RWAs

A Resident Welfare Association (RWA) is a collective body formed by the residents of a particular locality, housing society, or residential community. Its primary purpose is to manage, maintain, and improve the shared facilities and welfare of the community, ensuring smooth day-to-day operations.

In our community, currently, each tower that has been handed over to its residents has its own RWA. For example, HBOA (Hiranandani Brentwood Owners Association) was established for the Brentwood tower, serving both of its wings.

In addition, the Union of Towers Association (UoTA) was formed in 2017 to unite all towers in addressing issues affecting the entire community.

Separately, CHRWA (Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association) was created by a group of residents who felt that UoTA was too slow in addressing their specific concerns and opted for a more aggressive approach in dealing with HoH.

An association where ALL individual residents of the entire society, directly or indirectly, are part of the apex body. This body (Resident Welfare Association or Society Management Committee) would oversee the overall welfare and management of the entire society by setting bylaws and implementing rules through subcommittees.

While anyone can claim the title of an apex body, its effectiveness in carrying out tasks for the welfare of the entire community, without bias toward any particular group, remains to be proven over time.

For any guidelines or bylaws to be effectively implemented, all residents must actively participate in following them. Typically, if the majority of residents in a group (such as those living in one tower) agree to implement a rule, it becomes binding for that entire group.

However, if a rule is biased against a particular set of individuals, they are likely to oppose its implementation. For example, if a bright light is proposed for a roadway, but it causes a disturbance to the residents of a building facing that light, the residents of that building may protest the installation. While other towers might agree to the rule, the affected tower could oppose it.

Now, if the Apex body (such as a RWA with split residents from various towers, however not ALL residents of the entire community) consists of only a few residents from a building and does not include representation from the affected tower's association, there’s a risk that, even if the Apex approves the rule, the specific building association could object to its implementation.

Therefore, if an RWA is composed of individual residents from different towers, without balanced representation, there are likely to be several hurdles in enforcing many of the rules set by the Apex body. To avoid such issues, it’s crucial that the RWA includes representatives from all buildings and towers to ensure fair and effective decision-making.

Issues concerning the day-to-day operations of an individual tower must be addressed without delays, as they directly affect the well-being of the tower’s residents. These matters can only be efficiently handled by those who are directly involved in and invested in that specific tower. Even if the executive committee of an apex body is unbiased, it will need time to investigate issues raised by various towers, set priorities, and plan actions. This could result in delays that impact the immediate needs of residents in individual towers. Therefore, it is essential for each tower to have its own association, equipped with the necessary resources to address its residents' urgent needs.

While the individual tower associations manage their immediate concerns, there may be issues of common interest that lead to disputes between different groups, whether within affected towers or elsewhere. Such matters require resolution through a democratic process, ensuring no bias toward any particular group. For this reason, an apex body is necessary—one that operates democratically to resolve such conflicts. If the entire community, including all individual tower associations, participates in the apex body’s operations, it will facilitate the implementation of rules, resolutions, and guidelines without unnecessary obstacles or delays.

Thus, a combination of strong individual tower associations and a democratically run apex body with equal representation from all towers is the ideal structure for managing the community in a fair and harmonious manner.

Unfortunately, as of September 2024, neither body can be considered a true apex body, as neither includes participation from the entire community. However, the current operational structure of UoTA is the more effective of the two for managing an apex body. Even if one or a few residents are not part of the RWA, in any form, they can still cause disruptions or delays in implementing the resolutions set by the RWA.

As mentioned previously, CHRWA was formed by a group of residents from various towers who felt UoTA was too slow in addressing certain issues. In response, they pooled funds and filed a case against HoH for constructing new towers in place of the Clubhouse that was originally promised. The majority of those contributing funds were residents directly affected by the increased congestion and proximity of the additional towers to their homes.

An apex body cannot resolve all concerns independently; it requires support from the respective tower associations or subcommittees. If an issue affects only one subset of the community, resources (time and money) spent on that issue may be challenged by others who are not impacted. Therefore, the committee must vote on whether to address such issues at the apex level or allow the affected towers or subcommittees to handle them, with general support from the apex but without using broader resources.

UoTA takes a balanced approach in dealing with all matters, including its interactions with the builder. While litigation is a last resort due to its high cost and uncertain outcomes, UoTA focuses on discussion and negotiation to achieve positive results. This approach enhances the quality of life in the township, protecting and increasing the value of your investment. A cooperative relationship with the builder is key to achieving these goals.

In this context, some tower representatives felt that their concerns were not respected by the UoTA members.

Additionally, there was an instance where a few tower representatives who had agreed to a resolution discussed in one of the periodical meetings later retracted their agreement a few days afterward, stating that they no longer accepted the resolution. This was poorly received by the affected representatives from other towers who had attended the meeting, leading to a negative outcome. These representatives had invested significant resources, including their personal time and money, and when the aforementioned representatives reversed their stance, they felt their efforts were wasted. As a result, they withdrew from UoTA, pulling their towers' participation from that point forward. This created a gap in the association’s functioning, as they suddenly lacked enough representatives to run the association effectively.

Ideally, this approach would reduce delays in taking action. However, this situation is quite complex, as a society like ours consists of individuals with diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds, making unanimous acceptance of any resolution challenging. In such cases, if the management team is perceived as steamrolling decisions, it could lead to resistance at every turn, ultimately rendering the association ineffective.

The bylaws governing the apex body should establish clear, structured guidelines for both participation and withdrawal of representation, preventing hasty or impulsive actions. The withdrawal of a tower’s participation must follow a formal, well-defined and detailed process to ensure that such decisions are not made solely at the discretion of an individual representative. Additionally, any resolution should be made democratically, with ample opportunity for unbiased debate to ensure that all perspectives are considered before finalizing the resolution.

The representatives of UoTA, like the other residents of the society, are property owners who have dedicated their personal time to the association, in addition to their efforts with their respective tower associations. Some have also invested significant personal funds for the benefit of the larger community. They have introduced numerous checks on the decisions made by HoH. While some critical issues remain sub judice, several less critical issues have been resolved in a timely manner as needed. This document lists out the tasks undertaken by UoTA while it was fully active.