Pennycuick Collins — tribunal record
Pennycuick Collins 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 15 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 Pennycuick Collins
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| BIR/00CS/LIS/2021/0013 | 6 October 2021 | WS10 | — |
| BIR/41UB/LIS/2019/0034 | 12 October 2020 | WS11 | — |
| BIR/41UB/LIS/2019/0035 | 12 October 2020 | WS11 | — |
| BIR/41UB/LIS/2019/0049 | 12 October 2020 | WS11 | — |
| BIR/41UB/LIS/2019/0050 | 12 October 2020 | WS11 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Pennycuick Collins appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“the Tribunal was surprised that the Respondent had failed to consider any alternate roofing systems to the Bauder system.”
“In recalculating the figures, the lessees were being penalised for an error made by the lessor. The floor area of the flat, in comparison to the remaining properties at Ashworth House, had not changed.”
“the Tribunal was surprised that the Respondent had failed to consider any alternate roofing systems to the Bauder system.”
“Ms Cannon-Leach provided no information as to why the residential insurance would need to be for 35% of the building value when the Leases clearly stated that it only needed to be two years' loss of ground rent (£70.00 per residential unit) nor did she confirm as to how much of the insurance premium related to this or to the three years' loss of rent which was attributable to the commercial rents.”
“The Tribunal was surprised that the Respondent had failed to consider any alternate roofing systems to the Bauder system.”
“The Tribunal considered that an 11.5% charge for professional fees in overseeing a replacement of a roof to be excessive.”
“Ms Cannon-Leach provided no information as to why the residential insurance would need to be for 35% of the building value when the Leases clearly stated that it only needed to be two years' loss of ground rent (£70.00 per residential unit) nor did she confirm as to how much of the insurance premium related to this or to the three years' loss of rent which was attributable to the commercial rents.”
“the Tribunal was surprised that the Respondent had failed to consider any alternate roofing systems to the Bauder system.”
“In recalculating the figures, the lessees were being penalised for an error made by the lessor.”
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 15 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.