Tribunal Record

Trinity Estates Property Management — tribunal record

Trinity Estates Property Management appears in 13 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=13, 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 Trinity Estates Property Management

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/063620 March 2026S10
MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/065620 March 2026S10
MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/061812 January 2026S4
MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/06196 January 2026S10
CAM/33UH/LDC/2025/066312 November 2025NR35
LON/00AJ/LDC/2024/017114 May 2025UB5
CHI/43UE/LSC/2024/008025 April 2025KT22
LON/00AF/LSC/2024/01305 September 2024BR2
LON/00AM/LDC/2023/018821 November 2023E2
LON/00AZ/LDC/2023/01966 November 2023SE13
MAN/00CH/LSC/2022/00319 June 2023NE10Summary
CHI/29UN/LSC/2020/009310 September 2021CT9Summary
CHI/18UC/LIS/2019/003721 August 2020EX4

What tribunals have said

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

“The Tribunal agreed the leak should have been investigated and estimates obtained earlier. The Managing Agent should have corresponded with the Developer whilst concurrently instructing the investigation of the leak and cost of remediation. In the event the M and C Engineering Report was produced on 29 August 2024 and sent to the Developer but the investigation and quotations were not obtained until July 2025 when an Improvement Notice had been served.”
The tribunal in CAM/33UH/LDC/2025/0663, of Applicant's Managing Agent (Trinity Estates Property Management)
“The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's decision to suspend the consultation process in January 2025 owing to the lack of available funds at that stage is somewhat questionable. It was open to the Applicant to continue with the consultation process even if was for the time being not in a position to proceed with the works. The consultation process could have proceeded at the same time as funds were being raised.”
The tribunal in MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/0618, of Applicant (Holywell Heights Management Limited)
“The applicants commissioned one quotation only from Walker Miller & Co Ltd. Without alternative quotations, this does give rise to potential prejudice.”
The tribunal in MAN/00CG/LDC/2025/0656, of Applicant (Trinity (Estates) Property Management Ltd)
“Zenith appears not to have conducted a proper assessment of the condition of the Heat Pumps until the heating failures started in February 2021. The Tribunal consider this to have been too long an antecedent period without proper maintenance.”
The tribunal in MAN/00CH/LSC/2022/0031, of Zenith Management Limited (managing agent)
“The Tribunal does not accept that the need to comply with Section 20 consultations is a viable excuse for the delay in this case, since a Section 20 consultation can be concluded in a little over two months if the landlord acts with alacrity, and if the situation is urgent then it is open to the landlord to seek dispensation from the Tribunal (even after carrying out the works, if absolutely necessary). The Respondent has at all material times had the benefit of instructing professional leasehold managing agents who ought to know this. No adequate explanation has been offered as to the reasons for the gaps in time between the various stages of consultation, nor indeed why the repairs are still outstanding.”
The tribunal in MAN/00CH/LSC/2022/0031, of Respondent / managing agents
“Trinity seem to have managed the Building more competently since April 2022 and have both resolved the original electricity dispute and commissioned the Section 20 process for the works to the Heat Pump(s), although the Section 20 process has taken an inexplicably long time.”
The tribunal in MAN/00CH/LSC/2022/0031, of Trinity (Estates) Property Management Limited

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.