In our experience the Board have on numerous occasions avoided answering uncomfortable queries, even when the concerns are serious as was the case for an email detailed in Case Study 1 (and duplicated below).
We believe as a matter of courtesy prompt responses should be provided by the Board, especially with such concerning queries.
Furthermore, over the last few years the Board has started posting occurrences of and applications for external works to our “freehold” properties on the public Chiswick Staithe website, with a description of the proposed works and the Board's subsequent determination.
However, two examples of apparent breaches of the Chiswick Staithe Design Guidelines by former Directors have, curiously, not made the Board’s Public list. The Board has been unwilling to explain why despite being questioned about it.
Our concern is not the detail of the breaches, more the noblesse oblige and seemingly double standards (for more details of concerns see the webpage of this site titled "Case Studies"). Without full transparency it is impossible to tell.
For example:
32 Chiswick Staithe – In apparent breach of the Chiswick Staithe Design Guidelines former Chiswick Staithe Board Director built a permanent metal framed garden canopy/gazebo during his tenure as a Director. This is despite it being apparently contrary to design guidelines. We have asked the Board about this, with no response. We have seen no one else erecting such a structure.
36 Chiswick Staithe – In a clear breach of the Chiswick Staithe Design Guidelines former director of Chiswick Staithe Board Director, replaced his original Chiswick Staithe style front door with a non-standard design. Despite the lengths the Board went to pursue our family (spending close to £40,000 of shareholder funds on legal advocates), and reiterating to resident shareholders that under no circumstances was a door-change to be allowed, the Board for unknown reasons allowed the former Director to change his door. Months later they sent out a memo conveniently stating that no one in future should change their door but they would not pursue anyone who had already done so.
We know of other (non-director) "freeholders" who have, in this fashion, had requests to change their doors refused.
An email from a Freeholder to the Board that went unanswered - see the Case Study 1 for more details.
Unanswered Questions
Unanswered Questions
CCTV issues
We believe Staithe CCTV footage collected by the Management should be available to all residents at Chiswick Staithe. This is currently not the case.
In early 2024, as per any individual’s right, the Board were asked for some CCTV footage that included family footage taken on the Chiswick Staithe CCTV system. A specific location and time for the footage was provided as suggested by Government Guidance on personal information, but this request was refused.
Yet, other private CCTV footage showed the current Chairman, working with a previous Director of the Board (the very same gentleman featured in the images and video on the section "About the Chiswick Staithe (CSL) Board" of the website) on the Staithe CCTV unit within an hour or so of the Subject Access Request being made. Bleeping sounds could be heard which correspond with the resetting (and therefore the deleting) of footage. A subsequently message rejecting the request for CCTV footage was received from the management stating, coincidentally, the camera had had a fault that day and was not working during the specific time range of the request!
We have asked the Board to explain the Chairman's actions that day and have received no response. Whether or not there is an explanation for these conicidental events, the Board's unwillingness to account for itself, is in our view, not acceptable, especially as the Government’s own Information Commisioner's Office (ICO) website makes clear that concealment of data (including deleting) that forms part of a Subject Access Request is a Criminal Offence.
The Board claim that only they and their operators have access to our CCTV footage, which they refuse to disclose, but again this is not true.
We have private videos of Board members sharing Staithe CCTV footage with not only previous Directors (multiple occasions) but another person which the Board are appartently unwilling to identify. Again, if sharing is OK for Directors, why are shareholders not able to see footage of themselves or their property?