July 18, 2024

Israel Moskovitz fails – again – to appeal against the Regent Court right to manage

Regent Court in Plymouth, has been the scene of an epic RTM battle with freeholder Israel Moskovitz

Regent Court in Plymouth, has been the scene of an epic RTM battle with freeholder Israel Moskovitz

An attempt by freeholder Israel Moskovitz to appeal against the granting of right to manage to Regent Court has been turned down by the Court of Appeal.

Israel Moskovitz, who owns Avon Freeholds, applied for leave to appeal to the superior court after his appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) failed in August.

Regent Court, a private retirement complex of 39 flats in Plymouth, won their original right to manage application in February 2012, but it has been frustrated and delayed by legal manoeuvring ever since.

After losing his request for leave to appeal on November 8, a final throw of the dice for Israel Moskovitz would be to ask the Court of Appeal for an oral hearing. But that would be an expensive way of continuing the dispute, that was emphatically closed by the Upper Tribunal.

Nonetheless, Moskovitz’s legal advisors can congratulate themselves for clever stratagems that have frustrated the pensioners’ from exercising their right to manage for nearly two years.

Feelings are strong on the issue, with Israel Moskovitz and his business associate Joseph Gurvits, who manages the site through the ARMA-registered Y and Y Management, accusing the RTM supporters of “bully-boy” tactics.

They also deeply resent the involvement of the Right To Manage Federation – a commercial RTM facilitator headed by Dudley Joiner – in promoting the residents’ cause.

Moskovitz / Gurvits see Joiner as a commercial rival with whom they have clashed before in the property tribunals and have accused the pensioner directors of the RTM company of having “vested interests”.

Joseph Gurvits, of Y and Y Management, sent the following statement to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation in August:

The Freeholder expresses the following views

1. The legal issue of the appeal is a matter the Freeholder and his legal advisers feel that it has wider implications in many arrears of law. The Freeholder is following his legal advice on this point of law. 

2. The Freeholder has been advised by the Property Manager Elena [Andreadis] (who you are free to speak to ) regarding leaseholders who feel intimated and bullied and who do not understand why and what they have signed for in the RTM process.

These silent leaseholders explain that they have to live with these people and the bully boy Directors are pushing and they don’t wish to speak up or fight.

These leaseholders do say that they are very happy with the management currently and do not really see the benefit of RTM. The Freeholder is worried that several leaseholders with vested interests will actually take over only looking after themselves and their own interests.

The Freeholder has no problem in change of Management Company providing it is done of the benefit of all without any underhanded motives.

At present this is driven by self-interested people.



  1. So Moskovitz / Gurvits are NOT self interested people? I wouldn’t trust them and Regents Court are well shot of them, but I fear the handover, when it eventually happens, will be a shambles. Will any “decent” agent want to take over from this despicable pair?

    I fear Regents Court is not yet out of the woods. Will they attempt t change their legal costs against the leaseholder prior to handing over the management?