Gateway Property Management Ltd — tribunal record
Gateway Property Management Ltd appears in 10 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=10, as of 12 August 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 Gateway Property Management Ltd
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00BK/LBC/2025/0652 | 30 March 2026 | W1U | — |
| MAN/00BL/LSC/2024/0612 | 3 March 2026 | BL5 | — |
| CAM/00KF/LAM/2025/0001 | 11 February 2026 | SS1 | — |
| CAM/26UG/LIS/2024/0010 | 22 August 2025 | AL2 | Summary |
| CHI/00MS/LSC/2023/0168 | 14 February 2025 | SO14 | — |
| LON/00BH/LSC/2023/0165 | 22 November 2023 | E10 | Summary |
| BIR/44UB/LIS/2023/0002 | 21 November 2023 | CV9 | Summary |
| CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0052 | 3 March 2023 | SS0 | Summary |
| CAM/00KF/LIS/2022/0007 | 9 December 2022 | SS1 | — |
| CAM/22UL/LSC/2020/0046 | 17 March 2021 | Eastern | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Gateway Property Management 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 a clear breach of the Lease for the Respondent not to have provided any accounts for the 2021 Service Charge Year, whatever its end date, be that 31 December 2021 (as the Tribunal determined it was), 28 February or 31 March 2022.”
“Gateway's rather surprising submission on these issues, in light of its allegedly significant engagement with the Respondent since 2019, including the preparation of its accounts, was that it was not managing agent at the time so has no further information about any income or expenditure prior to 1 March 2022.”
“The Respondent has provided no clarity or transparency on these issues.”
“Agreeing a fixed fee of £588 for administration costs when the work required is minimal is not reasonable. The directors of the Respondent at the time were both solicitors and they had incorporated the company. They would or should have been aware of the minimal work required and able to perform the task without instructing a consultant.”
“the Tribunal was rather unimpressed at this sum having been claimed in addition to what is a sufficiently generous general administration fee”
“The Tribunal was very troubled by the fact that the later management fees were shown in the Respondent's statement of case, simply as a single total and the Applicants contribution to those shown as a single percentage of 4.02%.”
“as the demand made by the applicant contained sums incorrectly demanded. The tribunal finds this sum of £300 is unreasonable and not payable by the respondent.”
“The difficulty for the Applicant is that the evidence of Ms Williams starts in 2024 and given there was apparently no investigation of what had happened in 2010 or after, the evidence as to the events at that time is dependent on the evidence of the Respondent, her witness Ms Pickering and the documents.”
“the Applicant had previously queried the basis for the service charges, including by a solicitor's letter to which the Respondent could not point to any response having been provided, and that there appeared to be no basis for those charges to have been raised to the Applicant.”
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 12 August 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.