The idea of residents taking control of the management of their own buildings is often presented as an obvious solution. After all, who knows a development better than the people who live there? When leaseholders feel unheard, frustrated by poor communication or unclear service charges, resident-led structures like RMCs or Right to Manage can seem like a natural next step.
And in some cases, resident control works very well. It can create a stronger sense of ownership, allow for more transparent decision-making and empower people to shape the environment they live in. Those benefits are real, and they shouldn’t be dismissed.
But resident control is also more demanding than it looks. A recent Financial Times piece highlighted how, in several blocks, well-intentioned resident governance became strained under the pressure of rising costs, depleted reserve funds, personal disagreements and the sheer volume of responsibility involved. In some situations, maintenance stalled, standards slipped, and relationships deteriorated to the point where legal intervention was needed.
These examples are not the whole story, but they highlight something important: running a building or estate is complex, and resident control is not automatically the easiest or most effective answer.
At JMJ, we spend a lot of time listening to leaseholders and understanding their pain points. What we consistently hear is that they want clarity, control and respect, not conflict, stress or administrative burden. So, the real question becomes:
Is resident control the goal, or is the goal a well-run building where residents feel genuinely heard and protected?
Where resident control can work well
Some developments have exactly the right combination of:
- Engaged and committed residents
- A cohesive community
- Time, capacity and willingness to take on responsibilities
- Clear communication among neighbours
In these situations, resident-led management can be positive and effective. Decisions are made by the people who live with the outcomes. There can be a stronger sense of accountability and transparency. And when supported professionally, the model can deliver excellent results.
However, the FT article highlights what many leaseholders quietly admit, in that the responsibilities of running a building often extend far beyond what people expected.
Common issues include:
- Disagreements between neighbours about priorities or spending
- Difficulty managing compliance duties, insurance and major works
- Uncertainty around long-term financial planning and reserve funds
- Inconsistent communication, leading to mistrust
- Reduced cashflow when arrears rise, especially if budgets were unclear
- Burnout among volunteer directors who didn’t realise the time involved
These pressures can quickly impact the development itself. If arrears increase or decisions stall, essential services like cleaning, gardening, lighting and repairs can be paused or cancelled and planned maintenance can be pushed back. Over time, the property suffers, and the cost of putting things right only increases.
This isn’t because residents lack ability. It’s because managing a development is a professional discipline that requires structure, legal understanding, time and support.
Collaboration over control
At JMJ, we don’t frame this as a choice between “resident control” or “professional control.” We care far more about collaboration, where residents are empowered and informed, but not overwhelmed.
Our experience shows that the best outcomes happen when:
- Residents feel their voices genuinely matter
- RMC Directors and managing agents communicate openly and regularly
- Budgets are transparent, realistic and co-created
- Long-term planning is taken seriously, not left for future committees
- Professional oversight handles compliance, accounting and complex areas
- Residents remain involved in decisions, not day-to-day firefighting
This balanced approach protects what matters most, which is the safety, financial stability and long-term wellbeing of the development.
Resident control isn’t “good” or “bad.” It’s a choice that deserves an honest conversation.
For some communities, resident control is exactly the right model. For others, it creates pressure that no one really wanted. Most sit somewhere in the middle, wanting more involvement and transparency, without taking on the entire operational and legal burden.
Our role at JMJ is to support whichever model a community chooses, while also being honest about what each involves. We advocate for:
- Clarity
- Collaboration
- Shared responsibility
- Realistic expectations
- Strong governance
Ultimately, the true goal isn’t control for control’s sake, it’s a property that is well managed, financially secure and feels like a place people are proud to live in.
Resident control can be part of that. But it isn’t the only path, and it certainly shouldn’t be the default solution without understanding the reality behind it.
