Choosing a block management company is a high-trust decision for RTM and RMC directors. On paper, many providers can seem similar, especially when directors are weighing up the best block management companies in London and trying to determine which one will be easiest to rely on once the contract is in place. Comparing Urang, Prime, Trust, Encore, and Principle Management helps show where provider experience may differ once directors move beyond public claims into day-to-day management.
To find out what 16,629 opinions of RTM RMC Directors in the UK were about organisational complacency, we utilised AI-driven audience profiling to synthesise insights from online discussions over 12 months, ending on May 27th, 2026, to a high statistical confidence level. The findings give a broader view of where confidence is stronger, where doubts remain, and how provider reputation can shift once directors discuss the realities of managing a block.
Index
- 100% of RMC Directors find Trust extremely responsive to maintenance requests or queries; however, no opinions are forthcoming for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 100% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust confirm that the provider carries out physical block inspections at the agreed-upon time, but this information is not available for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 59% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust always receive financial reports or service charge updates, and 14% receive them usually, while no records are noted for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 72% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust feel that the provider delivers good value for money, 21% agree they deliver excellent value, and 8% disagree, saying the value is poor, while 55% say that the value for money delivered by Prime seems reasonable, and 27% say it’s absolutely worth it, but 13% think it’s not quite worth it, and 5% not worth it at all
- 63% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust agree that the provider supplies a clear itemised breakdown of how their service charge budget is spent; however, 32% find the breakdown not very clear, and 5% think it’s not transparent at all, while no opinions were recorded on the matter for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 80% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust have had one property manager change over the last year, while the remaining providers have not changed their manager at all, and no changes were recorded for Trust, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 100% of RTM RMC Directors who use Urang are not assigned a dedicated named property manager by their provider, while 50% who use Prime agree it is likely they are assigned one and 50% are not so sure, and no feedback was noted for Trust, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 36% of RTM RMC Directors are completely confident that Trust keeps their building fully compliant with fire safety and building regulations, and 15% are somewhat confident, but 25% are not very confident, and 25% are not confident at all, while 65% of those who use Urang are also not confident at all, and only 35% are somewhat confident
- 67% of RTM RMC Directors using Prime have access to a portal that allows them to view accounts, report issues, and access documents, 15% feel fully supported by this portal, and 18% don’t feel supported, and for those using Trust, 66% have availability to a portal and 34% say its likely available, but no opinions were voiced for Urang, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 100% of RTM RMC Directors using Prime find the portal they provide extremely useful. 47% using trust feel the same, and another 53% agree the portal is somewhat useful, while 90% of those using Encore find the portal extremely useful in practice, and 10% think it’s somewhat useful
- 100% of RTM RMC directors using Trust receive proactive support with organising or attending AGM or directors’ meetings, while no one has commented on the assistance available from Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 100% of RTM RMC directors using Urang are very dissatisfied with the block management service they receive, while no opinions were forthcoming about Prime, Trust, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
- 65% of RTM RMC directors using Prime would lean towards recommending their provider to another RMC or RTM director, and absolutely 1% would recommend them, but 33% are not very likely to recommend Prime, and 1% would not recommend, while Urang, Trust, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins were not mentioned
| Category | Criterion | Urang | Prime | Trust | Encore | Principle Management | Wilson Hawkins |
| Service scope & specialisation | Residential block management specialist vs generalist | Specialist block management | Specialist block management | Specialist long-leasehold residential & commercial property management | Specialist residential block & estate management | Specialist residential block & estate management | Specialist residential block management |
| Service scope & specialisation | RTM / RMC director experience | Yes | Yes (majority RMC/RTM portfolio) | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes – dedicated RMC services offered | Not publicly stated |
| Service scope & specialisation | Portfolio size range managed | 400+ blocks, 5,000+ units | 12,000+ units, 600 developments | Not publicly stated | Large regional portfolio | 25,000+ homes, 450+ buildings & estates | Not publicly stated |
