Part 5 - Regulation of Estate Management Section 92: Criteria for determining whether to make an appointment order
Section 92 sets out the criteria and grounds on which the appropriate tribunal may make an order to appoint a substitute manager.
	Subsection (1) clarifies that the appropriate tribunal may not make an appointment order in relation to an estate manager if the estate manager is specified, or is of a description specified, in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	Subsection (2) sets out the conditions the tribunal must be satisfied with before making an appointment order. These conditions are that: it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case; and either those circumstances include those set out in subsection (3), or there are other circumstances that make it just and convenient for the order to be made.
	Subsection (3) provides detail of the circumstances the tribunal may consider in subsection (2). These are that: (a) the estate manager is in breach of an obligation in relation to the dwelling, or in the case of an obligation dependent on notice, would be in breach of the obligation but for the fact that it has not been reasonably practicable to give the estate manager the appropriate notice; (b) an estate management charge or administration charge payable or likely to be payable is unreasonable; (c) the estate manager has failed to comply with a relevant provision of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under Section 87 of the LRHUDA 1993; and (d) the estate manager has breached regulations under Section 100 of the Act).
	Subsection (4) sets out that an estate management charge may be taken to be unreasonable under subsection (3) (b) if: (a) the amount is unreasonable having regard to the items for which it is payable; (b) the items for which it is payable are of an unnecessarily high standard; or (c) the items for which it is payable are of an insufficient standard with the result that additional charges are or may be incurred.
	Subsection (5) provides that the appropriate tribunal may make an appointment order despite the fact that: a period specified in a final warning notice was not a reasonable period; or a final warning notice otherwise failed to comply with a requirement under Section (91(4)).
	Subsection (6) requires that any statutory instrument containing regulations under this Section is subject to the negative procedure.