For many freeholders, Resident Management Companies (RMCs), and resident directors, the idea of changing managing agents during a live remediation programme might feel counterintuitive or even dangerous.
Whether a building is progressing through the Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS), a Developer Pledge remediation route, or works have already begun on site, the concern is the same:
“If we change agent now, will everything fall apart?”
This is an understandable fear; however, in reality, changing managing agent during remediation is not a risk. And In many cases, it could be the safest and most stabilising decision for your building.
Why Might You Want to Change Managing Agents Mid-Remediation?
There are a number of reasons freeholders and Resident Management Companies (RMCs) may feel the need to change managing agents part-way through a remediation project.
Most commonly, this decision is driven by underlying operational issues such as:
- Inefficient or inconsistent day-to-day management.
- A lack of specialist remediation or building safety expertise within the managing agent’s team.
- Poor accounts and financial management, including weak service charge control or reporting.
Each of these factors is critical, not only to the success of the remediation programme itself, but to the long-term stability, safety, and financial health of the building.
When these fundamentals are not working, remediation projects are more likely to stall, governance weakens, and risk is likely to increase over time.
The Fear That Keeps Buildings Stuck
We regularly speak to building owners and directors who are unhappy with their current managing agent but feel trapped because a remediation project is underway.
Some of the common concerns are:
- “We might lose government funding.”
- “We might be removed from the Developer Pledge programme.”
- “We’ll have to start approvals again.”
- “We’ll disrupt the contractor or developer.”
- “What if it makes things worse?”
The result?
- Buildings remain with underpowered or overstretched agents.
- Weak governance and poor delivery control.
- The project is delayed as a key decision drift arises.
- Leaseholder trust collapses.
- Financial, Legal and Safety Risk rises.
Doing nothing can feel safer than change, but during remediation, inaction is often the greatest risk of all.
The Key Truth: Funding Attaches to the Building – Not the Agent
This is the single most important fact to understand:
Government funding and developer remediation commitments attach to the building and the accountable entity, not the managing agent.
That means:
- Changing managing agent does not invalidate CSS funding.
- It does not remove a building from a Developer Pledge commitment.
- It does not reset technical approvals.
- It does not restart the clock.
These programmes are tied to:
- The freeholder or accountable entity.
- The building’s eligibility.
- The approved scope of works.
The managing agent is not the beneficiary of funding, they are the delivery and governance mechanism.
What Happens During a Transition
A managing agent change during remediation can succeed or fail based on three key elements:
1. Continuity of Information
A successful transition depends on the complete and accurate transfer of information. This includes full handover of all technical data, clear and traceable audit trails, and reliable records covering approvals, agreed scopes of works, and key correspondence.
When information continuity is properly managed, remediation programmes continue without interruption or rework.
2. Quality of Governance
Strong governance ensures that decisions are made clearly, quickly, and with accountability. This means having well-defined decision-making structures in place, active risk management rather than reactive problem-solving, and robust reporting that keeps directors and leaseholders properly informed throughout the remediation journey.
3. Strong Delivery Control
Effective delivery control requires active oversight of developers, consultants, and contractors at every stage of the programme. Progress must be challenged where timelines drift, assumptions must be tested, and financial and contractual controls must be rigorously maintained. This level of scrutiny is essential to keeping remediation on track and protecting the building’s long-term interests.
If these improve, the remediation programme improves with them.
Why Specialist Operators Make the Difference
At Centrick, we are not a commodity managing agent. We operate where others struggle in complex, high-risk buildings undergoing remediation.
Our teams are:
- Embedded in government funding schemes across England and Wales.
- Actively managing buildings within CSS and Developer Pledge programmes.
- Working with most major residential developers and remediation delivery partners.
- Experienced in live remediation procurement, contract management, and on-site delivery.
- Able to work with existing information from previously managed works and fill in the gaps.
We understand:
- How funding bodies actually operate.
- How developers structure remediation programmes.
- Where projects commonly fail – and how to stabilise them.
- That expertise doesn’t disrupt remediation. It protects it.
Our teams work with the previous agents from the moment notice is served, allowing plenty of time to understand their process to date, and gather all the necessary information. This ensures a smooth transition and the ability to continue works quickly.
Final Thought: Why Remediation Is Too Important to Rush. It Must Be Done Right
- If your building is already in remediation and something doesn’t feel right, that instinct matters.
- The goal isn’t to simply survive the process. It’s to deliver safe buildings, restore trust, and reduce long-term risk.
- Changing managing agent during remediation isn’t a risk, and when handled properly, it’s often the most responsible decision a board can make.
Want to learn more about how our Building Safety services can help you with remediation projects and more? Enquire today using the form below!
