The ‘Real’ notes from the meeting between Urang, the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage company and leaseholders

Notes from Meeting of Chelsea Bridge Wharf Leaseholders and Urang on 15^th September 2025 6.30-8pm at Pestana Hotel London SW11

Executive Summary

Urang’s notes from the meeting on 15^th September are highly selective and omit many of the key criticisms of themselves and the RTM directors mentioned below and I have produced these notes in the interests of leaseholders being able to get an accurate account of the meeting[1]. In my view, Urang’s notes seek to avoid the key issues for leaseholders:

Why leaseholders cannot see the contract with Urang?
Why leaseholders have not been consulted on how service charges are spent but Garton-Jones have been?
Why are they pursuing a policy of ‘estate upgrades’ rather than focusing on controlling the service charge which is what most residents want?
Will they undertake to allow leaseholders to decide whether Urang’s contract is renewed in Spring 2026?
Will they undertake to remove directors who engage in bullying or alleged criminal behaviour?
Will they undertake to hold annual elections for directors?

Urang’s meeting notes were circulated around 12 hours after the meeting ended suggesting that they were produced mainly using AI but editing out aspects which were embarrassing for them or the RTM directors. Urang stated that they had recorded the meeting but have refused to supply the recording or a transcript. Urang state they lost the recording of the previous meeting with leaseholders, on 9^th July, due to technical issues.

The meeting (attended by about 60 leaseholders in person and an unknown number online) revealed widespread concern among leaseholders about governance, democratic accountability, and the lack of transparency and consultation from the managing agent Urang. While many other issues of importance to leaseholders were discussed (prioritising estate upgrades over reducing service charges, maintenance/repairs buildings insurance), the dominant theme was elections: the lack of legitimacy of the current (unelected) RTM company directors, the postponement of elections and annual general meeting (AGM) without any credible reason.

The RTM directors had originally stated in November 2024 that they would not allow elections for Directors[2], but after pressure (including a petition from the author of these notes[3]) then agreed there would be elections but gave no date. At the meeting between residents and Urang on July 9th, Tony Hymers of Urang stated there would be elections on September 14th. This was postponed a few weeks ahead of the date with no meaningful reason given.

The timelines for elections and AGM elections shifted several times even within the meeting on September 15th: October was mentioned by Urang as the new ‘window’ this then moved to  November and then ‘by the end of the year’.  At the end of the meeting there was still no actual date or procedure published for the election of directors, or an AGM.

Only two of the four current RTM directors (Stephen Thompson and Katherine Greenway) attended the meeting on 15^th September and the latter did not utter a word in the whole meeting. The other two directors Toby Spoerer and Louis Kendall did not attend and no apologies or reasons were given (It appears that Mr Kendall is the CHAIR of the board of the directors of the RTM company – but leaseholders have never been made aware of any process, vote or record of how this came about and were wholly unaware of it until late October 2025).

This lack of attendance continues the pattern of residents’ association (CBWRA) meetings where there was little attendance from committee members, and little interaction, indicating to me that they do not take these meetings seriously and have little interest in engaging with leaseholders and even less in consulting with us.

The lack of consultation with leaseholders was also highlighted, and one leaseholder pointed out that Urang’s claims that leaseholders were at the centre of decision-making were nonsense, given that Urang had not carried out any consultation with residents other than asking them what colour to paint fences/walls — and even that consultation was criticised for offering a very limited choice.

This leaseholder highlighted Urang’s own admission that they had consulted Garton-Jones estate agent about which improvements to prioritise at Chelsea Bridge Wharf but had not consulted leaseholders on their priorities, which seemed to suggest that Garton-Jones had more influence with Urang/the RTM company than did leaseholders. It was also noted that the agenda of estate ‘upgrades’ was clearly dominating over the priority of many leaseholders to control or reduce service charges. These comments were met with applause from a number of leaseholders[4].

Urang were complimented on some apparent improvements such as cleaning (Urang admit  that they have prioritised aspects of estate management which will make a ‘visual impact’) but have not consulted with residents on their priorities at the time of the meeting. Urang have developed a capital expenditure plan without  any leaseholder input.

Ahead of the meeting on September 15^th, leaseholders were asked to submit questions in writing, and it was not clear if those questions were to be read out or whether leaseholders were still supposed to ask them at the meeting This led to a large number of questions not being addressed at all and which have still not been answered, 2 months after the meeting, although replies had been promised by email. A full list of these leaseholders’ unanswered questions will be published in the near future.

