Tribunal Record

Centrick Limited — tribunal record

Centrick Limited appears in 5 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=5, 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 Centrick Limited

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
BIR/00CN/LSC/2025/005416 June 2026B3
HAV/29UH/LIS/2025/000924 February 2026ME15Summary
CAM/00MD/LDC/2025/064427 January 2026SL2
HAV/24UD/LSC/2024/06394 September 2025SO50
CAM/38UF/LDC/2024/06106 May 2025OX16

What tribunals have said

The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Centrick Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.

“Mr. Martin criticised Centrick Limited for not clarifying the position and getting the works done earlier.”
The tribunal in HAV/24UD/LSC/2024/0639, of Centrick Limited (managing agent)
“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.”
The tribunal in HAV/24UD/LSC/2024/0639, of Centrick Limited (managing agent)

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.