Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents’ Association is Derecognised by Berkeley Homes – and why it matters

In February 2023, CBWRA was given 6 months’ notice by the main CBW freeholder (Berkeley Homes) that they would be derecognised. Despite that notice period, CBWA have not been able to satisfy Berkeley Homes that they meet the conditions for recognition and on 1st September 2023 Berkeley Homes withdrew their recognition of CBWRA, but residents were not told about this until at nearly 6 weeks later in September 2023 committee meeting notes (distributed on 11th October 2023) which are emailed to leaseholders only and which few people read (a fact which, in my view, CBWRA rely on). No mention of derecognition of CBWRA was made on the CBW app (obviously that might lead to a discussion or questions being asked of the CBWRA committee and we don’t want that, do we?)

Contradictory statements about the value of recognition

The previous Chair, Mr Thompson, seemed to think that recognition of CBWRA was his greatest achievement (even though CBWRA had been given notice of derecognition while he was still Chair , in February 2023). At the AGM in April 2023 the ‘outgoing Chair’ Mr Thompson spoke about ”key achievements in 2022” with CBWRA recognition being top of the list. Mr Thompson claimed that:

”the RA is here to represent the views of residents and help to achieve on our behalf the key objectives. In order to achieve this, the RA needs to be legally recognised. This has been achieved as the RA now has full recognition from all the landlords across the estate. This is required in order for the RA to be able to access data/information regarding the service charge, or contribute to discussions regarding expenditure such as maintenance, retenders etc’‘. (CBWRA AGM, April 2023).

Many committee members have also claimed on the CBW app that recognition by Berkeley Homes was of the utmost importance.

These claims are somewhat in contrast with CBWRA now claiming that the derecognition will make little or no difference (”Although voluntary formal recognition would give the RA certain rights, in practice, this had not happened” – September 2023 committee meeting notes) .

The Electoral smear campaign and distraction tactics

In my view, CBWRA were afraid that this notice of derecognition (which was served in February 2023, during the Chair elections) would reflect badly on them, and might effect the electoral chances of Louis Sebastian Kendall and Larisa Villar Hauser, who were members of the committee which had allowed this to happen. In order to deflect attention from their impending derecognition, members of the CBWRA committee engaged in a tacky attempt to smear the author of this blog (Michael O’Driscoll, who was also a candidate in the Chair elections) by claiming that I was somehow responsible for their derecognition. It was falsely claimed by CBWRA committee members on the CBW app that I had been in touch with Berkeley Homes ‘recently’ to try and bring this derecognition about, and this claim was repeated by the former Chair at the electoral meeting of candidates and residents in February 2023 (although this attempt to smear me was recognised by many residents who forced him to desist).

In fact Berkeley Homes confirmed to me in February 2023 that the notice of derecognition of CBWRA was nothing to do with me and was due to the fact that CBWRA could not demonstrate that they had at least 50% of leaseholders as members , which is a key criteria for recognition.

Berkeley Homes have also mentioned other violations of the constitution by CBWRA which would justify derecognition but have not specified what these are.

Other claims were made by the CBWRA committee during the election, in relation to Berkeley Homes, which Berkeley Homes deny and would seem to be untrue (particularly that Berkeley Homes were planning to retender the management contract). CBWRA also claimed that their attempt to retender the management contract was current or live in February 2023 when in fact on their own admission (committee meeting notes) it had permanently failed in September 2022.

In my view, what links all of the above is an attempt to i) distract from CBWRA’s impending derecognition ii) distract from the wasted time and money regarding the ‘management contact retendering’ which CBWRA undertook in 2022, rather than pursuing Right to Manage which CBWRA told us, up to quarter 4 of 2022 was not possible iii) to try to smear me for the purposes of electoral advantage.

