VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Increases Pitch Fee and Orders Reimbursement

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal increased the pitch fee for a mobile home by 4%. The respondent did not respond to the directions and was ordered to reimburse the application fee.

⚖️ Legal holding

The statutory presumption allows for a pitch fee increase in line with the CPI unless it is unreasonable.

Topics

tenancymobile homespitch fees

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal increased the pitch fee by 4% and ordered the respondent to reimburse the application fee.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal increased the pitch fee by 4% as per the statutory presumption and ordered the respondent to reimburse the application fee due to non-compliance with directions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference : BIR/17UK/PHI/2024/0054

Property : [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Weston on Trent, Derbyshire [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL]

Respondent: [redacted] : 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 property

Tribunal

: Judge [NAME]

(Deputy Regional Judge)

Date of Decision : 14 March 2025

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

2 BACKGROUND

1. On 20 June 2024, [NAME] (‘the Applicants’) made an application under paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (‘the Act’) for determination of a new level of pitch fee, effective from 1 April 2024, for the premises known as [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Weston on Trent, Derbyshire, [POSTCODE] (‘the Property’).

2. The Applicants are the site owners of [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Weston on Trent, Derbyshire, [POSTCODE] (‘the Site’) and Mr [RESPONDENT] (‘the Respondent’) is the occupier of the Property.

3. Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 24 July 2024. In the Directions Order, the Tribunal drew the attention of the Respondent to the Pitch Fee Review Form issued by the Applicants and, in particular, to the statutory presumption (in paragraph 20 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act) 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 Act.

4. The Respondent was directed that, if he did not agree to the proposed new pitch fee, to send to the Applicants, and to the Tribunal, a Statement in Response, setting out in full his reasons for opposing the same. The Tribunal indicated that, if the Respondent failed to send a Statement in Response, he might be deemed to have no objection to the proposed new pitch fee.

5. No Statement in Response was received from the Respondent by the specified deadline, although the Tribunal received a statement in Reply from the Applicants, on 30 August 2024, in which the Applicants requested an order under Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (‘the Rules’) for reimbursement of the application fee of £22.00.

6. On 6 February 2025, the Tribunal issued a further Directions Order. The Respondent was warned that, unless he either confirmed to the Tribunal that he agreed to the proposed pitch fee or provided a Statement in Response, he would be automatically barred from taking further part in these proceedings under Rules 9(1) and (7)(a) of the Rules.

7. As the Respondent has failed to provide any response to the Tribunal, in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Directions Order dated 6 February 2025, he is now automatically barred from taking further part in these proceedings and the Tribunal need not consider any further response or other submission made by him.

8. Consequently, the Tribunal summarily determines the substantive decision with regard to the pitch fee against him (Rule 9(8) of the Rules).

3 Tribunal’s Decision on Pitch fee

9. The Tribunal finds that the statutory presumption set out in paragraph 20 of the Act applies and that the pitch fee is to increase by 4% as at the date detailed in the Notice, being 1 April 2024.

10. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the pitch fee for the Property shall be increased from £150.20 per month to £156.21 per month, from 1 April 2024.

Tribunal’s Decision on Rule 13(2) Application

11. The Tribunal can, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, under Rule 13(2) “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…”. In this matter, the Applicants had paid an application fee of £22.00.

12. The pitch fee can only be changed under paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act by agreement or by application to the tribunal. As stated above, that application was made by the Applicants on 20 June 2024 and directions were issued by the Tribunal on 24 July 2024 and 6 February 2025.

13. At no point has the Tribunal received any response from the Respondent to its directions.

14. As the Tribunal finds that the Applicants had no alternative but to make an application to the tribunal and as, in this matter, the Respondent has failed to comply with directions, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to make an order under Rule 13(2).

15. According, the Tribunal orders the Respondent to reimburse to the Applicants the application fee of £22.00.

Appeal Provisions

16. 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) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

[NAME] ………………………… Judge [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 statutory presumption allows for a pitch fee increase in line with the CPI.
  • The increase must not be unreasonable considering the circumstances.
  • A site owner is entitled to increase the pitch fee in line with the Retail Prices Index if the increase is properly reviewed and notified.
  • The pitch fee for mobile homes should increase according to the annual change in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI).
  • A site owner may increase a pitch fee in line with the Retail Prices Index, subject to certain conditions.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The pitch fee was increased by 4% and the respondent was ordered to reimburse the application fee.

Who was involved?

The site owner applied for an increase in the pitch fee and the occupier of the mobile home was the respondent.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the statutory presumption that the pitch fee should increase in line with the CPI unless it is unreasonable.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the statutory presumption that the pitch fee should increase in line with the CPI unless it is unreasonable.

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 compliance with directions to avoid automatic bar from proceedings and potential reimbursement orders.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The Pitch Fee Review Form and the directions issued by the Tribunal were important documents.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, either party can apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for permission to appeal within 28 days.

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 homes and 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.