Who Speaks for Residents? The Governance Dispute at Sir Thomas More Estate
Disagreements within residents’ associations are not unusual. They are volunteer-led organisations, often run by people with strong views and deep commitments to their communities. Disputes over procedure, leadership or interpretation of a constitution can happen in any association.
What is unfolding at the Sir Thomas More Estate in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea appears to go further than a routine disagreement.
The Sir Thomas More Residents’ Association (STMRA) exists to represent residents living on the estate. At the same time, the estate is undergoing significant works, including infrastructure changes relating to lateral mains and other building safety considerations.
During this period, a dispute has emerged about the governance and legitimacy of the association itself.
Emails, meeting notices, resignations and counter-claims have created a situation where different groups claim authority over the same residents’ association.
At the centre of the situation is a broader question that extends beyond one estate: when does institutional support for a residents’ association begin to look like control?
The Residents’ Association: Independent by Design
Residents’ associations exist to give people living on an estate a collective voice.
Their legitimacy rests on one central principle: they are meant to be resident-led. They are not supposed to be extensions of local authority management structures. Instead, they provide an independent forum through which residents can organise, raise concerns and engage with those responsible for managing their homes.
In Kensington and Chelsea, the council has historically encouraged the formation of residents’ associations as part of its engagement with communities across its housing stock.
However, that encouragement is typically accompanied by a recognition that the associations themselves must remain independent. Their committees, leadership structures and decision-making processes are expected to be governed by their own constitutions.
That independence becomes particularly important when estates face major works programmes or significant changes to infrastructure.
When decisions affect safety, costs or long-term maintenance of buildings, residents often rely on their association to scrutinise proposals, ask questions and represent concerns collectively.
If the independence of that association is disputed, the mechanism through which residents organise themselves can quickly become unstable.
The AGM That Triggered the Dispute
The current dispute appears to originate from an Annual General Meeting held in May 2025.
According to correspondence shared with Housing Sector, the meeting was called or facilitated with involvement from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. However, shortly afterwards, members of the existing committee raised concerns about whether the meeting complied with the STMRA constitution. Some residents argue that the meeting did not meet the constitutional requirements necessary to alter the committee structure or leadership positions within the association. Others appear to take the view that the meeting represented a legitimate process to renew or restructure the association’s leadership.
The disagreement about that meeting became the starting point for a much larger governance dispute. If the AGM was valid, the leadership changes that followed may stand. If it was not, subsequent decisions taken in the name of the association could be called into question.
Resignations, Retractions and Constitutional Fault Lines
On 25 July, a number of committee members submitted resignations. The interpretation of those resignations quickly became a key point of disagreement. Some residents argue that the resignations were later clarified or withdrawn, raising questions about whether they should be treated as final.
Others maintain that once submitted, the resignations triggered changes in the leadership structure under the association’s constitution. This dispute directly affects questions of succession and authority. If the resignations were valid, the constitution may require the appointment of an acting chair or interim leadership. If they were not valid, the existing committee structure may remain in place. These interpretations also affect quorum rules and the legitimacy of any meetings held afterwards.
In other words, the entire governance structure of the association hinges on how those resignations are interpreted.
Suspension and the 18 August Meeting
Following that meeting, a suspension notice was issued affecting members of the association’s leadership. Critics of the process argue that the suspension did not follow the procedures set out in the association’s constitution. Questions have been raised about whether proper notice was given and whether the meeting itself had the authority to impose such suspensions.
Despite these concerns, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is understood to have recognised the outcome of the meeting as valid. This has created a fundamental question that remains unresolved: who actually had the authority to make those decisions?
If the meeting was constitutionally valid, the suspensions may stand. If it was not, the authority under which they were issued becomes far less clear.
Control of Access: Keys, Locks and Email
The dispute soon moved beyond constitutional interpretation and into practical control of the association’s assets. Residents report that locks to association-controlled spaces were changed during the dispute. Control over email accounts and digital communication channels also became contested. In practical terms, whoever controls those communication systems controls how information is distributed to residents and external organisations.
One side describes these actions as obstructive measures designed to exclude certain committee members. Others describe them as necessary steps taken to protect the association during a period of governance uncertainty.
What is clear is that the dispute moved from procedural disagreements into questions about physical access and control of communication.
Safety Concerns Underneath It All
Running alongside the governance dispute are concerns relating to works being carried out on the estate. These include works involving lateral mains infrastructure, as well as questions raised by residents about asbestos management and fire safety considerations.
Some residents have also questioned whether the consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act have been properly followed for major works affecting leaseholders.
While these issues remain under discussion, they add another layer of significance to the governance dispute. When estates are undergoing safety-related works, the presence of a stable and trusted residents’ association can become particularly important. If the association itself is disputed, the mechanism through which residents raise collective concerns becomes less clear.
Financial Transparency and Oversight
Financial transparency has also emerged as part of the wider discussion.
Residents have requested additional information regarding the cost breakdown of the works being undertaken on the estate. Questions have also been raised about contractor selection and procurement processes. Where large sums of public funding and leaseholder contributions are involved, residents often seek reassurance that procurement decisions and project costs are transparent.
Some residents argue that further clarity is needed. The council maintains that appropriate processes are being followed.
The Erosion of Trust
As the dispute has developed, the issue has begun to attract attention beyond the estate itself. Members of Parliament have been contacted. Formal complaints have reportedly been submitted to the council. Engagement with the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator of Social Housing has also been discussed by those involved. Residents involved in the dispute say they feel marginalised or excluded from decision-making processes.
The council’s position emphasises the importance of stability, governance clarity and respecting the autonomy of residents’ associations. Between those positions lies a widening gap of trust.
The Wider Question
The dispute at the Sir Thomas More Estate does not exist in isolation. Across the country, the role of residents in housing governance has come under increasing scrutiny.
Following the Grenfell tragedy, the importance of resident voice, transparency and accountability in housing management has been widely discussed. Government initiatives such as Tenant Satisfaction Measures were introduced partly to strengthen that voice. However, critics argue that engagement structures can sometimes become procedural rather than genuinely representative.
When disputes arise about who legitimately represents residents, the issue becomes larger than a local disagreement. It becomes a question about how resident democracy functions within housing systems.
What Happens Next
At the time of writing, several aspects of the dispute remain unresolved.
Complaints processes are ongoing. Further representations are being made to relevant oversight bodies. Residents continue to seek clarity regarding governance and the handling of works on the estate.
Whatever the eventual outcome, the situation at the Sir Thomas More Estate may represent an early example of a wider challenge facing housing governance. When residents organise themselves to represent their community, the question of who holds legitimate authority can quickly become contested. How that question is resolved will shape not only this estate, but potentially many others facing similar disputes in the future.
Right of Reply
Prior to publication, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was offered the opportunity to comment on the issues raised in this article.
We seek to support residents associations as necessary, and to respect their autonomy.
Further Reading
RBKC residents’ association guidance
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/housing/tenant-and-resident-associations
You could reference it like this in the article:
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea guidance on tenant and residents’ associations
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/housing/tenant-and-resident-associations
Section 20 consultation (major works – leaseholders)
Leasehold Advisory Service explanation of Section 20 consultation requirements
https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/section-20-consultation/