Tribunal Data

How often do tribunals reduce gardening and grounds charges?

Across 363 individually challenged gardening and grounds items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 41.9% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 50.8% (n=72 reductions with amounts stated). (n=363, as of 4 July 2026)

The figures on this page cover every individually challenged gardening and grounds 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 gardening and grounds items

OutcomeItemsShare
Reduced10428.7%
Disallowed entirely4813.2%
Allowed in full20155.4%
Withdrawn51.4%

Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge

  1. Works not necessary — 14 items
  2. Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) — 8 items
  3. Poor standard of work — 29 items
  4. Apportionment error — 14 items
  5. Not payable under the lease — 19 items
  6. Demand formally invalid — 4 items
  7. Landlord could not evidence the cost — 46 items
  8. Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 79 items

By tribunal region

RegionItems (n)Reduced or disallowedMedian reduction when reduced
Eastern4854.2%51.9%
Southern8148.1%56.7%
Northern4740.4%55.4%
London17037.6%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.