Service Charge Check
part of Rent Rise Check: rent increases, repayment orders and licensing for renters

The figures

Every figure below says how many decisions it was counted from and how. The same figures are in press/findings.txt; how they were checked, and how often the reading is wrong, is on how accurate is this?

Service charge challenges

7,007 decisions read, of 7,287 pages in the GOV.UK category (one page per decision; the latest counts where a case was re-published; image-only PDFs and anonymised cases are left out). 2,595 are service charge cases (case codes LSC and LIS); 1,395 of those have a readable outcome.

about 60%ended with some charge reduced or not payable833 of 1,395
about 10%substantially reduced (more than a third off) or not payable at all146 of 1,395; not payable at all: 140
35%typical cut where a charge was cut and the decision states both the total demanded and the total payablemedian, n=111; across all 243 decisions stating both totals, including those payable in full, the median cut is 0%

Section 20C and consultation

62%of section 20C applications decided ended with an order (the landlord's costs of the case kept out of the service charge)634 of 1,016 decided; 423 more asked for but not decided in the document
2,839dispensation applications (s.20ZA): landlord-driven, the largest part of the category, never in the share-reduced figures abovegranted 2,684, refused 49, 106 not readable as either; a consultation failure was found in 196 decisions of any kind
126 daysfrom application to decision, where the decision states the application datemedian, n=2,016

Items most often disallowed or reduced

ItemDecisions where it was disallowed or reducedDecisions where it was in dispute
repairs and maintenance3613,137
other3451,303
management fees313727
administration charges279717
insurance2521,180
legal and professional fees236735
cleaning and grounds197661
major works1721,265
utilities153690
reserve fund114575

A decision can count under several items.

Managing agents with the most decisions

  1. Together Property Management (153)
  2. Eagerstates Limited (134)
  3. Warwick Estates Property Management Limited (89)
  4. Residential Management Group Ltd (64)
  5. FirstPort Property Services Limited (43)
  6. Savills (UK) Ltd (30)
  7. Inspired Property Management (26)
  8. Remus Management Limited (25)
  9. Prime Property Management (24)
  10. Proxim Property Management Ltd (22)
  11. Ringley Limited (22)
  12. Blue Property Management UK Limited (21)
  13. Napier Management Services Limited (20)
  14. Parkfords Property Management (19)
  15. Premier Estates Limited (19)

868 agents named in all; every agent with two or more decisions.

Freeholders and landlords with the most decisions

  1. Assethold Limited (261)
  2. Southern Land Securities Limited (186)
  3. The Wellcome Trust Limited (50)
  4. Avon Ground Rents Limited (27)
  5. Grey GR Limited Partnership (26)
  6. McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Limited (24)
  7. RMB 102 Limited (23)
  8. Abacus Land 4 Limited (19)
  9. Long Term Reversions (Torquay) Ltd (18)
  10. Adriatic Land 3 Limited (17)
  11. Peabody Trust (16)
  12. Proxima GR Properties Limited (16)
  13. Gateway Holdings (NWB) Limited (15)
  14. Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited (15)
  15. Orchidbase Limited (14)

2,604 named in all; every one with two or more decisions.

Management, RTM and residents' companies with the most decisions

  1. Together Property Management (20)
  2. Blue Property Management UK Limited (8)
  3. FirstPort Property Services Limited (7)
  4. St Nicholas Apartments Management Ltd (7)
  5. Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited (6)
  6. Remus Management Limited (6)
  7. Residential Management Group Ltd (6)
  8. Sycamore Management (Nechells) No 1 Ltd (6)
  9. Trinity (Estates) Property Management Limited (6)
  10. Gateway Property Management Limited (5)
  11. Northumberland Court Residents (Cliftonville) Limited (5)
  12. Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited (4)
  13. Dickens Heath Management Company Limited (4)
  14. Hurford Salvi Carr Property Management Ltd (4)
  15. Town & City Management Limited (4)

1,210 named in all; every one with two or more decisions. Where a freeholder and a management company are both parties, both are stored as the decision labels them.

A company is stored only where the regular-expression reading and the model's reading give the same name; where they disagree the decision counts as "not stated" (371 decisions), so no page shows a guess.

A company with many buildings has more decisions than one with few. The count says how often it was at the tribunal, not how it manages.

By kind of case and by year

Kind of case (from the case reference)Decisions
dispensation from consultation2,926
service charges2,230
breach of lease386
LIS365
right to manage218
appointment of a manager205
variation of a management order125
administration charges112
no case ref94
LVT82
LCP76
variation of lease46
Year decidedDecisions
20177
201833
2019910
2020738
2021946
2022853
2023828
2024884
20251,029
2026772
How these figures are counted

"About": on 40 decisions read independently (30 Oct 2026) the automatic outcome matched the reader's in 82% (90% once each disagreement was read and settled), so the shares that rest on the outcome are shown as approximate until a later check clears them. The section 20C result matched in 92%. The whole table is on the accuracy page.

Readable outcome: payable as demanded, reduced, substantially reduced (more than a third off, as the decision's own figures show), not payable, or dismissed. "Reduced at all" is reduced, substantially reduced or not payable. The typical reduction uses only decisions that state both totals as single figures; nothing is added up from items. Section 20C counts only decisions that say the order was made or refused. 6,552 decisions have a plain-English summary; 1,387 are marked "figures not yet checked" (the regex and model readings disagreed on the outcome, the section 20C result or a total) and are listed but left out of every count above except the number of decisions read. People are never named; companies are named as the decision names them.

Past decisions are not a prediction. Each tribunal decides on the evidence in front of it.