Fact and Fiction at Chelsea Bridge Wharf

We seem to have the absurd situation in the CBWRA where one person (the former Chair, Stephen Thompson or the current ‘co-Chairs’ Larisa Villar Hauser and Louis-Sebastian Kendall), can arbitrarily decide that someone else (someone who is critical of some of their decisions and performance and who is standing for Chair) is ‘misleading’ residents (despite all evidence to the contrary) and summarily and permanently close their CBW app account. It seems that the current co-chairs Louis-Sebastian Kendall and Larissa Villar-Hauser support this policy (as they are still repeating the completely unevidenced claim that I had broken the rules of the CBW app). Having a candidate excluded from the CBW app most certainly helped them to win the Chair elections. Despite repeated requests to CBWRA, they are unable to supply any information to support their claim that I broke CBW app community guidelines. It is quite clear in my view that this is about censorship and preventing fair Chair elections. It means that CBWRA is not functioning as a normal residents’ association should.

This sort of behaviour is something you might expect in a dictatorship but not in a democratic society. While I am forced to be absent from the CBW app, the former Chair (Mr Stephen Thompson), repeatedly made statements about me which I feel are defamatory and are completely untrue and unevidenced. I consider these wild and groundless statements to be a smear campaign, and given that they were intensified in the run up to, and during, the Chair elections, they made a fair election impossible. My solicitor has written to Mr Thompson (5.2.23) and offered him the opportunity to draw a line under these matters by a simple retraction and apology on the CBW app – unfortunately Mr Thompson has refused to do that and hence I am writing this letter in order to defend my reputation. I am not able to reply on the platform where the accusations against me were made as my CBW app account is closed.

CBWRA continue to ignore letters from my solicitor over many months, I can only assume this is because they know that what I have said is true they have no meaningful defence or response.

Below I reply to numerous instances of what I consider to be defamation by Mr Thompson Since May 2022, and detail numerous other claims made by Mr Thompson and CBWRA more generally which in my view are not true.

As much as I want Right to Manage (which I have campaigned for for more than 2 years), the thought of this group of people (only two of whom are elected and even that in a very dubious process) making the calls on a £5 million budget, without resident consultation, or transparency, is not an attractive proposition. As I show below the CBWRA committee do not have a very good record on decisions and communications around Right to Manage and that’s being very very polite.

Claim/evidenceNotes
That I ‘harassed Mr Thompson and the committee for 3 years’   Evidence provided : None  The committee has only existed for 2 years and there is a complete electronic record (zoom recordings, emails, phone calls) of all my interaction with it as I never met them in person until long after these allegations were made. No accusation of harassment was ever made against me at any time while on the committee or afterwards until Jan 23. Residents challenged Mr Thompson for the evidence when he made these allegations on he CBW app and he said it was ‘available on request’ but in fact he was unable to supply any evidence at all to those who requested it. In fact I have had to report Mr Thompson to the Metropolitan Police on two separate occasions for persistent unwanted contact on my personal email/phone and in he former complaint, the use of threatening language (crime reference 0327582/21  December 2021, and crime reference 0301574/23  January 2023) and on both occasions Mr Thompson was spoken to by the Police and asked not to contact me again except for any essential official communications via CBWRA.

Mr Thompson claims to have reported me to the Police in January 2023 but my understanding is that this was not a crime report – he simply emailed a police officer saying that he was unhappy about my website. This was never followed up by the Police and they never contacted me as there was no crime to investigate. The Met Police have confirmed (13.2.23) that I have not been the subject of any complaint or investigation at any time.

That I am ‘well known to the Police’

Evidence provided : None 		Literally the only contact I have had with the Police in the last 10+ years is to make complaints about Mr Thompson. So in that sense I am becoming well known to them perhaps, but only as a victim.

As at January 2024 I believe Mr Thompson has been the subject of four complaints to the Police from three residents but remains a committee member and a director of the CBWRA Right to Manage company.

