CAM/00MD/LSC/2025/0600 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MD/LSC/2025/0600, decided 27 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 9 Arborfield Close, Slough, SL1 2JP and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 9 Arborfield Close, Slough, SL1 2JP
Decision date: 27 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Merlin Estates.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024/2025) | £2,922.50 | £2,922.50 | conceded | — |
| Management fees (2024/2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Buildings insurance (2024/2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024/2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2024/2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2024/2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024/2025) | £10,000 | £10,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Having heard the explanation provided by the Respondent at the hearing regarding the cost of the roof work, the Applicant accepted that the cost of £2,922.50 was payable and reasonable.”
“The Tribunal finds that the budget amount for the management charge is reasonable... the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's position that the budget amount they charge for management fees is reasonable based on the work completed by the managing agent.”
“The Tribunal accepts the explanation provided by the Respondent that insurance makes up one of the largest expenses within the budget and that this is something that the Respondent is not able to control.”
“The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's position that the gardening and cleaning charges are unreasonable. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's position that the charge for gardening is based on work completed previously, and this included maintaining a row of conifer trees.”
“The Tribunal also accepts the Respondent's position in relation to the cleaning fees and does not accept the Applicant's position that the fees should be lower because a comparable block is charged lower fees. The Tribunal has not been presented with any evidence to show the level of service provided at the other block.”
“The Tribunal accepts the position of the Respondent that for the year end 2024 they had expense to clear rubbish because there was fly tipping at the block. It is therefore reasonable for the Respondent to have kept an amount for fly tipping within the budget for year end 2025.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.