Tribunal Data

How often do tribunals reduce utilities charges?

Across 659 individually challenged utilities items in First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions from 2019–2026, 37.9% were reduced or disallowed; where the tribunal made a reduction, the median was 43.9% (n=102 reductions with amounts stated). (n=659, as of 4 July 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
Reduced15523.5%
Disallowed entirely9514.4%
Allowed in full38558.4%
Withdrawn101.5%

Most common grounds when the tribunal cut the charge

  1. Other grounds — 30 items
  2. Apportionment error — 36 items
  3. Leaseholder evidence insufficient — 8 items
  4. Not payable under the lease — 36 items
  5. Demand formally invalid — 11 items
  6. Section 20B 18-month time limit — 15 items
  7. Landlord could not evidence the cost — 74 items
  8. Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) — 115 items

By tribunal region

RegionItems (n)Reduced or disallowedMedian reduction when reduced
Midlands6728.4%42.7%
Eastern9229.3%28.9%
Southern11547%39.1%
Northern6536.9%33.3%
London32039.4%49.9%

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.