Executive Summary
This publication presents the distribution of First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) lease extension decisions across London boroughs. It is a companion to the LeaseIntel Regional Tribunal Analysis 2026, which established that London recorded the highest rate of tribunal activity of any English region at 107.4 decisions per 100,000 leasehold dwellings.
The regional analysis demonstrated that London accounted for 1,546 of 2,314 attributed decisions across England — 66.8% of the national total. This publication examines how those London decisions are distributed at borough level.
The principal metric in this publication is tribunal decision count by borough. No borough-level incidence rate is calculated.
Why no incidence rate is presented:
Official estimates of leasehold dwelling stock are not published at London borough level. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) publishes leasehold dwelling estimates for England at Government Office Region level only. Without a verified borough-level denominator, calculating a rate of tribunal decisions per leasehold dwelling would require the use of unofficial or estimated denominators. This publication does not do so. The absence of an incidence rate is an intentional methodological decision.
Coverage:
Of the 1,546 London decisions in the master dataset, 1,284 were attributed to a specific borough by postcode. A further 48 decisions without a recorded postcode were attributed by address analysis — using address information contained within the published tribunal decisions, where the attribution could be made with confidence. In total, 1,332 decisions (86.2%) are attributed to a borough. 214 decisions (13.8%) could not be attributed and are excluded from borough-level counts. Unattributed decisions are predominantly from cases decided before 2010, when postcode recording in published decisions was less consistent.
Principal findings:
Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea recorded the highest numbers of tribunal decisions of any London borough, together accounting for 348 of 1,332 attributed decisions (26.1%). Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea account for more than one quarter of all attributed London tribunal decisions. Decisions were identified in 29 of the 33 London boroughs. Four boroughs — Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton — recorded no attributed decisions.
This publication does not identify the causes of variation in decision counts across boroughs. A borough with more leasehold dwellings would naturally be expected to generate more tribunal decisions. Decision counts should not be interpreted as measures of dispute rates.
- Westminster (212) and Kensington and Chelsea (136) together account for 348 decisions — 26.1% of all borough-attributed London decisions.
- The five boroughs with the highest counts — Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Barnet, Camden and Brent — account for 604 of 1,332 attributed decisions (45.3%).
- Decisions were identified in 29 of the 33 London boroughs. Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton recorded no attributed decisions.
- Seven boroughs recorded fewer than 15 attributed decisions across the full dataset period (1994–2026); rankings for these boroughs should be treated with caution.
- 1,332 of 1,546 London decisions (86.2%) were attributed to a specific borough. 214 decisions (13.8%) could not be attributed and are excluded from borough-level counts.
Key Findings
Finding 1: Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea account for more than one quarter of attributed London decisions
Westminster recorded 212 attributed tribunal decisions — the highest of any London borough, accounting for 15.9% of all borough-attributed decisions. Kensington and Chelsea recorded 136 decisions (10.2%). Together these two boroughs account for 348 decisions, or 26.1% of all attributed London decisions.
Finding 2: The top five boroughs account for 45.3% of attributed decisions
The five boroughs with the highest decision counts — Westminster (212), Kensington and Chelsea (136), Barnet (100), Camden (81) and Brent (75) — account for 604 of 1,332 attributed decisions (45.3%).
Finding 3: Decisions were identified in 29 of the 33 London boroughs
Tribunal decisions were recorded in 29 of the 33 London boroughs. Four boroughs — Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton — recorded no attributed decisions across the full period of the dataset. The absence of recorded decisions does not necessarily mean no lease extension activity occurred in these boroughs; cases may have settled before tribunal determination, or relevant decisions may fall among the 214 unattributed cases.
Finding 4: Seven boroughs recorded fewer than 15 attributed decisions
Seven boroughs recorded fewer than 15 attributed decisions across the full dataset period (1994–2026). Decision counts for these boroughs should be treated with caution: small changes in attribution could alter their relative positions.
Borough Decision Counts
The table below presents attributed tribunal decision counts for all London boroughs, in descending order.
Decisions are attributed by two methods: postcode outward code mapped to borough using Royal Mail postcode geography (1,284 decisions), and address text analysis for decisions with no recorded postcode where the attribution could be made with confidence (48 decisions). The source of attribution is noted in the method column. Three outward codes that straddle borough boundaries are allocated using the predefined mapping and documented in the notes below.
