D&G Block Management — tribunal record
D&G Block Management appears in 14 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=14, as of 31 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 D&G Block Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0836 | 28 October 2025 | NW1 | — |
| LON/00AN/LDC/2025/0719 | 30 June 2025 | W6 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2024/0243 | 20 January 2025 | W1G | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2024/0237 | 13 November 2024 | SW1P | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0122P | 14 August 2023 | WC2 | — |
| LON/00AW/LDC/2022/0159 | 22 February 2023 | W8 | — |
| LON/00AP/LDC/2022/0145 | 15 November 2022 | N6 | — |
| LON/00BJ/LDC/2021/0214 | 20 October 2021 | London | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2021/0216 | 18 October 2021 | SW1X | — |
| LON/00BJ/LDC/2021/0165 | 31 August 2021 | SW11 | — |
| LON/00AW/LDC/2020/0086 | 5 May 2021 | W11 | — |
| LON/00BG/LDC/2020/0230 | 22 March 2021 | E1 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2021/0001 | 18 March 2021 | SW1V | — |
| LON/00AW/LSC/2020/0062 | 6 January 2021 | SW3 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which D&G Block Management appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“it is wholly inadequate to come before the Tribunal with an unsupported conjecture as to 'indicative costs' and an allegation, again not properly supported by signed evidence, that 'as far as we are aware….there are concerns over security.'”
“unsigned and unidentified e-mails in support from 2 leaseholders out of either 40 or 49 flats, does not suggest 'overwhelming support' for the application”
“there is no good evidence (as opposed to stated 'concerns') that the current security arrangements are failing, and that the new proposed system is the correct and reasonable way for addressing such concerns”
“the Tribunal is satisfied, on the evidence, that the electrical upgrade needs to be done in the light of the Applicant's reasonable conclusion that it is the best option in the circumstances but is puzzled by the suggestion that UKPN is the only possible contractor. While they are the monopoly provider of certain infrastructure for the supply of electricity, they themselves states in their quote, "there are other companies who can do some or all of the work for you; these are Independent Connection Providers."”
“What, the Tribunal doesn't have is a specification for the works, the exact nature of the works, the successful contractor, and tender sum.”
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 31 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.