Principle Estate Management LLP — tribunal record
Principle Estate Management LLP appears in 11 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 59 individually challenged items in those cases, 40.7% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=11, as of 4 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.
Median reduction by cost head where this firm was involved
| Cost head | Items with amounts (n) | Median reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Other charges | 9 | 100% |
| Reserve fund contributions | 6 | 0% |
| Legal & professional costs | 5 | 100% |
| Cleaning | 2 | -2.1% |
| Repairs & maintenance | 2 | 50% |
| Buildings insurance | 2 | 0% |
| Management fees | 2 | 25% |
| Gardening & grounds | 1 | 23.1% |
| Major works | 1 | 0% |
| Administration charges | 1 | 100% |
| Utilities | 1 | 42.7% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Principle Estate Management LLP
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM/22UJ/LIS/2024/0600, CAM/22UJ/LIS/2025/0009 & CAM/22UJ/LSC/2025/0694 | 4 December 2025 | CM17 | Summary |
| HAV/29UH/LSC/2025/0643 | 25 November 2025 | ME15 | Summary |
| BIR/47UD/LDC/2024/0623 | 10 November 2025 | B97 | — |
| CAM/42UD/LDC/2025/0615 | 17 June 2025 | IP4 | — |
| BIR/00CN/LDC/2023/0026 | 17 October 2024 | B3 | — |
| BIR/00FY/LIS/2023/0026 | 23 April 2024 | NG2 | — |
| CAM/42UD/LSC/2022/0069 | 2 April 2024 | IP4 | — |
| BIR/17UG/LDC/2021/0013 | 7 October 2021 | NG10 | — |
| BIR/17UG/LLC/2021/0010 | 7 October 2021 | NG10 | — |
| LON/00BF/LDC/2021/0169 | 24 August 2021 | SM1 | — |
| LON/00AS/LDC/2021/0123 | 20 July 2021 | HA4 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Principle Estate Management LLP appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“We find that the letters from Principle in June, July and August 2023 updating the leaseholders on the Works were particularly unhelpful as they contained no reference to the fact that the cost of the Works in the commercial unit may be recovered through the service charges. Neither was there any attempt to explain the background, the need to comply with an Enforcement Notice and for an accelerated work programme. There appears to have been no attempt to comply even with the spirit of section 20 consultation”
“We also understand the suspicion that may attach to a quote of £100,234.60 by Miller Knight after they had been advised by TFT with whom they had previously worked, that they projected the cost of the remedial works would be in the order of £100,000.”
“knowing that the application had been stayed, we find it difficult to understand why the leaseholders were not made aware at an earlier stage of the cost of the Works.”
“we find it difficult to understand why the leaseholders were not made aware at an earlier stage of the cost of the Works”
“Respectfully, it appears to us that the agent lost control of the electricity expenditure over a period of years by failing to take an actual reading of the meter at the start of each service charge year so that charges could be based on real consumption. It should also have been apparent to the agent that consumption charged in the invoices was excessive for a landlord's electricity supply to a small block of flats, and steps should have been taken to investigate the charges so that excessive charges were avoided.”
“the Applicant should have commenced its consultation process shortly after its appointment.”
“The Tribunal considers the cost amounting to £804 incurred by the Applicant should have been avoided”
“the Applicant should have commenced its consultation process shortly after its appointment.”
“The Tribunal considers the cost amounting to £804 incurred by the Applicant should have been avoided”
“I recognise that this does not fully meet the leaseholders' requests for a breakdown of all their service charges from 2021 but I would hope that Principle will do their best to facilitate that, if only to seek to avoid further applications.”
“The Tribunal takes the view that better communication and transparency could have improved the situation between the Applicant and the Respondent, and that the PMP should have been disclosed to Mr. Francis (and other leaseholders if they so requested) from the outset.”
“if a decision was taken to depart from the recommendations made by the PMP, the managing agents should have been ready to explain and justify both their revised figures and their different approach to scheduled works.”
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: 2,383 decisions covering 12,898 individually disputed items, last updated 4 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.