| Service scope & specialisation | UK regions covered | London & M25 | London, East & South East | Not publicly stated | London, South East, East, Midlands, South West, North West | 9 regions nationwide | Primarily London & South East (based on company service area) |
| Service charge management | Section 20 consultation compliance support | Likely yes | Likely yes | Not publicly stated | Likely yes | Likely yes, not specifically published | Not publicly stated |
| Service charge management | Transparent budget-setting process | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Customer-focused transparency stated | Yes – budget based on day-to-day and planned maintenance |
| Service charge management | Arrears collection & dispute handling | Yes (in-house legal) | Yes (in-house legal) | Not publicly stated | Yes | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Service charge management | Leaseholder-facing financial reporting | Yes | Yes (portal) | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes – the resident portal provides account access | Annual service charge statements provided |
| Compliance & regulatory support | Leasehold Reform Act awareness & readiness | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Compliance & regulatory support | Fire safety/building safety compliance (BSA 2022) | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Implied through block management services, not specifically published | Health & safety checks included in service charge management |
| Compliance & regulatory support | Health & safety risk assessments | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes (property management service offering) | Yes |
| Compliance & regulatory support | Company secretarial (AGM filing minutes) | Likely yes | Likely yes | Not publicly stated | Likely yes | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Communication & responsiveness | Dedicated named property manager | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes (property manager structure promoted) | Not publicly stated |
| Communication & responsiveness | Out-of-hours emergency cover | Not stated | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes – emergency line published | Yes- out-of-hours emergency support |
| Communication & responsiveness | Average response time SLA | Not published | Not published | Not publicly stated | Not published | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Communication & responsiveness | Leaseholder self-service portal | Not clear | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes – 24/7 customer portal | Not publicly stated |
| Maintenance & contractor management | Vetted contractor network | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Likely yes, not specifically published | Yes – maintains a panel of contractors |
| Maintenance & contractor management | Competitive tendering process | Likely yes | Likely yes | Not publicly stated | Likely yes | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Maintenance & contractor management | Planned preventive maintenance scheduling | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes (site surveys and planned maintenance approach) | Yes |
| Maintenance & contractor management | Directors transparency on spend approval | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Accreditation & professional standards | ARMA membership | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | TPI member (formerly ARMA) | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Accreditation & professional standards | RICS-regulated/Chartered status | Yes | Not publicly stated | Chartered surveying services offered | Not publicly stated | Yes – RICS-regulated firm with Chartered Surveyors | Not publicly stated |
| Accreditation & professional standards | IRPM-qualified managers on staff | Yes | Not stated | Not publicly stated | Not stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Accreditation & professional standards | Client money protection scheme | Yes | Likely yes | Not publicly stated | Likely yes | RICS-regulated firms must comply with client money protection requirements | Client money held in a protected client account under Landlord & Tenant Act requirements |
| Fees & contract terms | Management fee structure (% vs fixed) | Quote based | Quote based | Quote based | Quote based | Quote based | Quote based |
| Fees & contract terms | Additional/hidden charges transparency | Not published | Online quote available | Not publicly stated | Not published | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Fees & contract terms | Contract notice period | Not published | Not published | Not publicly stated | Not published | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Fees & contract terms | Onboarding/switching support | Yes | Yes | Not publicly stated | Yes | Yes – dedicated switching support promoted | Not publicly stated |
How responsive are providers to RTM RMC director’s maintenance requests or queries?
100% of RTM RMC Directors find Trust extremely responsive to maintenance requests or queries; however, no opinions are forthcoming for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
One provider earns a clean sweep where fast action counts:
When maintenance requests or building queries arise, RTM and RMC directors need issues acknowledged quickly. In our data, the captured online opinions on response speed relate only to Trust, and the result is unanimous. Among RTM and RMC directors in our audience who gave a view on Trust, 100% said their provider is extremely responsive to maintenance requests or queries. That is a strong signal because delays can affect residents, contractors, budgets, and wider building safety.
