Chelsea Bridge Wharf

Chelsea Bridge Wharf Chelsea Bridge Wharf residents for Right to Manage & a democratic accountable Right to Manage Company.

Changing managing agent will not make things better unless we have honest leaseholder representatives in charge End the culture of fear, have your say! Rendall and Rittner do not have the confidence of residents at Chelsea Bridge Wharf - we need a new managing agent.

So much for leaseholder empowerment at the UK's largest RTM development https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2026/05/17/lea...
17/05/2026

So much for leaseholder empowerment at the UK's largest RTM development

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2026/05/17/leaseholders-object-to-further-section-20-notice/

Urang have again issued leaseholders with a Section 20 Notice of Intent for repair and replacement of lifts. This follows an earlier attempt (20 December 2025) by Urang / the CBW RTM company to push through a similar notice for replacement of all carpets and all lifts across the 1,150-apartment development. Urang had to withdraw that notice when it became clear that they could not supply costs or timescales for the proposed works. The new Section 20 Notice of Intent is for repair/replacement/modernisation of lifts (carpets are “paused”).

The objection to this new section 20 argues that the consultation process is unfair, vague and procedurally flawed because it attempts to cover a large estate-wide programme of works without specifying exactly which lifts will be replaced, when works will occur, or what final costs will be. The letter criticises Urang for effectively seeking a “blank cheque” from leaseholders for potentially millions of pounds of expenditure over an undefined period.

The objection also highlights concerns that key evidence, particularly the KSK Consultants report used to justify the works, was withheld from leaseholders during the consultation period and has still not been circulated even though the window for objections to the section 20 notice is about to close. The objection argues that leaseholders cannot make informed observations without access to supporting reports, costings and technical evidence. The letter further questions whether the programme is genuinely necessary maintenance or instead an “upgrades agenda” focused on modernisation.

Urang have again issued leaseholders with a Section 20 Notice of Intent for repair and replacement of lifts. This follows an earlier attempt (20 December 2025) by Urang / the CBW RTM company to pus…

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2026/05/08/the-pennycook-drops-for-leaseholders-we-have-been-betrayed/May 8, 2026The r...
08/05/2026

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2026/05/08/the-pennycook-drops-for-leaseholders-we-have-been-betrayed/

May 8, 2026

The results of the May 7th 2026 local elections sent a message to the government of Kier Starmer, and nowhere was the anger more visible than among leaseholders. Across social media, frustration with Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook exploded. The words appearing again and again were “betrayal”, “sold out”, and “jam tomorrow”.

Labour politicians and campaigners spent years telling leaseholders that real reform was finally coming. During the election campaign, Labour talked about ending the “feudal” leasehold system, making commonhold the default, and empowering homeowners trapped in exploitative blocks. The rhetoric was bold. In government, the reality has been painfully weak.

Leaseholders were told reform would begin within the first 100 days. We heard promises to “abolish” leasehold for flats, “end” the scandal, and finally rebalance power away from freeholders and managing agents. Instead, what we have seen is delay, caution, excuses, and retreat.

And yet, some groups seem to defend the government at all costs. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership (LKP) and the National Leasehold Campaign (NLC), two closely related groups, have dismissed angry leaseholders as “over-excitable” or accused critics of exaggerating a so-called “betrayal narrative”. On the NLC Facebook group and other forums, dissenting voices have been removed from the group, without warning or explanation, apparently for questioning Labour’s direction or the performance of LKP or NLC, or posting material promoting other leasehold campaign groups. LKP continue to amplify government claims which we know are untrue (that leasehold will be ‘ended’ or ‘dismantled’ in the current parliament). Neither LKP nor NLC are themselves elected or accountable to leaseholders in any way. They are in my view, hugely out of step with the feelings of most leaseholders. Photos of NLC/LKP with government ministers and no account of the meeting, nor consultation with supporters is not representation. Many leaseholders feel that LKP and NLC are far too cosy with government.

But now the penny has dropped and leaseholders see the betrayal is not a ‘narrative’ or irrtational fear – it is real.

The government has still not implemented the Law Commission’s recommendations on Right to Manage. RTM was supposed to become cheaper, simpler and accessible. It has not. It would have been simple to drop the threshold for an RTM application from 50% to say 30% or 35% but this was not done and there is no explanation.

