CAM/00MF/LSC/2023/0072/0079/0068 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MF/LSC/2023/0072/0079/0068, decided 9 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Mulberry House, Osborne Road, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1GQ and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Mulberry House, Osborne Road, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 1GQ
Decision date: 9 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £6,507.03 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2022) | £6,507.03 | £0 | Reduced | Demand formally invalid, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £5,175.50 | £0 | Reduced | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We find that there are no service charges payable for any period after 1 January 2023.”
“We were not satisfied that the sum of £6,507.03 had been properly demanded as there was no service charge narrative with it and there was an arithmetical error.”
“We were not satisfied that the sum of £5,175.50 had been properly demanded on 31 August 2023 as there was no service charge narrative with it.”
“We were not satisfied that the Respondent can claim debt collection costs as Mr Doherty was in credit and, in any event, the lease does not provide for reclaiming of such fees.”
“the limited information given to the leaseholders by the Respondent or its managing agents was of poor quality, incomplete and not reconciled, as required of the Respondent under the leases.”
“The statement headed 'December 2022 – handover' with a breakdown totalling £16,491.88 was undated and did not state the precise period covered. It was plainly not the entirety of 2022, but the Respondent/Eagerstates Limited had made no attempt to reconcile it with the estimated charges for 2022 i.e., the original budget.”
“The total numbers had been added together to arrive at £5,190.03. This was an obvious error, the two entries should have offset each other and then be reconciled with the remainder of the 2022 service charges.”
“it has not complied with orders which, together with its non-participation, has made the work of the Applicants and the Tribunal more difficult.”
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.