Tribunal Record

McCarthy & Stone Management Services — tribunal record

McCarthy & Stone Management Services appears in 5 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 5 individually challenged items in those cases, 0% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=5, as of 4 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 McCarthy & Stone Management Services

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
MAN/00CJ/LDC/2025/065327 January 2026NE4
CAM/22UH/LDC/2024/061113 February 2025CH5
CHI/19UJ/LDC/2022/007018 October 2022DT4
CHI/21UH/LDC/2022/007215 September 2022BN27
CHI/00HB/LDC/2022/006230 August 2022BS16

What tribunals have said

The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which McCarthy & Stone Management Services appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.

“the Tribunal finds that the means of keeping the Respondents informed verbally through coffee mornings is appropriate but insufficient.”
The tribunal in CAM/22UH/LDC/2024/0611, of Applicant (McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Limited / McCarthy & Stone Management Services)

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: 2,383 decisions covering 12,898 individually disputed items, last updated 4 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.