Neither is there any changes to RTM which would make directors more accountable to leaseholders – e.g. mandatory and fair elections and AGMs. Without this many RTMs remain unrepresentative of leaseholders and unaccountable to them, Chelsea Bridge Wharf, London SW11 (the UK’s largest RTM), being a case in point.

There is no regulation of managing agents proposed. Enfranchisement remains unaffordable for most leaseholders and the 50% threshold is also unachievable at most developments, which blocks the path to commonhold conversions. This means leaseholders staying trapped in leasehold AND being unable to access any levers of power against the agent and freeholder.

Leaseholders still face legal traps, technical failures and professional freeholder obstruction. There is no provision to stop freeholders ’embedding agents’ in developments. Many LAFRA provisions have still not been switched on.

Only a tiny percentage of developments have achieved RTM or enfranchisement and therefore the propotion who will be able to convert to commonhold is likely to be even smaller..if commonhold ever happens. The long-promised Commonhold Bill has been delayed again and again. Ministers now openly admit it may not be in effect until the next Parliament. By then, the political landscape could be completely different. Aided by malign foreign actors and unchecked millions in donations, Reform UK is, sadly, rising. A future Reform government could gut what little progress has been made or abandon reform entirely. Labour is unable to crack down on such donations because it also relies on highly questionable corporate donations, having alienated its traditional supporters and seeing a membership crash under Starmer.

Meanwhile, Labour’s actual measures look painfully timid beside the promises. A 250-year cap. A 40-year transition. Weak reforms that still preserve the power structures of leasehold. We were promised transformation and got managerial tinkering.

Even worse, ministers have started preparing the public for failure. We now hear phrases like “we cannot do it overnight” and “it’s not realistic to abolish leasehold immediately”. But nobody asked for overnight perfection. Leaseholders asked for political courage and a clear direction of travel.

Instead, the message now sounds disturbingly close to: “We’re not really going to abolish it.”

That is why anger is growing. Every year of delay creates more leaseholders, more victims, and more people trapped in unsellable or financially toxic homes. By the end of this Parliament, there may actually be more leaseholders than when Labour took office.

For many campaigners, this is the deepest frustration of all. After decades of abuse by developers, freeholders and managing agents, leaseholders finally believed a government was on their side.

Now they are being told to wait again. Jam tomorrow, forever.

There is till time for Labour to change course, they have 3 years till the next election and a large majority. However it is clear a change of leadership is needed, in terms of the Prime Minister and those ministers who have taken such a feeble and ineffective approach to these vital reforms. There are many reasons why voters rejected Labour – failure on leasehold was one of them. If they want to get a greater share of the 5 million+ leaseholder votes at the next election they need to give us something concrete in the very near future.

The results of the May 7th 2026 local elections sent a message to the government of Kier Starmer, and nowhere was the anger more visible than among leaseholders. Across social media, frustration wi…

A response to the govt consultation on the draft leasehold and commonhold bill. Please recirculate on social media and c...
28/02/2026

A response to the govt consultation on the draft leasehold and commonhold bill. Please recirculate on social media and comment/supprt on my blog

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2026/02/28/the-governments-consultation-on-the-leasehold-and-commonhold-reform-bill-a-response-from-leaseholders/

Summary:
This submission raises concerns that the draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill fails to deliver on the government’s commitment to end the leasehold system and risks creating a two-tier housing market in which existing leaseholders remain trapped while new properties move to commonhold. A key issue identified is the lack of clarity on enfranchisement rates. Without affordable and predictable pricing for buying the freehold, many leaseholders will be unable to convert to commonhold and will remain dependent on freeholders indefinitely.

The submission highlights widespread problems experienced by leaseholders across the UK, based on experience through the Rendall and Rittner Action Network, including high service charges, poor service quality, lack of transparency, and limited accountability. Survey evidence from 2025 suggests these problems remain prevalent, with many leaseholders facing financial stress and difficulty selling their homes.

