First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increase Based on CPI

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : HAV/00HE/PHI/2025/0760 Property : 2 [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Ms [COUNSEL] Respondent : [redacted] : None Type of application : Review of Pitch Fee: Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended) Tribunal members : [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] of decision : 8 December 2025

DECISION

2 Summary of Decision

1. The Tribunal determines that the pitch fee for:

2 [NAME], New Forest Glades is £289.67 from 1 January 2025.

Reasons

Background and Procedural History

2. On 27 March 2024 the Applicant [NAME] applied for a determination of revised pitch fee payable by the Respondent with effect from 1st January 2025.

3. In respect of the pitch fee, it was proposed that the fee increase by 2.3%, this being the annual increase in the Consumer Prices Index (“CPI”) for October 2024.

4. New Forest Glades (“the [NAME]”) is a protected [NAME] within the meaning of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). The definition of a protected [NAME] in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 includes a [NAME] where a licence would be required under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 if the exemption of Local Authority sites were omitted.

5. The Respondent is an [NAME] of a pitch (“pitch [NAME]”) on which the [NAME] home owned by her is situated. The Respondent is entitled to station their [NAME] home on a pitch within the [NAME] by virtue of an agreement under the 1983 Act, which includes the statutory implied terms referred to below.

6. A Pitch Fee Review Notice with the prescribed form proposing a new pitch fee was served on the Respondent dated 28 November 2024 proposing to increase the pitch fee by an amount which the Applicant says represents an adjustment in line with the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). The Respondent did not dispute the calculation of the new pitch fee.

7. The review date in the agreement is 1st January in each year. No recoverable costs or relevant deductions were applied.

8. The Respondent did not agree to the increase and the case was referred to the First-Tier Tribunal [NAME] (Residential Property) (“FTT”).

9. The Tribunal issued Directions on 11 July 2025 setting out the dates for compliance by the parties preparatory to a determination on the

3 papers. The Tribunal received an objection, and the case was listed for hearing.

10. A hearing took place remotely on 28 October 2025. The Applicant provided a bundle which ran to 75 pages. Ms [COUNSEL] appeared for the Applicant and Mrs [COUNSEL] contacted the Tribunal saying that she would not be attending and asked the Tribunal to determine on the material she had already submitted.

11. In the absence of Mrs [NAME] , the Tribunal had recourse to the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, rule 34 concerning whether to proceed in the absence of a party. The Tribunal conferred and determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed.

The relevant Law

12. The Tribunal is the principal forum for the determination of matters in relation to [NAME] homes sites, that is to say parks on which homes are occupied by persons as their only or main residence.

13. One of the important objectives of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) was to standardise and regulate the terms on which mobile homes are occupied on protected sites. All agreements to which the 1983 Act applies incorporate standard terms which are implied by the statute, the main way of achieving that standardisation and regulation. In the case of protected sites in England the statutory implied terms are those in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. Insofar as any Written Statement/ pitch occupation agreement pre-dates the 1983 Act, the terms implied by the 1983 Act became incorporated into the agreement. To the extent of subsequent amendment to the 1983 Act, amended implied terms are incorporated into the agreement.

14. Section 1 of the 1983 Act explains the scope of the Act, providing:

“(1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person (“the [NAME]”) is entitled— (a)to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected [NAME]; and(b)to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.

[Sub-section (2) addresses the Written Statement of terms and other matters which must be provided before making an agreement.]

15. Section 5 of the 1983 Act defines the owner of the [NAME] and merits quoting as referred to below. The section states:

““owner”, in relation to a protected [NAME], means the person who, by virtue of an estate or interest held by him, is entitled to possession of the [NAME] or would

4 be so entitled but for the rights of any persons to station mobile homes on land forming part of the [NAME]”.

16. Whilst pitch occupation agreements may include express terms, the implied terms take precedence over those where any conflict appears between the two. Section 2 of the 1983 Act states:

“Terms of agreements (1) In any agreement to which this Act applies there shall be implied the [`applicable] terms set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and this subsection shall have effect notwithstanding any express term of the agreement”

17. Implied terms 21 onward include the following provisions relevant to payments, including service charges:

“[NAME]’s obligations 21. The [NAME] shall— (a) pay the pitch fee to the owner; (b) pay to the owner all sums due under the agreement in respect of gas, electricity, water, sewerage or other services supplied by the owner ………….

18. Paragraph 29 of Part 1 defines a pitch fee as follows:

“In [this Chapter]- “pitch fee” means the amount which the [NAME] is required by the agreement to pay to the owner for the right to station the mobile home on the pitch and for the use of the common areas of the [NAME] and their maintenance, but does not include amounts due for gas, electricity, water and sewerage or other services unless the agreement expressly provides that the pitch fee includes such amounts.”

