The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has determined that there is no statutory requirement for the landlord of a park home site to furnish its occupiers with a statement of account.
In Wyldecrest Park (Management) Ltd v Turner (No 2) [2022] UKUT 322 (LC); [2022] PLSCS 200 the appellant was the owner and operator of a park home site in Cornwall. The respondent occupied a mobile home on the site under an agreement that was largely governed by the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Under the terms of the agreement the occupier was required to pay his landlord monthly pitch fees.
With limited exceptions, section 4(1) of the 1983 Act confers on the First-tier Tribunal, a broad jurisdiction to determine and to entertain any proceedings arising under the Act or any agreement to which it applies. When the jurisdiction of the FTT is engaged under the 1983 Act, section 231A of the Housing Act 2004 confers additional powers on the FTT to give directions that will secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings and any issue in connection with them. Pursuant to section 231A(4) of the 2004 Act, those directions may include, where appropriate: “(a) directions requiring the payment of money by way of compensation, damages or otherwise; (b) directions concerning the payment or repayment of pitch fees; (c) directions requiring the carrying out of works to a pitch or site; and (d) directions requiring the provision of services.”
In January 2022, the respondent occupier applied to the FTT under section 4 of the 1983 Act for an order that his landlord be required to supply him with a statement of account. The statement was to be in conventional accounting format, including details of invoices, services, payments received and the names of the accounts to which payments were credited.
The landlord opposed the application on a number of grounds, but its main ground was that the FTT had no jurisdiction to hear the application because it did not raise any question under the 1983 Act or under the agreement. The FTT disagreed. It found that the agreement required payments to be made and accordingly it was reasonable to expect a statement of account to be provided.
On appeal to the UT, the landlord argued that section 4 of the 1983 Act was not engaged because neither the 1983 Act nor the agreement placed any obligation on the landlord to provide a statement of account and it was unnecessary for such a term to be implied into the agreement. The UT agreed.
None of the statutory terms that were implied into such agreements pursuant to chapter 2 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act required a statement of account to be provided. If parliament had intended for such a term to be implied, it would have made express provision for the same. Further, although it would be reasonable for a statement of account to be provided, there was no reason to imply such a contractual term into the agreement as it was capable of working effectively without the same.
As the application did not raise any question under the 1983 Act or the agreement and could not be said to involve proceedings under either, the jurisdiction of the FTT was not engaged.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
