VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Grants Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal granted a pitch fee increase for a mobile home based on the Retail Prices Index. The respondent was barred from further participation due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant is entitled to a reasonable increase in their pitch fee based on the Retail Prices Index.

Topics

tenancy disputesmobile homespitch fees

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.1(20)(A1)Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 r.9(1), r.9(7)(a), r.9(8)

📖 Technical summary

The claimant sought an increase in the pitch fee for a mobile home, and the tribunal granted the increase based on the Retail Prices Index.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant sought an increase in the pitch fee for a mobile home based on the Retail Prices Index. The First-tier Tribunal granted the increase, barring the respondent from further participation due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

[NAME]

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/00GA/PHI/2019/0016

Property

: 66 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] : Pitch Fee Review 2019

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

2 Background

1. On 10th February 2016 the Respondent took an assignment of the agreement under which he is entitled to station his mobile home on the pitch known as [ADDRESS].

2. On 25th February 2019 the Applicant served a Pitch Fee Review Form proposing new pitch fee of £1752.06 per annum to take effect on 1st April 2019.

3. On 14th May 2019 the Applicant made application to the Tribunal.

4. On 16th May 2019 the Tribunal issued Directions.

5. The Applicant has complied with paragraph 2 of Directions and produced Bundle of documents on 3rd June 2019.

Barring the Respondent

6. Paragraph 3 of Directions required the Respondent to produce his Bundle of documents by 27th June 2019. He has failed to do so. 7. On 2nd July 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the Respondent in the following terms:

“On 16th May 2019 the Tribunal issued Directions requiring you to prepare a Bundle of documents and Statement of Case by 27th June 2019. No documents have been received from you.

Accordingly, a Procedural Judge has directed that unless you comply with Paragraph 3 of Directions by 12h July 2019 you will be barred from taking further part in the proceedings. If you are barred from taking further part in proceedings the Tribunal need not consider any response or other submissions made by you and may summarily determine all issues against you (Rules 9(7)(a) and 9(8) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013).”

8. The Respondent has failed to comply. 9. Accordingly, the Respondent is barred from taking further part in the proceedings under Rule 9(1) and 9(7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules.

Disposal

10. The Tribunal summarily determines all issues against the Respondent under Rule 9(8).

11. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant’s Bundle dated 3rd June 2019.

12. The Tribunal applies the presumption that the pitch fee shall increase by a percentage which is no more than the percentage increase in the retail prices index under paragraph 20(A1) of Chapter 2, Part 1, Schedule 1 Mobile Homes Act 1983. In the absence of any representations from the Respondent the Tribunal finds that such increase is reasonable.

Decision

13. The Tribunal determines that the pitch fee shall be increased to £1752.06 per annum and will take effect on 1st April 2019.

D Jackson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal

Either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission. Any application for permission must be in writing, stating grounds relied upon, and be received by the First-tier Tribunal no later than 28 days after the Tribunal sends this written Decision to the party seeking permission.

📊 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 can be reasonably increased based on the Retail Prices Index.
  • Procedural requirements must be met for the proposed increase.
  • No factors prevent or rebut the presumption of reasonableness.
  • The increase must reflect the actual change in the Retail Prices Index.
  • There is no clear evidence of site deterioration.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision granted an increase in the pitch fee for a mobile home based on the Retail Prices Index.

Who was involved?

The claimant sought an increase in the pitch fee for a mobile home, while the respondent was the tenant of the mobile home.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the pitch fee increase because the claimant followed the correct procedure and the increase was deemed reasonable based on the Retail Prices Index.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Tribunal Procedure Rules were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the claimant's adherence to the procedural requirements and the use of the Retail Prices Index to justify the pitch fee increase.

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 should ensure they follow the correct procedures and provide evidence supporting the requested pitch fee increase.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Evidence and documents related to the procedural requirements and the calculation of the pitch fee increase based on the Retail Prices Index mattered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party may appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) but must first apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission.

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

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal disputes over mobile home pitch fees.

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.