9 Arborfield Close, Slough, SL1 2JP
CAM/00MD/LSC/2025/0600 · service charges · Slough · decided 27 Oct 2025
figures not yet checkedThe tribunal found the £3,000 budget service charge for 2024/25 reasonable and payable, and the agreed £2,922.50 roof replacement cost was also accepted as payable.
| Outcome | Payable as demanded |
|---|---|
| Section 20C (landlord's costs of the case) | Refused |
| Section 20 consultation | Not in issue |
| Who applied | Leaseholder(s) |
| Freeholder / landlord | Arborfield Close Residents (Sixteen) Limited |
| Management company | none named |
| Managing agent | Merlin Estates |
| Building | A block, 16 flats |
| Service charge years in dispute | 2024 |
| Items in dispute | cleaning and grounds, insurance, major works, management fees, other |
| Items disallowed or reduced | none stated |
| Total demanded | £3,000 |
| Total found payable | £3,000 |
| Fees or costs ordered | none stated |
Read from the decision automatically: a regular-expression pass, then a language model whose every value must quote the decision word for word; the two readings disagreed on something, so these figures haven't been checked yet and are left out of the statistics. Compare with the original.
What the decision says
- flats n
a block consisting of 16 flats (9 to 39 Arborfield Close)
- freeholder
Arborfield Close Residents (Sixteen) Limited (2)
- agent
the Respondent's managing agent, Merlin Estates
- years
service charge year 2024/2025
- outcome
The Tribunal determines that the budget amount of £3,000 demanded
- total demanded
budget amount of £3,000 demanded
- total payable
The Tribunal determines that the budget amount of £3,000 demanded
- s20c
consequently, makes no orders.
The passages each figure was read from, verbatim. People's names are replaced with [name].
The original
If this decision relates to your home and you'd like it removed from this site, email hello@rentrisecheck.uk with the address or the case reference (removal requests).
Spotted an error on this page? Email hello@rentrisecheck.uk with what is wrong; the decision's reference goes in the subject.
Past decisions are not a prediction. Each tribunal decides on the evidence in front of it.