First-tier Tribunal Confirms Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal confirmed a new pitch fee increase for a mobile home park. The increase was based on the Retail Prices Index, and since the tenant did not respond, the increase was approved.
⚖️ Legal holding
A pitch fee increase is presumed to be valid if it reflects the Retail Prices Index increase.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal confirmed a new pitch fee increase based on the Retail Prices Index.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal confirmed a new pitch fee increase from £179.94 to £185.88 per month, reflecting a 3.3% increase in the Retail Prices Index. The decision was made based on the papers submitted by the site owner, with no representations received from the tenant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
Case Reference
: CHI/29UK/PHI/2019/0056
Subject Property
: [ADDRESS],
[NAME],
Tunbridge Wells,
TN3 OSL
Applicant: [redacted]
: [APPELLANT]
Respondent: [redacted]
: N/A
Type of Application : Application to determine a new level of pitch fee
Tribunal Member
: Judge S.Lal
Date of Directions
: 9 July 2019
Date of Decision
: 9 July 2019 _________________________________
DECISION _________________________________
Introduction
1. This is a decision on an application made by the [NAME] for a determination of a new level of pitch fee pursuant to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the Act).
2. The matter was determined on the basis of the papers only pursuant to Rule 31 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. Directions were made 30 April 2019. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has prepared and served a Bundle in accordance with the Directions. Nothing has been received from the Respondent in accordance with Direction 5.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
2
Determination of the Tribunal
3. The Tribunal had regard to the Applicant’s Statement dated 28 March 2019. In this it is stated that the Applicant is the owner and operator of [NAME]. On 15 November 2018, the Applicant served by first class post a notice of proposed new pitch fee to take effect on the review date of 1 January 2019.
4. The Tribunal was supplied with a copy of the above at pages 17-26 of the Bundle. The proposed pitch fee increase is from £179.94 to £185.88 per month. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has declined to accept the proposed new pitch fee. No representations have been received from the Respondent.
5. The Tribunal notes the provision of the Act. This gives rise to the presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrese by a percentage which is no more that any percentage increase or decrease in the retail prices index calculated by reference to the latest index and the index published for the month which was 12 months before that to which the latest index relates.
6. The Applicant has supplied the Tribunal with the relevant RPI for the 12 months prior to the application. In the present case the previous pitch fee was £179.94 plus a 3.3% increase to reflect the relevant RPI. This would result in a new roposed pitch fee of £185.88 per calendar month to take effect from 1 January 2019.
7. In the absence of any representations received from the Respondent and pursuant to its own assessment of the above calculation under the Act, the Tribunal confirms the pitch increase of £185.88 per calendar month to take effect from 1 January 2019.
8. 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. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
3
Judge S.Lal………………………………………
Date…………………………………………..
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increase for Mobile Homes
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Allows Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds 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 Approves Pitch Fee Increase for Mobile Homes at Haldon …
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reviews Pitch Fee Increase for Mobile Home Park
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increase for Mobile Homes
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase for Mobile Home
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets Mobile Home Pitch Fee Based on RPI Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
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 Retail Prices Index increase.
- The increase does not exceed the Retail Prices Index increase.
- The increase is presumed reasonable unless there is significant deterioration or reduction in services.
- The increase is reasonable if it follows the Retail Prices Index calculation method.
- Other statutory considerations support the pitch fee increase.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The pitch fee increase is presumed unreasonable if it considers site improvements or reductions in amenities.
- The increase is presumed reasonable but was dismissed due to unspecified reasons.
- The increase is presumed reasonable if it reflects the Retail Prices Index increase over 12 months but was dismissed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
It confirmed a new pitch fee increase for a mobile home park.
Who was involved?
The site owner and a tenant of the mobile home park.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the Retail Prices Index increase, as no representations were received from the tenant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Mobile Homes Act 1983 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the calculation of the pitch fee increase based on the Retail Prices Index.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the site owner.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
If a tenant does not respond to a notice of proposed pitch fee increase, the increase may be confirmed by the tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the site owner's statement and the relevant Retail Prices Index data.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, a person wishing to appeal must seek permission from the Upper Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the written reasons for the decision.
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.
