Pier Management Ltd — tribunal record
Pier Management Ltd 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 31 October 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 Pier Management Ltd
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM/26KF/LSC/2025/0666 | 28 November 2025 | SS0 | — |
| CAM/OOKF/LIS/2023/0028 | 6 March 2025 | SS0 | Summary |
| CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0074 | 16 June 2023 | SS1 | Summary |
| CAM/22UD/LSC/2022/0034 | 28 October 2022 | CM14 | Summary |
| LON/00BA/LSC/2020/0392 | 12 July 2021 | CR4 | Summary |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Pier Management Ltd appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The Tribunal does have concerns over the standard of maintenance including a series of areas identified as in poor condition within the Respondent's site inspection report of October 2022.”
“it is noted from the photographs supplied that the building looks to be in a very poor and neglected condition with various signs of disrepair. Numerous risk assessment improvements are identified within the October 2022 report. Without imputing liability in any future claims, these proceedings should have highlighted wider concerns over the condition of the building and the Respondent is alerted to the need for the building to be actively managed.”
“The Tribunal notes that a more detailed inspection beyond a ground inspection may be prudent for future inspections.”
“The new management fee of £115 is said to offer the services of very qualified personnel 365 days of the year. Yet is it not clear what sort of services that would provide. Leaseholders, by the nature of their interest in their properties are required to maintain them. The Respondent, by their own evidence states that the communal area in the building is minimal and it is hard to envisage what they intend to achieve under the terms of the new management fee.”
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: 4,423 decisions covering 19,030 individually disputed items, last updated 31 October 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.