Praxis Block Management Limited — tribunal record
Praxis Block Management Limited 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 Praxis Block Management Limited
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAN/00EQ/LBC/2025/0001 | 17 April 2026 | CW12 | — |
| HAV/29UN/LSC/2025/0701 | 26 January 2026 | CT9 | Summary |
| LON/00AW/LBC/2025/0616 | 10 September 2025 | SW10 | — |
| CAM/26UC/LSC/2024/0612 | 17 June 2025 | HP4 | Summary |
| LON/00BA/LSC/2024/0155 | 28 October 2024 | CR4 | Summary |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Praxis Block Management Limited appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“The Respondent has given no explanation for the increase. The Tribunal concluded the premium was higher due to the Respondent having initially taken out cover based on an entirely erroneous reinstatement value of £1,399,000. That error was entirely avoidable and resulted from carelessness.”
“the cost of the 2022 reinstatement valuation report, it related to the wrong property. This was an entirely avoidable error. Even if a fee was incurred in relation to it, it was not reasonably incurred.”
“If the Respondent had good grounds for continuing with its current insurance arrangements, it has had the opportunity to share them. It has not. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that it had no good grounds for doing so. Choosing an insurer whose premiums significantly exceed those of its competitors without a sound explanation is unreasonable, thus the excessive premium has been unreasonably incurred.”
“the Applicant stated that they were unaware of the hearing. However, they accepted that they had received a copy of the directions which provided notice of the hearing date and the time and venue for the hearing.”
“although it finds that the respondent should reimburse the costs of the application fee. It finds that the hearing fee should not be paid by the respondent.”
“The Tribunal hopes that going forward the communication between the parties can improve, so that the tenants' queries are dealt with promptly.”
“despite requests from Praxis and Urban, neither the Respondent nor Northwest has provided a copy of the purported '12-year lease' or clarified its terms.”
“a representative of Northwest became aggressive and refused to clarify the nature of Northwest's occupation of the Property.”
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.