CAM/00MG/LSC/2025/0605 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MG/LSC/2025/0605, decided 12 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flats 5, 10, 15, 23, 31, 37 & 38, 302-340 Medina House, Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 5, 10, 15, 23, 31, 37 & 38, 302-340 Medina House, Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes
Decision date: 12 February 2026
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 (2021-2022) | — | £6,235.20 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | — | £7,315.84 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | — | £8,080.31 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2023) | £840 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“In the service charge year ending March 2022, the cap did not apply as the service charge for each of the Flats in that year was below the initial cap of £1000.00, save for Flat 38 (which was capped at £1000.00).”
“the cap was increased to £1045.12 for the service charge year ending March 2023”
“producing a service charge cap of £1154.33 for this year”
“the administration charges demanded of the Applicant in respect of the Flats are not payable under the terms of the relevant leases”
“Despite the directions of Judge Wyatt dated 2 April 2025, the Second Respondent has not identified what provisions of the Lease it relies upon in demanding this sum from the Applicant.”
“The statement of case is undated and is not supported by a statement of truth.”
“the Second Respondent has not adequately engaged with the points that the Applicant raised in its statement of case, meaning that the issues between the parties could not be narrowed in advance of this hearing.”
“notices under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 were sent to the Applicant by Eagerstates Limited themselves, and not by solicitors. This in our judgment calls into question whether the files relating to the Flats were ever sent to solicitors at all.”
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.