Remus Management Limited — tribunal record
Remus Management Limited appears in 12 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 90 individually challenged items in those cases, 30% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=12, 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 | 15 | 0% |
| Repairs & maintenance | 13 | 30.6% |
| Legal & professional costs | 10 | 0% |
| Utilities | 6 | 0% |
| Major works | 5 | 0% |
| Administration charges | 5 | 0% |
| Buildings insurance | 3 | 0% |
| Management fees | 3 | 0% |
| Reserve fund contributions | 1 | 0% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Remus Management Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAV/00UR/LIS/2025/0011 | 19 March 2026 | BH21 | Summary |
| HAV/00HH/LDC/2025/6012 | 29 May 2025 | TQ1 | — |
| CHI/00HX/LDC/2023/0014 | 26 April 2023 | SN25 | — |
| BIR/00CN/LIS/2022/0023 | 16 February 2023 | B16 | Summary |
| CAM/00MD/LSC/2022/0004 | 24 October 2022 | SL1 | — |
| BIR/47UB/LLD/2021/0006 | 5 January 2022 | B61 | — |
| BIR/47UB/LSC/2021/0004 | 5 January 2022 | B61 | — |
| CAM/00MD/LDC/2021/0024 | 18 August 2021 | SL1 | — |
| LON/00AM/LSC/2020/0071 | 26 March 2021 | N16 | Summary |
| CAM/00MD/LSC/2020/0054 | 22 March 2021 | SL1 | — |
| CHI/18UB/LDC/2020/0109 | 21 January 2021 | EX8 | — |
| CHI/45UC/LSC/2020/0038 | 17 December 2020 | PO21 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Remus Management Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“the Tribunal considered the Respondent's concerns were legitimate and reasonable and that the application to the Tribunal, and any resulting costs, could have been avoided had the Applicant fully engaged with the Respondent's queries regarding his service charge account.”
“The Tribunal did consider that the Applicant should rectify the numbering on the spaces as soon as possible to avoid further confusion.”
“the Tribunal considered the Respondent's concerns were legitimate and reasonable and that the application to the Tribunal, and any resulting costs, could have been avoided had the Applicant fully engaged with the Respondent's queries regarding his service charge account.”
“the Respondent had, since November 2020, been querying the accuracy of the outstanding balance on the service charge account and that at no point did he appear to have received a satisfactory reply to his queries.”
“the tribunal, whilst observing that the respondent had been slow in dealing with the enquiries made by the applicant”
“There would appear to be minor issues with carpet cleaning but clearly there is an issue with pigeons and pigeon mess in the car park. This is an annoying and aggravating issue that really should be addressed quickly before the problem gets worse. It is not reasonable to allow the problem to continue unaddressed.”
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.