Platform · Tenant Allocation
A tenant disputes the recharge. What do you show them?
In most estates the allocation methodology is a tab in a workbook, and the person who built it has moved on. Sustainify AI makes tenant carbon and cost allocation a governed, versioned, dispute-ready output of the platform.
Financial · recharges
Recharged to tenants · FY 2024/25
£287.4k
70% of £410.6k priced energy
Tenants
3
Avg allocation
23.3%
Associated emissions
346.5 tCO2e
Landlord retained
£123.2k
Where the priced energy lands
Landlord retained is priced energy not apportioned to a registered tenant: unlet space and shared common areas the landlord bears directly.
Tenants
3 with a space allocation
| Tenant | Alloc % | Amount |
|---|---|---|
Northbank Partners LLP Bishopsgate | 31.4% | £128,941 |
Meridian Legal Bishopsgate, Savile Row | 24.2% | £99,375 |
Copperfield Media Bankside | 14.4% | £59,132 |
Utility apportionment statement
Northbank Partners LLP
Bishopsgate · 2,400 m² demise · FY 2024/25
Statement total
£128,941
Energy apportionment
31.4% share of shared building energy
£128,941
Total apportioned
£128,941
Estimated apportionment, not an invoice.
Associated emissions: 155.4 tCO2e , included so tenants can use this for their own Scope 2 and Scope 3 reporting.
Allocate the way the lease actually says.
By lease.
The contractual boundary, applied as written. Not an estimate.
By area.
Net lettable area, for multi-tenant assets without sub-metering.
By consumption.
Sub-meter and smart meter data. The most accurate method, and the most defensible in a tenant dispute.
Bishopsgate · FY 2024/25 · one building, three answers
495.0 tCO2e to apportion
01By lease
The contractual boundary, applied as written
31.7 tCO2e under the sub-metered answer
106.4tCO2e to Tenant B
02By area
Net lettable area, where there is no sub-metering
18.3 tCO2e under the sub-metered answer
119.8tCO2e to Tenant B
03By consumption
Most defensibleSub-meter and smart meter data, read per period
What the occupier actually used
138.1tCO2e to Tenant B
Same building. Same period. Same occupier. The method moves the bill.
106.4 → 119.8 → 138.1 tCO2e· 31.7 spread
Rules are time-bound, so a mid-year lease change does not corrupt the whole year. Recharge schedules are locked and versioned per reporting period.
Outputs, not dashboards.
Tenant recharge schedules with the methodology documented and locked
Individual tenant carbon reports covering their Scope 2 and 3 liability
Allocation methodology exports, ready for lease negotiation or dispute resolution
Portfolio allocation summaries
Audit lineage per recharge.
Every recharge is defensible, documented and dispute-ready.
Most carbon platforms stop at the report.
They tell you what you emitted. They cannot tell you who owes you for it. Allocation outputs feed recharges, tariffs and carbon price models from the same governed dataset, which turns a compliance cost into a cost recovery mechanism.
Outbound · what measuring the estate costs
Measuring the estate
£84,000a year
meters, evidence, assurance time
Governed dataset
495.0tCO2e
factors pinned, period locked
Report filed
3disclosures
SECR · GRESB · CSRD
Most carbon platforms stop here. They can tell you what you emitted. They cannot tell you who owes you for it.
Return · what allocation brings back
Same dataset, run the other way
Allocation applied
by lease, area or sub-meter · time-bound rules
Recharge schedule issued
locked and versioned per period · lineage per line
Recovered from occupiers
£61,500a year
dispute-ready, methodology attached
73% of the measurement cost recovered, from the dataset you were already paying for
Questions
Tenant allocation, answered
How should carbon be allocated between landlord and tenant?
By a stated methodology applied consistently, most commonly lease-based, floor-area-based or consumption-based depending on what is metered. The choice matters less than being able to show which method was used, why, and that it was applied the same way across the portfolio and across years.
What makes an allocation dispute-ready?
Being able to show the occupier the method, the inputs, the period and the version of the methodology in force when the schedule was produced. A recharge that can only be defended by the person who built the spreadsheet is not dispute-ready, and that person eventually leaves.
Can the methodology change between years?
Yes, and it often should as metering improves. It is versioned, so a schedule produced under the old method stays reproducible under that method, and the change is visible as a change rather than appearing as an unexplained movement in a tenant’s bill.
Does this replace the service charge process?
No. It produces the carbon and cost allocation that feeds it, with the methodology and evidence attached. The service charge itself continues to be raised and administered wherever it is today.
What if a building is only partly metered?
The metered portion is allocated on consumption and the remainder on the stated fallback basis, with each row carrying which of the two produced it. Mixing them into a single figure is what makes an allocation impossible to defend line by line.