The Continuing Evasive and Opaque Behaviour of Urang at Chelsea Bridge Wharf

On 9th November, I made a complaint to Urang on a number of matters, and below is their reply of 21st November and my responses to that in red. In short, it is more evasive and opaque waffle from Urang, and some key points are:

Urang will not publish the management contract, but you might be able to see it if you sign a non-disclosure agreement (this has never been offered before, so maybe that is progress?)

Urang will not allow leaseholders to see the register of RTM company members unless you fill in a formal request stating your ‘proper purpose’ for doing so (which they will then no doubt find some bogus reason to reject).

Urang will not say how many members there are in the RTM company, so we cannot know if any meeting is even quorate.

We cannot see the notes of meetings between Urang and the RTM company directors.

Urang will not be publishing findings of the ‘residents survey’ or the survey on satisfaction with Urang staff because these are for ‘internal use’ only.

Urang cannot explain why they will not publish a transcript of the meeting with leaseholders on 15th September.

Urang cannot explain why there was no meeting of candidates for directors where leaseholders could ask them questions.

Urang cannot explain why the online voting platform for the election of directors did not offer an abstain option but instead offers ‘discretionary’, which basically gives all neutral votes to the Chair (Louis Kendall), who is himself a candidate in the election and can use these votes to vote for himself potentially, and his pals, or against his opponents – and we will never know how many such votes have been used because Urang will not report this, nor say why they will not report this.

Urang cannot explain why they did not invite leaseholders to submit motions to the AGM on 24th November or why an ‘online only’ format was used.

Urang refuses to say how much has been spent on organizing these highly manipulated elections in terms of the online election platform (LUMI) and the legal advice which they have apparently been taking for several months in order to cover their backs in these dubious behaviors.

***

Mr. Hymers

Thanks for your reply to my complaint. My brief replies below in red, which will be followed by a fuller reply.

What you have given here are some evasive bullet points; it is not a serious reply to my complaint, and hence I will be escalating it.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 at 17:16, Tony Hymers <tony.hymers@urang.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr O’Driscoll,

I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 9 November 2025 (reference URANGCOMPLAINT 091125).

Please be advised that many of the points outlined in your letter have already been addressed in previous email correspondence. The Right to Manage Company and Urang have consistently provided explanations regarding the election process, financial reporting timelines, and governance arrangements. Those positions remain unchanged.

This is completely untrue. None of the issues I have raised in this complaint  have been dealt with previously. That  is  why I have needed to raise this complaint. Urang frequently fails to respond to queries from myself and many other leaseholders.

For clarity:

• The election process is being managed in accordance with the RTM Company’s Articles of Association, with independent oversight through the appointed voting platform.

No, it is not. There is no provision in the articles of association for a month-long online ballot before the AGM. I asked you to reference where in the AOA this is allowed, and you have not replied.

• The 2024/25 service charge accounts have been completed by R&R and agreed by your respective Freeholder.  We will issue a cover letter, the accounts and a balancing charge to you in next 10 working days.

  Good. It is a shame that you failed to communicate in any way with residents about this matter, as the accounts are now 3 months overdue.  

• The management agreement between the RTM Company and Urang is a contract between those parties. We have previously advised that you may book an appointment and view the contract in the head office.

  This seems to be an outright falsehood. You have never made any such offer to me as far as I am aware. I asked Urang several months  ago if I could view the contract subject to an NDA and received no reply. This is a documented fact.  

If you disagree please provide the evidence of such an offer being made to me 

Please advise me of  a date and time when I can view the contract in week commencing  1st December, 

•  
• Surveys and resident engagement exercises have been undertaken to improve communication and operational feedback across the estate.

You have not answered any of the questions I asked about when the survey results will be published / shared with leaseholders and why no reminders were used, and why the questionnaire was so badly designed. It seems clear that it was a token effort following the grilling you received in the meeting on 15th September about the lack of consultation with leaseholders. so you did some ‘consultation’ of a very random nature and refuse to share the findings with leaseholders. This is ridiculous 

• Urang continues to act for and on behalf of the RTM Company and within the scope of its management appointment.

What does that even mean? Empty, opaque corporate rhetoric. The way in which you were appointed did not involve any meaningful leaseholder consultation. https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/03/09/how-urang-were-selected-to-be-the-new-agent-at-chelsea-bridge-wharf/
The CBWRA committee appointed Urang through a secret ballot among an unelected committee, rather than through direct consultation with leaseholders and the commitee were not allowed to see the contract! We need a ballot on the renewal of your contract.

