Centrick Property Limited — tribunal record
Centrick Property Limited appears in 5 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 26 individually challenged items in those cases, 73.1% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=5, 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 | 4 | 29.5% |
| Staffing & concierge | 2 | 82.5% |
| Major works | 2 | 0% |
| Legal & professional costs | 2 | 50% |
| Cleaning | 1 | 57.9% |
| Repairs & maintenance | 1 | 83.3% |
| Administration charges | 1 | 100% |
| Utilities | 1 | 100% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Centrick Property Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAV/29UH/LIS/2025/0009 | 24 February 2026 | ME15 | Summary |
| HAV/24UD/LSC/2024/0639 | 4 September 2025 | SO50 | — |
| CAM/38UF/LDC/2024/0610 | 6 May 2025 | OX16 | — |
| BIR/00CT/LIS/2020/0027 | 19 May 2022 | Midlands | — |
| BIR/00CT/LSC/2021/0003 | 19 May 2022 | B90 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Centrick Property Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“There has been no variation of this methodology since being adopted in 2009, until Savills clumsy effort in 2019.”
“Unfortunately, neither Man Co or its managing agents have followed recommended good practice and cannot now say with any certainty how the original apportionments were calculated or what the rationale was for the weightings applied to the GSW houses.”
“Mr. Martin criticised Centrick Limited for not clarifying the position and getting the works done earlier.”
“Mr. Martin told the Tribunal that the managing agents had also given misleading information to him and they had failed to answer clearly the queries which he raised.”
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.