This was in fact only one small part of a smear campaign against me by CBWRA committee which included absurd claims that I was ”well known to the Police” and that I had a ‘history of misleading residents” and a daily barrage of false allegations and character assassination on the CBW app during the election period. That’s before we get onto the electoral ‘intervention’ which CBWRA invited Chris Garston of Garton-Jones estate agents to make and the fact that Larisa Villar Hauser and Louis Sebastian Kendall pooled their votes by standing as joint candidates, in clear violation of the constitution. Racist abuse directed at me by a resident (asking if I was linked to ”Irish terrorism”) was also allowed to remain on the CBW app for at least 48 hours. I was not able to respond to any of this as my CBW app account was closed in May 2022 for highlighting that Right to Manage WAS possible and that CBWRA were misinforming residents in saying that Right to Manage was not possible. Mr Kendall states (unconvincingly) that the fact that my CBW app account was closed did not give electoral advantage as he and Larisa ”did not campaign on the app”.

CBWRA ask Rendall and Ritter to reinstate automatic fee deduction to ”assist their cause”

Further, it has recently emerged (emails which I have seen between CBWRA and Rendall and Rittner) that in January 2023, shortly before the Chair elections, a member of the CBWRA committee apparently asked Rendall and Rittner to reintroduce automatic collection of CBWRA membership fees from the service charge (the withdrawal of which had severely reduced CBWRA’s income) because the committee were aware that ”MOD was likely to run as chair” and the CBWRA committee ”needs funds to assist their cause”. Rendall and Rittner did not grant CBWRA’s request but what exactly did CBWRA hope to do with such funds if they had obtained them?. The use of any CBWRA funds to assist any candidate in an election (or to hinder another candidate in any way) would have been in contravention of the constitution and wholly inappropriate, so it would be useful for CBWRA to clarify what they meant by ”assist their cause”. in relation to me standing for Chair.

Where were the so called oversight committee?

The constitution states that Chair elections are conducted by a so-called ‘oversight committee’ (none of whom have been elected either to the main committee or the oversight committee. According to the constitution, this ‘oversight committee’ is composed of the Secretary (at the time this was Catherine Thome), the Treasurer (Toby Spoerer) and the former treasurer (Charlie Garton-Jones). Since this committee apparently have responsibility for conducting the elections, why did they do nothing to stop the blatant violation of the CBW app guidelines by the numerous viscous and personal attacks on me during the election as well as the various other ”irregularities” including the violation of the constitution through a joint candidacy and the ”intervention” of Chris Garston of Garton-Jones estate agents.?

Why does this matter?

This matters because it shows that certain members of the CBWRA committee have, in my view (and as I have documented) a history of making claims of very dubious validity and not just on trivial matters. It also shows that residents have to work extremely hard to find out what is really going on. I think I have shown fairly clearly that the CBWRA Chair elections in 2023 were conducted in a way which was an extremely long way from fair and that there were no checks or balances in place to ensure that the constitution was adhered to and that the elections were conducted fairly and appropriately. What is to prevent this happening in the future? Nothing at all, and that is why this matters.

”Putting aside differences”

The CBWRA committee state (notes from SGM September 2023) that ”The CBWRA committee
wish to put differences aside from previous years and unite upon common goals’‘ but as with so much else that emanates from the CBWRA committee, this sounds like hollow corporate PR waffle, wholly lacking in authenticity. What have CBWRA actually done to resolve the ‘differences of previous years?” Have they recognised their mistakes and apologised for misinforming residents for two years that RTM was not possible? Have they stopped online bullying on the CBW app and apologised to current and past victims of it? Have they apologised to me for closing my CBW app account and admitted that I was right about RTM? Have they rejected the culture of the previous Chair and tried to engage with residents in an open and democratic way, and allowing all views to be heard? have they apologised for the misconduct of the Chair elections? No of course not because, in my view, there is no desire to resolve differences but only to ‘put them aside’ (to use their own language) i.e. to ignore or suppress them.

Right to Manage is only half the battle
A committee and Chairs which never have to seek a mandate from residents in a fair election are unaccountable and have no incentive to be responsive to the wishes of residents and can continue to do pretty much as they want , especially given that discussion on the CBW app is strongly discouraged and criticising the committee is virtually impossible. If CBW leaseholders are to regain control of their money and to have a meaningful say in important decisions, we cannot go on like this. Right to Manage is important but unless we have honesty, transparency, genuine consultation and accountability then we will be no better off. In short CBWRA needs to behave like a normal residents’ association.