While Right to Manage (RTM) can provide some empowerment, the submission argues that it is currently too difficult to obtain and vulnerable to abuse once implemented. Insufficient legal requirements around governance mean that small groups of directors can exercise power without meaningful elections, consultation, or accountability. The experience at Chelsea Bridge Wharf is presented as an example of how RTM can fail without stronger safeguards. Reforms are therefore proposed to improve transparency, democratic participation, and regulatory oversight of RTM companies.

The submission also criticises the failure to include remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and RTM, the proposed ground rent cap timeline extending to 2068, and barriers affecting leaseholders in mixed-use buildings or those who did not initially participate in enfranchisement. It argues that managing agents should be prevented from obstructing RTM and should face stronger regulation and sanctions for non-compliance with legal obligations.

The submission concludes that stronger reforms are needed to ensure affordable enfranchisement, easier access to RTM, proper regulation of managing agents and RTM companies, and a genuine transition to commonhold. Without significant changes, most leaseholders will remain in the current system for the foreseeable future.

24th February 2026 A group of leaseholders at Chelsea Bridge Wharf and Rendall and Rittner Action Network London SW11 [email protected] Dear Madam/SirThis is my response to your c…

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/12/21/urang-and-the-right-to-manage-company-plan-to-spend-upwards-of-300000-on-up...
21/12/2025

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/12/21/urang-and-the-right-to-manage-company-plan-to-spend-upwards-of-300000-on-upgrades/

On December 20th, Urang issued leaseholders a section 20 notice of intent as they are legally obliged to do when planning expenditure which is likely to amount to £250 per apartment or more.

Urang have cynically chosen to issue the notice just before the Xmas/New Year period, clearly hoping that people will be too busy during this period to ask for more details or to object.

Urang chose not to include the schedule of planned works or estimated cost as they could easily have done but instead force people to request this if they wish to see it (again hoping that most people will not bother).

No evidence has been provided that these “upgrades” are necessary or are the preference of leaseholders – indeed such evidence as we have suggested that reducing the service charge is the priority. These ''upgrades'' have been identified, at least in part, by Garton-Jones estate agents (according to Bella Metcalf of Urang). Leaseholders cannot see any record of these conversation nor of the meetings between Urang and the directors of the Right to Manage company.

On December 20th, Urang issued leaseholders a section 20 notice of intent as they are legally obliged to do when planning expenditure which is likely to amount to £250 per apartment or more. Urang …

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/11/23/the-continuing-evasive-and-opaque-behaviour-of-urang-at-chelsea-bridge-whar...
23/11/2025

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/11/23/the-continuing-evasive-and-opaque-behaviour-of-urang-at-chelsea-bridge-wharf/

On 9th November, I made a complaint to Urang on a number of matters, and below is their reply of 21st November and my responses to that in red. In short, it is more evasive and opaque waffle from Urang, and some key points are:

Urang will not publish the management contract, but you might be able to see it if you sign a non-disclosure agreement (this has never been offered before, so maybe that is progress?)

Urang will not allow leaseholders to see the register of RTM company members unless you fill in a formal request stating your 'proper purpose' for doing so (which they will then no doubt find some bogus reason to reject).

Urang will not say how many members there are in the RTM company, so we cannot know if any meeting is even quorate.

We cannot see the notes of meetings between Urang and the RTM company directors.

Urang will not be publishing findings of the 'residents survey' or the survey on satisfaction with Urang staff because these are for 'internal use' only.

Urang cannot explain why they will not publish a transcript of the meeting with leaseholders on 15th September.

Urang cannot explain why there was no meeting of candidates for directors where leaseholders could ask them questions.

Urang cannot explain why the online voting platform for the election of directors did not offer an abstain option but instead offers 'discretionary', which basically gives all neutral votes to the Chair (Louis Kendall), who is himself a candidate in the election and can use these votes to vote for himself potentially, and his pals, or against his opponents - and we will never know how many such votes have been used because Urang will not report this, nor say why they will not report this.

Urang cannot explain why they did not invite leaseholders to submit motions to the AGM on 24th November or why an 'online only' format was used.

Urang refuses to say how much has been spent on organizing these highly manipulated elections in terms of the online election platform (LUMI) and the legal advice which they have apparently been taking for several months in order to cover their backs in these dubious behaviors.

