Formal Complaint: Inappropriate Attempt to Control Leaseholder Data and Restrict Communication

To: Urang Property Management and the Directors of Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM Company Ltd

23rd July, 2026 Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to make a formal complaint regarding the statements made (on zoom) before the leaseholders’ meeting held on 21 July 2026, in which attendees were presented with conditions purporting to prohibit the recording, sharing or dissemination of information relating to the meeting and warning of possible legal action against leaseholders who did so.

I consider this approach to be wholly inappropriate, inconsistent with the principles of transparency expected of a Right to Manage company, and potentially without any sound legal foundation.

The purpose of Right to Manage is to place leaseholders at the centre of decision-making and accountability. It is therefore deeply concerning that one of the first substantive meetings with leaseholders for seven months should begin with what many residents perceived as threats of legal action rather than an invitation to open dialogue and constructive engagement.

No clear legal basis

I request that you identify precisely:

• the legal basis relied upon for attempting to restrict leaseholders from discussing the meeting;
• the legislation, contractual provision or other authority relied upon;
• who drafted and approved these terms;
• whether independent legal advice was obtained; and
• whether the RTM directors formally approved this approach.

As leaseholders, we are the people who ultimately fund the management of Chelsea Bridge Wharf through our service charges. Meetings concerning the management of our homes, our service charge expenditure and decisions affecting our property cannot reasonably be treated as secret corporate discussions.

Freedom to discuss matters affecting our homes

Leaseholders are entitled to discuss matters affecting the management of their development with other leaseholders, neighbours, advisers, Members of Parliament, journalists, regulators and professional advisers.

Attempting to prevent residents from sharing factual information concerning the operation of the RTM company or its managing agent risks creating precisely the culture of secrecy and intimidation that Right to Manage was intended to replace.

Nothing in discussing factual events from a meeting, provided statements are truthful and lawful, amounts to wrongdoing.

Transparency should be the default

This incident appears inconsistent with repeated assurances that Urang intended to introduce a “new era of transparency”.

Instead, leaseholders have experienced:

• a seven-month gap between meetings;
• an online-only meeting;
• restrictions on attendance;
• attempts to restrict discussion afterwards; and
• warnings suggesting legal consequences for sharing information.

Taken together, these actions give the impression of reduced rather than increased transparency.

Chilling effect on leaseholder participation

Threats—whether explicit or implied—of legal action can have a significant chilling effect on residents wishing to ask questions, raise concerns or communicate with fellow leaseholders.

Such an approach discourages engagement and undermines confidence in both the managing agent and the RTM company.

The role of an RTM company is to represent leaseholders, not discourage them from communicating with one another.

Request for immediate clarification

I therefore request that Urang and the RTM Company:

1. Confirm that leaseholders are free to discuss factual matters arising from meetings with other leaseholders and appropriate third parties.
2. Confirm that no legal action will be pursued against any leaseholder simply for sharing truthful information or expressing opinions about matters relating to the management of Chelsea Bridge Wharf.
3. Withdraw any statements that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening legal action against leaseholders for discussing the meeting.
4. Publish the legal advice relied upon (or at least identify the legal principles relied upon) in imposing these restrictions.
5. Adopt a written policy confirming that future leaseholder meetings will operate on principles of openness, transparency and accountability consistent with the objectives of Right to Manage.

Future action

If no satisfactory explanation is provided, I will consider referring this matter to the appropriate regulatory and advisory bodies, including LEASE, LKP (who ‘approve’ Urang, the Property Institute, RICS, my Member of Parliament and any other appropriate organisations.

I also reserve the right to raise concerns regarding governance and transparency should these issues become relevant in any future proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal.

This complaint is not intended to create conflict. Rather, it seeks to ensure that Chelsea Bridge Wharf is managed in accordance with the principles of openness, accountability and leaseholder empowerment that were central to obtaining the Right to Manage in the first place.

I look forward to your substantive response.

Yours faithfully,

Mike O’Driscoll

Leaseholder
Chelsea Bridge Wharf