First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal reviewed a proposed increase in pitch fee for a mobile home park and found it reasonable, determining a pitch fee of £134.41 per month with effect from 1 January 2024.
⚖️ Legal holding
A pitch fee increase is reasonable if it aligns with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal reviewed a proposed increase in pitch fee for a mobile home park and found it reasonable.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal reviewed a proposed increase in pitch fee for a mobile home park and found it reasonable, determining a pitch fee of £134.41 per month with effect from 1 January 2024.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case reference : CHI/29UK/PHI/2024/0051
Property : 20 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Type of application : Review of Pitch Fee: Mobile Homes Act
1983 (as amended)
Tribunal member : [NAME] of Decision : 27 November 2024
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
Summary of Decision
The Tribunal determines that the proposed increase in pitch fee for 20 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is reasonable and determines a pitch fee of £134.41 per month with effect from 1 January 2024.
Background
1. On 30 January 2024 the Applicant [NAME] sought a determination of the pitch fee of £134.31 per month payable by the Respondents as from 1 January 2024.
2. A Pitch Fee Review Notice dated 21 November 2023 was served on the [NAME] proposing to increase the pitch fee by an amount which the [NAME] says represents only an adjustment in line with the Consumer Price Index.
3. On 24 September 2024 the Tribunal issued Directions setting out the future conduct of the case and directing that the application be determined on the papers without an oral hearing unless a party objected within 28 days. No objections were received from the parties.
4. The Directions provided that the application form and accompanying papers, save for the additional information requested by the Tribunal, should stand as the Applicant’s statement of case.
5. The Respondents were invited to complete a reply form and prepare a statement indicating whether they agreed or disagreed with the application by 6 November 2024. However, no response was received.
6. The Applicant’s Reply dated 7 November 2024 includes a description of the process followed and an application for the reimbursement of the application fee of £22.00 under Rule 13(2).
Consideration
7. [ADDRESS] 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.
8. The Respondents’ right to station his mobile home on the pitch is governed by the terms of his Written Agreement with the Applicant and the provisions of the 1983 Act.
9. The Applicant served the Respondents with the prescribed form proposing the new pitch fee on 21 November 2023, which was more than 28 days prior to the review date of 1 January 2024. The application to the Tribunal to determine the pitch fee was made on 30 January 2024 which was within the period starting 28 days to three months after the review date. The form indicated that the Applicant had applied the CPI of 4.6 percent, applying
the mid October 2023 figure.
10. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has complied with the procedural requirements of paragraph 17 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act to support an application for an increase in pitch fee in respect of the pitch occupied by the Respondents.
11. The Tribunal is required to determine whether the proposed increase in pitch fee is reasonable. The Tribunal is not deciding whether the overall level of pitch fee is reasonable.
12. 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. Paragraph 20(1) introduces a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the CPI since the last review date and applies unless factors identified in paragraph 18 are demonstrated so that the presumption does not apply. If the presumption does apply, it may be rebutted but only by other factors which are sufficiently weighty to do so.
13. The Applicant has restricted the increase in the pitch fee to the percentage increase in the CPI and in view of the presumption referred to in paragraph 12 above and in the absence of any matters being raised which prevent that presumption applying or then go to rebut that presumption, the Tribunal finds that the proposed increase in pitch fee is reasonable.
Decision in respect of the pitch fee
14. Given the above circumstances the Tribunal determines that the proposed increase in pitch fee for 20 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is reasonable and determines a pitch fee of £134.41 per month with effect from 1 January 2024.
Costs
15. The Tribunal may make an order requiring a party to reimburse to any other party the whole or part of the amount of any fee paid by the other party (which has not been remitted) pursuant to Rule 13(2) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.
16. Given the Respondent’s failure to engage with these proceedings the Tribunal in minded to order the Respondents to reimburse the Applicant with the Tribunal application fee of £20.00, such being the fee paid by the Applicant. This order will take effect unless the Respondents make representations in writing to the Tribunal, copied to the Applicant, on why they should not reimburse the fee by 12 December 2024.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the [NAME] office which has been dealing with the case.
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:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase Based on CPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms Pitch Fee Increase Based on CPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on Retail Price Index
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increase for Mobile Home Site
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Confirms Pitch Fee Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increase Based on CPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
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 pitch fee increase aligns with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment.|The pitch fee increase aligns with inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).|The pitch fee increase aligns with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase.|The pitch fee increase aligns with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, barring significant deterioration in site conditions or services.|The pitch fee increase aligns with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments.|The pitch fee increase aligns with the Retail Price Index (RPI) and complies with statutory requirements.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision approved a reasonable increase in the pitch fee for a mobile home park.
Who was involved?
The decision involved a mobile home park owner and the tenants of the park.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the proposed increase in pitch fee was reasonable because it aligned with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment.
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 increase in pitch fee was reasonable as it aligned with the CPI adjustment.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the mobile home park owner who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, a proposed pitch fee increase should align with the CPI adjustment to be considered reasonable.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the CPI figures and the procedures followed by the mobile home park owner.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.