On 9th November, I made a complaint to Urang on a number of matters, and below is their reply of 21st November and my responses to that in red. In short, it is more evasive and opaque waffle from U…

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/08/29/urang-and-chelsea-bridge-wharf-right-to-manage-company-hide-from-the-ballot...
29/08/2025

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/08/29/urang-and-chelsea-bridge-wharf-right-to-manage-company-hide-from-the-ballot-box-again-september-14th-elections-postponed-without-explanation/

In a move which is not particularly unexpected, Urang and the unelected directors of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to manage company have again dodged the ballot box, cancelling the elections which Tony Hymers of Urang promised to an audience of leaseholders at a meeting on July 9th, without any meaningful explanation. This was announced in an email today (29th August) from Bella Metcalf of Urang. These games are very familiar to residents of Chelsea Bridge Wharf and follow the same pattern as the CBWRA chair elections over the last 4-5 years:

That leaseholders have to fight for an election to be called

Eventually and reluctantly an election date is agreed, usually many months past the agreed term

That date is then itself continually extended often without explanation

No process for elections is announced until a few weeks before the election to prevent any debate or campaigning and to minimise the chance of anyone coming forward to stand

That the CBW app account of at least one potential candidate has been closed, to silence them

There is no clarity in the voting process and no independent inspection of the results. Rules are changed at the last minute without explanation.

In a move which is not particularly unexpected, Urang and the unelected directors of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to manage company have again dodged the ballot box, cancelling the elections whic…

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/03/09/how-urang-were-selected-to-be-the-new-agent-at-chelsea-bridge-wharf/CBWRA i...
28/07/2025

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/03/09/how-urang-were-selected-to-be-the-new-agent-at-chelsea-bridge-wharf/

CBWRA informed those residents on their mailing list (on 17.6.23) that they they are to engage Urang as managing agents for the RTM application at Chelsea Bridge Wharf. As reported here there has been no meaningful consultation with residents they were simply sent a brief note of the managing agent shortlisted with a ‘deeper look’ only provided for one agent (Urang). Residents were only able to meet one agent – Urang. CBWRA invited residents to give feedback on this decision (which is not a consultation) and have not published any meaningful account of the responses received. There is no mention of how many responses received from residents or how many were positive or negative. I know for fact that some residents objected to the lack of fair consultation (including me in this letter) but this is not mentioned. It would appear that the committee voted by email in a ‘secret ballot’ (rather than in a meeting) with 9 for and 3 abstaining. We are not told why they abstained or who abstained.

The committee were not allowed to see the contract with Urang (which apparently was for two years) so how could they possible make an informed decision in any case?

The ‘secret ballot’ committee vote is another tool from the CBWRA dysfunctional anti-democracy toolkit: it prevents discussion between committee members (or residents) in a meeting prior to a vote which would allow committee members and residents to interact with each other, it means that committee members do not know who else is supporting or opposing particular views and maximises the chances that the committee members (none of whom are elected) will simply follow the recommendation of the Chair. Why was this vote not simply held at an open meeting which residents could attend?

Nearly two years later, Leaseholders have still not been allowed to see the contract with Urang and now that RTM is about to happen, and Urang will take over as managing agent, and the existing contract will (presumably) expire around June 2025, leaseholders must be allowed to see the existing contract and any new contract BEFORE it is signed.

CBWRA informed those residents on their mailing list (on 17.6.23) that they they are to engage Urang as managing agents for the RTM application at Chelsea Bridge Wharf. As reported here there has b…

Tony Hymers of Urang is unable or unwilling to give meaningful answers to any of these questions. The idea that Urang ha...
27/07/2025

Tony Hymers of Urang is unable or unwilling to give meaningful answers to any of these questions. The idea that Urang have intended a new era of transparency is beyond ridiculous. Urang are a disgrace and it shows quite clearly, if it was ever in doubt, where they get such atrocious reviews on Trustpilot and Google.

Why can’t leaseholders see the contract with Urang?
Why have the elections for directors or the RTM company been postponed till September?

What is the protocol for the election of RTM directors? Why is it not published?

How can there be fair elections when some leaseholders are ‘banned’ from the CBW app for calling out the misinformation of the RTM directors ?

Why do Urang refuse to share the notes from the RTM company’s weekly meeting with Urang which they claim they are having?

