Retendering the management contract – How it started – and how it’s going (spoiler alert – it has, predictably, failed)

I thought I would give an update regarding the retendering of the management contract and related issues as no clear information has been provided by CBWRA and apparently no scrutiny discussion or criticism of Mr Thompson or the committee is permitted on the CBW app. I am setting down a few thoughts here, especially in relation to the September CBWRA committee meeting,  which you may or may not find interesting food for thought.
 

Retendering the management contract – How it started – and  how it’s going

Failure of retendering the management contract
You may be aware that in January of this year the CBWRA committee decided to pursue retendering of the management contract (rather than right to manage, as I was proposing). This decision was made without any consultation with residents and has cost up to £15,000 of residents’ money (RA subscription fees) which have been paid to Roger Southam, a consultant employed by CBWRA. CBWRA have confirmed (see ‘transcription’ from September CBWRA committee meeting) that this process (retendering the management contact) has failed. No announcement, apology or explanation was given– it is just buried in a ‘transcript’ of the meeting, which few will read, and I have therefore provided a summary here with my ‘take’ on recent  developments.

The failure of the management contract retendering is not an unexpected outcome from my point of view – in fact it’s pretty much exactly what I predicted on the  day this process was announced (17 January 2022). See screenshot from CBW app below. In fact the process did not even get to the stage where bids from other managing agents could be considered. This is because the process which was used relied entirely on the VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION of Berkeley Homes and therefore never stood much chance of success. Also worth noting that CBWRA misinformed residents by calling this process ‘Right to Manage’ when it had nothing at all to do with Right to Manage. This was not corrected even after I pointed the matter out so it seems unlikely it was an error.


The Announcement of the management contract rendering in January  2021 and my comment on it at the time:




It was never likely that that Berkeley Homes were going to allow a situation in which the contract was retendered as this would almost certainly lead to Rendall and Rittner being replaced (the vast majority of residents are dissatisfied with Rendall and Rittner). Berkeley Homes and Rendall and Rittner have a close relationship and BH have appointed Rendall and Rittner to a large proportion of their developments across England. Therefore to proceed with this process, with a such a low chance of success, was a huge waste of residents’ money (somewhere between £7,500 and £15,000 was paid to the CBWRA consultant, Roger Southam).

Empty promises
CBWRA (Stephen Thompson and Charlie Garton-Jones) and their  consultant Mr Roger Southam made what now seem extravagant promise about what the retendering the management contract would mean. These included:

– That the process would be quicker and cheaper than Right to Manage ‘’and essentially provide the same result.’’(Charlie Garton-Jones, January 2022) 

– That we would get a new managing agent by June 2022  (Roger Southam/CBWRA)

– That residents could achieve the right to ‘self manage’ i.e. commission and control services (Mr Stephen Thompson/ CBWRA newsletter May 2022)
https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/cbwra-newletter-23.5.22.pdf

I have asked Mr Southam and CBWRA if they could identify a single example anywhere in the UK where ‘self management’ has occurred (i.e. freeholders voluntarily handing over the Right to Manage go residents). Unsurprisingly, they were unable to do so. ‘Self Management’ is a nonsense, a distraction, which was never going to happen.

Right to Manage for the whole development is the only way forward
So why did CBWRA not use the Right to Manage process, rather than this doomed process of ‘retendering the management contract’?. Well Mr Thompson has claimed it was because of a Supreme Court judgement (First Port V Settlers Court) which he claims means that Right to Manage organisations cannot get control of estate (communal external areas). This is wholly incorrect as independent advice from Canonbury Estate Management  shows. The judgement of First Port v Settlers Court has NO RELEVANCE AT ALL to Chelsea Bridge Wharf . Here is an extract from Canonbury’s advice and the link to the full letter is below

‘’In the case of CBW, this supreme court determination is irrelevant. The car park spans under every building on the CBW estate and as such, the RTM will take over all buildings and shared grounds of the whole estate’’
Link to full letter from Canonbury Estate Management
https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/canonbury-summary-advice-1.6.22-correspondence-1522672.pdf

The September CBWRA committee meeting notes repeat this absurd claim that the judgement of First Port v Settlers Court means that   

‘’leaseholders only have a right to manage the buildings and not the estate’’. This is categorically wrong and is in fact total nonsense. The judgement only applies to developments where there is a) more than one right to manage organisation or b) where a right  to manage organisation takes  over some of the blocks and the rest remain managed by the freeholder.  

