Alba Management Services — tribunal record
Alba Management Services appears in 8 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 14 individually challenged items in those cases, 21.4% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=8, as of 4 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.
Median reduction by cost head where this firm was involved
| Cost head | Items with amounts (n) | Median reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Other charges | 2 | 91.7% |
| Repairs & maintenance | 1 | 87.6% |
| Major works | 1 | 91.7% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Alba Management Services
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM/00MD/LSC/2025/0663 | 22 December 2025 | Eastern | — |
| CAM/00MC/LDC/2025/0664 | 3 November 2025 | RG1 | — |
| CAM/00MD/LDC/2025/0640 | 31 July 2025 | SL3 | — |
| CAM/00MX/LDC/2024/0622 | 17 March 2025 | HP11 | — |
| CAM/11UF/LDC/2022/0035 | 13 February 2023 | SL7 | — |
| CAM/11UE/LDC/2022/0030 | 6 October 2022 | SL9 | — |
| CAM/11UF/LDC/2022/0008(P) | 6 May 2022 | SL7 | — |
| CAM/11UF/LDC/2021/0050 | 17 January 2022 | SL7 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Alba Management Services appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“However they did not set out the mechanism for recharge within a sample of the lease of the Property to an individual leaseholder.”
“He felt it was for the previous owner to forward the Notice to Ms Kalsi rather than the Managing Agent to so. He acknowledged that Ms Kalsi had made the Applicant and Managing Agent aware that she had not been involved from the start of the procedure and therefore a Dispensation Application was made.”
“Given the inability of the Alba's Mr Saint answer questions in relation to nature of the refurbishment works (Mr Saint had not inspected them), we are not satisfied there has been a satisfactory degree of actual management of this project by Alba.”
“the Respondent has not been as forthcoming with information as it might suggest. We agree with the Applicant that her rights are those of a leaseholder irrespective of directorship of the Respondent company, and her decision not to be a director does not provide an excuse for lack of transparency in relation to the figures and the works, which is evident in this case.”
“they did not undertake an assessment of the Lease before making that decision.”
“The copy before us in the bundle does not contain any summary of rights and obligations for Leaseholders”
“It would have been helpful to include the minutes of that meeting in the bundle.”
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: 2,383 decisions covering 12,898 individually disputed items, last updated 4 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.