Tribunal Record

Parkgate Aspen Ltd — tribunal record

Parkgate Aspen Ltd appears in 15 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=15, 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 Parkgate Aspen Ltd

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
LON/00AW/LSC/2023/036415 April 2026W8
LON/00AS/LDC/2024/017816 January 2025HA4
LON/00AS/LSC/2024/003016 January 2025HA4
LON/00BK/LSC/2023/031122 May 2024W9
LON/00AG/LSC/2023/03331 April 2024NW6
LON/0OAG/LSC/2023/030219 February 2024NW3
LON/00AH/LBC/2023/001212 September 2023CR0
LON/00AG/LSC/2022/03859 June 2023WC1X
LON/00AG/LSC/2021/029415 September 2022NW3
LON/00BK/LSC/2021/019816 May 2022W2
LON/00BK/LBC/2021/00777 April 2022W9
LON/00AG/LSC/2020/01706 December 2021WC1NSummary
LON/00AS/LSC/2021/02011 December 2021HA4
LON/00BK/LSC/2020/006325 January 2021NW8
LON/00BK/LSC/2020/01739 December 2020W1H

What tribunals have said

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

“It was nonetheless surprising that there was no contract between Parkgate and the Management Company. Similarly surprising was Mr Unsdorfer's approach to the question. He appeared to think it was inappropriate for there to be a written contract, because he controlled both companies. He also considered there was no oral contract, because it would amount to 'me talking to myself'.”
The tribunal in LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0170, of Parkgate Aspen Ltd (managing agent)
“In answer to questions put to him by the panel Mr Unsdorfer could not explain why no application was made in late 2016 for dispensation or why it had taken the Landlord nearly 8 years since the completion of the works to make the necessary application, despite being aware of the need for the same since December 2016. He could not explain why the landlord did not issue the dispensation application for nearly three and a half years after the previous determination of this tribunal.”
The tribunal in LON/00AS/LDC/2024/0178, of Respondent (Ultrahome Ltd / Parkgate Aspen)
“the quality of evidence will inevitably deteriorate with the passage of time, and the timing of this application was something that was entirely within the control of the landlord.”
The tribunal in LON/00AS/LDC/2024/0178, of Respondent (Ultrahome Ltd / Parkgate Aspen)
“It makes a nonsense of the consultation process if the freeholder or his agents can simply pick another contractor that better suits their needs but were not involved in the consultation process.”
The tribunal in LON/00AS/LSC/2021/0201, of Respondent / Parkgate Aspen
“For whatever reason the Respondents chose to use Tyndalls because it suited them only. This flies in the face of the purpose of consultation.”
The tribunal in LON/00AS/LSC/2021/0201, of Respondent / Parkgate Aspen
“Mr Unsdorfer was asked why he had not applied for dispensation. His answer was inconclusive and he referred the tribunal to his lawyer's submissions.”
The tribunal in LON/00AS/LSC/2021/0201, of Elliot Unsdorfer / Parkgate Aspen
“In answer to questions put to him by the panel Mr Unsdorfer could not explain why no application was made in late 2016 for dispensation or why it had taken the Landlord nearly 8 years since the completion of the works to make the necessary application, despite being aware of the need for the same since December 2016. He could not explain why the landlord did not issue the dispensation application for nearly three and a half years after the previous determination of this tribunal.”
The tribunal in LON/00AS/LSC/2024/0030, of Respondent / Landlord (Ultrahome Ltd / Parkgate Aspen)
“the tribunal finds that the applicant failed through its managing agent to submit a potential or exploratory claim on behalf of the respondent and failed to make it clear to Mr Syed in a timely manner that it had not done so.”
The tribunal in LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0063, of Managing agent (Parkgate Aspen) — failure to submit insurance claim
“the managing agents should have been aware of the lease terms, and should have provided advice to the landlord, without the need for involving solicitors.”
The tribunal in LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0173, of Parkgate Aspen (managing agents) / Shellpoint Trustees Limited (respondent)
“a managing agent should be able to deal with customer complaints themselves without resorting to instructing solicitors, and that this would come within the normal management fee.”
The tribunal in LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0173, of Parkgate Aspen (managing agents)
“It appeared from the evidence presented that the respondents were attempting to intimidate the applicants with solicitors; letters about matters that were not their responsibility, such as the motorcycle parting issues, and the water leak from another resident; flat.”
The tribunal in LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0173, of Shellpoint Trustees Limited / Parkgate Aspen
“The tribunal also had concerns about the late charges for electricity. It accepts the Applicant's assurances that there were beyond its control and that they are looking for refunds of these from their brokers so that the leaseholders will be credited for all of those payments. As the current year is only estimated service charges the tribunal expects that the finalised accounts will reflect those credits.”
The tribunal in LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0311, of Parkgate Aspen / Applicant (electricity late payment charges)

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.