FirstPort Property Services Limited — tribunal record

“No explanation was offered by the Respondents for this increase which was a doubling of the charge.”

“The Tribunal also does not consider it reasonable for the Respondent to wait two years before carrying out a tendering process.”

“The Respondent failed to address the significant increase in Grounds Maintenance costs in a timely manner, although the tendering process now being undertaken shows that alternative, less expensive contractors were available.”

“although an explanation of this issue was provided in the Respondent's Statement of Case this was late in the day. An earlier explanation by the Respondent in its capacity as Manager rather than a rejection of the argument might have settled this issue.”

“Bearing in mind that the dispute ostensibly concerned less than £500 the bundle of documents put before the tribunal was inordinately large, at some 730 pages. Unhelpfully, the numbering of the paper bundles and the eBundle differed by between 2 and 7 pages.”

“The Respondent did not comply with the directions; instead it wrote to the Tribunal, via its solicitors, to indicate it would concede the sums challenged by the Applicant (£134.41 and £101.61).”

“the Respondent has not been as engaging as it might in the face of the Applicant's questions, and there has been a lack of transparency.”

“It is a concerning feature of this case that the Respondents' cases have been advanced on shifting sands.”

“We have been troubled by the fact that the First Respondent's case has frequently chopped and changed, with matters being asserted and then (when subject to scrutiny) being abandoned in favour of a different argument.”

“it would be inequitable for the Respondent to be in a position where they could recover the costs of the hearing which has been caused largely by their own errors.”

“While the invoicing scheme was perplexing, he provided an explanation from the Respondent's position and recognised that he could not speak for its contractors.”

“The Tribunal received no correspondence from the Respondent or its alleged representative and therefore on the 6th January 2026 the Respondent was barred from taking any further part in these proceedings.”