Proxim Property Management Ltd — tribunal record
Proxim Property Management Ltd appears in 10 published First-tier Tribunal service charge decisions in our corpus; across the 13 individually challenged items in those cases, 23.1% were reduced or disallowed by the tribunal. (n=10, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions | 2 | 4.2% |
| Major works | 2 | 38.1% |
Decisions in the corpus naming Proxim Property Management Ltd
| Case reference | Decision date | Area | Our summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM/34UF/LDC/2024/0604 | 10 April 2025 | NN1 | — |
| CAM/38UF/LDC/2024/0015 | 20 May 2024 | OX7 | — |
| CAM/12UB/LDC/2023/0038 | 3 November 2023 | CB24 | — |
| BIR/00FK/LDC/2022/0028 | 30 November 2022 | DE3 | — |
| LON/00BF/LSC/2021/0429 | 20 April 2022 | SM2 | — |
| CHI/00HH/LIS/2021/0025 | 11 January 2022 | TQ1 | — |
| LON/00BF/LDC/2021/0241 | 23 November 2021 | SM2 | — |
| BIR/00CN/LDC/2020/0012 | 18 February 2021 | B5 | — |
| CHI/24UP/LDC/2020/0094 | 8 February 2021 | SO23 | — |
| CHI/21UG/LDC/2020/0099 | 4 February 2021 | TN39 | — |
What tribunals have said
The passages below are quoted verbatim from published tribunal decisions in which Proxim 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.
“The County Court proceedings identified a further issue with drainage from the roof and Proxim considered that works to address the drainage issue should be carried out at the same time, partly to promote settlement of the County Court claim, but also because it was more practicable and economic for, what were likely to be disruptive roof works, to be carried out together. Perhaps anticipating a lengthy engagement with the leaseholders on the additional drainage works the landlord took the pragmatic decision to foot the bill for the additional work.”
“We note the Applicant did not provide a copy of their contract, in our judgment such documents should be disclosed.”
“the steps taken to advise and warn the Applicant (and indeed the other lessees) in advance of what was coming were less than satisfactory.”
“we consider that the process employed by the managing agents, certainly in the initial stages, has lacked transparency and clarity and has not inspired trust and confidence on the part of the Applicant or, so it would appear judging from the outcry following the March 2021 letter, the other tenants.”
“we have serious reservations about its methodology and the appropriateness of these so-called comparators, but we are persuaded for other reasons that the figures arrived at for this property are reasonable.”
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.