Living City Asset Management Limited — tribunal record
Living City Asset Management Limited 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 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 Living City Asset Management Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAN/00BN/LSC/2024/0148 | 11 September 2025 | M4 | — |
| LON/00AF/LSC/2023/0127 | 20 November 2023 | BR2 | — |
| MAN/00BN/LDC/2021/0084 | 13 September 2022 | M4 | — |
| MAN/00BN/LDC/2021/0074 | 12 September 2022 | Northern | — |
| MAN/00BN/LDC/2021/0021 | 19 April 2022 | M4 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Living City Asset Management Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“this case could have been avoided if the agents had engaged constructively with the Applicant instead of holding onto a patently indefensible position.”
“the Respondent through its agents persisted in adopting an inequitable split of window cleaning costs that produced a patently unfair result.”
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.