Eight Asset Management Ltd. — tribunal record
Eight Asset Management Ltd. appears in 6 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 6 individually challenged items in those cases, 16.7% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=6, 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.
Decisions in the corpus naming Eight Asset Management Ltd.
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AG/LDC/2024/0151 | 13 November 2024 | NW5 | — |
| LON/00AU/LDC/2022/0168 | 16 January 2023 | EC1M | — |
| MAN/00CE/LDC/2022/0008 | 2 December 2022 | DN1 | — |
| LON/00BC/LDC/2021/0070 | 17 June 2021 | IG1 | — |
| LON/00AP/LDC/2021/0064 | 14 June 2021 | N22 | — |
| CAM/26UF/LDC/2021/0004 | 29 March 2021 | SG7 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Eight Asset Management Ltd. appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The applicant; failed to provide any supporting information regarding fire safety compliance or its likely short fall; failed to provide any supporting evidence of how and when it approached surveying companies to perform the service; what that service was to be, when it was to be performed and the prices quoted, from the companies approached. It failed to provide even a schedule of company names, expertise, address and prices quoted. In particular it failed to provide a copy of the specification and price from the company it later appointed to carry out the EWS1.”
“The application form is carelessly completed with numerous spelling errors. It appears to the Tribunal that the applicant had simply chosen not to comply with the consultation requirements at all.”
“There was no evidence that the applicant had contacted the leaseholders at all, even before making the application. The applicant appeared to have left this to the last minute before a contract was awarded for the survey.”
“The fact that the applicant did not certify the actual date when it was said to have complied with the requirement to notify the leaseholders in compliance with the Directions, concerns the Tribunal.”
“The Applicant did not comply with these Directions and subsequent strike out Directions were issued on 16 October 2024.”
“the leaseholders have not had the chance to nominate a contractor of their choice and the works had not been put out to tender so the tribunal cannot be sure that the cost of the works are reasonable.”
“It is clear to the Tribunal, from the photographs in the Survey Report, that this water penetration had been ongoing for a significant period.”
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.