Park homes – Pitch fee – Condition of site – Park owner appealing against First-tier Tribunal decision reducing pitch fees payable by mobile home owners – Whether pitch fee might be reduced on review – Whether previous “pristine” state of park relevant point of reference when considering deterioration in condition – Whether reduction in pitch fee reversible if condition of park improved on future review – Appeal dismissed
The appellant owned Berrynarbor Park, near Ilfracombe in Devon, which was a protected site for the purposes of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 Act. The respondents owned mobile homes on 12 separate pitches on the park. Pitch fees were reviewable with effect from 1 January each year. The First-tier Tribunal reduced the pitch fees payable by the respondents with effect from 1 January 2023 to the level set on 1 January 2021. The FTT was satisfied that following the appellant’s acquisition in 2020, the condition and amenity of the park had deteriorated significantly from its former pristine condition.
Paragraph 18(1) of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act specified that, when determining the amount of the new pitch fee, particular regard should be had to any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site or any adjoining land (paragraph 18(1)(aa)); and any reduction in the services that the owner supplied to the site, pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services (paragraph 18(1)(ab)).
The appellant appealed. The issues were: (i) the extent to which the FTT was entitled to reduce the pitch fee below the level agreed for 2022; (ii) whether the FTT had been entitled to treat the previous “pristine” state of the park as the relevant point of reference when considering whether there had been a deterioration in its condition; and (iii) whether the reduction in the pitch fee could be reversed if, in future, the condition of the park improved.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Where none of the factors in paragraph 18(1) was present, and no other factor of sufficient (considerable) weight could be identified to displace the presumption of an RPI increase, the task of the tribunal was to apply the presumption and increase the pitch fee in line with inflation. Where one of the factors in paragraph 18(1) was present, or where some other sufficiently weighty factor applied, the presumption did not operate or was displaced. Then the tribunal’s task was more difficult. The only standard mentioned in the implied terms as a guide to tribunals determining a new pitch fee, was what they considered to be reasonable. Paragraph 16 provided that, if the parties could not agree, the pitch fee might only be changed by the FTT if it considered it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed and made an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee: Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Whitley [2024] UKUT 55 (LC); [2024] PLSCS 43 considered.
(2) Paragraph 18(1)(aa) did not include any limitation on reducing a pitch fee below the level previously agreed between the parties on the last review or at the commencement of the agreement. The amount of any increase or reduction was not limited by the change in RPI since the last review. Paragraph 20 introduced a presumption that the pitch fee would change in line with RPI, but that did not apply if such an increase would be unreasonable having regard to the factors in paragraph 18(1).
There was no justification for treating the fee last agreed between the parties as a limit below which the pitch fee could not be reduced. If, in the first year of a new agreement there was no significant increase in RPI but the condition of the site deteriorated substantially, paragraph 18(1)(aa) would clearly be engaged, and the presumption of an RPI increase would not apply if that would be unreasonable having regard to the extent of the deterioration. The pitch fee could then be reduced below the level agreed when the pitch was first occupied. Further, at each subsequent review, the fee could be reduced below the level previously agreed or determined if that was necessary to ensure that the pitch fee was reasonable.
Paragraph 18(1) was concerned with the determination of pitch fees. Determination was one of the two methods by which paragraph 16 permitted a pitch fee to be changed: the first was “with the agreement of the occupier”, and the second was if the FTT “makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee”. The FTT was entitled to reduce the pitch fee to whatever it considered reasonable. It was not required to limit the reduction to preserve the figure agreed between the parties for the January 2022 review.
(3) Paragraph 18(1)(aa) was clear that regard had to be had to “any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site”. The only relevant considerations were: first, whether the site was previously in a superior condition from which it had deteriorated since paragraph 18(1) came into force; secondly, whether that deterioration had been taken into account in a previous pitch fee determination; and, if not, thirdly, whether it would be unreasonable to implement the usual RPI increase in view of that deterioration. The proper comparison was between the current condition of the site and its previous condition, and not between its current condition and some notional minimum compliant standard.
Quite apart from the scope of the site owner’s obligations, a reduction in garden maintenance might amount to a reduction in the services the owner provided to the site, which might in turn fall within paragraph 18(1)(ab).
(4) In principle, a temporary reduction in amenity or deterioration in condition ought to be capable of being remedied and, when it was, any previous curtailment of the pitch fee should no longer have effect if that was reasonable. If a pitch fee was reduced in one year because of a deterioration in the condition of a site or its amenity, and that was cured in whole or in part in a subsequent year, there was no reason why the FTT could not adjust the pitch fee to take account of the change by awarding an above RPI increase.
The amount of any adjustment was a matter for the FTT, asking itself what would be a reasonable pitch fee in the circumstances. Simply catching up on previously neglected work would be unlikely to amount to an improvement requiring consultation (which would justify an increase related to expenditure in its own right).
Chris Payne (instructed by LSL Solicitors, of Oxford) appeared for the appellant; The respondents appeared by their representative.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Click here to read a transcript of Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Finch and others
