Rendall & Rittner — tribunal record
Rendall & Rittner appears in 36 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=36, 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 Rendall & Rittner
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Rendall & Rittner appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“the Applicant accepts that this was a mistake”
“the Tribunal is concerned that it was only during questioning from the Tribunal that it emerged that many of the entries in the Brawdia PPM were no longer relevant. This should have been made clear in Mr Winter's witness statement.”
“R&R have acknowledged that residents did not receive any notice of cancellation of such agreements [B/349](Q21).”
“Neither Sukh or myself, to the best of my knowledge, have been asked to prepare a heating draft business plan - I have no idea what this is and would not be comfortable preparing one when heating networks / distribution is not my expertise…”
“It should be noted that these demands do not include charges for heat bills, as these are collected separately to the service charge funds. Heat charges also do not form part of the service charge budgets.”
“R&R are RICS regulated and ought to have known that the invoices were contractually invalid and legally unenforceable.”
“The tribunal also asked about the different sizes of the blocks. It was a little concerned that estimated electricity charges were the same across different sizes of blocks but considered that overall, the charges were not unreasonable.”
“One piece of information which the Tribunal has not been able to detect in the submitted papers, is the actual cost of these temporary works.”
“The Tribunal was not provided with any details of the inspection reports, copies of photographs or the estimate of the costs of the work and the details of the contractor or any updating information concerning the works have been completed.”
“The Tribunal is concerned about the limited information which has been provided to this tribunal in support of the application.”
“The Tribunal were not happy with this explanation or with the expenditure that was largely unexplained and unacceptable.”
“the Tribunal considered that it was reasonable to conclude that there may have been some failures regarding the oversight of the project by both RR and GV, and, in particular, but without limitation, some apparent confusion between HGM, RR and GV as to the boundaries/extent of their roles.”
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.