Knight Frank — tribunal record
Knight Frank 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 Knight Frank
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00BK/LDC/2022/0078 | 26 July 2022 | W2 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2022/0079 | 18 July 2022 | W2 | — |
| LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0287-AND-LON/00BK/LDC/2020/0138 | 30 July 2021 | W2 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2020/0171 | 12 February 2021 | W2 | — |
| LON/00AU/LDC/2020/0101 | 25 November 2020 | N7 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Knight Frank appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“we consider that the landlord could have recognised the need to consult at an earlier stage which would have enabled a full consultation to take place.”
“the cost of the application fee was occasioned as a result of the need for this application which could have been anticipated given the identification of the need for works in 2018. We accepted on the evidence of Mr Webster and Mrs Fletcher that consultation on the development of premises could have been better and that had the landlord provided better information to the leaseholders the leaseholders may not have objected to the work.”
“The Respondent claims that the works were too urgent to go through the full consultation process but this is not supported by the Fire Risk Assessment or the actual amount of time it took them to get the work done.”
“He stated that he cannot understand how the contractor can have been paid with the door left in this inoperable condition.”
“In this case, the Respondent cut corners and, as is often the case when corners are cut, it was counter-productive. If the full statutory requirements had been followed, it is likely that the works would have been specified properly and supervised.”
“their approach was to cut corners. They tried to rush without achieving any great speed, instead only delivering a lower standard of service than would have been the case if they had just proceeded in a standard manner, complying with all of their legal obligations.”
“The Respondent's inexcusable failure on a number of occasions to comply with the requirements means that the Applicants' employment of Mr Way to advise them on whether they had suffered any prejudice was entirely reasonable.”
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.