Occupiers of caravan on caravan site — Site originally provided for those of a nomadic way of life — Evidence showed most occupiers permanent — Whether notice to terminate right of occupation valid — Whether site a protected site under the Mobile Homes Act 1983
The appellants are occupiers of a site at the Thistlebrook Caravan Site, Harrow Manor Way, London SE2. The site was provided by the council following a compulsory purchase order in 1967. The area had been used by nomadic caravanners for some years, and the council was using its powers under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to provide a municipal site. In 1974 the Secretary of State for the Environment made an order under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to the effect that he was satisfied as to the provision of sites for gipsies in the area and that no further provision was required; Thistlebrook was the only site. The appellants occupied their pad under a tenancy agreement that provided that the council could terminate the agreement “on the termination of four weeks written notice to expire at any time”. The council gave notice to terminate in October 1986 and sought a summary order for possession.
His Honour Judge James, in the Woolwich County Court, made the appropriate order; he decided that as the site provided accommodation for gipsies and persons of a nomadic habit, it fell within one of the exceptions to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and was not a protected site.
Held In allowing the appeal and in deciding that the site was a protected site under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, an objective approach to the current use of the site was required. The evidence showed that the residents on the site were not following a nomadic habit but were permanent.
The site may have been set up to provide for persons of a nomadic habit, but the present subjective intention of those responsible for the policy of the council that the site was for those of a nomadic habit was not relevant. Nor was the intention of the council at the time of acquisition of the site determinative of the nature of the continuing occupation of the site. The council’s argument that a person should not acquire protection under the 1983 Act merely by remaining permanently on a site set up initially for gipsies was not accepted. The land was not “occupied by a local authority as a caravan site providing accommodation for gipsies”, one of the exceptions to the definition of a protected site in section 5 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, and the appellants were entitled to the protection that Act provided.
David Wade (instructed by Thomas Boyd Whyte, of Bexleyheath) appeared for the appellants; and Colin Braham (instructed by the solicitor to the council) appeared for the respondents.
