VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that increasing the monthly pitch fee for a mobile home park by 2.5% was fair, as it matched the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase over the past year. The decision was made by Judge D. Agnew on 16 September 2019.

⚖️ Legal holding

A pitch fee increase is reasonable if it corresponds to the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase over the previous year.

Topics

tenancypitch feeRetail Prices Index (RPI)

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.17Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.18Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.19

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal approved a reasonable increase in the pitch fee for a mobile home park, aligning with the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined that a proposed increase in pitch fee for a mobile home park was reasonable, aligning with the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase over the previous year. The decision was made by Judge D. Agnew on 16 September 2019.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/23UE/PHI/2019/0160

Property

:

15c [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants

:

[redacted] [COMPANY]

:

Respondents

:

[redacted]

:

Type of Application

:

Determination of New Level of Pitch Fee Schedule 1 Mobile Homes Act 2003

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge D. Agnew

Date and Venue of Hearing

:

Determination on Papers

Date of Decision

:

16 September 2019

DECISION

2 Decisions of the Tribunal

1. The Tribunal determines that the proposed increase in pitch fee for [ADDRESS] is reasonable.

2. The Tribunal determines a pitch fee of £244.47 per month for [ADDRESS] with effect from 1 May 2019.

3. The Tribunal is minded to order the Respondent to reimburse the Applicant the Tribunal application fee of £20. This order will take effect unless the Respondent makes representations in writing to the Tribunal on why she should not reimburse the fee by 1 October 2019.

The Application

4. On 16 July 2019 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for determination of a new level of pitch fee in respect of [ADDRESS] with effect from 1 May 2019.

5. The Applicant proposed a 2.5 per cent increase in the current pitch fee of £238.51 per month which produced a new pitch fee of £244.47 per month.

6. The 2.5 per cent increase corresponded with the percentage increase in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) for the period of 12 months ending February 20191.

7. On 2 August 2019 the Tribunal directed the Application to be determined on the papers without an oral hearing unless a party objected within 28 days. No objections were received from the parties.

8. The Respondent failed to send her statement of case to the Applicant by 19 August 2019 in accordance with Tribunal directions issued on 2 August

9. The Applicant supplied the hearing bundle to the Tribunal and to the Respondent on 27 August 2019.

Consideration

10. [ADDRESS] is a protected site within the meaning of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the 1983 Act).

1 When applying the RPI adjustment to a pitch fee review, the figure that must be used is the latest 12 month RPI figure available before the notice of review is served. In this case, the notice of review was sent on 21 March 2019. The latest RPI figure published before 21 March 2019 was the February 2019 figure.

3 11. The Respondent’s right to station her mobile home on the pitch at [ADDRESS] is governed by the terms of the Written Agreement with the Applicant and the provisions of the 1983 Act.

12. The written agreement is dated 28 September 1999 and assigned to the Respondent on 1 May 2005.

13. Under paragraph 3 of part 4 of the agreement the Respondent is obliged to pay to the Applicant an annual pitch fee by equal weekly payments in advance on the Thursday of each week. Paragraph 7 states that the pitch fee would be reviewed on 1 May every year.

14. The Applicant served the Respondent with the prescribed pitch review form proposing the new pitch fee on 21 March 2019 which was more than 28 days prior to the review date of 1 May 2019. The Application to the Tribunal to determine the pitch fee was made on 16 July 2019 which was within the period starting 28 days to three months after the review date.

15. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant had 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 Respondent.

16. The Tribunal is required to determine whether the proposed increase in pitch fee is reasonable. The Tribunal is not deciding whether the level of pitch fee is reasonable.

17. 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 RPI since the last review date.

18. The Applicant has restricted the increase in pitch fee to the percentage increase in the RPI.

19. The Respondent made no representations.

Decision

20. Given the above the above circumstances the Tribunal determines that the proposed increase in pitch fee for [ADDRESS] is reasonable. Further the Tribunal determines a pitch fee of £244.47 per month with effect from 1 May 2019.

21. The Tribunal is minded to order the Respondent to reimburse the Applicant the Tribunal application fee of £20. This order will take effect unless the Respondent makes representations in writing to the Tribunal on why she should not reimburse the fee by 1 October 2019.

Judge D. Agnew.

4

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 to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional 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:

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 matches the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase.
  • The increase is based on the previous year's RPI change.
  • The court allows a pitch fee increase that aligns with the RPI.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • No factors identified that went against the claimant in these cases.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that a proposed increase in the pitch fee for a mobile home park was reasonable.

Who was involved?

The decision involved a mobile home park owner and a resident of the park.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the proposed increase was reasonable because it aligned with the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase over the previous year.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983, specifically sections 17, 18, and 19, were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the proposed increase matched the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase over the previous year.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also propose a pitch fee increase that matches the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase over the previous year.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase over the previous year was the key evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a person wishing to appeal this decision must seek permission from 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 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.