Nothing in the statutory provisions of the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013 and the Mobile Homes Act 1983, in England, provided that pitch fees must either increase by a rate equal to the change in RPI/CPI (now CPI in respect of both statutory provisions) or stay the same, with no other outcome being possible.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Whitley and others [2024] UKUT 55 (LC); [2024] PLSCS 43 was a conjoined appeal concerned with the amount by which pitch fees on two protected homes sites in England and Wales could be varied.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd was the owner of two protected sites in England and Wales. The respondents occupied pitches on the sites. The First-Tier Tribunal and the Residential Property Tribunal (Wales) both determined that the reduction in amenity at each site caused by loss of car parking and green spaces was sufficient to displace the then statutory presumptions under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013 that pitch fees should increase annually by an amount at least equal to RPI/CPI (now CPI in respect of both statutory provisions).
On appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the decisions of the FTT and the RPTW were set aside and the cases remitted for reconsideration. The UT found that both tribunals were entitled to find that the presumption of an RPI/CPI increase did not apply. Further, both tribunals could have held that a nil increase was justified if they had found that all pitches on the sites in question had been affected equally by the loss of amenity to such an extent that it cancelled out any inflationary increase in the price of the respondents’ pitches. The problem was that neither the FTT nor the RPTW had given any reason for their decisions.
The UT also determined that the statutory implied terms did not prescribe that pitch fees must either increase by a rate equal to a change in RPI/CPI or stay the same. Other outcomes were possible. Where the statutory presumption of an RPI/CPI increase was displaced, the UT observed that tribunals should try to determine what would be a reasonable increase by having regard to: (a) the owner’s expenditure on improvements; (b) any loss of amenity at the park or deterioration in its condition, (c) the change in the general level of prices as measured by RPI/CPI; and (d) any other relevant factors.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
