Tribunal Data

How often do tribunals reduce cleaning charges?

Across 679 individually challenged cleaning items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 41.5% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 50% (n=111 reductions with amounts stated). (n=679, as of 4 July 2026)

The figures on this page cover every individually challenged cleaning item in our corpus of published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions, and are recomputed nightly.

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.

Outcomes for challenged cleaning items

OutcomeItemsShare
Reduced16924.9%
Disallowed entirely11316.6%
Allowed in full37054.5%
Withdrawn121.8%

Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge

  1. Other grounds — 13 items
  2. Works not necessary — 11 items
  3. Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) — 13 items
  4. Poor standard of work — 43 items
  5. Apportionment error — 11 items
  6. Not payable under the lease — 37 items
  7. Landlord could not evidence the cost — 96 items
  8. Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 130 items

By tribunal region

RegionItems (n)Reduced or disallowedMedian reduction when reduced
Midlands5617.9%33.4%
Eastern8938.2%43.2%
Southern9259.8%50%
Northern5030%72.8%
London39242.9%50%

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.