ABC Estates — tribunal record
ABC Estates appears in 6 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus, listed below with a link to each one. Outcome and reduction figures for this firm are being rebuilt on a classification that separates leaseholder challenges from landlord applications, and are not shown. (n=6, as of 30 July 2026)
About these figures: Outcomes reflect disputes that reached the First-tier Tribunal, not portfolio-wide quality. Small samples are noisy; every figure links to the underlying decisions.
Decisions in the corpus naming ABC Estates
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0875 | 9 December 2025 | NW3 | — |
| LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0168 | 29 March 2023 | SW12 | — |
| LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0384 | 21 September 2022 | SE20 | — |
| LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0143 | 21 December 2021 | SW11 | Summary |
| LON/00BJ/LSC/2020/0225 | 31 March 2021 | SW11 | Summary |
| LON/00AG/LDC/2020/0167 | 25 November 2020 | WC1N | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which ABC Estates appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“It was, no doubt, ill-advised and inappropriate of the managing agent to threaten the Applicant with the Land Registry fees (and far from obvious that the lease made provision for them to do so).”
“The latter, surprisingly, declined to pass the bundle on to Brady.”
“The Tribunal notes that the estimate for these works was obtained in February and that if it had been acted upon timeously, sufficient time would have been available for a full s20 consultation to take place.”
“As can be seen, Mr Davidoff made no submissions on the Claimant's contractual right of recovery of costs beyond PDC 'would have relied on section 146 notice in the lease' on behalf of the Claimant/Applicant. His submissions do no more than merely assert that the costs can therefore be recovered by reference to Chaplair v Kumari and duplicate pages from the White Book. He took no opportunity to address the alternative bases on which a costs order might be made, despite the specific directions to do so.”
“As can be seen from the figures above, and the conflicting information provided, the paperwork provided for summary assessment of the quantum of any costs is woeful. As we had cause to observe in our decision on liability, that has been the case in preparation of the Claimant/Applicant's case as a whole.”
“Thirdly, in the circumstances of the paucity of evidence as recounted in the decision of 23 December 2022, I find Mr Davidoff's account of the time and research put into this case wholly incredible.”
Methodology
These statistics are computed from the published decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in service charge cases (case types LSC, LIS and LDC). Each decision is parsed into a structured record — the sums challenged, the sums allowed, the outcome per cost head, and the orders made — and the aggregates on this page are recomputed nightly in plain arithmetic from those records. No figure on this page is estimated, modelled or hand-typed; each carries its sample size. Current corpus: 4,243 decisions covering 18,023 individually disputed items, last updated 30 July 2026.
Read this before quoting: Outcomes reflect disputes that reached the First-tier Tribunal, not portfolio-wide quality. Small samples are noisy; every figure links to the underlying decisions.