Therefore in my view CBWRA has misinformed residents about Right to Manage, continues to do so and has chosen an option (retendering the management contract) which has failed and has, in my view, wasted up to £15,000 of residents’ money. In true Orwellian fashion Mr Stephen Thompson closed my CBWRA app account in May, bizarrely accusing me of misleading residents (no evidence provided, no process, no appeal). The irony is on an epic scale. This decision in reality had nothing to do with misleading residents – but the very opposite i.e. telling them the truth. Mr Thompson now claims (in a reply to a letter from my solicitor, 29.9.22) that my CBW app account was closed because of ‘politicisation’ of the platform (i.e. asking too many difficult questions/challenging the Chair / committee). This is a frank admission of the real reasons for closing my account (i.e. opposition / different views are not tolerated). Such is the state of democracy and governance in the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents’ Association.

CBWRA concede that there had been little or no improvement from Rendall and Rittner
In the September committee meeting there are frank admissions from committee members that there has been little or no improvement from Rendall and Rittner. I think this is completely in line what most residents think, but it is in stark contrast to the main claims frequently made by the Chair that Rendall and Rittner are improving and that somehow things have been transformed following the appointment of a new estate manager (Mr Klue).

Silencing opposition and refusing to consult
When was the last time CBW residents were asked their opinion by CBWRA? On Right to Manage or anything else? The answer is probably never as there have been no consultations with residents since January 2021 with the single exception of the Residents’ Survey which I carried out while on the committee, in August 2021. The findings of that survey have been totally ignored as far as I can tell.

I have drawn attention to the fact that my CBW app account was closed simply for stating that RTM was possible (which bizarrely was called ‘misinformation’) and ‘politicisation’ (!) of the platform and (on serval other occasions) it was claimed it was because of ‘resident complaints’ (these have never been produced, quantified or described). The September 2022 committee meeting notes show that CBWRA still have no intention of consulting with residents about Right to Manage and related issues – they are simply going to ‘consult’ themselves. As the notes also make clear the committee appear to have little idea what they are doing in relation to Right to Manage and related issues and are going round in circles. The one option which they should be discussing, and the only one which can work (i.e. a Right to Manage application for the whole development) is not being discussed. In any case ,whatever the way forward, RESIDENTS should be involved in making these decisions, not a wholly unelected and unaccountable ‘committee’. Many residents have told me that they are literally scared to criticise or challenge CBWRA on the CBW app for fear that they will be attacked/bullied online or have their account closed. This is not normal, it is not healthy.

A ‘’management audit’’ of Rendall and Rittner was promised in January but now will not happen
A ‘management  audit’ of  Rendall and Rittner was promised by CBWRA/Mr Thompson in January 2022 – as the September committee meeting notes make it clear that this had not even been started. Mr Thompson strongly resisted an audit of Rendall and Rittner’s service charge accounting throughout 2021. What will now be carried out (if it ever happens) is not a management audit (which includes assessment of the working practices, efficiency and value for money of the managing agent) but simply a quick examination of the accounts. Clearly a management audit will not now happen, so once more Rendall and Rittner escape serious scrutiny, and that has direct implications for our service charges.

Some myths about ‘purchasing the freehold’
It seems clear from an email I received from Mr Garton-Jones in December 2021 and the ‘CBWRA ‘newsletter’ in May that Mr Garton-Jones and Mr Thompson have made a decision to pursue purchasing the freehold of  CBW. That would allow residents to appoint a managing agent, as with Right to Manage. In my opinion, this is a big factor in why Right to Manage is not being pursued. Mr Thompson has stated on several occasions in committee meetings that he does not have particular expertise on Right to Manage and defers to Mr Garton-Jones on these matters. I am sure that is 100% true and in my opinion, the ‘policy’ of CBWRA on Right to Manage and related matters is very heavily influenced by Mr Garton-Jones. Mr Garton-Jones has never been elected to any position on the CBWRA committee to the best of  my knowledge (and resigned from it in January 2022). Exercising influence while being totally unaccountable to residents is in my view undemocratic and unacceptable.

Purchasing of the freehold may sound like a good idea but at the moment the freeholders (Berkeley Homes, Fairhold Artemis) are under no obligation to sell the freehold to residents and if they did it would cost tens of millions of pounds.