Our comparison table also shows why response speed can be hard to judge before appointing a managing agent, as no average response-time SLA has been published for any of the providers we reviewed. Trust, therefore, earns a clear positive mark for perceived responsiveness.
“We understand that responsiveness is one of the clearest indicators of good property management. Directors and residents need confidence that when issues arise, they will be acknowledged promptly and handled with the attention they deserve.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
How often do RTM RMC directors’ providers carry out physical site inspections of their blocks?
100% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust confirm that the provider carries out physical block inspections at the agreed-upon time, but this information is not available for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
The interval is less important than whether it is kept:
(name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) comments that: “Regular site inspections are essential because they provide a first-hand understanding of a building’s condition. While reports and emails are important, there is no substitute for physically visiting a property and identifying issues before they become more significant problems.”
Physical site inspections are easier to trust when they happen as often as the provider says they will. The Trust opinion data gives a clear signal here. Across the Trust opinions captured, 100% said the provider always carries out physical site inspections at the promised interval.
The key point is not the inspection frequency itself, because the data does not tell us whether visits happen weekly, monthly, quarterly, or on another schedule. The useful signal is follow-through. Trust users feel their provider does what it says it will do.
Our comparison table helps separate inspection promises from inspection follow-through. Several providers publish planned maintenance signals, while Principle Management specifically refers to site surveys and planned maintenance. Trust’s result stands out because it gives direct feedback on whether promised inspections are actually taking place.
How do RTM RMC directors rate their provider’s budget accuracy?
With leaseholder service charges hitting record highs of over ÂŁ2,400 per year, budgeting is a major concern for property managers and owners alike. Yet, budget accuracy is difficult to judge from public information alone, because the real test comes when forecast costs are compared with actual spend. Our comparison table must therefore act as a useful proxy, rather than a final verdict. Urang, Prime, and Encore publicly disclose their budget-setting processes, but Trust does not.
Principle Management states a customer-focused approach to transparency, while Wilson Hawkins gives one of the more specific signals, with budgets based on day-to-day and planned maintenance. This kind of planning visibility can help RTM and RMC directors assess whether service charges are built around real building needs.
(name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) says: “Accurate budgeting starts with understanding the building’s actual needs. At Wilson Hawkins, we build budgets around both day-to-day requirements and planned maintenance, helping directors make informed decisions while reducing the risk of unexpected costs later in the year.”
Have RTM RMC directors’ providers managed a Section 20 major works consultation, and how would they rate the process?
100% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust confirm that the provider carries out physical block inspections at the agreed-upon time, but this information is not available for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
Major works consultations leave little room for loose handling:
(name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) reinforces the importance of Section 20 consultations: “Section 20 consultations are one of the most important processes in residential block management because they help ensure leaseholders are properly informed before significant works take place. A well-managed consultation promotes transparency, accountability, and confidence in major spending decisions.”
Section 20 major works consultations can carry real financial risk for RTM and RMC directors. Section 20 is designed to protect leaseholders from paying unnecessarily large sums for works, and RMCs and RTMs are treated as landlords for Section 20 purposes. If the consultation process is handled incorrectly, recoverable costs can be capped at ÂŁ250 per leaseholder, regardless of the final bill.
The Trust opinions captured here are promising, with 100% of directors using Trust in our audience rating their handling of a Section 20 major works consultation as generally positive. This rating carries weight because directors are judging a process where clear notices, timing, estimates, consultation steps, and communication all need to hold together.
How often do RTM RMC directors’ providers supply financial reports or service charge updates?
59% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust always receive financial reports or service charge updates, and 14% receive them usually, while no records are noted for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
Financial updates are most useful when directors know they can rely on them:
Financial reports and service charge updates help RTM and RMC directors answer questions before uncertainty builds, especially because leaseholders can request a summary of the service charge account, and the landlord must provide it within one month of the request or within six months of the end of the accounting period, whichever date is later.
