Town & City Management Limited — tribunal record
Town & City Management Limited 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 27 September 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 Town & City Management Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0652 | 13 April 2026 | SW1H | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0951 | 9 February 2026 | W1H | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2025/0800 | 26 September 2025 | W1H | — |
| LON/00BJ/LSC/2022/0383 | 28 May 2024 | SW11 | Summary |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2021/0302 | 1 March 2022 | WC2N | — |
| CHI/00HN/LDC/2021/0119 | 31 January 2022 | BH7 | — |
| CHI/00HN/LDC/2021/0105 | 25 January 2022 | BH4 | — |
| CHI/00ML/LDC/2021/0118 | 5 January 2022 | BN3 | — |
| CHI/29UL/LDC/2021/0110 | 5 January 2022 | CT21 | — |
| CHI/00HN/LDC/2021/0094 | 8 November 2021 | BH2 | — |
| LON/00BK/LDC/2021/0112 | 10 August 2021 | SW1Y | — |
| LON/00AA/LDC/2021/0038 | 4 May 2021 | EC3N | — |
| LON/00AN/LDC/2020/0081 | 23 April 2021 | W6 | — |
| MAN/OOEC/LBC/2020/0003 | 29 September 2020 | TS1 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Town & City Management Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“This position appeared to be at odds with the evidence given to the Tribunal at the hearing that the £22,000 was actually paid by way of a loan. It was therefore not clear whether or not this loan would be repaid and whether this would be payable by the tenants.”
“He robustly defended this position during cross examination when he was challenged that the Bureau Veritas reports stated it was repair and refurbishment that was required. He responded that this was semantics, and repeatedly stated the authors would have been affected by confirmation bias.”
“Taking this evidence at face value, it would mean he inspected the original lift in early 2025, which would be impossible because it had been replaced by then.”
“Mr Bardawil's evidence as to when his inspection of the lift on which the report was based took place, was not helpful. He cannot have inspected the lift in early 2025 as he claimed, because the lift was removed in August 2024.”
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 27 September 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.