As stated on the Government’s Information Commissioner Office website, individuals have rights under UK GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) to be able to obtain personal information that relates to them. Organisations that hold this information are required by law to provide them with that personal information.
If any residents require further information about how to submit such a request, please follow the following link to the ICO's webiste: https://ico.org.uk/ . We would also be happy to assist where we can.
Given the concerns (see “Case Studies” section of the website) about the Chiswick Staithe Board’s conduct and their unwillingness to either meet with the concerned resident or provide any of the requested information a Subject Access Request was submitted to Chiswick Staithe Limited to understand better what information the company was holding about said owner.
Rather than just provide the information the Board once again hired expensive legal advisors paid for by Staithe freeholder owners, we presume to ensure only the minimum of information was provided. The Board, or their family members, then sought pity from the shareholders for the hours spent redacting (hiding) all the information! If they had just provided all the information it would have taken them minutes. We believe this falls short of the standard of openness most would expect of those stewarding the management of what for many of us is our most valuable asset.
Below are a number of the documents that were provided, mostly redacted by Board Directors or their hired solicitors, to the point it was impossible to understand the context. They include conversations using derogatory language about said owner and family and commenting on that owner's apparent “limited intellect”. These Board Directors were neighbours, given the trust and privilege of Board Directorship, deciding the fate of a fellow freeholder's building works, in the closed meetings, where discussions have been kept secret.
It is, however, still possible to see the derogatory manner in which the Board, who were in our view conflicted (whether in the legal sense or not - as the Board's litigators claim), were discussing a Staithe family, their neighbour. No evidence or apology was ever provided by the Board for these apparent slurs.
The Board still refuse to show full transcripts, using legal privilege to avoid transparency. We ask why? What is with the secrecy which we believe is not condusive to instilling trust in the Board's actions?
Many more of these redacted emails were supplied as part of the SAR, which can be released in due course. One such SAR response appears to reveal that an email sent by a Staithe freeholder to the erstwhile Chair cofidentially outlining the resident's concerns was passed to the subject of the concerns (Email: 21/03/2021), a Garage-owner and fellow Director. If this is the case is this not a betrayal of trust?
Above is an example of an email from what we understand is a Board Director making derogatory comments about a neighbour and Staithe freeholder.
We feel this is unacceptable and begs the question of how the Board can claim to be impartial in their determinations.
Board Director insinuating dishonesty on a non-Board freeholder's part. Shareholders (freeholders) normally have no access to these private CSL company communications and thus no ability to defend themselves
Further slurs on a Staithe freeholder's character made behind closed doors by the Board. No information was ever provided about what this email relates to, nor is any freeholder thus given any chance to defend themselves by those deciding the fate of their works application.
Vague bullying accusations that are never specified or evidenced were likely Board frustration at the freeholder's unwillingness to accept unreasonable terms. In what manner did these accusations influence other Board Members who did not actually know said freeholder?
Full disclosure may assist in clarification...
What were these "strong allegations"? Again non-Board freeholders are never given an opportunity or forum to respond.
The rest of the non-redacted communications refers to private Party Wall matters that the Board have no remit to become involved in or interfere with. Acting outside their remit, were a number of Directors using their positions to promote a personal interest in the matter? The Board deny it but evidence seems to paint a different picture.
Many similar emails have been provided as part of the SAR, but what is behind the numerous redacted sections that the Board are hiding?
Surely redactions where only the date of email is revealed are excessive (see the below collection of SAR responses)?
Should Staithe "freehold" shareholders accept such extensive lack of transparency?
What do you think?
Correspondence seemingly between Directors in communciation about protecting their private intersts.
Again, what is behind these redected sections that the Board are so reluctant to disclose?
This illustration shows a GDPR SAR response with an email (circled red) circulated privately between Board memebers regarding an email the freeholder sent to the Chair of the Board. Making light of a freeholder's predicament, especially with children within the community being the subject of the concern is, in our view, particularly unpleasant.
Ringed in green below - see said freeholder appeal to the Board to expedite matters which prompted the email response ringed in red.