19. The principles governing a pitch fee increase are provided for in paragraphs 16 to 20 inclusive of Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act. The procedure is provided for in paragraph 17, which also makes reference to paragraph 25A.

20. A review is annual on the review date. In respect of the procedure, paragraph 17(2) requires the Owner to serve a written notice (the Pitch Fee Review Notice as termed) setting out their proposals in respect of the new pitch fee at least 28 days before the review date. Paragraph 17(2A) of the 1983 Act states that a notice under sub- paragraph (2) is of no effect unless accompanied by a document which complies with paragraph 25A. Paragraph 25A enabled regulations setting out what the document accompanying the notice must provide. The Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Forms) (England) Regulations 2013 (“The Regulations”) did so, more specifically in regulation 2. It is important to note that the Notice puts forward a proposal- it is not a demand.

5 21. The Mobile Homes Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) which came into force on 26 May 2013 strengthened the regime. Section 11 introduced a requirement for a [NAME] to provide a Pitch Fee Review Form in a prescribed form to the occupiers of mobile homes with the Pitch Fee Review Notice, amongst other changes to the 1983 Act.

22. In terms of a change to the pitch fee, paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 provides that the pitch fee can only be changed (a) with the agreement of the [NAME] of the pitch or:

“(b) if the [appropriate judicial body], on the application of the [NAME], considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed and makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.”

23. The [NAME] of a pitch may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee (paragraph 17. (4)). The Tribunal is required to then determine whether any change (increase or decrease) in pitch fee is reasonable and to determine what pitch fee, including the proposed change in pitch fees or other appropriate change, is appropriate. The original pitch fee agreed for the pitch was solely a matter between the contracting parties and not governed by any statutory provision. Any change to the fee being considered by the Tribunal is a change from that or a subsequent level- the Tribunal does not consider the perceived reasonableness of that agreed pitch fee in any wider sense, for example by comparison to other pitch fees.

24. The Tribunal is required to have regard to paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act when determining a new pitch fee. The implementation of those provisions was the first time that matters which could or could not be taken into account when determining whether to alter the pitch fee and the extent of any such change were specified.

25. Paragraph 18 provides that:

“(1) When determining the amount of the pitch fee particular regard shall be had to- any sums expended by the owner since the last review date on improvements ……. (aa) any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the [NAME] ………… (ab) any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the [NAME], pitch or mobile home and any deterioration in the quality of those services since the date on which this paragraph came into force (insofar as regard has not previously been had to that reduction or deterioration for the purposes of this sub- paragraph. …………”

6 26. “Regard” is not the clearest of terms and the effect of having such regard is left to the Tribunal. Necessarily, any such matters need to be demonstrated specifically. “Particular” emphasises the importance and strength of the regard to be had.

27. As amended by the 2013 Act, paragraph 18 and paragraph 19 set out other matters to which no regard shall be had or otherwise which will not be taken account of. None of those are relevant to these proceedings.

28. Paragraph 20A (1) introduced a presumption that the pitch fee shall not change by a percentage which is more than any percentage increase or decrease in the RPI, now CPI, since the last review date, at least unless that would be unreasonable having regard to matters set out in paragraph 18(1) (so improvements and deteriorations/ reductions). The provision says the following:

“Unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1), there is a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is not more than any percentage increase or decrease in the retail price index calculated by reference only to- the latest index, and index published for the month which was 12 months before that to which the latest index relates.”

29. It might fairly be said that the 1983 Act is not drafted in such a way as to make the interplay of paragraphs 18 to 20A as clear as perhaps ideally it might have. That has given rise to a significant quantity of caselaw about the approach to take to determining pitch fees. Nevertheless, none of paragraphs 18 to 20 are described as taking precedence over the others. The presumption of an increase in accordance with an increase in CPI is fundamental but only where the presumption arises and matters in paragraphs 18 and 19 do not prevent that.

30. It is also important to emphasise that references below to “weighty factors” are to factors which might rebut a presumption which has arisen. They are not the paragraph 18 considerations. Rather if the presumption arises, it is just that, a presumption, and so necessarily it must be able to be rebutted by matters sufficient to rebut it. It is important not to confuse the two different sets of considerations, paragraph 18 ones and weighty factors, which arise at different points in considering the level of pitch fee and operate in different ways.

31. In respect of any factual matters in dispute, the Tribunal determines those on the balance of probabilities.

[NAME]

7 32. The Tribunal was not invited to inspect the [NAME], nor did the Tribunal consider it proportionate to do so.

