Prime Property Management — tribunal record
Prime Property Management appears in 8 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 55 individually challenged items in those cases, 27.3% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=8, as of 4 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.
Median reduction by cost head where this firm was involved
| Cost head | Items with amounts (n) | Median reduction |
|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | 16 | 0% |
| Other charges | 11 | 96.7% |
| Management fees | 7 | 20% |
| Buildings insurance | 4 | 0% |
| Legal & professional costs | 2 | 100% |
| Administration charges | 2 | 50% |
| Cleaning | 1 | 0% |
| Major works | 1 | 100% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Prime Property Management
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| LON/00AU/LDC/2025/0912 | 2 February 2026 | N7 | — |
| LON/00BK/LSC/2024/0356 | 1 May 2025 | SW1P | — |
| LON/00AF/LSC/2024/0055 | 17 September 2024 | BR1 | — |
| LON/00AP/LSC/2023/0394 | 23 July 2024 | N15 | Summary |
| LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0208 | 6 November 2023 | E1W | — |
| LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0218 | 3 October 2023 | SW9 | — |
| LON/00AZ/LSC/2021/0286 | 11 July 2022 | SE6 | — |
| LON/00AF/LSC/2020/0357 | 23 November 2021 | SE26 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Prime Property Management appears; each links to the full public decision on GOV.UK. We publish only the tribunal's own words — never our characterisation.
“Whilst the tribunal agrees that there appears to have been some weaknesses in the supervision of the installation of the windows and is surprised that there are still some outstanding issues, it also notes that the applicant, Ms Chu, urged Prime Management to pay the contractor.”
“it became apparent that the directors of the Respondent had misinterpreted this covenant to include a wider obligation to repair the windows.”
“it may be that that the Respondent lacked clarity on the question of when the system was introduced as a result of a change in managing agent.”
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: 2,383 decisions covering 12,898 individually disputed items, last updated 4 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.