How often do tribunals reduce lift charges?
Across 273 individually challenged lift items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 18.3% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 67% (n=21 reductions with amounts stated). (n=273, as of 4 July 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 | 35 | 12.8% |
| Disallowed entirely | 15 | 5.5% |
| Allowed in full | 215 | 78.8% |
| Withdrawn | 4 | 1.5% |
Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge
- Other grounds — 4 items
- Poor standard of work — 3 items
- Apportionment error — 5 items
- Not payable under the lease — 15 items
- Duplication of charges — 5 items
- Landlord could not evidence the cost — 10 items
- No Section 20 consultation — 10 items
- Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 15 items
By tribunal region
| Region | Items (n) | Reduced or disallowed | Median reduction when reduced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern | 30 | 36.7% | 62% |
| Southern | 47 | 8.5% | 55.5% |
| London | 153 | 19% | 77.9% |
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.