Blue Property Management UK Limited — tribunal record
Blue Property Management UK Limited appears in 18 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=18, as of 12 August 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 Blue Property Management UK Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| BIR/31UG/LSC/2024/0616 | 11 July 2025 | LE13 | — |
| BIR/31UG/LIS/2023/0041-49 | 17 September 2024 | LE13 | — |
| CHI/00MR/LSC/2023/0024 | 5 December 2023 | PO5 | Summary |
| MAN/OODA/LSC/2022/0093 | 23 August 2023 | LS8 | — |
| CAM/11UF/LIS/2023/0001 | 30 June 2023 | HP13 | Summary |
| MAN/OODA/LSC/2018/0006 | 29 March 2023 | LS8 | — |
| BIR/00FY/LIS/2020/0041 | 29 March 2022 | NG5 | Summary |
| BIR/00FY/LIS/2020/0042 | 29 March 2022 | NG5 | Summary |
| BIR/00FY/LIS/2021/0004 | 29 March 2022 | NG5 | Summary |
| BIR/00FY/LIS/2021/0005 | 29 March 2022 | NG5 | Summary |
| BIR/00FY/LLD/2021/0002 | 29 March 2022 | NG5 | Summary |
| BIR/00FY/LLD/2021/0003 | 29 March 2022 | NG5 | Summary |
| CAM/00KF/LIS/2021/0016 | 21 March 2022 | SS3 | — |
| BIR/00CS/LLC/2021/0006 | 22 July 2021 | DY4 | — |
| BIR/00CS/LSC/2018/0013 | 22 July 2021 | DY4 | — |
| BIR/00FN/LIS/2020/0038 | 6 April 2021 | LE7 | Summary |
| LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0244 | 22 February 2021 | W9 | — |
| BIR/00FN/LIS/2020/0012 | 17 November 2020 | LE5 | Summary |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Blue Property Management UK Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“it is also the case that, in the lead case, the Tribunal was only just persuaded that the Applicant had served effective demands; and that the sums sought were unreasonable.”
“had the Applicant presented reasonable demands, the sums involved and the periods for which they were outstanding would have been most unlikely to trigger proceedings such as these.”
“The Tribunal thought the delay in invoicing the work was regrettable but had no reason to find the invoice suspicious or the cost of the repair works to have been unreasonable or unreasonably incurred.”
“Instead the Management Company has each year demanded the entire 'on account' budget in advance, which has significantly benefitted the Management Companies cashflow at the expense of the leaseholders cashflow.”
“While the Tribunal did not doubt the veracity of the Respondent's statement, it determined that the full schedules should be provided to the Tribunal and to Mr Redmond if only to rule out any concern about the accuracy of the calculations made for each of the years in question.”
“The item should not have appeared on the Statements of Account as a specific charge to Flat 6. It should have been charged to the 2015 service charge account, which is split between the all flat owners. The sum of £142.18 is not therefore directly recoverable from the Applicants under the lease of Flat 6.”
“the Management Company has each year demanded the entire 'on account' budget in advance, which has significantly benefitted the Management Companies cashflow at the expense of the leaseholders cashflow.”
“The Tribunal thought the delay in invoicing the work was regrettable but had no reason to find the invoice suspicious or the cost of the repair works to have been unreasonable or unreasonably incurred.”
“The complaint about the accountancy costs was dismissed with an assurance that charges are benchmarked without giving any explanation of how the benchmarking is carried out.”
“there is an understandable question of proximity of relationship unanswered by the response to the complaint or by the answers given by Mr Fahy at the hearing. Blue has not attempted to show any benefit to the Applicants for the use of this firm.”
“the decision to carry out inspections on an annual basis appears to be that of Blue acting without consultation with the leaseholders irrespective of any regulation or practice guidance.”
“It is not surprising the Applicants are suspicious of fees incurred by an associated business.”
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: 4,244 decisions covering 18,031 individually disputed items, last updated 12 August 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.