Tribunal Record

Ringley Limited — tribunal record

Ringley Limited appears in 8 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=8, 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 Ringley Limited

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
LON/00AS/LSC/2025/061430 January 2026UB8Summary
LON/00AG/LDC/2024/009020 November 2024London
LON/00AG/LDC/2024/018928 October 2024SW7
LON/00AH/LDC/2024/008927 June 2024SE25
LON/00BH/LDC/2023/027423 January 2024E4
LON/00AW/LDC/2023/015116 January 2024SW7
LON/00AH/LSC/2021/038827 July 2022SE25
LON/00AX/LDC/2021/00146 April 2021KT1

What tribunals have said

The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Ringley Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.

“Neither any replies, nor confirmation that there were none was provided in the bundle; however, following a request for clarification from the Tribunal dated 21 June 2024 the applicant confirmed, in an email dated 24 June 2024, that no such replies had been received.”
The tribunal in LON/00AH/LDC/2024/0089, of Applicant (11 Clifton Road RTM Company Limited / Ringley Law LLP)
“The tribunal accepts the respondent was treated unfavourably in relation to these repair costs. The applicant should have reimbursed 80% of these costs, or applied credits to his service charge account, when presented with these invoices.”
The tribunal in LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0388, of Applicant / Ringley Law LLP

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.