Leaseholders who took up the invitation to contact Urang after the meeting, if they were interested in becoming directors, have not been replied to so far or even had an acknowledgement, and it would appear that information packs for those interested in becoming directors are nowhere near being completed although Urang and the RTM company have had many months to prepare[5].

Summary Notes from the meeting:

The Urang ‘CBW team’ apparently includes Bella Metcalf (Senior Relationship Manager)[6], Paige Anderson & Sasha Lee Roberts (Assistant Property Managers), James Mark (Head of UCM), Tony Hymers (Consultant), and Peter Anderson (Estate Manager). This seems quite a large management ‘team’ which leaseholders are presumably paying for.

1. Operational  Issues which are important to leaseholders

While issues of  democracy and accountability were foremost at the meeting, residents also complained of:

• Unfinished repairs (leaks, lifts).
• Rising service charges with no clear breakdown.
• Poor communication and lack of minutes.
• Safety risks (fire doors, CCTV).
• Neglected common areas, including fountains and ponds having been problematic and expensive to maintain for a long time – and no genuine consultation with leaseholders about how to resolve this.
• The cost of buildings insurance and variations between buildings  – Urang were seemingly unable to say anything about how the cost varied between buildings.

These operational problems reinforced the demand for stronger resident control and accountable governance.

2. Costs savings , review of contracts, capital expenditure plan – lack of consultation 

Urang claimed that they had made savings of over £600,000 since they arrived at CBW in May, though it is hard for anyone to verify whether that is really the case or not – no documentary evidence has been provided as far as I am aware.

Urang’s claims in the meeting on September 15^th about reviewing contracts and getting better value (e.g. a supposedly  better deal on lift maintenance) seemed in contradiction of what they claimed in the meeting of July 9^th where they said  they had reviewed all contracts (a remarkable achievement having been in place for about 6 weeks at that time) and had only found it necessary to change the gardening contract. Clealry they have not reviwed buildings insurance costs (a major component of the service charge)

There is no mention of the contract for electricity providers (for communal area electricity), which is another major componenet of service charge and an area where Rendall and Rittner performed very badly.

Urang (James Mark) has apparently developed a capital expenditure plan without  any leaseholder input.

There does not seem to be any recognition that the priority for many leaseholders is service charge reduction but rather the agenda of ‘upgrades’ is apparently being pursued.

• ‘’We want the place to look decent, obviously, but we don’t necessarily want huge increases in the service charge to deliver it. And that’s what you should be asking us about. So that’s all I’ve got to say’’.

3. Elections and the AGM – Urgent Calls for Action

Residents repeatedly demanded that the long-delayed election of directors take place without further postponement and the current directors were accused of stalling because they were afraid of what the outcome would be.

• “The elections which were due on 14th were cancelled… That was cancelled for political reasons.”
• “Because the existing directors who have never been elected are afraid to face the ballot box.”
• “You can’t delay on this indefinitely.”

Urang stated elections would be held in October, citing the need for accurate leaseholder records and Tony Hymers claimed they were trying  to get 75% of leaseholders into the RTM company[7] before holding elections, but also claimed the delay was because Urang had made a mistake in the timescale for serving notices of the meeting. Later in the meeting Urang then moved the timescale for elections to November and also said that it would be ‘by the end of the year’. Residents countered that 75% of members in the RTM was unattainable, that it was not a genuine reason for the delay and that the delays were unjustified[8].

• “You will never get 75% or 100%. Set a date and let’s do it.’’
• “The success of the RTM depends on leaseholder engagement. The membership is free and quick to join and it gives you voting rights in the upcoming AGM.”
• “There’s already 50% of the people in the RTM company… That’s not a reason not to hold an election.”
• “You’ve got everybody’s address. It’s evasion. Stop misleading people.”
• “There has to be a cut-off point.”

4.        What do Urang and the current directors  have to gain by delaying the elections         or by not holding elections?
Urang and a current unelected RTM director (Mr Thompson) asked the leaseholders what Urang/RTM directors had to gain by delaying or avoiding elections, and the answer of course is that if there were fair elections the current directors might well not be re-elected, given their track record on opposing RTM until fairly recently and, in some cases, their extremely questionable personal conduct. New directors might be a little more interested in leaseholder consultation than consulting  with Garton-Jones, and they might be more demanding of Urang.

• “Because the existing directors who have never been elected are afraid to face the ballot box.”
• “It’s evasion. Stop misleading people.”
• “Let the residents decide.”

Mr Thompson asked  ‘’but can you just give me one reason why you think that the four existing directors wouldn’t want to share the load with more people at least?’’
A leaseholder (Mike O’Driscoll replied ‘’Because, well, speaking about the ones that I know, that I’ve worked with, I’d say they’re extremely power-hungry people and controlling).

