Flex at Breaking Point: What Went Down at
FATC's Latest Live Panel Debate

"Pinning the Tail on The Donkey": Managed

Few concepts in the flex market are as hotly contested right now as the term “managed.” Whilst Justin pointed to Workthere’s data, showing that 78% of Central London briefs under 5,000 sq ft in 2024 requested managed or fitted space (pointing to clear demand), the definition itself remains anything but settled.

Luke Philpott, whose business sits squarely in the managed sector, argued that occupiers aren’t necessarily chasing “managed” as a concept in itself - they are responding to a backdrop of ongoing uncertainty in the flex industry. “When businesses are faced with risk and they’re concerned about making long-term decisions, the only thing they look for is flexibility.”

For Luke, managed space is part of a wider market correction away from rigid, traditional leasing models. “I feel like we’re really fortunate to work and provide clients with flexible leasing solutions rather than the institutional leasing solutions that, you go back 20, 30 years, that’s all that was on offer.”

He also set out the customer profile which MADE is built for. That is, fast-growing businesses that want an identity, but none of the headache of actually running an office day to day. “At some point, often, they look for their own front door… but they don’t want the buggeration of having to go and employ an office manager and then stand up all of those facilities management services themselves.”

Daniel Howard, however, challenged the idea that “managed” is anything new: “The managed market is actually very old. They were doing it 15 years ago, 20 years ago. I think it’s a term that’s used a lot and probably has different meanings to different people.” Indeed, “managed” has become an umbrella term that covers just about everything, from fitted leases and outsourced facilities management, to landlord-run products, self-contained serviced spaces, and full lease models layered with operational extras.

Johnny Bray steered the discussion back to what he maintains is the main concern: the occupier. “The model that the operator has doesn’t really matter to the end user. What matters to the end user is the service.” Ron concurred, asserting that the industry spends too much time talking to itself, when it should be listening to what it is that clients actually want. “It’s less about the model itself, it’s actually about the client - how do we fill the spaces? What is the end user interested in?”

Emily, meanwhile, argued that occupiers may not care much about the model on day one - but the consequences can quickly become visible later if it results in corners being cut or underinvestment creeping in. “Does the customer care? No. But they do have a knock-on effect on the customer because you start to underinvest in that building.”

As Luke later put it, the market needs “some sort of homogeneity around the use of the word managed” - because whilst the industry keeps adding labels, occupiers are simply looking for a workplace that delivers. “At the moment, it’s like pinning the tail on a donkey in terms of the different variations of ‘managed’… they can’t compare apples for apples, or the apples are labelled oranges.”

The Accountability Gap in Flex: Who owns the risk?

The most heated moment of the night came when the debate turned to responsibility, regulation, and professional standards - a topic which sparked a sharp back-and-forth between panellists that quickly became the talk of the evening. 

The flashpoint came when Luke turned to repairing obligations and lease structures within managed agreements, before cutting through the nuance with a downright blunt take: “If there’s a broker or an agent who’s being paid a fortune… Am I supposed to negotiate the entire heads of terms? I’m not being paid for it. That is so obviously not my role.”

After all, MADE operates as outsourced facilities management rather than tenant representation or legal advice. He added that if a broker or adviser is being paid to negotiate the lease, then that responsibility sits squarely with them. This, however, did not sit right with Daniel Howard, who pushed back hard, interjecting: “I think that attitude across the commercial sector as a whole, is a major issue.”

The exchange laid bare a deeper fault line running through the industry: where does responsibility actually start - and end - in today’s increasingly blurred flex ecosystem? For Daniel, that mindset is precisely what’s pushing the industry into risky territory, especially where occupiers aren’t always clear on who is advising them, who is representing them, and who is simply delivering a service.

So, he outlined the crux of the problem: regulation,  arguing that responsibility sits across the board, fallen upon agents, landlords, brokers, operators and advisers alike. “It comes down to regulation. I think there’s a big part of the industry that needs an element of regulation. If you’re offering advice, an element of you should be regulated.”

Dan asserted, “you’ve got a professional obligation to act professionally. And if you don't feel like that, then you really you shouldn't be advising anyone on any form”. To which, Luke comically clapped back: “I’m a charter surveyor, Dan.” 

This pinnacle in the panel captured the fault line at the heart of the debate - professional standards, responsibility and regulation have the potential to blur in an industry that is still defining its own rules. And if Daniel’s frustration was directed at the industry’s lack of accountability, Johnny Bray’s was aimed squarely at operators themselves.

Turning the conversation onto independent broker behaviour, Johnny openly criticised the flex world for continuing to tolerate tactics that the sector privately complains about. “In every meeting I have, poor broker behaviour comes up as a key issue”, namely, the ever-discussed antics of so-called “bedroom brokers.”

He described operators being squeezed into accepting inflated fees at the eleventh hour, often under the implied threat of losing the deal entirely: “Brokers coming in asking for increased fees at the last minute, saying, ‘If you don’t pay me an increased fee, I will make sure my client doesn’t come to your building.’”

But rather than solely blaming brokers, Johnny challenged operators directly for allowing the behaviour to continue unchecked, drawing the audience’s attention once again, to the crux of the conversation: regulation. “You’re all having the same conversations, you’re all having the same issues. The bad behaviour still goes on.”

His message was blunt: operators have more leverage than they think and they simply are not using it. “You’re the ones ultimately paying the fees. You’re the ones who are in control.”

Flex’s Next Frontier: Data and Standards

As the evening drew to a close, Justin put the final question to the panel: “What does the flex industry need to do differently?” Emily didn’t hesitate - her answer came back in a single word: data. “We need to standardise our KPIs, our reporting and our data and share it.”

For her, the message was clear: If the sector wants to attract serious capital and mature as a market, it needs to move beyond fragmented metrics and finally agree on what ‘good’ performance actually looks like. Daniel brought the conversation back to regulation, reiterating that professional standards are “no longer optional”  if the sector is serious about maturing.

Johnny turned our attention back to “broker discipline”, urging operators to be more assertive in pushing against poor behaviour - even when it comes at the cost of a potential lead. Inevitably, Luke called for more clarity around the term “managed”, concluding that the current ambiguity is confusing landlords, brokers and occupiers alike.

Ron’s closing point was perhaps the simplest, and the most human: “The most important thing is to truly, honestly and very carefully listen to the end user, to our clients”. For him, the industry still wastes too much capital building the wrong product, only to bring in operators later to fix what should have been considered from the start.

“I’ve seen millions of pounds being invested in real estate in the wrong way, which then we need to come save… just by doing the simple thing: ask the client, how can I help? What is it that you truly need and want? And do that for them.”

So Where Does Flex Go Next?

The evening made one thing clear: Flex isn’t losing relevance - in fact, it’s becoming more deeply embedded in how businesses approach real estate. But relevance alone doesn’t equal resilience.

The sector is grappling with rising costs, uncertain rates exposure, flat desk pricing, blurred product definitions, intense landlord competition, opaque data, and a growing push for greater professionalism. Yet despite this, occupiers continue to move decisively toward flexibility, service, experience, and simplicity.

Perhaps Emily summed up the future of flex best when asked what she would say to landlords about the industry: “In five years’ time, we won’t be talking about flex. I think we’ll just be talking about ways to lease an office.” Flex is no longer the disruptor on the edge of the market. It is becoming part of the market itself.

But as the lines continue to blur, the industry has a choice: define itself properly, price itself properly and professionalise - or let the market do the disciplining for it. Either way, if the evening’s debate proved anything, it is that flex is not short of appetite for a fight.

To keep up to date with our exclusive industry events, subscribe to our ever-growing community here.