Tribunal Record

Principle Estate Management LLP — tribunal record

Principle Estate Management LLP appears in 16 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=16, 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 Principle Estate Management LLP

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
HAV/00HC/LDC/2025/067723 January 2026BS20—
CAM/22UJ/LIS/2024/0600, CAM/22UJ/LIS/2025/0009 & CAM/22UJ/LSC/2025/06944 December 2025CM17Summary
HAV/29UH/LSC/2025/064325 November 2025ME15Summary
BIR/47UD/LDC/2024/062310 November 2025B97—
CAM/42UD/LDC/2025/061517 June 2025IP4—
BIR/00CN/LDC/2023/002617 October 2024B3—
CAM/42UD/LDC/2023/00462 April 2024IP4—
CAM/42UD/LSC/2022/00692 April 2024IP4—
MAN/00EY/LDC/2023/004922 January 2024FY2—
LON/00BK/LDC/2023/029519 December 2023W1J—
LON/00BA/LSC/2022/025320 March 2023CR4—
BIR/17UG/LDC/2021/00137 October 2021NG10—
BIR/17UG/LLC/2021/00107 October 2021NG10—
LON/00BF/LDC/2021/016924 August 2021SM1—
LON/00AS/LDC/2021/012320 July 2021HA4—
BIR/00CT/LIS/2020/00327 April 2021B90—

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”
The tribunal in BIR/00CN/LDC/2023/0026, of Principle Estate Management LLP (managing agent)
“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.”
The tribunal in BIR/00CN/LDC/2023/0026, of Miller Knight Resources Management Limited / TFT (project manager and contractor)
“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.”
The tribunal in BIR/00CN/LDC/2023/0026, of Applicant / managing agent
“we find it difficult to understand why the leaseholders were not made aware at an earlier stage of the cost of the Works”
The tribunal in BIR/00CN/LDC/2023/0026, of Applicant / managing agent
“The Tribunal would have expected the standard of record keeping to have been far greater than evidenced and finds the fact that the Respondents are unable to trace the warranty documents troubling especially given the apparent link/ connection between each management company responsible for the buildings over the past 15 years or so.”
The tribunal in BIR/00CT/LIS/2020/0032, of Respondent / previous managing agents (record-keeping)
“the Applicant should have commenced its consultation process shortly after its appointment.”
The tribunal in BIR/17UG/LDC/2021/0013, of Applicant / Principle Estate Management LLP
“The Tribunal considers the cost amounting to £804 incurred by the Applicant should have been avoided”
The tribunal in BIR/17UG/LDC/2021/0013, of Applicant / Principle Estate Management LLP
“the Applicant should have commenced its consultation process shortly after its appointment.”
The tribunal in BIR/17UG/LLC/2021/0010, of Principle Estate Management LLP (managing agent)
“The Tribunal considers the cost amounting to £804 incurred by the Applicant should have been avoided”
The tribunal in BIR/17UG/LLC/2021/0010, of Principle Estate Management LLP (managing agent)
“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 in CAM/42UD/LDC/2025/0615, of Principle Estate Management (managing agent)
“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.”
The tribunal in HAV/29UH/LSC/2025/0643, of Respondent / Principle Estate Management
“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.”
The tribunal in HAV/29UH/LSC/2025/0643, of Respondent / Principle Estate Management

Related

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.