I suggest this means that he is ‘well known to the Police’.
That I ‘have a history of misleading residents’ Evidence provided : NoneNo evidence was provided. I have never misled anyone. I can identify several instances where Mr Thompson/CBWRA have at the very least misinformed residents see https://tinyurl.com/267a4fsa especially regarding Right to Manage.
That I have published libellous material on my website Evidence provided : NoneMy solicitor wrote to Mr Thompson some time ago (5.2.23) and asked him to identify any material on chelseabridgewharf.org.uk that he considered libellous and offering to amend if evidence of inaccuracy was provided. We have had no reply. Readers may draw their own conclusions from that about the validity of these claims.
That I was ‘got rid of’ from the committee because of my behaviour/bullying Evidence provided : None  I resigned from the CBWRA committee in Oct. 21 because I was given an ultimatum to take down my petition against Rendall and Rittner or leave the committee, two days after Richard Daver of Rendall and Rittner had complained about said petition in an email to Mr Thompson (16.9.21) and because of the ridiculous and failed policy of developing a ‘collegiate relationship’ with Rendall and Rittner and not carrying out a management audit of them, partly in order to preserve this supposed relationship. My resignation letter (Oct 21) https://tinyurl.com/4myk9x83 also references; lack of progress on Right to Manage/denial that RTM was possible; lack of consultation with residents and no progress on producing a constitution for over 6 months. All of these issues have pretty much continued up to the current time.
After I resigned, my CBW app account was then closed (1st closure!) and unevidenced allegations of bullying by me were made by Mr Thompson. He claims he contacted me the day before I resigned (29th October) to have a ‘private discussion’ (the implication being that I resigned because of allegations of bullying) but when asked by my solicitor he was unable to provide evidence of this contact. My app account was re-opened following protests from residents but closed again in November 2021 (2nd closure) after I posted a letter showing that the claims of bullying by me were total nonsense https://tinyurl.com/bdkn9nwa. I have still not received a reply to this letter and no evidence of any bullying has ever been presented. In a recent letter to my solicitor Mr Thompson appears to have partially withdrawn the claims of bullying and now only claims (letter to my solicitor Nov 22) that I was ‘abrupt in an email on one occasion!’ (his original claims included that I had ‘bullied 5 members of the committee!) so you may draw the obvious conclusion about the credibility of Mr Thompson’s claims about me or others.
That I refused to attend election hustings in 2022 Chair elections Evidence provided : None  Complete nonsense. There were no ”hustings” in any case. I withdrew from the election process because of what I considered to be an unfair process (which I think we have again this year) where the CBW app was used in a less than impartial way (people supporting me were private messaged from the CBWRA official account), the Chair made repeated unfounded and unevidenced allegations of supposed bullying by me, and a contract was signed with Roger Southam, days before the elections were due to open. This would have tied my hands if elected, to pursue retendering the management contract which as I predicted was a complete failure and in my view wasted of up to £15,000 of residents’ money
That I claimed there had been ‘vote rigging’ in the 2021 or 2022 Chair elections Evidence provided : None  I never made any such allegation, What I did ask for was simply the number of residents who had been invited to take part in the vote – not unreasonable! It took at least a month to get this information as I recall.

I personally did not claim there was any vote rigging, and never have, but I did not see the voting data in the 2021 election (as far as I am aware only Charlie Garton-Jones saw this).

There should have been independent (non-committee) inspection in my view simply because that is good practice and increases transparency.

I do not and have not alleged any vote rigging by anyone at any time

Another candidate in the 2021 Chair elections DID make allegations of this kind and specially she suggested that the election results had been rigged in favour of Mr Thompson. I have her messages about that on file. I did not endorse her view because she did not provide any evidence to support.

I raised a number of other points re conduct of 2022 elections including that then (as now) the Chair had been allowed a free hand to defame me with unfounded allegations about bullying members of the committee and the CBW official app account was used in a partisan way (e.g. people supporting me were private messaged with claims that the current ‘regime’ would obtain my policy objectives., and by implication there was no need to vote for me). All very sad and I am sure it will be the same every year unless someone is able to put the CBWRA house in order and especially what is in my view the mismanagement of the CBW app. My manifesto was withheld for 3 weeks, and there was to be no campaigning period (manifestos circulated only when the polls opened).

