A Section 20 Farce: How Urang Wasted Leaseholders’ Time and Trust at Chelsea Bridge Wharf

Summary:

Just before Xmas 2025, Urang Property Management issued leaseholders at Chelsea Bridge Wharf with a Section 20 Notice of Intention for major works, potentially involving expenditure of at least £283,000 across 1,132 flats. The notice was issued just before Christmas, during a period when many residents are busy or away, which appears designed to reduce scrutiny and responses. Crucially, the notice contained no evidence of necessity, no timescales, and no cost estimates, undermining the purpose of statutory consultation. Leaseholders were told details could be provided on request, yet requests for further information were ignored. On 16th January 2026, Urang advised residents to ignore the notice, a patronising and inappropriate response to a legal process with serious financial implications. Only after sustained pressure was the notice acknowledged to be withdrawn. This episode wasted significant time and resources, eroded trust, and reflects a wider pattern of poor communication, lack of transparency, and disregard for meaningful consultation, particularly regarding costs, priorities, and Urang’s own fees.


Detail

On 20 December 2025, Urang Property Management issued leaseholders at Chelsea Bridge Wharf with a Section 20 Notice of Intention for “major works”. This is a serious step, and a legal requirement, intended to warn residents of significant expenditure (at least £250 per apartment ) that they will be required to fund through the service charge or use of reserve funds. There are 1,132 flats at Chelsea Bridge Wharf so this means that expenditure of at least £283,000 is planned and in my view the cost is likely to be much higher, but as it stands, leaseholders have no way to know.


Abusing the Xmas and New Year Holiday?

The Section 20 process gives leaseholders 30 days to respond, and in my view, the fact that this was distributed just before Christmas was an attempt to take advantage of the fact that people are busy and often away from home during the Christmas and New Year period, thus minimising the chances that any leaseholder would properly read the notice, ask for further details, suggest alternative contractors or object in any way.

A Section 20 Notice Without Meaningful Information

There was no evidence at all that this program of upgrades is either necessary or a resident priority. There have been two meetings with residents since Urang took over (excluding the 9 minute AGM in December) and it was clear from both of those that residents’ priorities were to keep service charges down. Urang hurriedly carried out a “residents’ survey” in November which was amateurish, biased towards Urang, ridiculously long, and for which they did not use any reminders (and hence will had a very low response rate). Urang have refused to publish the results of this survey or to give any indication of the results to residents. Likewise, they refuse to use the results from their “staff survey”.

I believe one reason why Urang refuse to share the findings is because they do not support the programme of upgrades which Urang and the RTM company have been pushing. We know who has been consulted on this ‘upgrades agenda’ , though: Garton-Jones Estate Agents (specifically Chris Garston) – because Bella Metcalf of Urang accidentally told us at the last residents’ meeting that Garton-Jones had been instrumental in identifying which aspects should be ‘upgraded’ (although, strangely this does not appear in the meeting notes).

So the programme of upgrades in my view reflects to some extent the priorities of estate agents and buy to let landlords, upgrades to (supposedly) push up property values and rents. The ‘upgrades agenda’ does not reflect the priorities of residents, who were not meaningfully consulted on the capital expenditure programme which underlies the ‘upgrades agenda’.

No meaningful description of the works was provided in the Section 20 notice of intent, no timescales and crucially, no estimated costs. Instead, leaseholders were told that details could be provided on request.

This immediately undermined the purpose of a Section 20 process. Consultation cannot be meaningful without information. Leaseholders cannot make informed observations if they are not told what is being proposed. The details of the proposed works could have been included in the notice rather than forcing leaseholders to request them.

Requests for Further Information Ignored by Urang

Despite the lack of information and inconvenient timing, I and other leaseholders DID request further details and my request was neither acknowledged nor fulfilled. Despite having initiated a statutory process, Urang failed to engage in even the most basic follow-up communication.

This silence is not a minor administrative slip in my view. It reflects either a failure to prepare before issuing the notice, or a failure to respond once challenged—both of which point to serious operational incompetence.

