The amazing CBWRA ‘electricity deal’ which may not exist – followed by the Amazing Building Safety Act costs ‘deal’ which may not involve CBWRA.

Summary: It would seem that CBWRA may be trying to take credit for work around electricity retendering and controlling Building Safety Act costs which was actually done by London and Quadrant Housing Association. CBWRA seem determined to play down the Building Safety Act costs for reasons which are not clear.

****

I submitted 3 motions to the CBWRA AGM which will take place on June 12th, 1-8.30pm (online). NB, You are apparently only welcome at this meeting if you are one of the very few leaseholders (140 out of 1,150 leaseholders) who are CBWRA members. One of these motions proposes that Rendall and Rittner’s £400,000 estimated cost for action in response to the Building Safety Act should be challenged as they are in my view clearly inflated and CBWRA seem to be determined not to challenge these costs.

In their reply to my motions, CBWRA accidentally left in comments which in my view confirm a) a deep cynicism in claiming, or discussing claiming, credit for things which they may not have done and b) their determination for reasons that are unclear, to talk down the BSA costs and (in time honoured tradition) to scare people into thinking that such a challenge would cost tens of thousands of pounds (exactly the same tactic which the CBWRA committee used when trying to convince residents (up until the end of 2022) that we should not pursue Right to Manage and that we should not pursue an audit if the service charge accounts or tribunal action in relation to that).

One very telling comment (which appears to be from one of the co-Chairs to the other) which was accidentally left in by CBWRA co-Chairs, is this (below). The CBWRA text claims that ‘Warwick Building secured a deal with L&Q whereby the {? BSA} costs are fixed at £200 {per apartment? per year} as L&Q will do most of the work’. A response, which seems to be from one co-chair to the other asks ”WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THIS (i.e. the ‘deal’) IF SO WE SHOULD SAY IT WAS RA INITIATIVE OR SOMETHING’‘.

So the suggestion, apparently from one co-chair to the other is to frame this ‘deal’ to residents as if it was a CBWRA initiative. It seems very unlikely that it was a CBWRA initiative since (as with electricity) CBWRA is, at this point in time, nothing more than a residents’ association, unrecognised by the freeholders and has no ability to negotiate deals or contracts for Chelsea Bridge Wharf, either for electricity or anything else

The final version does not claim that this deal was a CBWRA initiative but very strangely it claims that ‘Warwick Building secured a deal’. Warwick Building is not a legal entity and cannot negotiate or secure anything. I think this is simply more spin – what CBWRA should have said is that ”L&Q (the freeholder of Warwick building) has secured a deal…etc” but then that would reveal that CBWRA had no role in this ‘deal’. In summary, I believe that the electricity deal for Warwick for 24/25 was not secured by CBWRA but by L&Q and I suspect the same is probably true for this ‘deal’ regarding Building Safety Act costs. It was not secured by CBWRA or ‘Warwick Building’ but by London and Quadrant Housing Association.

One might also ask how it would be possible for L&Q or anyone else to guarantee that BSA costs per apartment would not exceed £200 when the work has not yet been done. If that was the case then I welcome it but in that case we should have expected to see a very significant fall in the service charge budget for Warwick but in fact , for 24/25 it decreased by only 3-5% for most leaseholders. The Warwick 24/25 budget for BSA costs comes out at around £210 per apartment (for Warwick 1-3: £35,412/168 flats) which is still well above the average cost in many developments. Whether this budget will be adhered to or not remains to be seen and in any case THIS ‘DEAL’ only applies to Warwick – not any other block.

It is possible CBWRA were involved in some way re the ‘deal’ for BSA costs in Warwick and if so perhaps they can enlighten us. Requests for CBWRA to clarify their role in the supposed electricity deal for Warwick have gone unanswered.

A second comment which the co-chairs left in their feedback to my motion, by accident, also shows that they they are keen (for reasons that are unclear) to play down the Building Safety Act costs to residents of Chelsea Bridge Wharf. This comment (again apparently from one ‘Co-chair’ to the other) asks if there is anything in the new Leasehold Reform legislation which would seem to make the Building Safety Act costs less of an issue to residents : ‘‘WHAT ELSE ? DOES THE NEW LEGISLATION MAKE THE COSTS THING LESS OF AN ISSUE”

In summary I am not saying that CBWRA were not involved in a ‘deal’ re reducing BSA costs but I strongly suspect that this was actually an initiative led and carried out by London and Quadrant Housing Association, not by CBWRA or ‘Warwick Building’ and that if CBWRA did have involvement it was likely to have been minor. In any case it ONLY APPLIES TO WARWICK BUILDING – the other blocks are still being hit for huge amounts in relation to BSA. CBWRA claim to have carried out analysis of  CBW BSA costs compared to other developments  but have refused to provide it ahead of the AGM, knowing that most  of the 140 members who intend to vote will do so ahead of the AGM. As ever, and as with the recent Chair elections and those of the previous year, the focus from CBWRA in my view seems to be endless tiresome manipulations and spin, and regularly insulting the intelligence of residents at Chelsea Bridge Wharf.

It is indeed strange how perfectly reasonable and polite requests for transparency and good governance are met by such a barrage of nonsense. The rest of CBWRA’s response to my motions is angry, defensive and full of spin. I will be giving a full response in due course.