Mr Thompson and Mr Garton-Jones are apparently pinning their hopes (and yours) on legislative change around purchasing of freehold which independent experts (including CBWRA’s own advisor Mr Roger Southam) say is unlikely before 2025 (and that means it may not even happen in the current parliament, or at all). Even if these legislative changes came into effect (i.e. passed all readings in both houses) in 2025, that would only be the date at which we could START the process of purchasing the freehold.

So if CBWRA tell you that ‘the plan’ (i.e. Mr Thompson and Mr Garton-Jones’ plan) is to ‘buy the freehold’ they might be seen as insulting your intelligence because what buying the freehold really means is doing nothing for at two to three years, during which Rendall and Rittner and remain safely in place, with no possibility of being removed, free to hike service charges and deliver a poor service, and no incentive to improve. Again, residents should be involved in making these decisions but are being ignored.
 
The vote on options for the fountains (e.g.. filling some in ) which was promised for September has been quietly forgotten
The Residents’ Survey which  I carried  in August 2021 made it clear that the most popular idea regarding the fountains was to carry out a feasibility study and possibly fill in (gardenise) some of the fountains.  This was totally ignored and in fact Mr Thompson (CBWRA Chair) has in my view misrepresented  the findings by saying that the survey showed that most people were in favour of the status quo.  This only changed at the failed AGM in May 2022 when many residents  demanded that the fountains be filled in, in view of the endless cost of repairs and the electricity costs of the pumps. Mr Thompson then (a year too late) promised a feasibility study and a residents’ vote (in September 2022). I said at the AGM that this would be forgotten after the meeting and that indeed would seem to be the case as we are now in February 2023 and there is no sign of a feasibility study or a vote.

CBWRA are continuing to ignore their own constitution by making changes to it at the request of  Berkeley Homes, and not having these approved at an AGM
The September committee meeting transcript  mentions  that change have been made to the constitution  at the request of Berkeley Homes, It does not specify what these changes are. There has been zero consultation with residents on this, as with everything else. However the constitution is clear – it can only be changed at an Annual General Meeting, with at least 15% of CBWRA members present. So once again, CBWRA are ignoring their own constitution, as well as the residents.
 
I urge residents not to accept the information provided  by CBWRA regarding Right to Manage. I have provided independent  expert advice https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/canonbury-summary-advice-1.6.22-correspondence-1522672.pdf but please feel free to do your own research and you will find that that the supposed reason for not pursuing Right to Manage (First Port V Settler’s Court) has no relevance to Chelsea Bridge  Wharf.  

No expertise is required to understand this e.g. see 
https://www.ellisonssolicitors.com/news/the-supreme-court-on-the-right-to-manage-firstport-property-services-ltd-appellant-v-settlers-court-rtm-company-ltd/
It  is clear that the judgement only relates to situations where a right to manage company has taken over only PART of a development. It has no relevance to Right to Manage application for the WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. All blocks at Chelsea Bridge Wharf are linked by the  underground car park, and are therefore  not technically  separate.  

Therefore there could only be a single Right to Manage application for the whole development. In my view, CBWRA has just wasted a large sum of our money pursuing a futile option and is continuing to misinform residents that Right to Manage for the whole development is not possible, when the opposite is in fact the case.

As recently as May 2022 CBWRA were clearly saying RTM was not possible, but it now seems that after two years of saying RTM is not possible that CBWRA will now seek legal opinions about RTM options. If the leadership of CBWRA were serious about RTM why was that not done two years ago rather than simply insisting it was not possible? It seems the independent advice I obtained from Canonbury in June 2022 (which was called misinformation and was the supposed reason for closing my CBW app account) is not being used within the committee by those advocating for RTM. However, in my view, CBWRA will still not take RTM forward. There will be along delay in getting legal opinions and we as residents are used to these long silences and inaction. I predict that if the current leadership stays in place the most that will happen will be that a very small block (such as Horace, with 25 flats) will be subject to an RTM application and CBWRA will take the better part of 2023 to do that, and call it a ‘learning exercise’ so that at the end of 2023 95% of CBW will still be under the control of freeholders and with Rendall and Rittner still in place.

Are you as a resident OK with the fact that are we not allowed to discuss this on the CBW app? That are we not being consulted? If not please make your views known on the app, here on my blog or by contacting me directly.