Urbanpoint Property Management Company Limited (UPM) — tribunal record
Urbanpoint Property Management Company Limited (UPM) appears in 6 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=6, 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 Urbanpoint Property Management Company Limited (UPM)
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM/00MF/LIS/2022/0018 | 8 December 2023 | RG41 | Summary |
| CHI/43UL/LSC/2022/0104 | 30 June 2023 | GU7 | Summary |
| CHI/21UD/LSC/2021/0043 | 27 October 2021 | TN38 | — |
| LON/00BH/LSC/2021/0041 | 18 May 2021 | E7 | — |
| CAM/26UB/LIS/2020/0044 | 6 May 2021 | EN11 | Summary |
| CHI/19UD/LSC/2020/0077 | 3 December 2020 | BH21 | Summary |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Urbanpoint Property Management Company Limited (UPM) 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.”
“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.”
“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 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 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.”
“That is as presented a rather glaringly a failing on behalf of the Respondent to let its agent know about relevant documentation held.”
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.