Leaseholders have won the right to manage of the landmark Thames riverside site Chelsea Bridge Wharf, which includes the headquarters of the developer that built it, the Berkeley Group.
This is a hugely significant achievement, bringing flat-owner empowerment to one of the most important leasehold sites in the country just at the point when government is bringing forward a succession of reforms.
The victory is a loud rebuke to the existing system whereby management is imposed on flat owners by freeholders or head lessees, whose financial stake is a mere fraction of the value of the building. The value of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf site is well over £1 billion.
The fact that the Berkeley Group put up almost no resistance to the RTM, and mainly sought the court’s reassurance that the RTM was valid, is a step that is bound to be noted by other housebuilders.
Vincent Tchenguiz’s organisation, in the form of Fairhold Artemis Limited, owns five headleases at the site, could in normal circumstances be relied upon fiercely to resist RTM, but given Berkeley’s acquiescence it did not put up its habitual fight.
The victory (ruling below) means that Chelsea Bridge Wharf is the largest right to manage site in the country, eclipsing the 967-flat Century Wharf in Cardiff.
Successfully obtaining right to manage for the site is also a massive personal achievement for Paul Cleaver, who set up the Urang property management group, which has been LKP accredited since it began in 2012, after working with NM Rothschild in the City.
LKP routinely suggests Urang to leaseholders for right to manage applications, especially at larger, complex sites in London.
The RTM company at Chelsea Bridge Wharf has engaged Urang to run the site, which hitherto has been managed by Rendall and Rittner, now part of the giant Swedish group Odevo.
Assorted leaseholder groups at Chelsea Bridge Wharf have reached out to LKP several times in the past – and to our chair Martin Boyd, who is also chair of the ex-Berkeley site Charter Quay in Kingston since 2010.
At one point, the leaseholders successfully urged the removal of FirstPort, which was replaced by Rendall and Rittner. But this, of course, still involved a management accountable to the freeholder and head lease owners only, not the leaseholders.
The current residents’ association at Chelsea Bridge Wharf contacted LKP from 2021, and we recommended that they deployed the services of Urang.
In addition, we frequently meet Rob Perrins, the CEO of the Berkeley Group, whose headquarters are at the site.
Mr Perrins is the only plc housebuilder who regularly engages with LKP, and we have discussed with him the RTM issues at Chelsea Bridge Wharf. It is worth noting that Berkeley is not a member of the Home Builders Federation, the trade body and lobbying group for most of the sector.
Leaseholder Larisa Villar Hauser, one of the RTM directors, said after the ruling: “The prime advantage of right to manage is the ability to change managing agents when things are not working. You become the client and the managing agent knows that he is answering to you rather than the freeholder.
“It is very difficult to say whether there will be any immediate cash savings, however. Obviously, leaseholders are hoping that that will be the case, but given the state of the site it is uncertain.
“There will be some costs – perhaps lifts, for example – but the main point is that we just want to improve the place where we live – replace broken door handles, fix lights and so on – and achieve a higher level of efficiency.
“We just were not getting anywhere with a management imposed on us.”
Anyone uninvolved in leasehold arcana but familiar with Chelsea Bridge Wharf might be a little surprised to be told that, in law, the 10 buildings are, in fact, one building, but so it was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the First Tier Tribunal.
Berkeley owns the freehold, while Fairhold Artemis has the headlease of five blocks, and there is also a Pestana Hotel, two office blocks used by Berkeley itself and flats owned by housing associations L&Q and Notting Hill Genesis.
Berkeley did initially raise four objections – that the site was not a self-contained building, that the non-residential elements exceeded 25%, that qualifying leaseholders owned less than two-thirds of the total and that the RTM company had failed to give invitation notices to those not in the RTM company.
These would be the anticipated objections of a landlord fighting an RTM at a site of this nature.
But Berkeley waived these in September last year, and did not object to the RTM company acquiring management of the site “provided that the tribunal determines that it qualifies to do so”.
Thereafter it “took a passive role in the proceedings”, said the ruling, while Fairhold Artemis “took a more partisan approach”.
Represented by barrister Ellodie Gibbons instructed by JB Leitch, the Tchenguiz group also objected that Chelsea Bridge Wharf were a single building but “adduced no evidence”.
Instead, the RTM company had to demonstrate that it was one, through its professional witness structural engineer James Ham.
His report is referenced at length in the ruling, and the judges visited the site after hearing Mr Ham’s evidence.
The tribunal then pondered the cases where other sites where RTM has been challenged because it is more than one building, including the cases involving Albion Riverside, Palgrave Gardens and Deansgate.
Finally it stated: “The tribunal has no hesitation in accepting the opinion of Mr Ham that all the blocks in the development are structurally connected to each other.”
So, RTM was granted.
In theory, the issue could be appealed, but with Berkeley declining to object, that seems unlikely.
