Tribunal Record

Urbanpoint Property Management Limited — tribunal record

Urbanpoint Property Management Limited appears in 5 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 51 individually challenged items in those cases, 33.3% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=5, 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 headItems with amounts (n)Median reduction
Buildings insurance170%
Repairs & maintenance120%
Cleaning30%
Management fees318.5%
Legal & professional costs3100%
Reserve fund contributions30%
Utilities30%
Other charges20%
Gardening & grounds10%
Administration charges1100%

Decisions in the corpus naming Urbanpoint Property Management Limited

Case referenceDecision dateAreaOur summary
CHI/43UL/LSC/2022/010430 June 2023GU7Summary
CHI/21UD/LSC/2021/004327 October 2021TN38Summary
LON/00BH/LSC/2021/004118 May 2021E7
CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/00446 May 2021EN11Summary
CHI/19UD/LSC/2020/00773 December 2020BH21Summary

What tribunals have said

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

“The current cleaners appear reliable but the standard had clearly dropped with regard to the previous cleaners. This should have been picked up by the Applicant's Managing Agent before the Tenants complained.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/0044, of Urbanpoint Property Management Limited (Managing Agent)
“too great a reliance was placed upon Tenants to report that works need to be undertaken or to complain about the standard of work carried out before tasks were actioned.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/0044, of Urbanpoint Property Management Limited (Managing Agent)
“too great a reliance was placed upon contractors identifying what repairs needed to be done and their extent and to ensure that the work was carried out to the requisite standard.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/0044, of Urbanpoint Property Management Limited (Managing Agent)
“The role of the property manager cannot be conducted from the office and the Tribunal found that two visits a year to the Building was inadequate.”
The tribunal in CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/0044, of Urbanpoint Property Management Limited (Managing Agent)
“the landlord says through Mr Luke in his statement of case that the brokers did not undertake any formal survey of the market but from their informal approaches they ascertained that other insurers were not interested in covering such a large and diverse portfolio as the Respondent's particularly in view of its claims record. This indicates two things: first, that there was no forensic investigation of the market and, secondly, what investigation there was revealed that the market for other insurers to cover this particular portfolio was practically, if not wholly, non-existent due to the nature of the portfolio. Thus, by the Respondent choosing to insure by way of a block policy, the existing insurers, NIG, could almost name their price.”
The tribunal in CHI/19UD/LSC/2020/0077, of Respondent / Urbanpoint / Citigate — no forensic market testing
“That is as presented a rather glaringly a failing on behalf of the Respondent to let its agent know about relevant documentation held.”
The tribunal in CHI/43UL/LSC/2022/0104, of Respondent / managing agent

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.