The running of the 2023 election was not fair free or impartial as anyone can see with one candidate banned from the CBW app without any due process or meaningful explanation and the same person being subjected to bizarre and unevidenced claims by the Chair and other committee members, in his absence. In addition Garton-Jones estate agents endorsed Larissa Villar Hauser /Louis-Sebastian Kendall and actually sent survey invites to their CBW owners’ list, encouraging them to vote in that way. This goes well beyond endorsement in my view – it is not clear if CBWRA approved these actions by Garton-Jones but I have not heard any condemnation of it from CBWRA.

Another candidate withdrew form the contest after (in his view) being intimidated by Mr. Thompson at a committee meeting and afterwards in the Piazza in Chelsea Bridge Wharf, in March 2023.

The voting form contains some bias (in the wording) which may not be intentional. I have requested independent inspection of the 2023 Chair election results but this was not done.

There were around 335 votes which represents around 30% turnout (1122 properties approx, with 1 vote per household). This seems extremely low turnout and although CBWRA claim they have contacted every leaseholder at least once I would like to see evidence of that, given the major issues with databases which came to a head at the time of the election (Rendall and Rittner did not pass its leaseholder database to CBWRA – only those who opted in via a last minute email – so I would like to see evidence that CBWRA have a full list of leaseholders). Turnout in some blocks was inexplicably low (e.g. just 2 votes in Hawker out of 37 apartments a 5% turnout!).
That a letter from Mike O’Driscoll and other residents to our local councillor about what we saw as poor governance and online bullying on the CBW app was dismissed by said councillor as being ‘no case to answer’
Evidence provided : None apart from a verbal account of the supposed position of the councillor which the councillor says is not correct (to put it politely) 		In January 2023, a group of residents who were very concerned about lack of information on elections and not feeling safe on the CBW app, wrote a letter to a local councillor regarding CBWRA/The Chair of CBWRA. The councillor copied the letter to Mr Thompson accidentally but was asked not to publish it as the authors had not consented. Mr Thompson did publish the letter on the CBW app {although redacting most names} along with his comments. The CBWRA notes on this state that

”’ Vasundhara (Talwar) brought up the letter which Mike O’Driscoll send the local councillor and the allegations made against the RA Committee and its Chair. Stephen said the councillor had concluded that there was no basis for the allegations made and that the RA had no case to answer. The councillor had also agreed to confirm this in writing in a form that could be used should Mr O’Driscoll publicly refer to his allegations against the RA.”

But when I (Mike O’Driscoll) contacted the councillor to ask if he had said this he replied that he had not said this and was very surprised that Mr Thompson would make such a claim. What he had actually said was that his ability to investigate was limited, and he certainly did not say there was no basis for the allegations. 
That I have alleged Mr Thompson/CBWRA committee/CBWRA is a not acting in good faith with regard to Right to Manage

(CBWRA May 2022 newsletter)


The CBWRA May 2022 newsletter states

‘A misapprehension has recently circulated claiming that the re-tender process is not being acted upon in good faith due to an underlying agenda to stand in the way of a change to the existing management arrangement with R&R. This was based on the assertion that, contrary to the information provided by the RA committee, there is, in fact, no obstacle to pursuing the Right to Manage (RTM) option.’

I have not suggested there is an underlying agenda to stand in the way of change to the existing management arrangement with R&R.

What I have pointed out (supported by expert advice) is that First Port v Settlers Court is not, as claimed by CBWRA, an obstacle to Right to Manage at CBW as the committee and current co-chairs now apparently accept (since they state they are committed to Right to Manage). Therefore CBWRA committee (including the current Co-Chairs Louis-Sebastian Kendall and Larissa Villar-Hauser) has apparently misinformed residents in saying (in May 2022 and at other times) that Right to Manage was not possible.

NB that this newsletter in May 2022 also states that .

” the committee explain (ed) on multiple occasions that the legal situation had changed subsequent to Mike’s meeting with Roger Southam”

In fact no such ‘explanation’ was ever mentioned prior to the AGM in May 2022 , as far as I am aware.

