrote to Mr. Gurvits, acting for Assethold, stating the Applicant’s intention to proceed with acquiring RTM and requesting a smooth handover of documents and funds.
Similar to other cases involving Assethold / Eagerstates and RTM claims, on 20 May 2024, Mr. Gurvits suddenly claims that a counter-notice had been served, but failed to provide any evidence despite various requests to do so. As a result LAC applied to the FtT and as a result of that it was not until September 2024 a copy was produced and only after intervention by the Tribunal.
However, in December 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a landmark decision in 159-167 Prince of Wales Road RTM Company Ltd v Assethold Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1544. The Court held that an entity that is only an equitable owner (i.e., one whose title is not yet registered at the Land Registry) does not qualify as a “landlord” for the purposes of serving a valid RTM counter-notice under section 79(6) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
In this case, as with others, Assethold was in a similar position, having acquired only equitable title at the relevant time. As such, the Tribunal concluded that Assethold had no standing to serve a counter-notice, rendering the notice invalid.
On 20 December 2024, the Tribunal issued a notice that it was minded to bar Assethold from further participation in the proceedings, as it was not a landlord and had no reasonable prospect of success. Assethold did not respond nor did they admit the claim / withdraw its purported counter-notice.
Accordingly, because no valid counter-notice was served, RTM was deemed to have been acquired by operation of law in August 2024.
Further implications: It is possible that service charges, administration fees & related costs levied by Assethold / Eagerstates from the backdated success of the claim in 2024 may have to be returned to leaseholders & it is understood that an application in respect of this is understood to be underway.
For assistance with RTM, Enfranchisement or Lease Extension claims, The Leasehold Advice Centre can be contacted at:
📧 [email protected]
📞 01483 890672

15/03/2025

THE RIGHT TO MANAGE - HANDOVER
If your Right to Manage (RTM) company has not received the necessary handover documents and uncommitted service charge funds from the previous landlord or managing agent, it's essential to take appropriate steps to rectify the situation and ensure the smooth management of your property.

Obligations of the Previous Landlord or Managing Agent
Upon the RTM company's acquisition of management responsibilities, the former landlord or managing agent is legally obligated to transfer relevant management information and any uncommitted service charge funds. This includes:
Service Charge Funds: Uncommitted service charges held by the previous manager should be transferred to the RTM company. However, any arrears owed by leaseholders before the RTM acquisition date remain the responsibility of the former landlord or managing agent to collect.
Management Information: Details of existing contracts, maintenance schedules, and other pertinent documents should be provided to the RTM company to ensure continuity in property management.
Steps to Address Non-Compliance
If the previous landlord or managing agent fails to provide the necessary documents and funds:
Formal Request: Serve a written notice to the former landlord or managing agent requesting the outstanding information and funds. This notice should specify the documents and monies required and set a reasonable deadline for compliance.
Application to the First-tier Tribunal: If there's no response or an unsatisfactory one, the RTM company can apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under Section 93 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Tribunal has the authority to determine the amount of uncommitted service charges that should be handed over to the RTM company and can address disputes regarding the reasonableness of expenditures claimed by the former managing agent.
Challenging Unreasonable Expenditures: The Tribunal can assess the validity of expenditures claimed by the previous managing agent. For instance, if the agent attempts to charge 12 months of management fees when the RTM company took over two months into the new service charge year, such charges could be deemed unreasonable or excessive.
To mitigate potential challenges during the RTM transition:
Early Engagement: Communicate with the current landlord or managing agent early in the RTM process to outline expectations and timelines for the handover.
Detailed Handover Checklist: Prepare a comprehensive list of required documents and funds to ensure all necessary items are transferred.
Professional Guidance: Engage professionals familiar with RTM processes to assist in the transition, ensuring compliance with legal obligations and smooth management continuity.

How The Leasehold Advice Centre Can Assist
At The Leasehold Advice Centre, we specialize in RTM processes, including preparing the Section 93 Notice and making applications to the First-tier Tribunal to determine the amount that should be returned to the RTM company. Our expertise also enables us to challenge items of expenditure claimed by the former managing agent on the basis of unreasonableness or, in some cases, where the work was never actually performed. We understand that it's not uncommon for a managing agent to attempt to charge 12 months of management fees when the RTM company took over partway through the service charge year, leading to potentially unreasonable and excessive charges.

Contact Us
If you require further information or assistance with RTM, lease extensions, or enfranchisement claims, please contact The Leasehold Advice Centre:
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 01483890672

10/03/2025

Spurious Counter Notice: The Curious Case of a Dissolved Freeholder

In another current dispute against ASSETHOLD / EAGERSTATES, a counter notice has been served and signed by Ronni Gurvits, purportedly as the “Duly authorised agent of Hawkley House Ltd.” However, Hawkley House Ltd was dissolved on 4th January 2022—and yet its name appears on the counter notice. This anomaly has raised serious concerns at the First-tier Tribunal.

What’s the Issue?
Assethold Ltd (whose managing agent is Eagerstates Ltd) had bought the freehold of the property, yet the Land Registry still lists the previous freeholder, Hawkley House Ltd as the registered owner. Despite the company’s dissolution, Ronni Gurvits signed the counter notice on its behalf. The Tribunal judge noted, “it does not seem possible; the company had been dissolved, so ceased to exist, more than two years before this.” Consequently, the judge has issued directions requiring Mr. Gurvits to provide a detailed witness statement. This statement must explain how, when, and by whom he was authorised to sign for a non-existent company, along with copies of all relevant documents. Furthermore, submissions must address why Assethold Limited should not be ordered to reimburse any application or hearing fees incurred by the applicant.

Why This Matters for Leaseholders
For leaseholders, such spurious counter notices can undermine your legal rights and increase costs during disputes over lease terms. An invalid counter notice may be used to dispute claims on false grounds.

How We Can Help
At The Leasehold Advice Centre, we specialise in resolving complex leasehold issues—including disputes involving invalid or spurious counter notices.

Expert Legal Guidance: Our team can assess the validity of counter notices and advise you on the correct legal steps to take.
Representation at Tribunals: We offer professional support during tribunal hearings, ensuring your case is clearly presented and your rights are safeguarded.
Get in Touch
If you’re a leaseholder who needs expert advice on Right To Manage, Lease Extensions and Enfranchisement claims, don’t hesitate to contact us.
Email: [email protected]
Call: 01483 890672

The Leasehold Advice Centre – Your Trusted Leasehold Experts

Call now to connect with business.