The First-tier Tribunal had applied the correct test in determining whether it was reasonable to increase a pitch fee in line with the Retail Prices Index. There was a presumption of an increase in line with the RPI unless it was displaced by other factors not limited to those outlined in paragraph 18(1) of chapter 2 to schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
In Wickland (Holdings) Ltd v Esterhuyse [2023] UKUT 147 (LC); [2023] PLSCS 115, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) was asked to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in refusing the appellant’s application to increase the respondent’s pitch fee in line with the RPI.
The appellant was the owner of the Meadowview Park, in Little Clacton, Essex, a protected site under the Act. Since 2017, the respondent had occupied a pitch on park.
In 2022, the owner sought to increase the pitch fee by 6% in line with the RPI. The occupier refused to pay the increase on the primary basis that the hardstanding supporting her mobile home required repair.
Some repairs had been carried out in 2018 by the owner, but the occupier alleged that the repairs had been “botched”. She had complained to the local authority, which agreed with her.
A compliance notice was issued, but repairs remained outstanding at the date of the application hearing.
Having regard to Vyse v Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd [2017] UKUT 24 (LC); [2017] PLSCS 27 and Britanniacrest Ltd v Bamborough [2016] UKUT 144 (LC); [2016] PLSCS 117, the FTT determined that the question it had to resolve was whether a change in the pitch fee was reasonable and, if so, what the new pitch fee should be.
The FTT accepted that, unless it was unreasonable, having regard to the matters set out in paragraph 18(1), there was a presumption under paragraph 20 that the pitch fee should increase in line with the RPI.
However, the factors that may displace the presumption were not limited to those set out in paragraph 18(1).
In dismissing the owner’s appeal, the UT found that the FTT had applied the correct test. In the present case, the failure by the owner to properly repair the hardstanding displaced the presumption of an increase in line with the RPI.
Further, there was sufficient evidence before the FTT to determine that the owner’s actions in failing to carry out a proper repair had caused distress to the occupier.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
