CBWRA’s continuing attempts to silence residents who ask awkward questions

Following the publication of an email which I sent to the CBWRA ‘co-chairs’ (Larisa Villar Hauser and Louis Sabastian Kendall) asking why they were apparently defending a committee member (and a Director of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage Company) who had been the subject of 4 police complaints, they have suspended my account in the CBWRA Facebook group without any explanation or process.

This email (full text below) which I sent the co-chairs on 17th October, and to which I have received no reply, covers a number of matters such as:

• Why residents (and indeed CBWRA committee) are not allowed to see the 2 year contract with Urang which (someone, we know not who) at CBWRA signed
• Why no AGM has been held for the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage Company, as required in its articles of association
• Why CBWRA continue to defend a member of the committee who has been the subject of 4 police complaints (the most recent of which resulted in charges of common assault being authorised).
• Why CBWRA are absurdly claiming that they have the exclusive right to use the term ‘Chelsea Bridge Wharf’ on social media and are planning to shut down the CBWRA Facebook group without consultation
• Why CBWRA claimed that DSAR checks (data subject access request) cost £3,500 and apparently later admitted (September committee meeting notes) the cost was £350

NB no fraudulent conduct or personal gain is alleged or implied but there is a valid question on how the costs of DSARs could apparently vary to this extent.

Rather than reply to these perfectly valid and important questions, which are of legitimate interest to all residents,  the ‘co-chairs’  suspended my account in the CBWRA Facebook group without any explanation or process (a group which in any case they plan to close down shortly).

CBWRA claim that plans to close the group are justified by a lack of activity in the Facebook group, but at the same time, claim that it requires a lot of work in moderating, which really does not make a lot of sense. It is clear that the real agenda is censorship.

In suspending my account in this way, the co-chairs are, in my view, engaging in bullying and arbitrary censorship. That is because they have ignored the clear procedures which were put in place (after a long struggle from myself and other residents) to prevent arbitrary suspension or closure of CBW app or Facebook accounts. Of course, CBWRA have a lot of form in doing exactly this — my CBW app account was closed without any process because I pointed out that CBWRA were misinforming residents about the Right to Manage (up until the end 2022 they told residents that it was not possible, and I pointed out that this was completely untrue). It is really unprofessional and unethical behaviour but will not come as any surprise to residents of Chelsea Bridge Wharf. This behaviour suggests that CBWRA have learnt nothing and intend to continue on a dysfunctional path of trying to avoid any debate or scrutiny (and indeed fair elections) and simply try to silence those who ask awkward questions.

What do you as a leaseholder think about this? Do you think these are suitable people to have in charge of a £6 million service charge budget (in the unlikely event that they achieve Right to Manage)? Do you want to live in this culture of fear? Or Are you prepared to say something, to do something, to achieve a normal residents’ association? If it’s the latter, please get in touch (residents@chelseabridgewharf.org.uk).

—

Mike O’Driscoll email to CBWRA

Dear ‘Co-chairs’ (Larisa Villar Hauser and Louis  Sebastian Kendall) 

I wonder if you can tell me when the AGM for the CBW RTM company will be held? I believe an annual meeting is stipulated in the articles of association and the last such meeting (which was not a full meeting in any case) was in September 2023.

I realise that you hate to meet with residents and try to avoid it wherever possible, and that you imagine yourselves to be above scrutiny and the usual checks and balances of good governance, but in fact this is mistaken. You are accountable and not all residents can be scared into silence.

You refused to allow a motion at the CBWRA AGM, which asked for leaseholders to  have access to  the 2 year contract which you signed with Urang but which not even the CBWRA committee have apparently seen (let alone leaseholders).

You refused this motion on the basis that the contract with Urang is a matter exclusively to do with the RTM company, not a CBWRA matter (an absurd evasion since CBWRA and the RTM company  are essentially the same thing  – CBWRA is the ‘trading name’ of the RTM company as Charlie Garton-Jones put it. All the (unelected) directors of the RTM company are members of the (unelected) CBWRA committee.

if the contract with Urang is an RTM company matter, and cannot be discussed at  CBWRA AGM or CBWRA meetings, and there is no AGM for the RTM company, and that you ignore individual requests from leaseholders to see the contract, can you explain how leaseholders can express their wish to see the contract and get a meaningful response?

I am also curious as to why the number of people who voted against ratification of the CBWRA committee is not  included in the AGM notes. I think it was about 40% of those attending. Can you confirm?

I am also appalled, though not surprised that you continue to defend a member of the committee who has been the subject of 4 police complaints (the most recent of which resulted in charges of common assault being authorised). It seems from your recent posts on the CBW app that not only are you defending this person but are also blaming the victim.    

Finally I note the absurd claim by the person who has been the subject of  4 police complaints that CBWRA has the exclusive right to the use of the term ‘Chelsea Bridge Wharf’ on social media, and the arbitrary decision to close the CBWRA Facebook group. This bizarre control freakery is delusional and dysfunctional but it does at least make it very obvious where CBWRA is coming from in terms of wishing to close down discussion and scrutiny.

One final matter – you claimed a DSAR request would cost CBWRA £3,500 to comply with, which I pointed out  was absurd. You now admit that the actual cost was £350. Can you explain that? Inflated contract prices are  something I might expect from managing agents but quite worrying from a residents’ association. Some may feel that you wished to discourage DSARs by exaggerating the cost but there may be some other explanation?  

Best Wishes

Mike O’Driscoll