Savills plc — tribunal record
Savills plc appears in 14 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=14, as of 31 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.
Decisions in the corpus naming Savills plc
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00BK/LDC/2024/0659 | 12 February 2025 | W2 | — |
| LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0113 | 12 June 2024 | SW7 | — |
| LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0046 | 24 January 2024 | SW7 | — |
| CHI/43UB/LDC/2023/0109 | 16 October 2023 | KT12 | — |
| LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0022 | 26 September 2023 | SW3 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2023/0127 | 5 September 2023 | W2 | — |
| LON/00AW/LDC/2023/0062 | 9 August 2023 | SW7 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2022/0232 | 7 March 2023 | W2 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2022/0253 | 7 March 2023 | W2 | — |
| MAN/13UB/LDC/2021/0072 | 4 August 2022 | CH1 | — |
| MAN/00DA/LDC/2021/0069 | 4 July 2022 | LS1 | — |
| LON/00AW/LDC/2022/0051 | 20 June 2022 | SW1X | — |
| CAM/22UJ/LSC/2020/0032 | 25 January 2021 | CM20 | Summary |
| BIR/00CT/LDC/2020/0011 | 24 November 2020 | B90 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Savills plc appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“We accept that there were some shortcomings in the staffing, and the First Applicant had to suffer some rudeness.”
“The application and bundle were poorly presented for a professional managing agent, unpaginated and omitting full copies of the objectors' cases. These I had to obtain from correspondence to the Tribunal. Further, the application form does not specify precisely the dispensation sought with reference to invoices.”
“The application does not state the date on which the works were carried out and no contractors estimates have been supplied.”
“The tribunal is concerned that there is no evidence that leaseholders were notified of the proposed works or that dispensation from the consultation requirements of section 20 would be sought.”
“No written submissions in support of their application have been made by the Applicants.”
“The landlord did not write to the Tribunal confirming that the application had been publicised in the common parts as directed. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondents were written to and therefore waives that breach of the directions.”
“If letters went astray in the post, or indeed if the application and directions were not displayed in all necessary common parts, that is again to be regretted”
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 31 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.