•  

See below detailed responses to the issues you have raised.

Elections for Directors of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM Company

• Election management: Urang’s role is to administer support and act as liaison with the independent voting provider, LUMI.

LUMI have confirmed in an email — which Urang were copied on  — that they are not acting independently , but on the instructions of voting/the RTM company. There is no independence in any aspect of these elections. 

Urang/ the RTM company have decided the voting period and (most likely) the decision to not offer leaseholders an abstain option in the voting, but instead to offer “discretionary,” which means that one of the candidates (Louis Kendall) can use all of these neutral votes to vote for himself or other candidates he supports, and against those he opposes. None of this was made clear on the e-voting platform. When I pressed LUMI (Ben Riley) on whether he had been instructed to withdraw the ‘abstain’ option and replace with ‘discretionary’ he suddenly went very quiet and stopped replying. 

The use of ‘discretionary’ rather than ‘abstain’ is an obvious attempt to manipulate  the  election results as detailed here https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/10/27/elections-for-directors-of-the-cbw-right-to-manage-company-finally-please-use-your-vote/

• Candidate meetings / promotion: Candidate communication or campaigning is not a requirement of the RTM’s Articles of Association. Candidates were given the opportunity to submit written profiles, which were circulated.

The fact that a meeting of candidates is not legally required  is  not a meaningful reason why no such meeting was organised, This is a meaningless reply. It is clear that the current directors are continuing their long pattern of avoiding contact or debate with leaseholders whenever they can because they are unable to engage in such dicussion and it tends to expose their shocking track record of blocking RTM, not consulting with leaseholders and in the alleged criminal behaviour of one of them and their general lack of meaningful ideas or policies. That is also evidenced from the vacuous nature of their statements for the election and that two of them refused to even supply a photo with their statements.

• ‘Abstain’ option: The election platform was configured in accordance with standard RTM practice. As explained previously, candidates may abstain by skipping a candidate.

  No, it was not. “Abstain” is a standard option in any such election/motion and was deliberately replaced with “discretionary” to create a large pile of votes for the chair to use as they please. You also do not explain why the number of discretionary votes used for and against each candidate will not be reported.  

• Voting window: The four-week period was agreed by the RTM directors to ensure maximum participation and accommodate overseas members.

This is nonsense, Even LUMI said this was not in line with best practice and that they had only done it on the instructions of Urang/RTM company 

•  
• Quorum: The quorum for voting is defined within the RTM Company’s Articles. The first quorum requirement is 20% of the members. If that cannot be achieved at the AGM, the directors can decide to proceed with a quorum equal to the number of participating members, in accordance with the Articles. This threshold is being monitored by the independent scrutineer and will be confirmed at the AGM.

I have repeatedly asked you how many members there are in the RTM company and how I can inspect the register – You have not replied over a period of months . How can any member know if a meeting is quorate when you refuse to tell them how many RTM members there are ?  

•  
• Online ballot format: The Articles permit electronic voting and remote meetings; this approach reflects best practice for large multi-block developments.

  The AOA do not permit a month-long online ballot before the AGM. I asked you to identify where in the AOA this is allowed, and you have not replied,   

• Proxy notifications: Proxy assignments are handled automatically through the LUMI system. If you believe there is an error, please detail the names of the people who have stated assigned their proxy to you so we can check this.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain where in the system the proxy votes are and why and why no notifications are given to the person who receives the proxy votes, You Have not replied 

• Moderation of CBW app: The CBW communication platform is moderated under the published community guidelines. You have been banned from the app for breach of these.  This decision predates Urang.

  My CBW app account was closed without any process, warning, or discussion at all because I pointed out that the current directors were misinforming residents that RTM was not possible. So you are talking complete nonsense and simply repeating the lies of the current directors. The process which is now in place to supposedly prevent the arbitrary closure of CBW app accounts was a result of a motion which I myself put forward at the CBWRA AGM. This was after my account was arbitrarily closed. Despite this process being in place, it is clear that posts which are critical of Urang and/or the current directors are being removed from the app without any process or discussion. This is simply censorship.  