Mr Thompson’s comment of course assumes that he would be re-elected if there were fair elections which is very far from certain.

5.         Directors’ Legitimacy and Accountability

The current directors faced sharp criticism for never having been elected and for allegedly seeking to prolong their tenure without election. The current directors were also criticised for having opposed RTM for several years which they denied, saying they had been waiting for legislative change before supporting RTM but were unable to say what that legislative change was [9].

Mr. Stephen Thompson also claimed that the legitimacy of the directors stemmed from the fact that some of them were elected as Chairs of the Residents’ Association. He failed to mention that at the last election for Residents’ Association Chair (in April 2024, nearly 18 months ago), 91% of leaseholders did not or could not vote and there were no elections at all for the CBWRA committee[10].

6.         Transparency and Fairness of the Election Process

Residents pressed for clear, published rules governing the election to ensure fairness and avoid manipulation.

• “I would like to see a procedure for the elections published soon.”
• “For it to be a fair one with none of the usual games.”

The demand for transparency extended beyond elections, with leaseholders also calling for transparency more generally such as being able to see the contract with Urang and notes of the weekly meetings between Urang and the RTM directors.

7.         Long-Term Governance and future of Urang at Chelsea Bridge Wharf

Residents insisted that not only directors, but also the managing agent (Urang), must face democratic accountability with a binding ballot being suggested to determine whether their contract should be renewed at the end of 12 months  [11]. Memories of Rendall & Rittner’s unchecked tenure and the way they were defended by CBWRA for a long period loomed large.

• “The directors will just more or less let it roll over… because that’s what happened time and time again with Rendall and Rittner.”
• “Let’s not have this game… where they just stayed on year after year, despite everybody being very unhappy.”
• “If Urang want to stay, they should put it to a ballot of residents.”

8.        Conclusion[12]

The central message from leaseholders at this meeting was clear: democratic accountability cannot be postponed further. There has never been a full AGM of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage company nor elections for directors and these must be held without further delays and they musts be transparent, with published rules and fair access for all leaseholders. Residents also called for a commitment that the renewal of the managing agent’s contract would be subject to RTM members’ approval, to avoid repeating the mistakes of Rendall & Rittner’s tenure.

I am not against Urang, indeed they were introduced to CBW by myself, following a long conversation I had with their CEO (Paul Cleaver) in December 2022. However, I did not wish them to be appointed in the way which they were without any meaningful leaseholder consultation and with not even the CBWRA committee being allowed to see the contract[13]. I very much hope that things will work out with Urang but as I said to them in April 2025, just before they took over, if they want my support and if they wish to gain the confidence of leaseholders they need to stop the dysfunctional behaviours of the past and particularly not to play games with elections and avoiding consultation with leaseholders.

Sadly Urang have ignored that advice and clearly imagine they can just continue as Rendall and Rittner did. I predict the honeymoon will soon end if this does not change. I have also offered my services to Urang in helping to design consultation with residents and that has been ignored.

9.        Events after the meeting

Since the meeting in September 15^th Urang have sent two hastily put together surveys  to leaseholders. This might be seen as progress in some ways but these surveys are extremely poorly designed and seem to have the objective of “proving” that things have improved since Urang took over, rather than being a genuine attempt to understand leaseholders’ priorities. Urang refuse to say if the results from these surveys will ever be published, and even if they are, it’s likely to be a summary that is as selective and biased as Urang’s meeting notes. No reminders have been sent and given the length of these unprofessional and chidlish questionnairres, and that the were sent out very close together, there will inevitably be a very low response rate. Perhaps that is the intention – so that Urang can claim that leaseholders are not interested in being consulted.

Elections for RTM directors have been held but unfortunately they are highly manipulated as with all past  elections for CBWRA Chair and committee, I have detailed here the various  ways in which the current elections have been manipulated . The key points are:

a. Dodgy voting protocol – again

I strongly recommend NOT to choose the ‘DISCRETIONARY’ option in voting which basically means you are allowing Louis Kendall and Stephen Thompson and the other unelected directors to use your vote to potentially vote for themselves and against any candidates whom they do not like. 

