Sorrell Property — tribunal record
Sorrell Property appears in 5 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=5, as of 30 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 Sorrell Property
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AB/LDC/2026/0047 | 12 May 2026 | RM8 | — |
| CAM/00KF/LIS/2023/0016 | 13 March 2026 | SS1 | Summary |
| CAM/00KF/LDC/2024/0037 | 19 August 2024 | SS9 | — |
| CAM/00KF/LDC/2023/0054 | 18 January 2024 | SS1 | — |
| CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0028 | 11 October 2022 | SS0 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Sorrell Property appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The tribunal would remind the respondent that current best practice advises that miscellaneous items are clearly identified in the account process.”
“a failure to obtain, read and understand the lease is not excusable on that account.”
“the failure of Sorrell to read and understand the terms of the Applicants' leases, its consequently misconceived demand for payment of its budgeted service charge (including charges in respect of a garden which had been demised to Ms Summers), its instruction of debt collectors to collect that erroneously demanded service charge and the charges which Ms Price and Ms Summers have had to incur as a consequence is responsible in large measure for their discontent and this application.”
“These are serious failures of management.”
“I find that the quality of the service which Sorrell has provided since its appointment has been significantly less than the charge which it has made.”
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: 4,243 decisions covering 18,023 individually disputed items, last updated 30 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.