Initiative Property Management — tribunal record
Initiative Property Management appears in 5 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=5, 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 Initiative Property Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHI/00HN/LDC/2022/0047 | 5 July 2022 | BH1 | — |
| CHI/00HN/LDC/2022/0021 | 26 April 2022 | BH1 | — |
| CHI/00HN/LSC/2020/0016 | 2 June 2021 | BH4 | — |
| CHI/00HN/LDC/2021/0003 | 10 March 2021 | BH4 | — |
| CHI/00HN/LSC/2020/0050 | 7 October 2020 | BH6 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Initiative Property Management appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The application and bundle are far from clear as to the set of works for which dispensation is sought.”
“Arguably the Respondent should have waited 30 days before issuing the third notice but as the Applicants are not challenging the choice of contractor, this is not relevant to this case.”
“it appears from the documentation that an Auditors certificate has not been obtained and sent to the Applicants. Without this certificate, the Respondent has not strictly complied with the provisions of Clause 5 of the lease and therefore cannot increase the service charge.”
“The Tribunal finds it remarkable that both a professional managing agent and a solicitor would each insist upon such payment in the absence of any authority in the lease to do so. That the managing agent was so insistent and appears to have relied upon a lease to which the Applicant was not a party is indefensible.”
“The Respondent appears to have placed his trust in others, but provided them with a lease that has no relevance whatsoever to this Applicant. Those whom he trusted appear to have had no regard to the obvious lack of relevance and to have pursued the Applicant regardless.”
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.