No ‘Abstain’ option is offered on the motions for each candidate. So, if RTM members do not wish to vote for a candidate, and do not wish to appoint a proxy, they have to give their vote to the Chair. However, we did not know who the Chair was until a few days ago and the Chair is not named on the LUMI platform, nor is it made clear that the Chair is in fact one of candidates in the election . Therefore, it is clear that the voting process has been set up in a way which means the Chair has control of a significant pile of ‘discretionary’ votes which they can use to support their preferred candidates (including themselves) and to vote against those they are desperate to keep out. LUMI are unable to explain why they did not offer an ‘ABSTAIN’ option and whether this was their decision or an instruction from the unelected CBW RTM directors.

b. Trying to ‘low key’ the election
In Urang’s newsletter on Friday only a few lines are given to forthcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM) and the election for directors. It is almost the last item in the newsletter and the word elections not even mentioned. There has been little or no discussion about the elections on the CBW app and post from leaseholders asking questions about the unfairness of the election process have apparently been removed without explanation. Urang have not at any point invited leaseholders to submit motions for the AGM and say that it will be solely for electing directors, which is in contradiction of the artciles of association.

c. No meeting or discussion with candidates – hiding from debate, hiding from the electorate
There is no meeting planned  where leaseholders can ask potential candidates questions or have a debate of any kind. There is no discussion of the candidates or issues on the CBW app.  It’s almost as if they don’t want leaseholders to think or talk about the elections which they and the current unelected directors have tried to hide from for so long. I wonder why?

d. Month long voting window For reasons which are not at all clear, voting will be open for four weeks. This is very odd indeed, given that every election is conducted on a single day. A week would have been more than enough. I believe the reason for this extraordinary long voting window is simply to prevent any ‘campaign period’ where debate or discussion could take place. This underlines the desperation of the existing directors of the RTM company and Urang to avoid scrutiny by leaseholders.

e. Initial plans to avoid voting altogether were abandoned I have indisputable evidence that as recently as late August this year, at least one of the current elected directors was planning to avoid any vote at all in the elections for RTM directors. The idea was that anyone who came forward would automatically become a director (although I imagine they would have found some excuse to exclude me). This would mean that all the existing directors could stay in place without having to face the ballot box. I am not sure why this was abandoned but presumably they realised this would be a bit obvious as ballot box avoidance and they might struggle to find legitimate excuses to exclude all those who expressed an interests in becoming a director following the meeting on 15th September (these expressions of interest were not acknowledged or replied to by Urang). i.e. people came forward who were not all necessarily friends of the existing directors and so they had to abandon the ‘anyone can be a director, no voting needed’ idea.

f. Annual General Meeting to be entirely online so that current unelected directors can have complete control

Urang did not make leaseholders aware that they could submit motions to the AGM (clearly because they do not want any)  and have stated that no motions from leaseholders will be allowed at the AGM – it is ‘purely to elect directors’. This attempt to constrain the AGM for a single purposes is totally at odds with the articles of association of the Right to Manage company.

Please note the date/time for AGM  24th Nov, at 6.30PM. It will be entirely online (not hybrid) which underlines the terror that Urang and the current directors have of anything resembling a real discussion. so much easier to silence leaseholders when you can literally mute them.

g. Current directors have been dragged kicking and screaming to any elections at all.
Less than a year ago, Louis Sebastian Kendall stated categorically there would be no elections for directors which was an absolutely outrageous position which would mean that leaseholders had no way to hold these people accountable regardless of their performance or behaviour. The fact that there are any elections at all result from a long campaign and a petition by myself and others and forcing the discussion onto the agenda via this blog and social media and the probability of national media coverage regarding the ‘situation’ at Chelsea Bridge Wharf.

h. Critics of the current directors banned from the CBW app Elections also follows Leasehold Knowledge Partnership ”recommending” that elections be held (and that followed a discussion that I had with LKP about their very one sided and selective account of events and the story of the RTM process at Chelsea Bridge Wharf  (see my comments at the  end of their article), the opposition to Right to Manage over several years from the current  directors (which only ended when I published independent advice showing their position was wrong), serious online and offline bullying over a long period, arbitrary closure of CBW app accounts, misinformation to residents by CBWRA on countless occasions and a culture of fear and the lack of elections, consultation and transparency from CBWRA/ the RTM company).

Despite the highly manipulated election process for Directors of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage Company, I am standing in the election and will pursue these policies if elected.

i) Leaseholders will be able to see the contract with Urang (currently kept secret).
ii) There will be annual elections for directors of the RTM company.
iii) There will be quarterly (hybrid) meetings between Urang, leaseholders, & the
RTM company (Urang currently only offer two).
iv) Leaseholders will be able to see a monthly account of the weekly meetings
between RTM directors and Urang.
v) Performance information will be published quarterly.
vi) A serious and objective consultation on the future of the pond and fountains.
vii) Urang will have a target to reduce the service charge by 10% (whilst recognising
that this cannot be guaranteed).

