Chelsea Bridge Wharf Service Charges Increase at more than Double the Rate of Inflation

I have just received my service charge demand for 1 October 2026 to 31 March 2027 from Urang on behalf of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM company directors. It has gone up by TWICE the rate of inflation. There is also a balancing charge of more than £100 for the previous year and if we include that then the increase is over THREE times the rate of inflation. So much for the promised savings after Right to Manage.

Here is what the figures on my demands show:

£3,636.44 to £3,894.12 is an increase of 7.09%, in one year. The balancing charge of more than £100 comes on top of this and is not included in the 7.09% calculation. If we do include the balancing charge then the year on year increase is £3,636 to £3,996.01 – just under 10% (OVER THREE TIMES the rate of inflation).

For comparison, the latest published UK Consumer Prices Index inflation rate was 3.1% in August 2026. My annual service charge has therefore risen at more than twice that rate. Inflation does not determine what a service charge should be, but the comparison shows why leaseholders deserve a clear explanation for this increase. Source: Office for National Statistics, Consumer price inflation, UK: August 2026.

What has driven the increase? Which costs have risen, and why is there a further balancing charge for last year? Leaseholders should be given figures they can check, along with a straightforward explanation of any overspend and how it has been allocated. We do know there was a massiveand uenxplained £425,000 service charge overspend last year and for rasons that are not clear a huge resrve fund of over £1 million has been built up but without leaseholders being able to agreee or see any clear plan of works.

IMHO, Urang and the Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM directors are completely unaccountable at Chelsea Bridge Wharf and leaseholders are totally alienated and disempowered. Urang are no longer even complying with their own complaints process, wholly ignoring formal complaints on very serious issues, refusing to explain a £425,000 budget overspend, claiming that service charges are down when in fact they are up above inflation (this magic is achieved by excluding reserve fund contributions from the calculation!”). The directors were ‘elected’ in an absurdly undemocratic 9 (nine) minute AGM in December 2025; there is no date for any further elections.

Urang/the RTM company refuse to even produce a seperate budget for my block which is contrary to the lease IMHO. They are pressing ahead with a refurbishment of the concierge office which is not needed or wanted and on which leaseholders have not been consulted.

Urang/the RTM company have built up a £1 million reserve fund (through a huge increase in reserve fund contributions) but leaseholders cannot see the CAPEX plan or PMM (costed long-term planned preventative maintenance) which is contrary to RICS guidance. I suspect this document does not actually exist for Chelsea Bridge Wharf or if it is then clearly they have some reason not to share it with leaseholders.

Urang/the RTM company also seem to support the RTM director’s policy of arbitrary censorship and ”shadow banning” of leaseholders on the CBW app. RTM directors refuse to give any direct contact details to leaseholders and there is no way to complain about them or hold them accountable for their decisions. Most people do not even know their names.

Urang threatened leaseholders with LEGAL ACTION if they published any content from the meeting with leaseholders on 21st July 2026. They are unable to provide any legal basis or rationale for this absurd attempt to censor and prevent scrutiny of Urang/the RTM company.

Leaseholders have no more control over their service charges now than they did before Right to Manage. Change to the RTM legislation is badly needed to stop these abuses and lack of accountability which make Right to Manage meaningless. And yes that is an AI image-but an accurate reflection of how many leaseholders feel!

These are the figures for my flat (Warwick 1-3). Charges for other flats may differ. If you have received your latest demand, check your two half-yearly amounts against last year’s total—and check whether a balancing charge has been added separately.