Property Fusion Ltd. — tribunal record
Property Fusion Ltd. appears in 7 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 21 individually challenged items in those cases, 71.4% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=7, 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.
Median reduction by cost head where this firm was involved
| Cost head | Items with amounts (n) | Median reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs | 1 | 100% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Property Fusion Ltd.
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0767 | 13 January 2026 | BN3 | — |
| CHI/00MW/LSC/2024/0106 | 16 January 2025 | PO30 | — |
| CHI/00HN/LSC/2022/0020 | 7 April 2022 | BH9 | — |
| CHI/21UD/LDC/2022/0025 | 7 April 2022 | TN37 | — |
| CHI/21UD/LDC/2022/0026 | 7 April 2022 | TN37 | — |
| CHI/21UD/LDC/2022/0024 | 4 April 2022 | TN34 | — |
| CHI/45UF/LDC/2021/0092 | 11 November 2021 | RH20 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Property Fusion Ltd. appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“it is also worth bringing to the attention of the Respondent's managing agents that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has its own rules for members who are managing agents which say that if standard annual fees are being charged, those fees should include the cost of preparing annual service charge accounts particularly where, as in this case, the accounts are extremely simple and straightforward. This means, in effect, that in this sort of situation, separate accountant's fees would not be recoverable, even if reasonable in amount.”
“Rather there has been a substantial failure to identify the requirements of the Lease and to follow it. It is indeed difficult to see that the Lease has ever been properly considered at all prior to the hearing.”
“Ms Dawe in her witness statement made what was in the circumstances a rather bold assertion that the agent abides by the Lease. As explained above, that was patently incorrect.”
“Until the Tribunal requested a copy of Mr Staines' report the work for which dispensation was sought had not been indicated.”
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.