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
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 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 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 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 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 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.”
“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 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.”
“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 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 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 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.”
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.