- Westminster212
- Kensington and Chelsea136
- Barnet100
- Camden81
- Brent75
- Ealing70
- Lewisham68
- Waltham Forest66
- Lambeth64
- Wandsworth58
- Haringey57
- Hammersmith and Fulham46
- Harrow41
- Newham36
- Merton35
- Hackney30
- Islington22
- Hillingdon21
- Enfield15
- Redbridge15
- Bromley15
- Croydon15
- Tower Hamlets11
- Southwark11
- Greenwich8
- Hounslow7
- Bexley6
- City of London6
- Richmond upon Thames5
Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea together account for 348 of 1,332 attributed decisions (26.1%).
| % of Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Westminster | 212 | 15.9% |
| 2 | Kensington and Chelsea | 136 | 10.2% |
| 3 | Barnet | 100 | 7.5% |
| 4 | Camden | 81 | 6.1% |
| 5 | Brent | 75 | 5.6% |
| 6 | Ealing | 70 | 5.3% |
| 7 | Lewisham | 68 | 5.1% |
| 8 | Waltham Forest | 66 | 5.0% |
| 9 | Lambeth | 64 | 4.8% |
| 10 | Wandsworth | 58 | 4.4% |
| 11 | Haringey | 57 | 4.3% |
| 12 | Hammersmith and Fulham | 46 | 3.5% |
| 13 | Harrow | 41 | 3.1% |
| 14 | Newham | 36 | 2.7% |
| 15 | Merton | 35 | 2.6% |
| 16 | Hackney | 30 | 2.3% |
| 17 | Islington | 22 | 1.7% |
| 18 | Hillingdon | 21 | 1.6% |
| 19 | Enfield | 15 | 1.1% |
| 19 | Redbridge | 15 | 1.1% |
| 21 | Bromley | 15 | 1.1% |
| 21 | Croydon | 15 | 1.1% |
| 23 | Tower Hamlets | 11 | 0.8% |
| 23 | Southwark | 11 | 0.8% |
| 25 | Greenwich | 8 | 0.6% |
| 26 | Hounslow | 7 | 0.5% |
| 27 | Bexley | 6 | 0.5% |
| 27 | City of London | 6 | 0.5% |
| 29 | Richmond upon Thames | 5 | 0.4% |
| — | Barking and Dagenham | 0 | — |
| — | Havering | 0 | — |
| — | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | — |
| — | Sutton | 0 | — |
| Total (29 boroughs) | 1,332 | 100% |
Source: LeaseIntel Tribunal Dataset. Decisions spanning 1994–2026. 214 of 1,546 London decisions not attributed to a borough and excluded. See Methodology.
Distribution Analysis
- Top 5 boroughs604 (45.3%)Top 5 · 45.3%
- Boroughs 6–10326 (24.5%)Top 10 · 69.8%
- Boroughs 11–15215 (16.1%)Top 15 · 85.9%
- Remaining 14 boroughs187 (14.1%)Remaining · 14.1%
The top five boroughs account for 45.3% of attributed decisions; the top fifteen account for 85.9%.
Do Higher Flat Prices Correspond to Greater Tribunal Activity?
Because Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea recorded substantially more tribunal decisions than any other London boroughs, LeaseIntel investigated whether borough flat prices were associated with tribunal activity.
This analysis is exploratory and is intended to test a statistical hypothesis rather than establish causation.
Full-sample regression: y = 0.1369x − 16.7 (x in £000s). Pearson r = 0.606, R² = 0.367 across all 29 boroughs; r = 0.125, R² = 0.016 with Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea excluded.
Considered across the complete borough dataset, average flat prices and tribunal decision counts move together to a moderate degree. The regression line slopes upward and the Pearson correlation of 0.606 indicates that boroughs with higher flat prices also tend to record more tribunal decisions.
The relationship is, however, driven largely by Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea. Both boroughs combine the highest average flat prices in London with the highest attributed tribunal decision counts, and together they anchor the upward slope of the regression line.
Once these two boroughs are removed, the statistical relationship effectively disappears (Pearson r = 0.125, R² = 0.016). Across the remaining 27 boroughs, average flat prices do not meaningfully predict tribunal decision counts, which suggests that other structural factors are likely to play a much larger role than flat prices alone.
Methodology
Tribunal dataset
This publication uses the same master dataset as the LeaseIntel Regional Tribunal Analysis 2026: 2,349 published First-tier Tribunal decisions spanning 1994 to 2026. Full dataset methodology is set out in that publication.