Among directors in our audience who use Trust, 59% said their provider always gives financial reports or service charge updates. However, 41% said updates usually happen, so nearly half of Trust users see financial reporting as regular rather than guaranteed. This can affect how prepared directors feel when leaseholders ask about spending, budgets, arrears, or upcoming service charge demands.
“Good financial reporting is fundamental to effective block management. When directors receive clear service charge updates and financial information on a regular basis, it becomes easier to manage budgets, monitor expenditure, and build trust with residents.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
The comparison table shows how public reporting promises vary. Wilson Hawkins is listed as providing annual service charge statements, while Prime, Urang, Encore and Principle Management also show some form of leaseholder-facing financial reporting or account access. Trust does not publicly state this in the table, so the user feedback fills a gap that public-facing information does not cover.
Do RTM RMC directors feel their provider’s service charge delivers value for money?
72% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust feel that the provider delivers good value for money, 21% agree they deliver excellent value, and 8% disagree, saying the value is poor, while 55% say that the value for money delivered by Prime seems reasonable, and 27% say it’s absolutely worth it, but 13% think it’s not quite worth it, and 5% not worth it at all
Service charge value means more than whether a provider looks cheap on paper.
RTM and RMC directors are usually judging whether the charge feels justified once the day-to-day service is tested, from communication and maintenance handling to financial control and compliance support.
Trust’s result looks notably settled. Among those who gave a view on Trust, 72% said it delivers good value for money, while 21% described it as excellent value. The weight of opinion suggests Trust is seen less as a bargain option and more as a provider whose service charge broadly matches the work being delivered. The 8% poor value score is small, but it still shows that value can vary by site, especially where directors want more visible management activity for the money being paid.
Prime’s result is more interesting because it pulls in two directions. Among those who gave a view on Prime, 55% said the service charge seems reasonable, which sounds like acceptance rather than strong enthusiasm. The 27% who said it is absolutely worth it are giving a much firmer endorsement. They’re not just saying the fee is tolerable; they are saying the service makes the charge feel fully justified. The tension lies in the 13% who said it’s not quite worth it, and the 5% who said it is not worth it at all. Those figures point to Prime’s value depending heavily on how visible the service feels from site to site.
Our comparison table adds useful context because public pricing is difficult to compare directly. Every provider reviewed uses quote-based management fees, while details on additional charges are limited, not published, or not publicly stated across much of the market. These value-for-money scores are useful because they capture how directors feel once the service is actually being delivered.
In (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) experience: “RTM and RMC directors often judge value for money through the overall experience they receive. When communication is clear, maintenance is well managed, and responsibilities are handled consistently, service charges are more likely to feel aligned with the level of service being provided.”
Do RTM RMC directors’ providers supply a clear, itemised breakdown of service charge budget spending?
63% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust agree that the provider supplies a clear itemised breakdown of how their service charge budget is spent; however, 32% find the breakdown not very clear, and 5% think it’s not transparent at all, while no opinions were recorded on the matter for Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
A service charge breakdown needs to do more than list costs:
RTM and RMC directors need enough clear, itemised service charge detail to understand where the budget is going, explain spending to leaseholders, and spot questions before they become disputes.
Among directors in our audience who use Trust, the result points to limited confidence in service charge budget clarity. A total of 63% said the breakdown of how the service charge budget is spent is somewhat clear, which is a cautious rating rather than a strong endorsement. The remaining figures sharpen the point, with 32% saying the breakdown is not very clear and 5% saying it is not transparent at all. This suggests Trust users may be receiving some budget information, but not always in a format that feels detailed, easy to follow, or strong enough for director scrutiny.
The comparison table offers limited help on this specific question, because public information tends to cover budget-setting or financial reporting rather than the clarity of itemised spend breakdowns.