To leaseholders I would say – please take part in the elections for Directors of the CBW Right to Manage Company and use your vote wisely. You may or may not get another chance to have your say. The RTM company has almost complete control over how your service charge money is spent, and the right to hire or fire the managing agent. Right to Manage will only make things better if leaseholders are able to choose people they can trust and who share their ideas about how CBW should be run, to be directors, and if leaseholders play a meaningful role in all big decisions.

Do feel free to get in touch if any questions: residents@chelseabridgewharf.org.uk 

Tired of censorship and bullying on the CBW app? Join our Facebook group – a place where freedom of speech is guaranteed and bullying is not tolerated https://www.facebook.com/groups/cbwcommunity

---

[1] N.B. These notes were compiled from a transcript of a high-quality audio recording of the meeting which a leaseholder made. In my view, the notes which Urang issued are not a fair representation of the meeting, Urang refuse to release the recording  or transcript of the meeting, and so it was necessary for leaseholders to compile their own notes which are presented here in the interests of informing leaseholders of what actually happened at this meeting and the relevant context.

[2] https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2024/11/07/notes-highlights-of-the-cbwra-leaseholder-forum-of-6th-november-2024/

[3] https://www.change.org/p/elections-must-be-held-for-directors-of-the-chelsea-bridge-wharf-right-to-manage-company

[4] Urang’s own notes from the meeting with residents on July 9^th showed that 74% of leaseholder saw controlling service charges as the top priority.

[5] Urang are theoretically organising the elections for RTM directors to give the appearance of an ‘independent process’, but there is strong evidence that the RTM directors (and particularly the director who organised most previous elections for the chair and committee of CBWRA) are heavily influencing this process. In the last of these elections, 91% of leaseholders did not or could not vote and the previous elections for chair were also  far from fair or free. https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2024/04/15/cbwra-2024-chair-elections/

[6] As far as I can tell this role is basically about PR. I am not sure this is the best use of leaseholder service charges.

[7] There are few if any RTM companies with 75% of leaseholders as members, especially not large developments where RTM has just been achieved. Setting an arbitrary target of 75% of leaseholders to be members before holding elections for directors is (IMHO) simply a way to justify the delay in elections and to avoid having to be accountable leaseholders.

[9] While Mr. Stephen Thompson was Chair of CBWRA, he repeatedly claimed that RTM was not possible. He circulated a newsletter in 2022 stating that RTM was not possible and that those who supported RTM  (naming Mike O’Driscoll) were misinforming residents. Mr O’Driscolls’ CBW app account  was closed without any process the day before this bizarre and misleading newsletter was circulated in order to prevent him replying to it there.  Mr. Thompson claims that the legal position regarding RTM changed,  after which he then supported RTM but is unable to provide any evidence of this supposed legal change. Mr. Thompson also stated several times in CBWRA committee meetings that he was not an expert in RTM (surprising no-one) but tended to “defer to Charlie Garton-Jones” on these matters. It seems reasonable to believe therefore that his position on RTM from 2020-2023 was very closely aligned with that of Mr. Garton-Jones.  Around £10,000 of residents’ association funds were spent on ‘retendering  the management  contract’ in 2022 which Mr Garton-Jones stated would deliver similar outcomes to  RTM but at a lower cost. In fact this process achieved nothing at all, as I predicted but did delay RTM for anther year.

[10] https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2024-cbwra-chair-elections-91-of-leaseholders-did-not-or-could-not-vote/

[11] In fact as we are not allowed to see the contract with Urang we do not know when it is due to be renewed but I believe it would be around April 2026.

[12] N.B. These notes were compiled from a transcript of a high-quality audio recording of the meeting which a leaseholder made. I will make the transcript available to leaseholders on request, having made sure that no leaseholder can be identified from it. However, it was a public meeting and all were aware that they were being recorded. In my view, the notes which Urang issued are not a fair representation of the meeting, Urang refuse to release the recording  or transcript of the meeting, and so it was necessary for leaseholders to compile their own notes which are presented here in the interests of informing leaseholders of what actually happened at this meeting and the relevant context.

[13] https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/03/09/how-urang-were-selected-to-be-the-new-agent-at-chelsea-bridge-wharf/

I invite readers to compare Urang’s pathetic notes of the meeting with my account above and decide which is more accurate and honest. Of course Urang can feel free to poubish the meeting recording/transcript if they dispute anything which I have said but I doubt they will do that as they know my account of the meeting is accurate as does everyone who attended.

---