As was detailed on the Home page of this site, the Management Scheme is a legal document to which all Staithe owners are bound.
This page will, in due course, provide a space for discussion about the Chiswick Staithe Management Scheme and Design Guidelines, both of which can be amended and changed with our shareholder consent. Chiswick Staithe Limited is owned by the Shareholders (freeholders).
We aim to provide a forum of ideas for change and lessons learnt through past experience as well as answer important questions. For instance, where are the Board's limitations on administering these documents? Can they enforce party wall matters between private neighbours? What exactly is the Board's remit on building projects on the estate?
At first glance the Management Scheme does not appear overly onerous on the freeholders, but issues arise when the Board decide to pursue a potentially subjective element of either the Management Scheme and Design Guidelines, according to their agendas. Their decision making on these matters is always behind closed doors, as are instructions to, options offered and advice from their legal and professional advocates. In such cases, while the Board are able to use tens of thousands of pounds of shareholder reserve funds to pursue their conclusions, freeholders have no right of appeal and have to defend their positions using personal funds. See Case Study 1 for one such example. We believe this is fundementally unfair and does not promote a collaborative approach. What are your views on this system?
Our first talking point for this page is whether shareholders should insist that when using Shareholder funds to pursue a freeholder, any professional advice taken by the Board should be completely transparent, or at least fully disclosed after a short period of time. Legal advisors will almost always provide options in their advice. Why should these options not be shared with the freeholders?
Doing so would enable shareholders to understand the reasoning and motives behind decisions, thus growing trust and preventing the kind of episode seen in Case Study 1.
We are keen to invite other talking points, and queries about these documents.