Tribunal Data

How often do tribunals reduce reserve fund charges?

Across 468 individually challenged reserve fund items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 39.7% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 49% (n=49 reductions with amounts stated). (n=468, as of 4 July 2026)

The figures on this page cover every individually challenged reserve fund 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 reserve fund items

OutcomeItemsShare
Reduced7816.7%
Disallowed entirely10823.1%
Allowed in full26757.1%
Withdrawn40.9%

Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge

  1. Other grounds — 35 items
  2. Works not necessary — 3 items
  3. Apportionment error — 5 items
  4. Not payable under the lease — 65 items
  5. Demand formally invalid — 6 items
  6. Section 20B 18-month time limit — 7 items
  7. Landlord could not evidence the cost — 55 items
  8. Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 85 items

By tribunal region

RegionItems (n)Reduced or disallowedMedian reduction when reduced
Eastern4835.4%48.1%
Southern8638.4%49%
Northern4829.2%30.3%
London26342.6%50.5%

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.