Tribunal Data

How often do tribunals reduce utilities charges?

Across 826 individually challenged utilities items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 38.7% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 49.8% (n=133 reductions with amounts stated). (n=826, as of 15 August 2026)

The figures on this page cover every individually challenged utilities 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 utilities items

OutcomeItemsShare
Reduced20825.2%
Disallowed entirely11213.6%
Allowed in full47657.6%
Withdrawn131.6%

Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge

  1. Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 144 items
  2. No Section 21B summary of rights — 10 items
  3. Other grounds — 55 items
  4. Not payable under the lease — 46 items
  5. Demand formally invalid — 14 items
  6. Landlord could not evidence the cost — 88 items
  7. Apportionment error — 46 items
  8. Section 20B 18-month time limit — 20 items

By tribunal region

RegionItems (n)Reduced or disallowedMedian reduction when reduced
London41842.8%50%
Eastern11429.8%29%
Southern12943.4%39.1%
Midlands8529.4%42.7%
Northern8032.5%48.9%

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: 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.