London subset
London decisions are those attributed to the London Government Office Region in the regional analysis: 1,546 decisions.
Borough attribution — postcode method
Each decision with a valid recorded postcode was attributed to a London borough using the outward code (the alphabetic and numeric prefix before the space in a full postcode, for example NW3, SW1X, E14). Outward codes were mapped to London boroughs using Royal Mail postcode geography. This is a postcode area-level attribution, not a full postcode lookup against the ONS National Statistics Postcode Lookup or any equivalent gazetteer. This method attributed 1,284 decisions to a borough.
Borough attribution — address method
Of the 262 London decisions with no valid recorded postcode, 48 were attributed to a borough by address text analysis. The property address field in each decision was examined for address information capable of identifying the borough with a high degree of confidence. Only addresses that could be attributed to a single London borough with a high degree of confidence were accepted. Ambiguous, incomplete or uncertain address information was excluded. This method added 48 decisions, producing a combined attributed total of 1,332.
No denominator
No borough-level denominator is used. Official estimates of leasehold dwellings at London borough level are not published by MHCLG or any other government body.
Quality assurance
The total of attributed decisions (1,332) plus unattributed London decisions (214) equals 1,546, which reconciles to the London total in the regional analysis. Borough decision counts sum to 1,332. All 33 London boroughs were checked. Rankings were independently verified.
Read the full LeaseIntel methodology for dataset construction, variable definitions and validation checks.
Why you can trust this research
- Based on 1,546 London First-tier Tribunal lease extension decisions.
- Tribunal decisions carefully attributed to London boroughs using postcode and address matching.
- Independent verification and quality assurance performed throughout the research process.
- Land Registry average flat prices used as the market pricing benchmark.
- Transparent methodology with documented assumptions and limitations.
Limitations
- 1. This publication presents decision counts, not incidence rates. Borough decision counts cannot be interpreted as measures of the rate of lease extension tribunal activity relative to leasehold housing stock. A borough with a larger leasehold housing stock would naturally be expected to generate more decisions. No adjustment for borough-level leasehold stock has been made, as no verified borough-level estimate exists.
- 2. 214 London decisions are excluded from borough-level analysis. These decisions (13.8% of all London decisions) could not be attributed to a specific borough. They are predominantly from cases decided before 2010. Their exclusion may affect individual borough counts, particularly for boroughs with low overall decision numbers.
- 3. Address-based attribution introduces a limited degree of researcher judgement. 48 decisions were attributed to a borough using explicit address information contained within published tribunal decisions. Each address was reviewed individually, and attribution was accepted only where the address information identified the borough with a high degree of confidence. All address-based attributions were independently reviewed prior to inclusion. Nonetheless, this method introduces a limited degree of researcher judgement that is not present in postcode-based attribution, where the mapping from outward code to borough is deterministic. The 48 decisions attributed by this method are identified in the attribution column of the results table.
- 4. Borough attribution uses outward code geography, not full postcode geography. The outward code-to-borough mapping is accurate for the large majority of London postcodes. Three outward codes in this dataset straddle borough boundaries; these are resolved as documented above.
- 5. Four boroughs recorded zero attributed decisions. The absence of decisions in Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton does not necessarily reflect an absence of lease extension activity in those boroughs.
- 6. Seven boroughs recorded fewer than 15 attributed decisions. Rankings for these boroughs are sensitive to small changes in case counts and should be treated with caution.
- 7. The analysis does not identify the causes of variation between boroughs. Variation in decision counts between boroughs may reflect differences in leasehold housing stock size and composition, property values, ownership structures, use of the statutory process, or other factors not measured in this dataset. No causal claims are made.
Future Research
Official estimates of leasehold dwellings at local authority or London borough level are not currently published by MHCLG or any other government body. If such estimates become available through future MHCLG statistical releases, HM Land Registry data, or a response to a Freedom of Information request, LeaseIntel intends to publish a borough-level incidence analysis using those verified denominators.
References
- Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2026). Leasehold Dwellings 2024 to 2025. Official Statistics. Licensed under Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/leasehold-dwellings-2024-to-2025
- HM Courts and Tribunals Service. First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decisions. https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal
- Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE). Tribunal decisions archive. https://www.lease-advice.org
- Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/28/contents
- LeaseIntel Research (2026). LeaseIntel Regional Tribunal Analysis 2026. Available at: leaseintel.co.uk/research.