What would resident control actually change?
In our first explainer, we looked at why many Hilltop Park homeowners are members of the estate management company.
But membership is only meaningful if residents can understand the company, take part in decisions, and help shape how the estate is managed.
“Resident control” can sound dramatic. It does not mean the Residents’ Association taking over FirstPort’s work or volunteers arranging grass cutting and repairs. It means residents being represented within the company that directs and oversees those services.
It starts with resident directors
The company’s articles place responsibility for managing its business with the board of directors. They also allow eligible members to be appointed as directors.
Resident directors would therefore have a formal role within the management company. They could take part in board decisions, scrutinise the managing agent, and help ensure the company acts in the interests of the estate and its members.
They would not act as delegates of the Residents’ Association or represent individual streets. Like any company director, they would have legal duties to the company as a whole.
The Residents’ Association would remain independent: gathering views, sharing information, and holding the arrangements to account.
Better scrutiny of budgets and spending
FirstPort currently prepares the estate budget, appoints contractors, and collects the estate rentcharge on behalf of the company.
Resident directors could add direct scrutiny. They could:
● question costs and assumptions;
● review how contractors are selected;
● monitor spending against budget;
● challenge poor value or unexplained increases;
● check services have been delivered; and
● ensure clear financial reporting.
This would not guarantee lower charges. Maintenance still has to be funded and costs can rise. The benefit is stronger local oversight from those who pay for and live with the services.
We have already seen scrutiny make a difference: engagement by the Residents’ Association helped secure a reduction of around £4,000 in the proposed estate budget.
Clearer oversight of the managing agent
A professional managing agent is likely to remain necessary. Hilltop Park is large, and management involves finance, contractors, inspections, compliance, and collections.
Resident control is therefore not the same as self-management.
The key difference is accountability. Resident directors could set expectations, request performance data, challenge delays, and ensure issues are followed through.
In a fully resident-controlled company, the board could also review whether the managing agent continues to offer value, subject to contracts and the company’s articles.
More influence over maintenance priorities
Residents see the estate daily. We notice where paths fail, planting declines, drainage recurs, and standards slip.
Resident directors could bring that experience into formal decisions. They could help shape maintenance specifications, inspections, contractor performance measures, and priorities.
There would still be limits. The company must work within legal duties and available funds, and cannot take responsibility for infrastructure not properly transferred.
But oversight would make it harder for issues to drift between organisations.
Better information for members
The articles require books of account to be available for inspection and for members to receive financial statements and reports.
Resident directors could help ensure this becomes meaningful communication, not just paperwork.
That could include:
● regular updates on key decisions;
● clearer budget explanations;
● reporting against maintenance plans;
● proper minutes and records; and
● earlier engagement on major changes.
Transparency is not about publishing everything, but about giving residents enough information to understand how the company is run.
What would not change?
Greater involvement would not remove the rentcharge, eliminate professional management, or turn every decision into a vote.
It would not make resident directors responsible for day-to-day repairs or individual queries.
Nor would it mean the Residents’ Association controlled the company. The two would remain separate, with distinct roles.
The change is that residents would move from being service recipients to having formal representation in the body responsible for those services.
Control may not transfer all at once
The articles include transitional arrangements while the development is incomplete, including additional voting rights for the original subscriber and restrictions relating to the managing agent until all homes are sold and transferred.
We are seeking clarity on how these provisions currently operate.
Full resident control may therefore not happen in one step. Appointing resident directors would still provide meaningful involvement now, while preparing for resident-led governance in the future.
What the Residents’ Association is doing
We are working towards a clear and orderly route to resident involvement.
This includes:
● checking the membership register;
● explaining governance arrangements;
● clarifying voting rights;
● identifying potential directors; and
● improving communication between the company and members.
Our aim is not change for its own sake, but a company that is transparent, accountable, and shaped by residents.
What you can do
If you support greater resident involvement, or may be interested in becoming a resident director, please contact:
No commitment is needed now. Expressions of interest will help us understand the skills and support available in the community.