VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Increases Mobile Home Pitch Fees by 4.6%

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal increased the pitch fees for mobile homes by 4.6%. This decision was based on the statutory presumption under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which allows for changes in pitch fees based on the annual change in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI).

⚖️ Legal holding

The statutory presumption under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 allows for a pitch fee increase of up to the annual change in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), unless it is unreasonable.

Topics

mobile homespitch feesstatutory presumption

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.16Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.20

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal increased the pitch fees for mobile homes by 4.6%, applying the statutory presumption under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal increased the pitch fees for mobile homes by 4.6%, applying the statutory presumption under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which allows for an increase or decrease in pitch fees by no more than the annual change in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), unless it is unreasonable.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

[NAME]

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : BIR/44UE/PHI/2024/0005;

BIR/44UE/PHI/2024/0006; and

BIR/44UE/PHI/2024/0003

Properties : Various premises at [NAME],

[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (see Schedule)

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

Application : Application under paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 for the determination of the new level of pitch fee for the subject properties

Tribunal

: Judge Gandham (Deputy Regional Judge)

Date of Decision : 29 August 2024

DECISION

2 Background

1. On 21 March 2024, the Tribunal received three applications from the Applicant seeking a determination, under paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 to Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (‘the Act’), of a new level of pitch fee for three premises on [NAME] 25, Pitch 37 and Pitch 44, with effect from 1 January 2024. The pitch fee notices were all dated 24 November 2023.

2. The Applicant is the site owner of [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] and the Respondents detailed in the Schedule are the owners of the respective premises detailed therein.

3. Directions were issued on 10 April 2024, consolidating all three applications. In the Directions, the Tribunal drew the attention of the Respondents to the Pitch Fee Review Form issued by the Applicant and, in particular, to the statutory presumption (in paragraph 20 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) that the pitch fee would increase or decrease by no more than the annual change in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), unless that would be unreasonable having regard to the matters set out in paragraph 18(1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

4. The Respondents were directed, if they did not agree to the proposed new pitch fees, to send to the Applicant, and to the Tribunal, a Statement in Response, setting out in full their reasons for opposing the proposed fees. The Tribunal indicated that, if the Respondents failed to send a Statement in Response, they might be deemed to have agreed to the proposed new pitch fee.

5. No Statement in Response was received from any of the Respondents by the specified deadline.

6. On 10 June 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the Respondents again, stating that if the Respondents did not provide a Statement in Response by 24 June 2024, the Tribunal would bar the Respondents from taking further part in the proceedings (pursuant to Rule 9(1) and (7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 (‘the Rules’)) and might summarily determine the new pitch fee at the level proposed by the Applicant (pursuant to Rule 9(8) of the Rules).

7. The only response received was from [NAME] [NAME] (Pitch 37) who stated, in a letter dated 14 June 2024, that they were unable to proceed with any submission to the Tribunal in time and would commence paying the increase by 1 June 2024.

8. As none of the Respondents have provided a Statement in Response setting out their reasons for opposing the proposed new pitch fees in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Directions Order dated 10 April 2024, they are now automatically barred from taking further part in these proceedings and the Tribunal need not consider any further response or other submission made by them.

Accordingly, the Tribunal summarily determines all issues against them (Rule 9(8) of the Rules).

3 Decision

9. The Tribunal finds that the statutory presumption set out in paragraph 20 of the Act applies and that the pitch fees are to increase by 4.6% as at the date detailed in the Notice, being 1 January 2024.

10. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that:

 The pitch fee for 25 [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] shall be increased from £1,833.64 per year to £1,917.99 per year, from 1 January 2024.

 The pitch fee for 37 [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] shall be increased from £1,833.64 per year to £1,917.99 per year, from 1 January 2024.

 The pitch fee for 44 [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] shall be increased from £1,833.64 per year to £1,917.99 per year, from 1 January 2024.

Appeal Provisions

11. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision they may apply to this Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such application must be received within 28 days after these written reasons have been sent to the parties (Rule 52 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013).

4 SCHEDULE

Rev and Mrs [NAME] – 25 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] – 37 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] – 44 [NAME]

📊 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 tribunal applied the statutory presumption that pitch fees increase by no more than the annual change in the Consumer Prices Index.
  • The respondents failed to provide a statement opposing the proposed new pitch fees.
  • One respondent indicated they would commence paying the increase and were unable to make a submission.
  • The respondents were barred from further participation in the proceedings due to their failure to respond.
  • The tribunal summarily determined the issues against the respondents.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The pitch fees for mobile homes were increased by 4.6%.

Who was involved?

The claimant, who owns the mobile home park, and the tenants of the mobile homes.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to increase the pitch fees based on the statutory presumption under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983, specifically sections 16 and 20.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The statutory presumption that the pitch fee should increase or decrease by no more than the annual change in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI).

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

The decision was for the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation may also see an increase in their pitch fees based on the same statutory presumption.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The pitch fee notices and the Pitch Fee Review Form.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party may apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission to appeal.

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

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