Belmont Property Management — tribunal record
Belmont Property Management appears in 5 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus, listed below with a link to each one. Outcome and reduction figures for this firm are being rebuilt on a classification that separates leaseholder challenges from landlord applications, and are not shown. (n=5, as of 30 July 2026)
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.
Decisions in the corpus naming Belmont Property Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAV/00HE/LIS/2025/0018 | 21 May 2026 | TR3 | — |
| HAV/00HE/LDC/2025/0733 | 7 November 2025 | PL27 | — |
| HAV/00HG/LDC/2025/0701 | 16 September 2025 | PL3 | — |
| CHI/00HE/LSC/2023/0037 | 19 October 2023 | TR19 | — |
| CHI/00HE/LDC/2022/0040 | 11 August 2022 | TR26 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Belmont Property Management appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“Belmont has not obtained copies of any of the other leases of flats within Zodiac House.”
“The Respondent on its own admission, has not exercised any discretion regarding any element of the service charge expenditure (except perhaps the division of the cost of the communal electricity and the maintenance of the external staircases). It has instead continued to rely on the use of a calculation which it is unable to fully explain, and which for all the reasons set out above, may no longer be appropriate or equitable and is not authorised by the Lease.”
“The Tribunal also expressed its disappointment that Belmont Property Management had chosen to not attend and had waited until the eleventh hour. The Tribunal considered this highly unprofessional conduct to cease representing a client without any prior warning.”
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: 4,243 decisions covering 18,023 individually disputed items, last updated 30 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.