TPI Level 3 Associate Exam in Leasehold Management common mistakes
TPI Level 3 Associate Exam in Leasehold Management · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating a service charge cost as valid because it was actually incurred, without separately testing whether the amount is reasonable.
Candidates merge the two statutory limbs of reasonableness and assume a receipted invoice automatically satisfies the test; exam scenarios often include an incurred but excessive cost.
What to do instead
State both tests separately: the cost must be reasonably incurred and the works or services must be of a reasonable standard, with the amount also reasonable. Apply each limb to the scenario facts and say what evidence the landlord would need.
Applying the consultation thresholds to the total cost of a works project rather than to each leaseholder's contribution.
The figures are commonly misremembered or applied at building level, so candidates miss that the trigger is the amount payable by any one leaseholder.
What to do instead
Memorise the per-leaseholder thresholds for qualifying works and qualifying long-term agreements, then in every scenario calculate the contribution attributable to a single leaseholder before deciding whether consultation is required.
Recommending forfeiture as the immediate response to service charge arrears.
Forfeiture is a familiar remedy and sounds decisive, but candidates overlook the preconditions, court involvement and the risk of relief from forfeiture.
What to do instead
Set out a proportionate recovery sequence: demand and reminder, statement of account, payment plan, debt recovery action, and only then consider forfeiture with the required notice and court oversight.
Reading the lease only for the service charge percentage and ignoring the demise, repairing covenants, reservations and permissions.
Candidates focus on the numerical clause they expect to calculate and fail to identify who is obliged to do what, which is usually the decisive issue in the scenario.
What to do instead
Use a fixed lease-reading checklist: parties, demise, duration, rent and service charge, repairing obligations, alterations and permissions, insurance, forfeiture and dispute provisions. Apply the checklist before answering.
Confirming that a service charge demand is valid without checking that the statutory summary of rights and obligations accompanies it and that inspection and audit rights are addressed.
Candidates concentrate on the arithmetic and forget the accompanying information requirements, so they approve an otherwise correct demand that is not fully compliant.
What to do instead
Add a demand-validity check to every service charge answer: correct payee and address, period covered, summary of rights and obligations, and the leaseholder's inspection and audit rights.
Treating a fire risk assessment as sufficient to discharge all building safety duties in a higher-risk building.
Fire risk assessment is the best-known safety tool, so candidates assume it covers the building safety regime and omit the accountable person's additional duties.
What to do instead
Separate the regimes in the answer: general fire safety duties, the fire risk assessment process, and the additional higher-risk building duties including registration, safety case management and resident engagement.
Misidentifying a building as higher-risk by using the number of floors alone or ignoring the residential-unit condition.
Candidates half-remember the height or storey test and apply only one element, which changes the whole compliance route.
What to do instead
State the full test and apply it explicitly: height or storey threshold plus the required number of residential units, then identify the accountable person and the resulting duties.
Advising a leaseholder to withhold service charges as a way to force resolution of a dispute.
Withholding feels like leverage, but candidates overlook the arrears and forfeiture risk and the correct dispute routes.
What to do instead
Explain that payment should continue while the dispute is pursued, identify the correct route such as the tribunal or redress scheme, and set out how a payment plan or protective arrangement can be used.
Giving verbal assurances or making decisions without confirming them in writing with timescales and reasons.
Candidates treat communication as soft skills and focus only on the legal conclusion, missing that an undocumented decision creates later dispute risk.
What to do instead
Build a written-record habit into every answer: acknowledge the issue, state the decision and reasons, give the next step and deadline, and record the communication on the file.
Instructing contractors for repairs or major works without first checking the lease, the delegated authority and the budget provision.
Candidates respond to the maintenance problem in isolation and skip the governance steps that make the instruction valid and chargeable.
What to do instead
Before recommending an instruction, confirm the obligation exists under the lease, the managing agent has authority, the procurement route is compliant, and the cost is provided for in the service charge budget or reserve.