Burlington Estates — tribunal record
Burlington Estates appears in 8 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=8, 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 Burlington Estates
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AN/LSC/2023/0093 | 29 May 2024 | W6 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0257 | 25 March 2024 | W9 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0235 | 28 November 2023 | W8 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2022/0004 | 29 March 2022 | W9 | — |
| LON/00BG/LSC/2020/0222 | 9 August 2021 | E1W | — |
| LON/00AG/LDC/2021/0079 | 28 June 2021 | NW1 | — |
| LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0124 | 19 February 2021 | W1H | Summary |
| LON/00AG/LDC/2020/0137 | 24 November 2020 | NW1 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Burlington Estates appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The tribunal finds the respondent could have either applied to strike out the country court claim as failing to establish a cause of action against the managing agent Bulington Estate or applied to substitute the defendant with the landlord before transfer to the tribunal in order to avoid the procedural confusion of which it now complains.”
“The Tribunal found Mr. Hymers' evidence about why the fee was justified to be somewhat contradictory. Initially he said that the figure was high because there was a substantial amount of additional work required for this property.”
“It is clear that no such charge has been made, so it is difficult to see that the charge is as high as it is because of excessive demands by the Applicant or other leaseholders.”
“That is clearly inconsistent with the charge being what it is because of excess work being required.”
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.