Y & Y Management Ltd — tribunal record
Y & Y Management Ltd appears in 9 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 34 individually challenged items in those cases, 50% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=9, 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% |
| Administration charges | 3 | 0% |
| Gardening & grounds | 1 | 100% |
| Legal & professional costs | 1 | 0% |
| Repairs & maintenance | 1 | 10% |
| Major works | 1 | 0% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Y & Y Management Ltd
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AP/LSC/2025/0954 | 6 March 2026 | N22 | — |
| LON/00BB/LSC/2023/0266 | 19 January 2026 | E16 | — |
| LON/00AJ/LSC/2025/0612 | 7 January 2026 | UB5 | — |
| LON/00AJ/LSC/2024/0725 | 7 January 2026 | UB5 | — |
| LON/00BC/LSC/2023/0171 | 28 March 2024 | E11 | — |
| CAM/00KA/LSC/2023/0019 | 6 December 2023 | LU2 | — |
| LON/00AY/LSC/2022/0247 | 15 March 2023 | SW8 | — |
| CAM/00MG/LBC/2022/0004 | 20 September 2022 | MK9 | — |
| MAN/00CJ/LSC/2019/0063 | 30 September 2020 | NE1 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Y & Y Management Ltd appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“we find that it was vexatiously, abusively and unreasonably made.”
“We were unimpressed by Mr Gurvits' evidence, such as it was, in relation to each these points. We felt that it was his purpose, so far as possible, to divert our attention away from the examination of questions relating to the solar panels.”
“Y & Y's failures to get to grips with the security problems, solar panel issues, maintenance issues and problems with the lifts, despite the considerable best efforts of Mr Pilgrim, were the result of negligence and/or indigence on the part of Mr Shipman and Mr Bloom.”
“the quality of the service provided by Y & Y Management in all the years of account save the most recent with which we are concerned (following the appointment of Ms Reynolds) was so poor that it is necessary to reduce the amount of the charge by 50% to reflect what is a reasonable amount for the quality of the service provided.”
“the tribunal remains unclear as to why Mr Hart thought it necessary to trace the source of the leak rather than turn the water to the building off immediately. On his own evidence, that could have been effected in 10 minutes or so rather than the 20 recorded in the maintenance log.”
“The failure to ensure that counsel was adequately instructed to deal with all matters which might arise at a final hearing is potentially a breach of the respondent's duties under The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 rule 3, the Overriding Objective.”
“We consider that this is suspicious and calls for an explanation, but the landlord has proffered none.”
“the error identified in apportionment of the major works charges (Issue 1) is evidence of misunderstanding by the managing agent of the terms of the lease.”
“there appears to be commonality of interest between the Respondent and its managing agent. It is not clear whether that comes from diligent performance by Y&Y in performing its obligations, or that Y&Y delegates decision-making to its agent regarding not just minor matters at the Block or also major ones such as the spending of in excess of £350,000.”
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.