Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM Directors and Urang announce £425,000 Service Charge Budget overspend 25/26 in addition to above inflation increase for 26/27

Further to the failures of Urang and the Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM company highlighted in my recent article ‘A Year of Urang at Chelsea Bridge Wharf – An Opportunity Wasted?’, Urang/ The Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM Company has today circulated a Section 20B Notice of Expenditure for the year ended 31 December 2025. The figures reveal that the estate spent significantly more than it received in service charge income, resulting in a deficit of approximately £425,540.

According to the notice, total service charge income amounted to £5.46 million, while total expenditure reached £5.89 million. This means expenditure exceeded income by almost 8%.

The RTM directors and managing agent Urang have repeatedly spoken about supposed efficiency savings, improved financial management and better value for money. However, the actual figures suggest that a number of major expenditure categories significantly exceeded budget and this is in addition to above inflation service charge increase for 26/27. This likely means that leaseholders will be hit with ‘balancing charge’ demands but no breakdown of the overspend (e.g. by block) has been provided,

Major Areas of Overspend

Budget Heading	Budget (£)	Actual (£)	Variance (£)	Variance (%)
General Building Repairs/Works	139,400	484,417	+345,017	+248%
Fire Equipment Maintenance	66,360	158,029	+91,669	+138%
Water	170,600	257,930	+87,330	+51%
Professional Fees	68,865	125,507	+56,642	+82%
Lift Maintenance	46,050	88,283	+42,233	+92%
Software	67,000	99,068	+32,068	+48%
Access Control/CCTV	36,680	68,207	+31,527	+86%
Office Costs	60,000	88,718	+28,718	+48%
Water Features	65,000	95,525	+30,525	+47%
Mansafe Systems	12,555	66,526	+53,971	+430%

The most striking figure is the overspend on General Building Repairs and Works. The budget allowed for £139,400, but actual expenditure reached £484,417, more than three times the amount budgeted.

Similarly, Fire Equipment Maintenance exceeded budget by almost £92,000, while Water costs were nearly £87,500 above budget.

It’s not just about areas of overspend (going over budget) it’s also about expenditure which is HUGE but within budget e.g. it seems that nearly £1 MILLION POUNDS (£924,393) was transferred into reserve funds last year. What was this for and why do we still need to have section 20 processes for even further expenditure (e.g. lift replacement) if so much has already been sunk into reserve funds?

Staffing costs were budgeted at £1.111m but actual £1.201m. This single line item represents around: 20% of all expenditure before employer costs and related overheads.

Residents may wish to know:

• number of staff;
• salary bands;
• benchmarking against comparable developments
• why has there been no reduction in staff numbers since Urang took over?

Questions About Financial Control

The accounts raise several important questions. Why were repairs costs underestimated by such a large margin?

Why did lift maintenance almost double the budgeted amount?

Why were professional fees more than 80% above budget?

Why did software costs approach £100,000?

And perhaps most importantly, where is the detailed explanation for these overspends?

The Section 20B notice provides figures but no accompanying narrative explaining what happened.

The Context of Right to Manage

These figures are particularly significant because the RTM campaign was heavily promoted on the basis that leaseholder control would lead to better financial oversight, more competitive procurement and lower costs.

Instead, the first set of figures released under RTM shows:

• A deficit of £425,540.
• Major overspends in a number of key categories.
• Continuing pressure from repairs, maintenance and compliance costs.
• No clear evidence in the published accounts of how claimed efficiency savings have translated into lower costs for leaseholders
• Service charge budget shows a project 4.5% increase for 26/27 (which is in addition to any balancing charge demands which will come from the budget overspend)

Of course, some overspends may have been unavoidable. High-rise residential developments face increasing regulatory requirements, inflationary pressures and ongoing maintenance challenges. However, transparency requires more than simply publishing figures. Leaseholders deserve a clear explanation of why these variances occurred and what is being done to prevent similar overspends in future years.

The most damaging statistic for the RTM directors is probably not the £425k deficit itself, but the £345k overspend on General Building Repairs and Works, because that single line accounts for over 80% of the overall deficit and immediately raises questions about budgeting accuracy and financial control. The RTM directors should therefore publish a detailed breakdown of the largest variances, explain the causes of the £425,000 deficit and set out how they intend to bring expenditure back under control.

We may also ask who is accountable for this overspend? Surely the buck stops with the RTM directors (chaired by Louis-Sebastian Kendall) who are basically invisible to leaseholders, have not met with them since they were ‘elected’ in a 9 minute AGM in December 2025 and give no account of their weekly meetings with Urang and have not consulted leaseholders in any meaningful way. Can you sack a director who has failed? Can you unelect them? Do you have a say in whether Urang’s contract is renewed. No, not at Chelsea Bridge Wharf it would seem.

This once again underlines the need for independent leaseholder scrutiny of both the RTM company and Urang, which this blog provides. It also explains why the RTM company seem intent on trying to attack those who do provide that scrutiny.