How often do tribunals reduce lift charges?
Across 434 individually challenged lift items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 13.6% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 66.8% (n=24 reductions with amounts stated). (n=434, as of 15 August 2026)
The figures on this page cover every individually challenged lift 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 lift items
| Outcome | Items | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reduced | 40 | 9.2% |
| Disallowed entirely | 19 | 4.4% |
| Allowed in full | 363 | 83.6% |
| Withdrawn | 4 | 0.9% |
Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge
- Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 19 items
- Duplication of charges — 5 items
- Landlord could not evidence the cost — 11 items
- Not payable under the lease — 16 items
- Other grounds — 6 items
- Poor standard of work — 4 items
- Apportionment error — 7 items
- No Section 20 consultation — 10 items
By tribunal region
| Region | Items (n) | Reduced or disallowed | Median reduction when reduced |
|---|---|---|---|
| London | 265 | 13.2% | 72.1% |
| Eastern | 39 | 28.2% | 62% |
| Southern | 80 | 6.2% | 55.5% |
| Northern | 34 | 8.8% | — |
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: 4,244 decisions covering 18,031 individually disputed items, last updated 15 August 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.