• AGM notice and motions: The AGM notice was issued in compliance with the statutory format. Members wishing to submit motions may do so as outlined in the Articles.

You haven’t explained why you did not make leaseholders aware that they could submit motions to the AGM – so this is simply more evasion. It is clear that you do not want leaseholders to submit motions at the long delayed AGM in case they are asked difficult questions or raise difficult issues which you would prefer to keep hidden 

•  
• Online meeting format: The AGM is being held online to enable participation from all leaseholders across multiple blocks. The RTM Company has full authority to determine meeting format. 

This again is evasive and dishonest nonsense. A hybrid format would also allow participation from all leaseholders across multiple blocks, so your reply makes no sense. You have gone for an online only  format to prevent meaningful discussion or questions from leaseholders, and because you do not wish to repeat the severe grilling which you got from leaseholders on the 15th September. You and the unelected directors are hiding from the leaseholders.

•  
• Meeting notes and recording: The recording is retained for minute-taking purposes and is not distributed to leaseholders; summaries were provided promptly.

  Again, evasion — no reason is given why the transcript  is not provided, and I will be pursuing that through the ICO.  Your notes of the meeting on 15^th September were a complete misrepresentation  of the meeting as I have detailed here.
https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/11/16/the-real-notes-from-the-meeting_urang_150925/

• Register of members: Inspection requests. You are entitled to do this under the 2006 Act, however, there must be a ‘proper purpose’.  In the first instance please provide a full written statement providing the reasons for wishing to view the list of members.  The RTM can then assess the validity of your request. 

  My “proper purpose” is to know the number of members of the RTM company, which you have refused to tell me, and in any case I could not accept any information you give me as being true, given your evasive and opaque behaviour and long history of electoral manipulation at this development .  It is shameful that you are trying to prevent RTM members from inspecting the register of members and are (apparently) paying for legal advice to support you in these evasions. I suspect leaseholders are paying for this legal advice,  

• Candidate eligibility: Candidate eligibility is verified by their membership status prior to inclusion on the ballot. Please specify if you believe there is a non-leaseholder currently standing for election?

I believe {name redacted} is not a leaseholder  – I think she has stated publicly that she sold her property at CBW, On that particular point I cannot be certain but I am asking you if you have checked that all candidates are current leaseholders. if you have that is fine but I doubt that you have done that. 

•  
• Election costs: Costs relating to the election (including the LUMI platform and associated legal advice) will be viewable in the Year of End Accounts.

  Again, so much for your new era of transparency. The relevant account will not be due until September 2026, so we would need to wait a year or more to find out how much the elections cost, when you could simply give an estimate of the cost now if you really had any interest in transparency.  

Service Charge Accounts: Warwick Building

• As per my comment above, these will be released in the next 10 working days.

This seems to be repeated point – 

Management Contract Transparency

• The management agreement is a private contract between the Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM Company and Urang Property Management Ltd.
• As previously advised, you can review the contract at the head office by appointment after signing a confidentiality agreement.

This seems to be repeated point – as I said you have never made any such offer to me. This seems to be an outright falsehood by Urang,  

Staffing and Customer Relationship Role

• The Senior Relationship Manager is an Urang employee and is not paid by the RTM Company or the associated service charge. She is the operational lead at Chelsea Bridge Wharf.

So Bella Matecalfe’s  ‘services’ are being provided free of  charge? This seems unlikely  

• Surveys of Residents and Staff
• The staff satisfaction and resident feedback surveys were designed to gather structured input on service delivery. Thank you for your feedback on the survey, we will certainly take this into account when designing the next one. These surveys are for are for internal use and there are currently no plans to publish them.

  So again — your “new era of transparency” is evident. You were pushed to carry out some consultation with residents following  the meeting on 15^th September; you cobbled together a terrible survey very hastily, and now you will not publish the results! Astonishing.  

•  

This correspondence constitutes Urang’s formal and final response to your complaint under Stage 1 of the complaint’s handling procedure. Should you wish to escalate the matter further, you may do so in line with the published escalation process.

I will certainly be doing so. Urang is an unprofessional, opaque company which, rather than serving the interests of all leaseholders here, is in a mutual survival pact with the unelected directors. You are, like them, an obstacle to progress at this development, and there must be a ballot of leaseholders about whether your contract is renewed.

Regards,

Mike O’Driscoll

Warwick Leaseholder