My CBW app account was closed (as far as I can tell) for supposedly supplying the ‘misleading information’ that Right to Manage IS possible at CBW. Since the committee now agree that it is possible perhaps they could apologise to me and all the other residents at CBW for supplying/supporting incorrect advice.

Since the Chairs now admit that Right to Manage is possible, and claim to be pursuing it, (using the firm which I identified and which supplied the advice showing that Right to Manage was possible and that the advice in the CBWRA newsletter was wrong) it would be appropriate for an apology to be issued to me and other residents for the time and money which they have wasted and the false claims made about me.

There are also many other instances of CBWRA misinforming residents:

On 2.3.23 CBWRA published a very strange letter on the CBW app.
This letter claims that CBWRA has ‘ Always ‘supported’ Right to Manage at CBW – 		In fact CBWRA said categorically in their May 2022 newsletter that Right to Manage was not possible at CBW

‘’leaseholders in large estates are unable to sever ties with the former management company by utilising the right to manage scheme’’ (CBWRA newsletter May 2022)

Both of the current co-chairs (Larisa Villar Hauser and Louis Sebastian Kendall) were part of the committee at the time this newsletter was produced. They have never apologised or explained this misinformation to residents.
In the same letter on 2.3.23 CBWRA claimed that they have an ongoing tender process for the management contract.This is untrue. The attempt to retender the management contract failed in September 2022 and cannot be restarted at any time since the agreement with Fairhold Artemis expired at the end of 2022. CBWRA have never explained or apologised for making this untrue claim.
Again, in the same letter on 23.23 CBWRA stated that Berkeley Homes had ”started a retender process of the management contract” and that this was due to lobbying by CBWRA. Both of those claims are denied by Berkeley Homes. They have not started any retender process and have no plans to do so. CBWRA have never explained or apologised for making this untrue claim.
In January 2022, CBWRA claimed that they had initiated a Right to Manage process This is untrue. CBWRA did not initiate a Right to Manage process in January 2022 . They must surely have been aware that this information was incorrect, especially as I pointed it out to them.

CBWRA are finally moving towards Right to Manage (notice served on freeholders in February 2024) , after an immense amount of pressure from me and other residents and after having wasted 3 years in telling residents that Right to Manage was not possible. Sadly the unelected committee still refuse to meaningfully consult residents on the choice of managing agent and refuse to let the CBWRA committee or residents see the contract with Urang.
CBWRA’s home page states that:


”The association is led by a board of elected residents and holds regular meetings to discuss and address the concerns of the community. They also organize events and activities to promote a sense of community and bring residents together. The association aims to be the voice of the community and advocate for the needs and interests of its residents”.​		CBWRA is not led by a ”board of elected residents”. No one on the committee has been elected apart from the ‘Co-Chairs’ (and that process was a long way from free or fair) and there are no plans to elect the committee but rather to ‘ratify’ it (i.e. residents are asked to ‘approve’ the current committee). This ‘ratification’ took place in the September 2023 SGM (after the committee had been in place for 2 years without ever facing election). Only 144 leaseholders (out of 1,150) voted to ‘ratify’ the CBWRA committee, i.e. around 12.5% of all leaseholders. Most votes were cast as proxy votes in advance of the SGM and at no time did any committee member put forward a statement of what they stood for, or what their achievements might have been. It would seem most of the CBWRA committee do not even attend committee meetings on a regular basis, especially not if they are physical meetings.

CBWRA has not consulted with residents at all since re-activating in January 2021 other than the annual residents survey which I carried out in Summer 2021, a pseudo consultation on choice of managing agent and a pseudo consultation re the future of the fountains which did not even offer the option which most people support (filling them in).

The idea that this group of mostly unelected people which rarely or never consults with residents is the ”voice of the community” is beyond laughable.

There were no regular meetings with residents up till October 2023. There are about 8 committee meetings a year at which residents may get a 10 or 15 minutes to ask questions after (even that was not allowed until recently).

