Hurford Salvi Carr Property Management Ltd — tribunal record
Hurford Salvi Carr Property Management Ltd appears in 7 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=7, as of 30 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 Hurford Salvi Carr Property Management Ltd
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AG/LDC/2025/0759 | 13 August 2025 | EC1R | — |
| LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0656 | 1 April 2025 | SW4 | — |
| LON/00BE/LDC/2024/0031 | 16 April 2024 | SE1 | — |
| LON/00BG/LDC/2023/0279 | 23 January 2024 | E1W | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0059 | 3 July 2023 | W1B | — |
| LON/00BE/LDC/2022/0175 | 16 January 2023 | SE1 | — |
| LON/00AU/LSC/2021/0091 | 14 December 2021 | EC1V | Summary |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Hurford Salvi Carr 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 was apparent to the Tribunal that there had been a history of poor accounting and indeed the representative for the respondent confirmed that once employed the company had to clear up a "mess" in regard to the accounts and the service charges.”
“The tribunal noted that the managing agent had not obtained an independent report from an expert, the leaseholders have not had the chance to nominate a contractor of their choice and the works had not been put out to tender so the tribunal cannot be sure that the cost of the works are reasonable.”
“the attempt by the Applicant's managing agent, Hurford Salvi Carr, is invalid because insufficient time had been allowed for the leaseholders to make observations both in relation to the Notice of Intention and Estimates”
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: 4,243 decisions covering 18,023 individually disputed items, last updated 30 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.