Urang Property Management — tribunal record
Urang Property Management appears in 11 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 157 individually challenged items in those cases, 40.1% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=11, as of 4 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.
Median reduction by cost head where this firm was involved
| Cost head | Items with amounts (n) | Median reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Other charges | 36 | 0% |
| Repairs & maintenance | 15 | 0% |
| Gardening & grounds | 10 | 0% |
| Cleaning | 10 | 0% |
| Management fees | 10 | 11.2% |
| Buildings insurance | 9 | 0% |
| Utilities | 8 | 0% |
| Administration charges | 7 | 0% |
| Major works | 6 | 0% |
| Reserve fund contributions | 6 | 100% |
| Legal & professional costs | 4 | 0% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Urang Property Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAV/43UF/LIS/2025/0014 | 10 March 2026 | CR5 | Summary |
| LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0933 | 4 February 2026 | SW4 | — |
| LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0140 | 26 November 2024 | CR8 | Summary |
| LON/00AE/LSC/2023/0317 | 5 November 2024 | NW9 | Summary |
| LON/00AE/LSC/2023/0400 | 5 November 2024 | NW89 | Summary |
| LON/00BA/LIS/2024/0001 | 26 July 2024 | SW19 | — |
| LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0222 | 30 May 2024 | NW8 | — |
| LON/00AU/LSC/2022/0020 | 31 August 2022 | N7 | — |
| LON/00AN/LSC/2020/0060 | 19 May 2021 | W14 | Summary |
| LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0073 | 23 November 2020 | WC2H | Summary |
| LON/00BA/LSC/2019/0366 | 9 April 2020 | SW20 | Summary |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Urang Property Management appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“He accepted that the property had no lift and there was no significant disrepair and that there was very low management input.”
“the on-boarding process, which appears to have lasted from May 2022 until about June 2023, is wholly unjustifiably long. The Applicants were not charged with Urang's fees for that long, but they were charged for a full calendar year. It cannot be reasonable for leaseholders to be liable for managing agents fees for such a long on-boarding process, before any leaseholder-facing management tasks at all were performed, in the absence of very compelling reasons. Mr Roberts was unable to give us any reason for the length of the process in this case.”
“in respect of some items, the rationale for the charges only became clear with Mr Roberts' explanations, and in some of those, he accepted that the presentation of both the interim service charge demands and the outturn figures were confusingly presented.”
“Mr Munday was unable to satisfy the tribunal that the £300 sum had been removed from the account. This sum should therefore be deducted from the outstanding sums due.”
“It appears that Urang wrongly thought that they could apply underspends to the reserve fund, but we had no evidence about what the relevant employees understood at the time as to whether a reserve fund could have been built up prospectively.”
“It would undoubtably have been preferable if a reserve fund had been available to allow the Applicant to build up funds to undertake the major works over more than one year.”
“The application of the caselaw by the Respondent is misguided.”
“On occasions penalty charges have been imposed when the account is clear.”
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: 2,383 decisions covering 12,898 individually disputed items, last updated 4 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.