The RTM ruling is here:
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ChelseaBridgeWharfRTM28Jan2025.doc
Related posts:
Right to manage reforms announced … days after Chelsea Bridge Wharf wins RTM
Chelsea Bridge Wharf: a win for Peverel
At last, some sense over the cladding crisis from … Rob Perrins, of the Berkeley Group
Biggest right to manage victory ever at Century Wharf, Cardiff
Solicitor leaseholder may lose Chelsea flat used as brothel
FirstPort suspended from its own trade body the Property Institute
I am a leaseholder at Chelsea Bridge Wharf since 2004 and have been campaigning for RTM for 5 years, often being blocked and bullied by many of those now supporting RTM. The Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents Association (led by those who are now directors of the RTM company) put round a newsletter in 2022 stating that RTM was impossible and that I was misleading residents by saying that it was possible,
REDACTED
The former Chair of the residents’ ;association and now an RTM director NAME REDACTED tried to force me to close my petition against Rendall and Rittner after R and R NAME REDACTED complained about it. and banned all committee members from petitions against Rendall and Rittner in Sep 2021. and frequently insisted that they were improving and that we needed to give them more time.
Both of the current co-chairs NAMES REDACTED were part of the committee at the time this newsletter was produced and NAME REDACTED was Chair. They are all now directors of the RTM company, . They have never apologised or explained this misinformation to residents.
There has been years of bullying, offline and online at Chelsea Bridge Wharf culminating in an alleged assault on a leaseholder by one of the RTM directors REDACTED
While I welcome RTM at Chelsea Bridge Wharf (having campaigned for it for 5 years), myself and many leaseholders at CBW have serious concerns about the RTM directors, who have specifically ruled out any elections for directors and refuse to let leaseholders see the contract with Urang. These are the same people who actually said up until 2023 that RTM was impossible and only changed their mind when I produced independent evidence from a an industry expert that the CBWRA position was wrong. They have never held formal elections for Chair or committee of the residents’ association and are profoundly undemocratic in every respect.
As for Urang, it was me who introduced them to CBW in 2023 (verifiable fact as I have the email on file). I welcome RTM and the exit of Rendall and Rittner. However, RTM without a democratic and accountable RTM company will not help leaseholders to have more control over their service charge money or how the development is run. So please present a more balanced picture of what has happened here and if you wish to hear what myself and other residents have been through with regard to CBWRA and the CBW RTM company feel free to get in touch,
LINK REDACTED
Congratulations to all at Chelsea Bridge Wharf for such a breath taking achievement in obtaining Right to Manage. I am sure many others will follow your lead.
Obtaining sound advice and guidance in this matter may of been instrumental in achieving your objectives.
Mr Perrins approach struck me to be forward thinking and outside the box.
It is accepted that the United Kingdom is desperately short of affordable homes and has been for decades.
The abolition of Freehold (Freeloaders) and the implementation of Commonhold will make a significant contribution to kick starting the building of considerably more homes especially for Citizens of a certain age in my opinion.
We take pride in the fact that this is our home and we have a vested interest in ensuring the property is maintained to the right standard. We demand and receive value for money in return for our hard earned cash.
I suspect that when the managing agent of your choice reports to you about the overall condition of your property, it may contain some unpleasant surprises that you will no doubt collectively overcome.
Going forward I strongly agree with Ms. Larisa Villa Hauser when she says “You become the client and the managing agent knows that he is answering to you” Never a truer words spoken.
so the same people who were opposing RTM for years are now RTM directors??
Will there be a transparency ever on the whole episode?
Will leaseholders ever get a voice to say something?
I was shocked to see the above account of what has happened at Chelsea Bridge Wharf which I’m afraid is not at all an accurate and is very one-sided in favour of the current RTM directors. Ask anyone at CBW the truth – that these are the same ones who opposed RTM for so long and tried to stop those who supported RTM. Some of them also worked with Rendall and Rittner to take down a petition which has more than 5000 signatories. There are no fair lections at Chelsea Bridge Wharf and though I am glad that Rendall and Rittner will go myself and my partner are worried about what will happen next because leaseholders not in control of the RTM company. Anyone can google Chelsea bridge wharf and find the full account of what is happening .
This is far the an accurate, the people now in charge of the RTM company have been actually blocking right to manage up until 2023 and have published several documents stating that right to manage was impossible at CBW. They have bullied excluded those who were campaigning for right to manage or expressedopinions. They have retained power through electoral manipulation.
They only started supporting right to manage after a particular resident and leaseholders who been fighting for the removal of R&R for many years independent advice showing that their opposition to right to manage was nonsense.
Even though they then supported right to manage they have managed the process in a way which continues to exclude residents and have said specifically there will not be elections for directors of the right to manage company there will not be an agm and we cannot see the contract with your urang.
Therefore, leaseholders are no more empowered after right to manage than before if things continue on this path.
If the above allegations are untrue I would reasonably expect the Directors of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf RTM Company Limited to refute them with evidence and have done with this matter in my view.
The shareholders in any Right to Manage Company have a right to inspect any company documentation that exists and to have any questions or concerns they may have replied to by the elected directors at a properly convened meeting.
The above comments allege “There will not be elections for directors of the RTM Company – there will be no AGM – and you cannot see the management contract with Urang” are very concerning allegations that need to responded to in clear and precise terms in my opinion.
I look forward to the CBW RTM Company Limited directors response.
Hi Robert – I was at CBWRA meeting in November or December last year. Many residents demanded to see contract with Urang and refused with no reason was given and this is not right. There was a discussion about elections for RTM companie and chairs tell us clearly no elections. I am not agreeing with this because we must be able to have control or at least have a say in how things happen from now because the past has not been good at chelsea bridge wharf. It is a great place but we have some serious problems with how things run. Thanks, C.
Sorry I meant Stephen not Robert!. By the way there is a petition at Chelsea Bridge Wharf which calls for elections for directors. Hope that is useful.