The minutes from these meetings are highly selective to say the least and with regard to the meeting on 14th May 2023 are highly censored (as I will illustrate in more detail shortly).

From October 2023 quarterly ‘leaseholder forums’ were introduced. As the name suggests, tenants are not allowed to attend, so presumably CBWRA is not interested in what they have to say even if they are long term resident at CBW, or even if they are the partner or relative of a leaseholder. Rather than to have hybrid meetings (in person and online), CBWRA have decided to alternate between face to face and online which means there will be just two meetings a year which are face to face.

It is not clear what the leaseholder forums are supposed to achieve There is no agenda and clearly no thought had been given to the format of the meeting. For reasons best known to themselves CBWRA used the ‘Games Room’ at BPS rather than the meeting room which meant that people had to sit on sofas and armchairs spread around a very large room and the people at one end could not easily see or hear those at the other. Only 3 committee members (out of ? 16) turned up. Another triumph of style over substance – the idea that informal seating somehow makes it a better meeting was readily disproved.

CBWRA refuse to publish notes of the Leaseholder Forum meeting on 4th October or the meeting on 24th January 2024.

The Co Chairs are unable to explain why they are not publishing notes of the meetings
Louis Sebastian Kendall claimed (in August 2023) that I disrupted an AGM in May 2023, with a query about proxy votesNot only did I not disrupt the meeting, this ‘event’ literally did not happen. I did not mention proxy votes at any point in the AGM. When I pointed out that I had a recording of the meeting this allegation was hastily withdrawn but Mr Kendall does not have the maturity or decency to apologise.  
Louis Sebastian Kendall claimed (in the ‘Leaseholder Forum’ of 24th January 2024) that there is no requirement in the CBWRA constitution for annual chair elections The constitution adopted in September 2023 which removed many basic rights of leaseholders (including the right to inspect notes of communication between CBWRA and the freeholders and managing agent) states that

12.3 The Oversight Committee shall conduct and monitor the annual election to select a
chairperson.

Therefore Mr Kendall’s claim is untrue/misleading

Note also that the article states A CHAIRPERSON – not two chair people which no doubt the co-chairs will continue to ignore.
On the CBW app on 29th October, 2023 Louis Sebastian Kendall stated ”The RA have been heavily involved particularly in the electric and discussions are still ongoing. The RA met with the head of procurement at R&R to secure a contract outside the bulk portfolio which brought rates down, were not happy with the daily standing charge which has been challenged and we await a reply”.The electricity contract for Warwick (and only Warwick) was indeed secured outside of the Rendall and Rittner bulk retendering process – but this was done BY LONDON AND QUADRANT HOUSING ASSOCIATION. CBWRA do not have any power to negotiate contracts for Warwick Building or any other building. I understand that Rendall and Rittner have asked CBWRA to clarify what role CBWRA claim to have had in the electricity retendering but have received no reply.

CBWRA did meet with the head of procurement at R and R and in traditional CBWRA style there are no notes of the meeting available. CBWRA abolished the right of residents to examine correspondence with the managing agents when they ‘updated’ the constitution in September 2023. This ‘update’ also removed the right of non members to vote in Chair elections (which was not mentioned at the time) and also removed the role of ‘residents auditors’ (i.e. someone from outside the committee to inspect the accounts). Residents were told that only minor changes were being made to the constitution and were given only 10 days to examine it before a vote on its adoption.

Summary: The CBWRA ‘co-chairs’ claimed (email to members May 2024) that there was a limit of 3 motions per person at the 2023 AGM and that it would be the same this year (at the 2024 AGM). There was no such limit at the 2023 AGM (I submitted 5 motions, 2 of which were passed by a majority of leaseholders who voted) and there is no basis in the constitution for creating such a limit. I have asked CBWRA three times if they can explain why they made this claim of a limit of 3 motions and they are unable to do so. I think it is reasonable to conclude therefore that this was yet another attempt to mislead residents with a view to exerting even further control on resident involvement. In my view, it is petty, controlling and cynical and shows the contempt which CBWRA has for facts and for residents.