Valuation principle/process, consideration and determination

33. The Tribunal is conscious that there is no prescribed valuation process that sets a pattern that the Tribunal could or can follow in reaching its decision.

34. There is no ‘open market’ for the Tribunal to compare pitch fees. The only evidence is that the pitch fee for the plot had originally been agreed by the parties when they had first moved to the [NAME] and has been increased over the years by agreement or by referring the matter to a Tribunal. Effectively the only ‘evidence’ is the pitch fee for the previous year.

35. In assessing the Pitch fee, the Tribunal must use its judgment as to what a reasonable increase would be in the given circumstances.

36. Accordingly, the Tribunal takes as its starting point the pitch fee for the previous year which, failing any referral to a Tribunal, had been agreed between the parties.

Evidence and submissions

Respondent Submission

37. The pitch owner of number 2 [NAME] had a number of concerns expressed by letter dated 29 July 2025. First, that the pitch is located right next to the sewage works resulting in very unpleasant odours, Second, there is no security guard, and their office has been replaced by a new home. Third, that new homes are planned for the communal area. Fourth, the acoustic fence that the Respondent, suggested the [NAME] had proposed would not be installed had not been erected. Fifth, the swimming pool, which was not commissioned, is going to be replaced by a new home. Sixth, the stream behind the sewage works is stagnant. Seventh, there was reported to be poor communication from the [NAME].

Application Submission

38. [NAME] for the Applicant commented. First, that the home has always been located near the sewage unit for the [NAME] and that this did not represent any change in the amenity since the last review. Second, that the removal of the security office had taken place outside the period of the review. Third, that a security guard did not form part of the services provided to the [NAME]. Fourth, that no homes planned for the communal area had been built. Fifth, that there has never been an acoustic fence so the absence of one is not a change in

8 the amenity. Sixth, that there was no change in the status of the stream. Finally, seventh matters of purported communication difficulties could not constitute a change in the amenity level of the [NAME].

Tribunal’s findings

39. The Tribunal found that the subject pitch had since before the last review been located next to the sewage treatment unit.

40. In respect of the absence of a security guard. The Applicant asserted that a security guard did not form part of the services offered by the [NAME]. The Respondent did not contest this. The Tribunal found therefore that the services of the security guard did not form part of the services offered by the [NAME].

41. The Applicant gave evidence that the removal of the security guard’s office had occurred outside the review period, the Respondent did not challenge this. The Tribunal finds on the basis of this evidence that removal of the security office, had occurred before the last review.

42. The Respondent submitted that the building of new homes on the communal area would cause a deterioration of the amenity level of the [NAME]. The Tribunal considered that the building of new homes on the communal area represented an intention and found that this had not happened by the pitch review date.

43. The Respondent submitted that the [NAME] had suggested that an acoustic fence be erected on the [NAME]. This, both parties agreed had not happened. The Tribunal accepts this.

44. The Respondent contended the proposal to replace the swimming pool constituted a reduction in amenity level. The Applicant noted that whilst the swimming pool existed it had never been commissioned and at the pitch review date no works had been undertaken. The Tribunal finds that no physical change has occurred to the non-commissioned swimming pool.

45. The Respondent asserted the stream behind the [NAME] was stagnant. The Tribunal questioned the parties in respect of the stream. Both parties agreed that the stream had been stagnant for some time and that the stream lay outside the boundaries of the [NAME]. The Tribunal finds that given the stream was outside the boundaries of the [NAME]. Additionally, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicant that there had in the absence of any specific evidence from the Respondent been any change in the quality of the stream.

9 46. The seventh issue relates to the Respondent’s view that there had been long standing poor communication between the [NAME] and the Respondent. The Applicant asserts that the quality of communication had not reduced. The Respondent was not present to answer questions on this aspect. The Tribunal finds that there was no reduction in the quality of communication.

Tribunal’s Decision

47. The Tribunal considered all the issues raised and determined that there had not been a deterioration in the condition or decrease in amenity of the [NAME] or a reduction in services supplied to the pitch or mobile home, or any deterioration in the quality of those services under paragraph 18(1) which prevented the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 arising or a weighty factor which rebutted the presumption.

48. The Tribunal determined that an increase in line with inflation was reasonable and that this should be in accordance with the presumption in paragraph 20 (A1) of the Implied Terms of the Written Statement of Agreement set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1, of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Therefore, the Tribunal confirms the proposed new pitch fee for:

2 [NAME], New Forest Glades

To be £289.67 per month to take effect to replace £283.16 per month which was reviewed on 1 January 2025 giving an increase of £6.51 per month calculated from a CPI increase of 2.3%

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

10 If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).