Crown Property Management — tribunal record
Crown 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 31 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 Crown Property Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAV/00HH/LDC/2024/0513 | 8 October 2024 | TQ2 | — |
| CHI/00HH/LDC/2024/0107 | 7 August 2024 | TQ2 | — |
| CHI/00HH/LSC/2021/0112 | 23 May 2022 | TQ1 | — |
| CHI/00HH/LDC/2022/0014 | 17 March 2022 | TQ1 | — |
| CHI/00HH/LSC/2021/0066 | 9 September 2021 | TQ1 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Crown Property Management appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“We had before us no proper evidence as to the apportionment of service charges for the Respondents lease. A copy of the lease for the Respondents flat could have easily been obtained for a modest cost from the Land Registry.”
“It does not reflect at all well on the Respondent or its agent.”
“The failure to deal with the judgment and effectively to have retained insurance money which ought to have been paid to the Applicant ought to be a cause of embarrassment to the Respondent.”
“The relative lack of success of the Applicant in this claim does not detract from the unsatisfactory approach on the Respondent's side where specifically identified, irrespective of how accurate the perception of wider failings may be.”
“I note with no little concern that Mr Stocks said that where interim demands had exceeded sums actually required for the given year, the directors of the Respondent had decided to carry the positive balances forward, apparently presuming that they were entitled to decide such a matter.”
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 31 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.