Zenith Management Limited — tribunal record
Zenith Management Limited appears in 5 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 16 individually challenged items in those cases, 37.5% 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Utilities | 2 | 64.5% |
| Administration charges | 1 | 100% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Zenith Management Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAN/00BN/LSC/2023/0020 | 21 February 2024 | M50 | — |
| MAN/00BN/LAC/2022/0011 | 12 October 2023 | M4 | — |
| MAN/00CH/LSC/2022/0022 | 2 December 2022 | NE10 | — |
| MAN/00BN/LDC/2021/0081 | 26 July 2022 | M1 | — |
| BIR/41UE/LAM/2022/0002 | 10 May 2022 | ST5 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Zenith Management Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“None of this additional information was supplied by the Respondent prior to the hearing, and none of it was suggested in the letter to leaseholders which accompanied the 2021 service charge account.”
“The Tribunal has accepted Ms Black's additional evidence, although given the involvement of solicitors and counsel on behalf of the Respondent it is surprising that such relevant information was not previously made available to the Applicants.”
“The invoices supplied to the Applicants, even when supplemented by copies of Zenith's spreadsheets, were insufficient fully to explain what the Applicants were being asked to pay for. Additional information supplied at the hearing should have been included, at the latest, in Ms Black's witness statement.”
“The problem was ultimately of the Respondent's own making through the careless actions of its first agents, Bradley Hall.”
“it is fair to say that the issue had taken longer to resolve than perhaps could have been the case.”
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.