Deacon Asset Management — tribunal record
Deacon Asset Management appears in 8 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=8, 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 Deacon Asset Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAV/00ML/LIS/2026/0004 | 6 July 2026 | BN3 | — |
| HAV/00ML/LDC/2026/0076 | 15 June 2026 | BN3 | — |
| HAV/45UF/LDC/2025/0773 | 13 January 2026 | RH12 | — |
| HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0741 | 21 November 2025 | BN1 | — |
| HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0734 | 6 November 2025 | BN3 | — |
| HAV/00ML/LDC/2025/0735 | 4 November 2025 | BN3 | — |
| HAV/00ML/LDC/2024/0654 | 23 January 2025 | BN3 | — |
| CHI/00ML/LDC/2023/0107 | 26 October 2023 | BN3 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Deacon Asset Management appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The Tribunal notes that there is not a great amount of detail provided in this application. The property has not been described, there are no details as to exactly what works are being undertaken, quotes for the works (mentioned in the application) have not been attached and contact details for the leaseholders have not been provided.”
“The Applicant did not provide a description of the property in accordance with section 4 of the application form.”
“the information provided was sparse, particularly given that the application is unchallenged.”
“The Applicant is advised that, in any future application, fuller information and supporting documentation should be provided.”
“It is, however, unclear whether that intention is directed to the Tribunal or to the lessees. In any event, no such quotation has been provided to the Tribunal.”
“I do have concerns about the Claimant returning to the Defendant the £5,483.15, which was paid to it as a result of the Claimant issuing a County Court Claim, and then continuing to charge 15% interest on the total sum. I have noted Ms Fisher's submissions regarding the need for the Claimant to reserve the right to forfeiture, but I do not accept that there was no mechanism available to hold the funds pending the outcome of these proceedings and reduce the interest claimed, and simultaneously reserve the right to forfeiture.”
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.