Tribunal Record

HML — tribunal record

HML appears in 38 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=38, 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 HML

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
LON/00BD/LDC/2025/090827 January 2026SW13
HAV/21UC/LDC/2025/07155 November 2025BN2
LON/00AR/LSC/2025/073424 October 2025RM1
CAM/12UE/LSC/2024/003025 July 2025PE19
LON/00AG/LSC/2025/068318 July 2025NW6
CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/00349 June 2025SG8Summary
CAM/00KB/LIS/2023/002528 February 2025MK40
LON/00AX/LDC/2024/017623 September 2024KT2
LON/00AF/LDC/2024/01279 September 2024BR1
CHI/29UH/LSC/2023/009123 May 2024ME16Summary
LON/00AP/LDC/2023/026423 January 2024N6
CHI/21UC/LDC/2023/016515 January 2024BN20
LON/00AE/LSC/2022/033212 December 2023NW2
LON/00BK/LSC/2023/02204 December 2023W2Summary
LON/00AG/LDC/2023/01256 November 2023NW6
LON/00AG/LDC/2023/00703 July 2023NW6
CHI/43UL/LDC/2023/00235 April 2023GU7
CHI/29UK/LDC/2023/00194 April 2023TN13
CHI/43UF/LDC/2022/01177 February 2023RH12
MAN/00EQ/LIS/2022/00063 February 2023SK9
LON/00BJ/LSC/2022/02301 December 2022SW16Summary
CHI/43UM/LDC/2022/004323 August 2022GU21
LON/00AG/LDC/2022/00768 August 2022NW3
MAN/00BU/LDC/2021/006820 July 2022WA15
CHI/21UC/LDC/2022/001528 March 2022BN21
CHI/21UC/LDC/2022/000824 March 2022BN20
CHI/21UC/LDC/2022/00077 March 2022BN23
CHI/43UM/LSC/2021/006118 February 2022GU22Summary
LON/00AP/LDC/2021/02732 February 2022N6
LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0375-AND-LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0023-COSTS18 January 2022W1H
CAM/26UJ/LDC/2021/00384 January 2022HA6
LON/00AK/LSC/2020/018015 July 2021N21
LON/00AW/LDC/2021/010521 June 2021SW7
CHI/00HB/LSC/2020/008921 May 2021BS6
CHI/23UB/LDC/2021/000717 March 2021GL50
CHI/43UF/LDC/2021/00015 March 2021RH2
CHI/43UM/LSC/2020/006616 December 2020GU22
LON/00AG/LDC/2020/016416 December 2020NW3

What tribunals have said

The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which HML appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.

“The failure to explain this procedure at an earlier stage is poor management practice. The marked disparity between a budgeted sum of £5,200 for buildings insurance and actual cost of £800 is an example of the poor quality of the management.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“The lack of adequate and accurate meter recording and resulting billing is poor management. The tribunal notes that the sum budgeted was £700. Again, the marked disparity between the budgeted sum and actual cost (both that claimed and that the actual cost) is an example of the poor quality of the management.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“The tribunal considers that this is another example of poor management. Fire alarm maintenance should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“The tribunal considers that this is another example of poor management. Emergency lighting maintenance should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“The tribunal considers that the need for such discussions post issue of the proceedings and between hearings indicates poor management of the service charge process by the respondent.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“The tribunal considers that it is a failure of adequate management which is better reflected in a review of the reasonableness of the management fee, rather than the accountancy fee.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited (accountant's statement)
“No explanation has been provided as to how open market value for money has been tested for this assessment and report. The tribunal considers that is a management failure.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited (H&S/FRA by related company)
“The tribunal considers that the budgeted charge at zero indicates poor management. Health and safety and fire risk assessments should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“Again, the tribunal considers that the difference between the budgeted charge and the actual charge indicates poor management. Asbestos assessments should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“the tribunal considers that an out of hours emergency service is good management but cannot see how the current arrangement is actually accessible to the lessees. This should be rectified.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited (out of hours cover)
“The tribunal considers that the management service in this accounting year was not commensurate with a charge of £1200 and determines that a charge of £600 (£120 per flat) is reasonable and payable the actual management service in this accounting year.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, of HML Property Management Ltd / Usher Properties Limited
“The Respondent's explanation as to why the guarantee had not been relevant was not satisfactory. The Respondent was unable to say why the insurer had refused cover. The reason for this was the managing agent's personnel had changed with the result that not only was there no one who knew what had happened, but the relevant employees emails had been deleted.”
The tribunal in CHI/00HB/LSC/2020/0089, of Respondent / managing agent (HML Group)

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.