Inspired Property Management — tribunal record
Inspired Property Management appears in 19 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=19, 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 Inspired Property Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAN/00BR/LSC/2024/0235 | 25 February 2026 | M7 | — |
| MAN/00DA/LDC/2024/0058 | 14 August 2025 | LS2 | — |
| CAM/42UD/LDC/2024/0601 | 25 March 2025 | IP1 | — |
| LON/00BK/LSC/2024/0206-AND-LON/00BK/LAM/2024/0024 | 26 February 2025 | W2 | Summary |
| MAN/00BN/LDC/2024/0007 | 1 July 2024 | M26 | — |
| LON/00BE/LDC/2023/0161 | 3 August 2023 | London | — |
| LON/00AY/LSC/2022/0159 | 2 February 2023 | SW8 | — |
| MAN/00FA/LSC/2021/0046 | 20 January 2023 | Northern | Summary |
| MAN/00DA/LDC/2021/0050 | 30 June 2022 | LS8 | — |
| MAN/00CE/LDC/2021/0085 | 3 May 2022 | DN4 | — |
| LON/00BG/LDC/2022/0018 | 27 April 2022 | E3 | — |
| CAM/00KF/LIS/2021/0017 | 16 November 2021 | SS1 | — |
| LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0135 | 23 August 2021 | E3 | — |
| MAN/00DA/LSC/2020/0027 | 20 July 2021 | LS12 | — |
| MAN/00DA/LDC/2021/0003 | 20 April 2021 | LS2 | — |
| MAN/00BY/LDC/2020/0056 | 30 March 2021 | L18 | — |
| MAN/00BN/LDC/2020/0055 | 25 March 2021 | M1 | — |
| CAM/00KF/LIS/2020/0016 | 30 November 2020 | SS1 | — |
| CHI/00MR/LIS/2019/0075 | 5 August 2020 | PO1 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Inspired 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 Tribunal considered that the Managing Agents on behalf of the Respondent should have explained the rationale of the Reserve Fund and forewarned the Applicants of the very substantial demand for the Reserve Fund contribution. It was not unreasonable for the Applicants to apply to the Tribunal for a determination promptly on receiving the demand without some explanation. The information provided with the budget did not address what was bound to be the Applicants' main concern of the demand of over £2,000 per flat towards the reserve which doubled the Service Charge.”
“the Managing Agents on behalf of the Respondent should have explained the rationale of the Reserve Fund and forewarned the Applicants of the very substantial demand for the Reserve Fund contribution. It was not unreasonable for the Applicants to apply to the Tribunal for a determination promptly on receiving the demand without some explanation. The information provided with the budget did not address what was bound to be the Applicants' main concern of the demand of over £2,000 per flat towards the reserve which doubled the Service Charge.”
“IPM's actions betray a reactive approach. Each time something came up, they sought to react in such a way that the issue would recede to the background for at least a while.”
“IPM brought in specialist consultants, Ilecs, to advise but, with all due respect, in these particular circumstances their advice appears to have been otiose. Although they used more words, their conclusion and recommendations went no further than Murray's findings more than 2 years previously.”
“IPM needed to have taken a step back earlier than this to identify a path forward – if they had, it is likely that TKE would have been brought in to inspect and advise long before the flood in August 2021. Delay resulted in yet more delay.”
“They simply assumed, mistakenly as it turned out, that Mr Ward was keeping his fellow lessees informed of whatever IPM told him. Also, it did not occur to them that staying silent during the periods of delay would just generate more anxiety – they did not realise that an absence of any action or progress for a sufficiently long time is also news of which the lessees would like to be informed.”
“While this is within the range which the Tribunal might expect to find in the market for a property with this number of units, it is on the high side. The Tribunal would expect to find a service which fits that level of fees. Instead, IPM's service has fallen short in relation to both lift maintenance and communication about that lift maintenance.”
“Whilst the reasons why it is not now possible and/or desirable to comply fully with the consultation requirements could perhaps have been expressed more clearly in the statement of case”
“None of these accounts provide an accurate description of how the judgment debt of £4,914.39 was computed.”
“This is a matter which should have been resolved by the managing agents without the involvement of lawyers, had the basis of the claim had been explained to the Respondent in simple terms.”
“Mr Peters gave evidence that IPM did not carry out a calculation in accordance with the RICS Code in order to ascertain the appropriate level of the reserve fund contributions.”
“Communication by the Applicant could have been better. The Leaseholders were not told of the costs of the works, and the emails saying the water would be cut off did not provide any indication that major works were going to be carried out. It may be that the Applicant did not have a final figure by that stage, but they must have had an indication as to what the works might cost before commissioning them.”
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.