VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increases Based on CPI Adjustments

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) reviewed and approved the proposed increases in pitch fees for various mobile home pitches based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments. The decision was made because the increases were reasonable and aligned with inflation rates.

⚖️ Legal holding

A park owner may propose reasonable increases in pitch fees based on CPI adjustments without significant site improvements or deterioration.

Topics

tenancy lawmobile home fees

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended)Caravan Sites Act 1968Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the proposed increases in pitch fees for various mobile home pitches based on CPI adjustments.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) reviewed and approved the proposed increases in pitch fees for various mobile home pitches based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments without significant site improvements or deterioration.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case References : HAV/45UC/PHI/2025/0706-0713 Properties : [ADDRESS] 12 Kingsmead 18 Kingsmead 58 Kingsmead 11 [NAME] [NAME] 15 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]

all at [ADDRESS] Littlehampton West Sussex [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] :

None

Respondents : [redacted] Representative : None Type of Application : Review of Pitch Fee: Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended) Tribunal Members : Mr [NAME] R [NAME] of Applications : 17th March 2025

Date of Decision

:

1st October 2025

DECISION

HAV/45UC/PHI/2025/0706-0713 2

Summary of Decision 1. On 1st October 2025 the Tribunal determined the proposed increases in pitch fees for the [COMPANY] are reasonable and determines the respective pitch fees with effect from 1st January 2025 to be:- Mr [NAME], [ADDRESS], £192.06, Mr and [NAME] [NAME], 12 Kingsmead, £239.35 Executors of [NAME] [NAME], 18 Kingsmead, £248.19 [NAME] [NAME] 35 Kingsmead, £191.91 Mr [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME], 58 Kingsmead, £238.66 Mr [NAME], 11 [NAME] [NAME], £212.53 Mr [NAME], 15 [NAME] [NAME], £192.06 Executors of [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], £209.79 Background 2. On 17th March 2025 the Applicant, owner of the park site, sought determinations of the pitch fees payable by the Respondents with effect from 1st January 2025 3. A Pitch Fee Review Form dated 21st November 2024 with the prescribed information had been served on each of the Respondents proposing increases by an amount which the site owner says represents only adjustments in line with the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”).

4. It is noted that the pitch fee review forms that accompanied the notices were dated 21 November 2025, which is assumed to be a typo. The pitch fee review notices are correctly dated 21 November 2024.

5. On 23rd June 2025 the Tribunal issued Directions to the effect that the cases could be heard together based on papers without an oral hearing.

6. The Directions provided that the application form and accompanying papers should stand as the Applicant’s statement of case.

7. The Respondents were required to submit any representations to the Tribunal by 14th July 2025.

8. The only response received was from [NAME] [NAME] as executor for the late [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] who confirmed that she had no objection to the increase. Consideration and Decision 9. [ADDRESS] is a protected site within the meaning of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended). The definition found within Part 1 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 includes a site 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.

HAV/45UC/PHI/2025/0706-0713 3 10. The Respondents’ right to station their mobile homes on the pitch is governed by the terms of the written Agreement with the Applicant and the provisions of the Act.

11. The Applicant served each of the Respondents with the prescribed form proposing the new pitch fee on 21st November 2024 which was more than 28 days before the review date for each pitch, that is 1st January 2025.

12. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence provided that the Applicant has complied with the procedural requirements of paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act to support applications for an increase in pitch fee in respect of the pitch occupied by each Respondent.

13. The Tribunal is required to determine whether the proposed increase in pitch fee is reasonable in each case. The Tribunal is not deciding whether the overall level of the pitch fee is reasonable in each case.

14. The Tribunal is required to have regard to paragraphs 18,19 and 20 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act when determining a new pitch fee. Paragraph 20(1) introduces a presumption that the pitch fee in each case shall rise by a percentage that is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the CPI since the last review date.

15. In all of these cases the Applicant has restricted the proposed increase in the pitch fee to the percentage increase in the CPI for October 2024, published in November 2024, that is 2.3% in each case.

16. The site owner states that it has not spent any money on improvements which are for the benefits of the occupiers of the park homes nor has there been any deterioration in the condition or amenity of the site since the last review.

17. None of the Respondents have disputed their respective increase and, apart from [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] who accepted the increase, none have made any representation to the Tribunal. Determination 18. Given the above circumstances the Tribunal considers that the proposed increases are reasonable and determines that the pitch fee in each case from 1st January 2025 shall be:- Mr [NAME], [ADDRESS], £192.06 Mr and [NAME] [NAME], 12 Kingsmead, £239.35 Executors of [NAME], 18 Kingsmead, £248.19 [NAME] [NAME], 35 Kingsmead, £191.91

Mr [NAME] and [NAME], 58 Kingsmead, £238.66 Mr [NAME], 11 [NAME] [NAME], £212.53 [NAME] [NAME], 15 [NAME] [NAME], £192.06 Executors of [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], £209.79

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

HAV/45UC/PHI/2025/0706-0713 4

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. Where possible you should send your application for permission to appeal by email to [EMAIL] as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal Regional office to deal with it more efficiently.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The proposed increase in pitch fees aligns with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI).
  • A pitch fee increase is considered reasonable if it matches inflation.
  • The increase in pitch fees is reasonable if it follows the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase.
  • Reasonable increases in pitch fees are allowed if they are in line with inflation and there are no significant site improvements or deteriorations.
  • Pitch fee increases are reasonable if they reflect inflation as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), barring significant site condition changes.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision approved the proposed increases in pitch fees for various mobile home pitches based on CPI adjustments.

Who was involved?

The case involved a park owner proposing pitch fee increases and mobile home residents occupying the pitches.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the proposed increases were reasonable based on CPI adjustments and the lack of significant site improvements or deterioration.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended), the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the proposed increases were reasonable and aligned with CPI adjustments.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the park owner who proposed the pitch fee increases.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also see their pitch fee increases approved if they align with CPI adjustments and there are no significant site improvements or deterioration.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the pitch fee review forms and the Consumer Price Index data.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision can apply for permission to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.