Watson Property Group — tribunal record
Watson Property Group appears in 5 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 15 individually challenged items in those cases, 46.7% 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 head | Items with amounts (n) | Median reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Other charges | 3 | 0% |
| Management fees | 2 | 50% |
| Major works | 2 | 31.7% |
| Legal & professional costs | 1 | 0% |
| Administration charges | 1 | 100% |
| Utilities | 1 | 33.3% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Watson Property Group
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAN/00FF/LDC/2023/0048 | 5 February 2025 | YO1 | — |
| MAN/00FB/LDC/2023/0071 | 1 May 2024 | YO25 | — |
| MAN/00CH/LSC/2019/0037 | 21 March 2023 | NE9 | Summary |
| MAN/00DA/LDC/2022/0026 | 12 September 2022 | LS22 | — |
| CAM/33UG/LSC/2020/0048 | 1 February 2021 | NR5 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Watson Property Group appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“It is not clear that any thought has been given to this nor that this has been kept under review. The Respondent has not addressed this aspect. Indeed it is not clear on the evidence adduced why painting works were undertaken in 2019, as opposed to 2018, 2017 or 2020; there is filed by the Respondent no pre-works inspection report nor photographs, nor evidence of condition to show what needed doing - despite the application referring to the shared areas "not being in need of regular redecoration", thereby putting the matter in issue”
“the Respondent has not adduced in evidence the specification given pre-tender to the contractors who were asked to quote, nor do their quotes detail what they are quoting for.”
“The managing agents have charged a fee of £141.60, seen in their invoice but do not detail what work they did for this project management in respect of these external redecorations. They do not say if they inspected, and if so when; there is disclosed no site visit, whether before or after the works were done; whilst they refer in a report to the Lessor on 21st May 2019 to "periodic inspections during the course of the redecoration", they do not detail when they took place.”
“The inclusion of "if applicable" has the hallmarks of an instruction coming from someone who had not inspected to identify what needed doing.”
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.