First Port Property Services — tribunal record
First Port Property Services appears in 7 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=7, 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 First Port Property Services
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AW/LDC/2025/0860 | 25 November 2025 | W8 | — |
| LON/00AS/LSC/2022/0070 | 5 March 2023 | UB7 | — |
| CAM/22UC/LIS/2022/0011 | 2 February 2023 | CM8 | Summary |
| CHI/00LC/LSC/2022/0067 | 10 November 2022 | ME4 | — |
| CAM/2UE/LSC/2022/0007 | 24 June 2022 | WD6 | — |
| LON/00BG/LDC/2021/0018 | 20 February 2022 | E14 | — |
| LON/00BG/LDC/2021/0018 | 9 September 2021 | E14 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which First Port Property Services appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“It is regrettable that these sums were wrongly allocated and indeed it may raise questions about other accounting not identified in this case. The Respondents would be well advised to ensure that in future all sums are allocated to the correct head of charge otherwise leaseholders could find themselves on the wrong end of a debt claim which is incorrectly calculated.”
“the full amount of the Cost in Issue is being charge to the Applicant as a Tenant alone. This is not correct. Under the Lease the Service Charge is a collective charge apportioned amongst all the Tenants of the Building. Under the Lease an individual Tenant cannot be charged more than their designated apportionment for a cost incurred in respect of the Service Charge.”
“it was not clear whether all Leaseholders had been notified about the meeting dates.”
“the Applicant did not consult with the Respondents at the earliest occasion upon which they decided that the works were needed, and instead opted to carry out the work. The Applicant could have made a partial consultation and provided the Respondents with the information set out in VIII of the Tribunal decision.”
“as a consequence of the Applicant's failure to consult for whatever reason, this meant that it was necessary for them to make an application under Section 20ZA with the attendant risk that it might be defended, and that this would incur costs.”
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.