Proxim Property Management Ltd — tribunal record

“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.”