Tribunal Data

How often do tribunals reduce major works charges?

Across 1,488 individually challenged major works items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 23.5% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 37.5% (n=135 reductions with amounts stated). (n=1,488, as of 4 July 2026)

The figures on this page cover every individually challenged major works 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 major works items

OutcomeItemsShare
Reduced17711.9%
Disallowed entirely17211.6%
Allowed in full1,09173.3%
Withdrawn130.9%

Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge

  1. Other grounds — 49 items
  2. Works not necessary — 59 items
  3. Poor standard of work — 39 items
  4. Not payable under the lease — 54 items
  5. Demand formally invalid — 23 items
  6. Landlord could not evidence the cost — 57 items
  7. No Section 20 consultation — 98 items
  8. Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 126 items

By tribunal region

RegionItems (n)Reduced or disallowedMedian reduction when reduced
Midlands9331.2%14.3%
Eastern17421.3%61.5%
Southern28523.9%27.9%
Northern17112.9%10%
London76525.2%41.3%

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.