When there will be a survey of residents as promised?

How can Urang claim to know what residents’ priorities are, without consultation? Urang are claiming that it is not a leaseholder priority to reduce service charges but in fact it is a top priority for many as was clear from the meeting of residents with Urang on June the 9th where 74% stated that service charge levels were a priority.

Why has Urang apparently embarked on a major programme of renovation – without any costings or consultation?

Why are Urang interviewing contactors for site-wide entryphone replacement – something which is neither necessary nor wanted by residents.

What is the cost of the drone photography/video project which Urang and the RTM company have decided to carry out? Should such PR stunts really be a priority? Why have residents not been consulted about this? Mr. Hymers claims there is ‘no costs’ but this is in direct contradiction of what other Urang staff have said – i.e that the (unspecified) costs of this ‘drone project’ shared between RTM co and Urang and that the refuse to tell us the cost now but that leaseholders will be able find it in the accounts when they are published (which would be over a year away)

When there will be an Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the RTM company?

When will the next meeting with Urang and leaseholders will be?
What is Urang’s assessment of the handover from Rendall and Rittner? Is everything on order? Are there funds or key document missing or any key issues which are unclear?

Are the RTM company assessing, as they promised, to examine what action can be taken against Rendall and Rittner for inappropriate charging (i.e. a service charge audit).?

What is the cost of the Right to Manage process and will any of this be billed to the service charge? Urang confirm that some of this cost will be added to the service charge but refuse to say how much or when. Leaseholders should note that they are not obliged to pay this cost – it cannot be legally enforced.

Are you, as a Chelsea Bridge Wharf leaseholder, OK with this? Are you prepared to remain passive and silent while Urang continue to ignore leaseholders’ wishes and instead do the bidding of 4 unelected RTM directors?

if not, please get in touch ([email protected]) and / or join the CBW community Facebook group. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past – we need elected and accountable directors and a management company that answers to leaseholders not just to 4 unelected directors who are utterly out of touch with what leaseholders want.

Tony Hymers of Urang is unable or unwilling to give meaningful answers to any of these questions. The idea that Urang have intended a new era of transparency is beyond ridiculous. Urang are a disgr…

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/06/27/still-no-answers-from-urang/Urang and the RTM directors need to answer thes...
27/06/2025

https://chelseabridgewharf.org.uk/2025/06/27/still-no-answers-from-urang/

Urang and the RTM directors need to answer these questions:

Why has a director of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage Company (Larissa Villar Hauser) resigned?
What is the plan and protocol for the election of RTM directors?
Why have the elections have been postponed until September?
When there will be a survey of residents as promised?
Why can’t we see a copy of the contract with Urang?
For what period have Urang been engaged, what fees are they being paid, what is the notice period on either side?
Who will decide if Urang’s contract is renewed and on what criteria will that judgement be made?
When there will be an Annual General Meeting of the RTM company?
When will the next meeting with Urang and leaseholders be?
Why are Urang and the RTM company failing to respect leaseholders’ clear wishes for quarterly meetings? (Incidentally, when my motion for quarterly meetings was passed, CBWRA stated that it was unnecessary as Urang had wanted to do that anyway.

The truth is that Urang say they know nothing about that and only want to meet leaseholders twice a year.!).
Despite many requests to the property manager and CEO of Urang over many weeks, it seems they are unable to supply a copy of their complaints policy. Why is that?

So much for Urang’s ‘new era of transparency’. If you would like to leave a review for Urang on Trustpilot (good or bad) the link is here and link for Google reviews here. Remember that they are, in theory, working for us and if they cannot behave accordingly then their stay should be as short as possible. I hope that things do work out with Urang and if they really do want to start a new era of transparency then I will be happy to support them. So far it just seems like empty rhetoric. I do appreciate they are being controlled by the five unelected RTM directors but they need to remember that they are ultimately answerable to all leaseholders.

Anyone who wants to contact me directly can get me at this email address [email protected]

Urang and the RTM directors need to answer these questions: Why has a director of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf Right to Manage Company (Larissa Villar Hauser) resigned? What is the plan and protocol fo…

Address

Queenstown Road
London
SW84NS

Telephone

+447970571197

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Chelsea Bridge Wharf posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category