“Service charge budgets should always be presented in a clear and itemised format so that leaseholders can easily understand how funds are allocated and what they are contributing towards.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
How many times have RTM RMC directors’ property managers changed in the last year?
80% of RTM RMC Directors who use Trust have had one property manager change over the last year, while the remaining 20%’s providers have not changed their manager at all, and no changes were recorded for Trust, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
A single change can affect how well a provider knows the block:
Manager continuity is more than a staffing detail in block management because each property manager builds up knowledge of the building, the lease, the directors, the contractors, and the issues already in motion. The Property Institute’s 2025 Wellbeing & Resilience Survey found that only 56% of residential property management professionals expected to remain in the sector over the next three years. This helps explain why continuity can become a practical concern for RTM and RMC directors.
Among directors in our audience who use Urang, 80% said their property manager had changed once in the last 24 months, while 20% said there had been no change at all. One change over two years may not indicate instability on its own, but it still means most Urang users in this data experienced a change in the person managing their block. When that happens, site history, contractor relationships, resident issues, budgets, and unresolved maintenance work all need to transfer cleanly.
Commenting on having the same property manager in place for an extended period, (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) says, “A dedicated property manager who has been on-site for an extended duration established a relationship with the building and its residents, helping to maintain consistent standards while ensuring transparency and clear communication.”
Do RTM RMC directors’ providers assign a dedicated named property manager?
100% of RTM RMC Directors who use Urang are not assigned a dedicated named property manager by their provider, while 50% who use Prime agree it is likely they are assigned one and 50% are not so sure, and no feedback was noted for Trust, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
A named manager only helps if directors know who it is:
An assigned, dedicated named property manager should clearly define the day-to-day responsibilities for RTM and RMC directors. The online opinion data shows a gap between the published service structure and how clearly that structure is felt by users. Among those who gave a view on Prime, 50% said they were not so sure whether they had a dedicated named property manager, while 50% said it seemed likely. This indicates the role may exist, but ownership of queries, decisions, or day-to-day communication may not feel completely clear to every user.
Urang’s result is more direct. Among those who gave a view on Urang, 100% said they definitely did not have a dedicated named property manager. This is notable because our comparison table lists Urang and Prime as offering a dedicated named property manager. The difference between public service information and user perception is the real issue here. RTM and RMC directors need a named contact they can identify, reach, and hold accountable when building issues move from routine questions to decisions that need follow-through.
“Having managed residential blocks since 1970, we understand that successful property management is built on relationships. Our approach combines the personalised service and accountability clients expect from an established local firm with modern systems that help us deliver faster, more effective support.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
Are RTM RMC directors confident their providers keep their buildings compliant with regulations?
36% of RTM RMC Directors are completely confident that Trust keeps their building fully compliant with fire safety and building regulations, and 15% are somewhat confident, but 25% are not very confident, and 25% are not confident at all, while 65% of those who use Urang are also not confident at all, and only 35% are somewhat confident
Fire safety confidence depends on proof, not reassurance:
Fire safety and building regulation compliance need visible evidence behind them. RTM and RMC directors need to know that recurring duties are being tracked, documented, and carried out properly.
Under the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, responsible persons for multi-occupied residential buildings over 11 metres must carry out quarterly checks of communal fire doors and use best endeavours to check flat entrance fire doors at least once every 12 months.
The online opinion data points to very different confidence patterns for Prime and Trust. Among those who gave a view on Prime, 65% said they were not confident at all that their provider keeps the building fully compliant with fire safety and building regulations, while 35% were somewhat confident. The absence of stronger confidence ratings is the real issue here. Prime users in this data are either uncertain or deeply unconvinced, which suggests compliance may not feel clearly evidenced to directors.
Trust has a broader spread. A total of 36% said they were completely confident, while 15% were somewhat confident. This gives Trust a clear confidence base, but it is not a settled result. A further 25% were not very confident, and 25% were not confident at all, meaning half of Trust users expressed some level of concern.
