Peak Estates Ltd — tribunal record
Peak Estates Ltd 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 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 Peak Estates Ltd
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AM/LDC/2026/0002 | 27 April 2026 | E9 | — |
| CAM/34UF/LSC/2025/0641 | 19 January 2026 | NN3 | — |
| HAV/23UE/LSC/2025/0604 | 10 September 2025 | GL1 | — |
| LON/00AH/LDC/2024/0617 | 2 June 2025 | SE25 | — |
| CHI/43UC/LIS/2022/0013_0015_0016 | 29 November 2022 | KT18 | Summary |
| LON/00AZ/LSC/2020/0165 | 27 November 2020 | SE23 | Summary |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Peak Estates Ltd appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The 'Particulars of Claim' and accompanying documents have not explained its case as clearly as would be expected from managing agents and as the Tribunal's directions required. The Tribunal has not been shown evidence of attempts to resolve differences about service charge calculations with the lessees by way of alternative dispute resolution.”
“The Applicant or its agent appears to have calculated service charges for the 2019 service charge year on the basis that no apportionment is necessary. This is an incorrect understanding of the Lease.”
“The additional management fee and VAT thereon has been charged twice in each case. It is an error of calculation or other administrative error.”
“The absence of evidence produced by the Applicant or its agent about how the interim demands for 2022 were calculated, or information about this in the Particulars of Claim means the Tribunal has had to do the best it can on the available evidence.”
“The Applicant confirmed that this was undertaken four days later than directed by the Tribunal, but the deadline for responses had not passed and could have been accommodated had any been received.”
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.