“Please disregard this notice”

I heard nothing in response to my request for further information about the section 20 notice of intent until a Urang ‘newsletter’ to all residents on 16th January 2026. However, rather than providing the missing information, Urang told leaseholders to ”disregard” the Section 20 notice ”for now”. Urang state:

”You will have received a Section 20 Notice of Intention. Please disregard this notice for the time
being, as the specification will need to be updated following resident feedback on the designs. A
revised notice will be reissued once the specification has been finalised”.

This patronising statement is extraordinary. A Section 20 notice is a legal document with real financial implications. Leaseholders are not being alarmist by taking it seriously—they are being responsible. Telling residents to ”disregard” a statutory consultation notice raises fundamental questions about whether Urang understands the process it is administering, or expects leaseholders not to. It also fails to explain why such a notice was issued when the detailed information on costings etc was not (apparently) available and also tries to obscure the withdrawal of the notice in my view.

This newsletter contained 4 small images which I think are supposed to show what corridors will look like after the proposed works but how can anyone give feedback on this basis without any meaningful costed options? This is not meaningful consultation, it is a distraction.

Withdrawal Under Pressure

Only after sustained pressure from me did Urang finally concede (on 23rd January) that the notice was withdrawn (not to be revised but in fact reissued – starting the process over).

By this point, significant time and energy had already been wasted:

• Time spent by Urang in distributing the notice to all 1,132 properties (which is a full day’s work for one person).
• Leaseholders spending time reviewing a fairly meaningless notice
• Residents having to chase information that should have been provided upfront
• Trust in the managing agent (Urang) and the RTM company directors was further eroded

All of this was entirely avoidable.

Playing games with leaseholders?

This episode highlights a pattern that leaseholders at Chelsea Bridge Wharf may recognise from 2020 onwards from the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents’ Association.

• Withholding or delaying basic information
• Giving residents incorrect or misleading information (e.g. the claim in 2022 that they had started a right to manage process when they had not and the claim later in the same year that Right to Manage was impossible!)
• Manipulating important checks and balances on the power of the RTM company and the managing agent (e.g. through holding a NINE MINUTE AGM and self evidently unfair elections).
• Minimising legitimate concerns rather than addressing them
• Correcting errors only when challenged
• Attacking, ignoring or demonising those who have legitimate concerns and ask entirely reasonable questions

Whether through poor systems, lack of oversight, or disregard for leaseholders’ time, Urang’s handling of this Section 20 process shows a lack of professionalism and integrity. Consultation should be meaningful, transparent, and respectful. This was none of those things.

Unanswered questions remains – what works, when, what is the cost and what is Urang’s fee?

If Urang was not ready to supply full details of the works, respond to questions, or stand behind the notice, why was it issued at all?

Leaseholders deserve better than confusion, silence, and reassurances that a legal notice should simply be ignored. Until managing agents are held to higher standards, incidents like this will continue to waste residents’ time, money, and goodwill.

Leaseholders also deserve to know what the proposed works are, what the evidence is for their necessity, and they need detailed information on costs, materials and planned timescale, block by block. Leaseholders deserve to be consulted in a meaningful way about design options, not to be sent 4 random photos and asked to comment on them (as per the 13th January newsletter).

Leaseholders are also entitled to know how much money Urang are making on these proposed works. It is not uncommon for managing agents to take a fee for major works/projects and the percentage varies from agent to agent and according to project value. As leaseholders are still not able to see the contract with Urang there is no way for us to know this. Urang claim they will allow leaseholders access to the management contract subject to a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) but I have been requesting that NDA since September 2025 and there is still no sign of it! Leaseholders are also not allowed to see notes of weekly meetings between Urang and the RTM directors or any summary of these.

I have however seen a Urang project management document (not from Chelsea Bridge Wharf) which suggests total fees of 12% of contract value for major works/section 20 projects (and seemingly an additional 1.5% health and safety management fee) plus VAT at 20%!

I am not saying that these are Urang’s standard fees or those which pertain to section 20 projects at Chelsea Bridge Wharf but we should be able to find out, rather than having to guess.