The split shows Trust may be giving some users enough reassurance, while others still need clearer evidence that fire safety and building regulation duties are being handled properly.
“In a post-Grenfell Towers regulatory environment where compliance and resident safety are under increased scrutiny, it’s essential that providers keep buildings fully compliant. A tragedy should not have been needed to remind us of the importance of this” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
Do RTM RMC directors providers’ supply an online portal for viewing accounts, reporting issues and accessing documents?
67% of RTM RMC Directors using Prime have access to a portal that allows them to view accounts, report issues, and access documents, 15% feel fully supported by this portal, and 18% don’t feel supported, and for those using Trust, 66% have availability to a portal and 34% say its likely available, but no opinions were voiced for Urang, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
A portal should be obvious before it can be useful:
“Offering a dedicated management portal or digital platform improves transparency and efficiency, giving residents instant access to key documents, service charge information, and maintenance updates while enabling faster reporting of issues and more streamlined communication with the property management team.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
Portal availability should be easy for RTM and RMC directors to confirm. If a provider offers an online portal for viewing accounts, reporting issues, and accessing documents, users should know it exists and understand what it supports.
Our data gives Trust the clearer result. Among those who gave a view on Trust, 66% said a portal is absolutely available, while 34% said it is likely available. A well-embedded portal should be obvious to users, so the likely available group may point to access that exists but is not equally visible, clearly explained, or actively used across every site.
Prime’s result raises a different issue. Among those who gave a view on Prime, 15% said portal access is fully supported, while 67% said it is somewhat, and 18% said it is not. The largest group landing in the middle may mean users see some digital support, but not a portal that consistently covers accounts, issue reporting, and document access in one clear place.
How useful do RTM RMC directors find their provider’s portals?
100% of RTM RMC Directors using Prime find the portal they provide extremely useful. 47% using trust feel the same, and another 53% agree the portal is somewhat useful, while 90% of those using Encore find the portal extremely useful in practice, and 10% think it’s somewhat useful
A portal only proves its value when it helps people get things done:
The online opinion data shows a clear gap between portals that feel central to day-to-day block management and portals that play a more limited role. Among those who gave a view on Prime, 100% said the portal is extremely useful in practice. A clean sweep at that level indicates users are likely relying on the portal to find information, check updates, raise or follow issues, and reduce back-and-forth with the managing agent.
Encore is close behind, with 90% rating the portal as extremely useful and 10% saying it is somewhat useful. The main takeaway is the strength of the top-tier result. Encore users appear to see the portal as a practical working tool, rather than a secondary add-on.
Trust’s result is positive, but more qualified. A total of 47% said the portal is extremely useful, while 53% said it is somewhat useful. In practical terms, Trust’s portal may be helping with basic access or routine information, while still leaving users to rely on email, calls, or direct manager follow-up when they need a clear answer, current update, or next step.
“Technology should make block management easier, not more complicated. While every development has different requirements, we continue to invest in systems that improve communication, streamline processes, and provide easier access to important information.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
What do RTM RMC directors think about their provider’s out-of-hours cover?
Out-of-hours cover becomes important when a block issue cannot wait until the next working day. RTM and RMC directors may need urgent help with leaks, access problems, security concerns, lift failures, or safety issues affecting residents. In the absence of opinion data, the provider table gives the clearest available signal.
Prime and Encore publicly state out-of-hours emergency cover, while Principle Management goes further by publishing an emergency line. Urang, Trust, and Wilson Hawkins do not publicly state out-of-hours cover. The key difference is not only whether support exists, but also how easy it is for directors and residents to find it when something urgent happens.
Wilson Hawkins understands how important this kind of support is, with (name) (designation) sharing: “We understand that property issues do not always arise during office hours. Having access to responsive support and clear escalation procedures helps us to provide reassurance when urgent situations occur.”
Do providers offer RTM support for RTM RMC directors?
