Blue Property Management UK Limited — tribunal record
Blue Property Management UK Limited appears in 14 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 259 individually challenged items in those cases, 48.6% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=14, 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 | 94 | 0% |
| Repairs & maintenance | 41 | 20% |
| Cleaning | 31 | 0% |
| Administration charges | 12 | 31.2% |
| Management fees | 10 | 10% |
| Legal & professional costs | 8 | 31.2% |
| Buildings insurance | 7 | 30.3% |
| Utilities | 7 | 0% |
| Gardening & grounds | 4 | 0% |
| Reserve fund contributions | 3 | 100% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Blue Property Management UK Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHI/00MR/LSC/2023/0024 | 5 December 2023 | PO5 | Summary |
| MAN/OODA/LSC/2022/0093 | 23 August 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.”
“There was no dispute that the handover was poor to non-existent and this may have exacerbated the dispute, particularly as the Applicant stated that she had already paid management fees to March 2021 and therefore there is a period where management fees have been sought by both companies.”
“Taking into account the previous manner in which Service Charges were levied and the unsatisfactory manner in which the hand over to the present Managing Agent had been conducted and the lack of services, notwithstanding they were due to difficulties of circumstances, it was understandable that the Applicant should question the service charge in issue.”
“It was not in the view of the Tribunal acceptable for the managing agent to effectively dismiss that query by seeking to rely upon an argument of 'common practice'.”
“It is not clear to the Tribunal as to why if this item of expenditure was not in the event incurred it appears as an expense in the service charge accounts.”
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.