The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) determined that a houseboat comprised of a caravan on a float fell within the statutory definition of a caravan under section 29 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
Tingdene Marinas Ltd v Jaffe [2023] UKUT 16 (LC); [2023] PLSCS 16 concerned an appeal against the finding of the First-tier Tribunal that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applied to the agreement under which the respondent occupied her houseboat at the appellant’s pontoon. In the face of threatened possession proceedings, the FTT’s finding meant the respondent was afforded some security of tenure under the 1983 Act.
The houseboat comprised a static caravan on wheels which stood on a float. The houseboat was moored at the appellant’s marina pursuant to a licence agreement.
Section 1 of the 1983 Act provided that the Act was applicable to any agreement where a person was entitled: (a) under an agreement to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and (b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the retention of 15 houseboats, including the respondent’s houseboat, to be moored at the pontoons. It was a planning condition that the houseboats would be used as holiday accommodation only. In 2014, a certificate of lawful use was issued, which certified the lawful use of the respondent’s houseboat as for occupation as a sole residence.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the houseboat, as a whole, did not meet the definition of a caravan. If it did, the respondent was not entitled under her licence agreement to station it on “the land”.
The UT determined the houseboat was a caravan within the meaning of section 29 of the 1960 Act. It was a static caravan that happened to be on a float. It did not lose its identity as such because the caravan and float combined was a houseboat. Further, the caravan being placed on a float did not mean it was not on land, which included the water surrounding the pontoon.
Having regard to the relevant statutory provisions and case law, the UT affirmed that for a caravan site to be a “protected site” it must have planning permission for the stationing of caravans. Additionally, the permission should not prohibit a caravan being stationed on the land for human habitation at any time of the year or be expressed to be granted for holiday use only. The UT found that the 2014 certificate of lawful use changed the permitted use of the respondent’s pitch to occupation as a sole residence and had effect as if it were a grant of planning permission.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