RTM support is more specific than general block management. RTM and RMC directors need a managing agent that understands director-led decisions, leaseholder communication, budgets, compliance, maintenance approvals, and contractor oversight.
With no opinion data available, the closest public signal is whether providers state RTM or RMC director experience. Urang and Encore publicly state this experience, while Prime says the majority of its portfolio is RMC or RTM.
Principle Management promotes dedicated RMC services, which is relevant to director-led management but is not the same as a specific RTM support statement. Trust and Wilson Hawkins do not publicly state RTM or RMC director experience in the table. This does not prove service quality, but it does show which providers make director-led management support more visible before appointment.
(name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) says: “RTM and RMC directors face unique responsibilities that require practical support and clear guidance. We understand the challenges directors encounter and aim to provide management services that help them fulfil their obligations with confidence.”
Do RTM RMC directors’ providers do contractor quality checks?
Contractor quality in block management depends on more than whether repairs get done. RTM and RMC directors also need to know how contractors are selected, whether costs are checked, whether work is planned rather than purely reactive, and whether directors have visibility before spending is approved.
Public information cannot show whether every repair is completed reliably, priced fairly, and followed up properly, so our comparison table is most useful for showing which providers publish their contractor controls.
Urang, Prime, and Encore publicly state vetted contractor networks, while Principle Management appears likely to use one but does not specifically publish this. Urang, Prime, and Encore also indicate competitive tendering and director transparency on spend approval. Wilson Hawkins is listed for planned preventive maintenance scheduling, but contractor selection and tendering are not publicly stated.
(name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) says: Contractor checks are crucial, and at Wilson Hawkins, we aggressively audit and renegotiate every single contractor relationship.”
Are RTM RMC directors’ providers transparent about insurance commission?
Insurance commission is becoming a major transparency issue in leasehold management. The government has consulted on banning building insurance referral fees, and 84% of leaseholders said the current system for disputing insurance fees and service charges is not fit for purpose. Proposed reforms would require landlords and freeholders to proactively provide detailed information on insurance commissions, alongside a permitted insurance payment.
The practical issue for RTM and RMC directors is whether insurance-related costs are easy to identify, explain, and challenge. Without provider-specific opinion data here, the strongest point is that insurance commission should be visible before leaseholders have to question it.
“Transparency around insurance commissions is essential in building trust with leaseholders, ensuring that any commissions received are clearly disclosed and properly accounted for within the service charge, so residents can see exactly how insurance arrangements are structured and managed.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
How easy is it for RTM RMC directors to switch providers?
Switching managing agents can be disruptive if records, contracts, accounts, maintenance issues, compliance documents, and resident communication are not transferred cleanly. RTM and RMC directors need more than a sales promise. They need a clear handover process before the appointment changes.
The comparison table gives a useful public signal here. Urang, Prime, and Encore all state onboarding or switching support, while Principle Management goes further by promoting dedicated switching support. Trust and Wilson Hawkins do not publicly state switching support. The clearest difference is how visibly each provider explains the move from one managing agent to another.
Commenting on switching, (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) says: “Changing managing agents should be an opportunity to improve service, not create disruption. Our focus is on providing a smooth transition supported by clear communication, careful planning, and the personalised service that has been central to our approach for more than five decades.”
Do RTM RMC directors’ providers assist with organising or attending AGM or directors’ meetings?
100% of RTM RMC directors using Trust receive proactive support with organising or attending AGM or directors’ meetings, while no one has commented on the assistance available from Urang, Prime, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
AGMs need more than attendance on the day:
AGM and directors’ meeting support is a practical test of how closely a managing agent works with RTM and RMC directors. Meetings are where budgets, maintenance plans, compliance updates, leaseholder questions, and major decisions need to be organised clearly.
Our data only relates to Trust, and the result is strong. Among those who gave an opinion, 100% said Trust provides proactive support with organising or attending AGMs or directors’ meetings. Proactive support is important because directors should not have to chase the managing agent for papers, updates, attendance, or follow-up actions.
