Prestige Property Management Ltd — tribunal record
Prestige Property Management Ltd appears in 6 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=6, 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 Prestige Property Management Ltd
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHI/21UC/LDC/2023/0138 | 28 November 2023 | BN20 | — |
| CHI/21UC/LDC/2023/0133 | 20 November 2023 | BN20 | — |
| CHI/21UC/LDC/2023/0082 | 10 August 2023 | BN20 | — |
| CHI/21UC/LDC/2023/0081 | 3 August 2023 | BN20 | — |
| CHI/21UC/LDC/2022/0114 | 13 February 2023 | BN20 | — |
| CHI/21UC/LDC/2022/0019 | 7 April 2022 | BN20 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Prestige Property Management Ltd appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“Funds have already been requested and the contractor instructed before seeking dispensation from the Tribunal.”
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.