Metro PM — tribunal record
Metro PM appears in 6 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=6, 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 Metro PM
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| BIR/00CQ/LSC/2024/0628 | 15 May 2026 | CV1 | — |
| CHI/23UB/LSC/2023/0118 | 20 July 2025 | GL50 | — |
| HAV/23UB/LDC/2025/0600 | 20 July 2025 | GL50 | — |
| CHI/23UB/LDC/2022/0073 | 1 September 2022 | GL50 | — |
| BIR/00CS/LIS/2021/0030 | 13 April 2022 | B68 | — |
| CHI/23UB/LDC/2021/0066 | 31 August 2021 | GL50 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Metro PM appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“although the Tribunal accepts that the directors of the Respondent company did not set out to circumvent the consultation requirements under section 20 of the Act, rather their actions appeared to have been for convenience and borne out of naiveté as to their obligations as a landlord, the requirements of the regulations are strict and do not allow for any flexibility in their interpretation.”
“Although the Respondent had managed to accumulate a significant sum towards the future repair of the garage doors, and had drafted a long-term plan, this does not obviate the Respondent from its obligations to comply with the terms of the Lease in this respect.”
“It is not helpful that the Applicant's reference to section 3.5 of the surveyor's report cannot be identified, there being no numbering to the paragraphs in the report dated 14 June 2022[22]. Neither is it possible to determine whether or not this is the same roof that was subject to the repairs described as the replacement of the coping stones and completed earlier this year.”
“It would be unreasonable to expect residents to devote either the time or the travelling costs to embark on such a journey.”
“I know section 20 major work management fees are generally around the 10% mark, but there has to be a ceiling, I could not see any FTT agreeing that figure.”
“the tribunal does not find that this obviates the need for a reasonable location to be found where documents could be inspected. It is not for the tribunal to prescribe any particular location, but it did not receive any evidence as to why the documents could not be placed in the common parts of the building or why the church hall could not be used.”
“The two revisions of proposed plans within weeks followed by dubious or non-existent reasons given to the leaseholders cast doubts on the abilities of the appointed surveyor RBA, and the transparency of both the applicant and their managing agents.”
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.