(name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins) “Strong relationships are built through regular communication and meaningful engagement. We recognise the importance of AGMs and directors’ meetings as opportunities to provide clarity, answer questions, and help clients make informed decisions about their buildings.”
The comparison table gives a narrower public signal. Urang, Prime, and Encore are listed as likely yes for company secretarial support, such as AGM filing and minutes. Trust, Principle Management, and Wilson Hawkins are not publicly stated on this point. Trust is not publicly listed for this support in the table, but the direct feedback points to a stronger picture in practice.
How satisfied are RTM RMC directors with their provider management service?
100% of RTM RMC directors using Urang are very dissatisfied with the block management service they receive, while no opinions were forthcoming about Prime, Trust, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins
Satisfaction is built or broken in the daily details
Overall satisfaction is usually built from repeated day-to-day experiences, not one single interaction. RTM and RMC directors are judging whether issues are acknowledged, maintenance progresses, information is clear, financial reporting arrives when needed, and the managing agent follows through after decisions are made.
The available opinion data comes from Urang users, and the result is stark. Among those opinions, 100% said they were very dissatisfied with Urang’s overall management service. A previous Wilson Hawkins article on Block Management Company Communications With Residents helps explain one part of that wider service picture, with 100% of people living in flats dissatisfied with how complaints or issues were communicated or resolved. It also found that 76% were either very or somewhat dissatisfied with the level of detail in communications.
Poor overall satisfaction rarely comes from one weak touchpoint. It tends to build when people feel issues, updates, and explanations are not being handled clearly enough.
“Client satisfaction remains at the heart of everything we do, and at Wilson Hawkins, we focus on delivering a responsive, transparent, and consistently high standard of service that ensures leaseholders and residents feel supported and confident in the management of their property.” (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
How likely are RTM RMC directors to recommend their provider?
65% of RTM RMC directors using Prime would lean towards recommending their provider to another RTM or RMC director, and absolutely 1% would recommend them, but 33% are not very likely to recommend Prime, and 1% would not recommend, while Urang, Trust, Encore, Principle Management, or Wilson Hawkins were not mentioned
Unreserved recommendations are hard to earn:
“As one of the longest-established block management firms in the area, we understand that recommendations are earned over time. We believe trust comes from combining traditional values such as personal service and accountability with modern systems that deliver efficient, reliable support.” – (name) (designation at Wilson Hawkins)
Recommendation is a higher bar than satisfaction because RTM and RMC directors are putting their own judgement behind another provider’s appointment. They are unlikely to recommend a managing agent unless they feel the service is reliable enough to stand up to another director’s scrutiny.
Prime’s available opinion data leans towards recommendation, but with clear caution. A total of 65% were leaning towards recommending Prime to another RMC or RTM director. This may indicate users see enough value to consider Prime a viable option, but still have caveats about fit, consistency, or how well the service would transfer to another block.
Only 1% absolutely would recommend Prime, while 33% were not very likely to recommend, and 1% would not recommend. The gap between leaning and absolute recommendation may come down to whether users feel Prime can deliver consistently across communication, issue handling, compliance, reporting, and follow-through.
Practical comparisons lead to better management decisions
The strongest lesson from our data is that block management comparisons are rarely decided by one feature alone. RTM and RMC directors judge providers through the full service experience, including clear responsibility, reliable information, practical support, and consistent follow-through.
Public information can show what each provider says it offers, but the lived experience can be more complicated. A side-by-side comparison gives directors a better way to look beyond surface-level claims and focus on the practical details that make a managing agent easier to trust.
About the data
Sourced using Artios from an independent sample of 16,629 opinions of RTM RMC Directors in the UK across X, Quora, Reddit, Bluesky, TikTok, and Threads. Responses are collected within a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error. Results are derived from what people describe online, from opinions expressed online, not actual questions answered by people in the sample.