Park homes – Charges – Legal costs – Respondents occupying pitches in appellants’ mobile home park – Protected site under Mobile Homes Act 1983 – Respondents applying to first-tier tribunal for determination as to liability for certain charges – That issue determine in favour of appellants – Whether appellants entitled to their costs of FTT proceedings – Whether such costs recoverable under terms of respondents’ pitch agreements – Appeal allowed in part
The respondents applied to the first-tier tribunal (FTT) for a determination concerning their liability for certain sewerage charges and other maintenance charges at the site. The FTT determined that the charges were payable but rejected the appellants’ contention that they were also entitled to their costs of the proceedings; the FTT held that such costs were not recoverable from the respondents under the terms of either the pre-2006 or post-2006 pitch agreement.
The appellants appealed on the issue of their costs, arguing that the FTT had erred in holding that they did not fall within the terms of the pitch agreements. In respect of the pre-2006 agreements, the appellants relied on clause 3(b)(ii), under which the costs payable by the pitch occupier included “all sums reasonable expended by the owner in respect of keeping the park in good repair and condition… including management charges and compliance with such legislation as may be applicable to the operation of the park”. In respect of the post-2006 agreements, they relied on clause 4(d), which required the occupier to pay all reasonable costs, charges and expenses, including legal costs and surveyors’ fees, incurred by the appellants in relation to various matters, including “Any process or proceedings in respect of termination of this agreement” and “in respect of giving effect to or requiring the performance of any of the provisions of this agreement”.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part.
(1) The respondents’ application had principally sought a determination by the FTT of a dispute regarding the sewerage service and whether certain costs which the appellants were seeking to charge the respondents were properly payable in accordance with the terms of the agreements and the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The costs of such an application were not recoverable under the pre-2006 pitch agreement. At the time when that agreement had been made, a dispute arising under the 1983 Act, or an agreement to which that Act applied, would have fallen for determination by the county court, which would have had jurisdiction to make any appropriate order for the costs of such proceedings. The pre-2006 agreement had been executed against that background. While the expression “management charges” might be capable of including litigation costs incurred by a landlord in the managing of a property, that would depend on the context in which it was used and the full wording of the relevant provision in the relevant tenancy or agreement. The pre-2006 agreement permitted the recovery of management charges in relation to “keeping the park in good repair and condition” and the appellants’ costs of the FTT proceedings could not be said to fall within that description. The reference to management charges was not a reference to general management charges in running the park, but instead referred only to management charges which could properly be said to be included in the expense of “keeping the park in good repair and condition”. The management charges had to relate to work of the type which had been described in the immediately preceding words. While they would include management related to works to the park to keep it in good repair and condition, such as the costs of paying an architect or a surveyor to supervise works of repair or to manage a contract for such works, the pre-2006 agreement made no provision for the recovery of the site owner’s costs of proceedings.
(2) The properly assessed costs of the FTT proceedings were, however, in principle recoverable from those of the respondents who occupied under the post-2006 agreement, to the extent that they were “reasonable”. Clause 4(d) contained an express reference to legal costs and surveyors’ fees and to legal proceedings. While the FTT proceedings were not directed towards any step in the statutory process by which a site owner could seek to terminate an agreement in respect of a mobile home on a protected site, and their costs therefore did not fall within the part of clause 4(d) dealing with such costs and expenses, those costs were incurred “in respect of giving effect to or requiring the performance of any of the provisions of this agreement”, within the meaning of the other part of clause 4(d) on which the appellants relied. In resisting the respondents’ application and insisting, correctly, that the respondents were contractually obliged to make the disputed payments, the appellants were incurring legal costs and conducting legal proceedings for the purpose of requiring the performance by the respondents of their obligations under certain provisions of the agreement, with the result that their expenditure in doing so fell within clause 4(d). Even if that were wrong, by conducting legal proceedings before the FTT for the purpose of establishing the correct interpretation of the relevant agreements, the appellants were taking legal proceedings for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the agreement.
The appeal was determined on the written representations of the parties.
Sally Dobson, barrister
Read a transcript of Silk Tree Properties Ltd and others v Grant and others here
