Tribunal Data

How often do tribunals reduce major works charges?

Across 2,804 individually challenged major works items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 16.8% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 40.1% (n=160 reductions with amounts stated). (n=2,804, as of 15 August 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
Reduced2388.5%
Disallowed entirely2348.3%
Allowed in full2,24680.1%
Withdrawn190.7%

Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge

  1. Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 173 items
  2. Dispensation refused — 29 items
  3. Landlord could not evidence the cost — 84 items
  4. Not payable under the lease — 75 items
  5. Other grounds — 65 items
  6. Poor standard of work — 55 items
  7. Works not necessary — 78 items
  8. No Section 20 consultation — 130 items

By tribunal region

RegionItems (n)Reduced or disallowedMedian reduction when reduced
London1,63315.7%42.1%
Eastern25219.8%50%
Southern51718.8%32.2%
Midlands12425.8%14.3%
Northern27813.3%10%

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.