Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents’ Association – nothing to show for £15,000 of residents’ money – no apologies, no resignations

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 Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents’ Association (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 (which I believe is equal to the Lion’s share of a whole years’ CBWRA 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. In my opinion this is a huge waste of residents’ cash. No announcement, apology or explanation was given – it was just buried in a ‘transcript’ of the meeting, which they may hope 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 any real chance of success. It is also worth noting that CBWRA have misled residents by calling this process ‘Right to Manage’ when it had nothing at all to do with Right to Manage.

The Announcement of the management contract rendering in January 2021 in which CBWRA misinform residents that a Right to Manage process initiated’ (this process has nothing whatever to do with Right to Manage) and my comment on it at the time ‘Rendall and Rittner will remain in place at the end of this process’:


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, my be seen by many residents as a huge waste of residents’ money (up to £15,000 was paid to the CBWRA consultant, Roger Southam).

Empty promises
CBWRA and their consultant Mr Roger Southam made 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 to residents). Unsurprisingly, they were unable to do so. ‘Self Management’ is a nonsense, which never stood a meaningful chance of succeeding.

Given that such a large sum of residents’ money has been wasted on a process which had such a low chance of success, and which Mr Thompson and Mr Garton-Jones assured residents was a cheaper and quicker alternative to Right to Manage, I think their apologies and resignations would be appropriate. Then there is the fact that this process was described as ‘Right to Manage’ when it had nothing at all to do with Right to Manage. Why was it claimed that the retendering WAS ‘Right to Manage?’ and why was this claim not corrected i even though I pointed out that it was wrong on the day it was published, in January 2022? To this day no correction or apology has been issued as far as I am aware. Residents must draw their own conclusions about that.