First-tier Tribunal Increases Pitch Fees for Mobile Home Park

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

[NAME]

: CHI/00HE/PHI/2019/0037 Property

: 49A [NAME] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted]

: [RESPONDENT] Director Respondent: [redacted] Respondents listed in the Schedule Representative

: [RESPONDENT] for himself and the other Respondents listed in Schedule 1 excluding Mrs [NAME] (No 62) Type of Application : Pitch Fee Review Tribunal Members

: Judge C A Rai (Chairman) [NAME] [NAME] Date and venue of Hearing

: 17 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 16 May 2019

DECISION

1. The Tribunal orders that the pitch fees for the Respondents be increased by 3.4% from the 1 September 2018. 2. The reasons for its decision are set out below.

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2

Background 3. [NAME] of [COMPANY] made an application, dated 27 November 2018, (the Application), to the Tribunal to determine the new Pitch Fee payable from 1 September 2018, the pitch fee review date, for 49A [NAME], Harrowbarrow, Callington, Cornwall.

4. Prior to the Application a notice of increase together with a Pitch Fee Review Form, in a form compliant with the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed form) (England) Regulations [SI 2013/1505] had been sent to the Respondents.

5. On 9 January 2019, following a telephone conversation with the Tribunal office, [NAME] emailed the Tribunal office and confirmed that the Applicant had completed the purchase of [NAME], Harrowbarrow, Callington, Cornwall, the “[NAME]”, on 21 December 2018 and was now the “[NAME]”. [NAME] [NAME] said that he understood that 52 applications had been made to the Tribunal relating to the [NAME] and requested his email be treated as an application under rule 10(3) of The Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 [SI 1169]. “the Rules”, for the substitution of the [NAME] in place of the original applicant [COMPANY].

6. The application was acknowledged and Judge Tildesley OBE, issued [NAME] dated 25 January 2019 [D1]. The [NAME] confirmed that the Application had been made within the statutory time limit and that the Tribunal intended to determine the Application without a hearing. The Respondent was directed to provide a signed statement of [NAME], signed witness statements and copies of all documents on which it relied. The Applicant was directed to reply to the Respondent’s statement and provide a bundle of documents to enable the determination to be made. Time limits for compliance by the parties with its [NAME] were stated.

7. On 31 January 2019 [RESPONDENT], applied to the Tribunal to vary the [NAME] [D1]. He confirmed that as well as being a Respondent he also represented many other respondents and sought details of the names of the respondents to all applications originally made by [COMPANY] in respect of the Pitch Fee Review on the [NAME]. 8. [NAME] dated 4 February 2019, [D2], were issued by Judge Tildesley OBE granting the application and providing [NAME] [RESPONDENT] with a list of the other respondents. The [NAME], [D2], required that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] provide written authority from those respondents he represented.

9. On 11 February 2019 Judge Tildesley OBE issued [NAME], [D3] in response to further applications from [NAME] [RESPONDENT] dated 4 February 2019 and 5 February 2019 to vary the [NAME],[D1]. He requested an inspection of the [NAME] and an oral hearing. He said that the Respondents believed that they would be able express their positions better as witnesses than by way of paper statements. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated that letters issued by the Applicant to some Respondents to the applications were intended to coerce them into making payments of the increased amount by referring to the differences between the old pitch

3 fee and the increased pitch fee as arrears. Copies of two letters, one undated and one dated 30 January 2019, both of which had been sent from the Accounts Department of the Applicant were attached. The second letter suggested that a penalty charge would be made if further letters were issued chasing the arrears and referred to a schedule of charges. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] asked that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the grounds of contempt for the procedures or that the Applicant be directed to provide a list of all Respondents who had been sent letters similar to those he had produced. Copies of these applications were attached to the [NAME], [D3], and the Applicant was directed to respond.

10. On 6 February 2019 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] sent a letter to the Tribunal which questioned the “bona fides” of the Applicant stating that there was no current licence enabling the Applicant to operate the [NAME]. He requested that the Tribunal satisfy itself as to the legal position before moving further with the Application.

11. On 8 February 2019 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] sent a further application to vary the [NAME], to which he attached an email from Cornwall Council which stated that whilst an application for the transfer of the [NAME] licence had been made, it remained pending. He suggested that the email implied that the [NAME] licence would not be transferred to the Applicant and for that reason [NAME] was not entitled to conduct the pitch fee review and seek increased pitch fee payments from the Respondents.

12. On 12 February 2019 the Applicant sent the Tribunal 7 applications, by named respondents, to withdraw from the proceedings.

13. On 14 February 2019 the Applicant sent its response to the [NAME], [D3]. It denied that the letter dated 30 January 2019 was sent to any [NAME] who were Respondents to the proceedings. The copy provided by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] had been sent to [NAME] who were not Respondents. It denied the allegation that the Applicant had showed contempt for the Tribunal procedures and said no evidence had been supplied to support the allegation. It suggested that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] did not represent a large number of the [NAME] of the [NAME] and that he was not entitled to sign letters representing himself as Chairman of the [COMPANY]. [NAME] also implied that the Association is not a [COMPANY] under the Act. He confirmed that the application for the transfer of the [NAME] licence had not been refused but was being processed; the delay did not affect [NAME] being treated as the [NAME] from the date of the transfer. He also suggested that [NAME] [RESPONDENT]’s Application was founded on unreasonable allegations, made without evidence, legal advice or argument and was vexatious and that the Tribunal should give consideration to making a costs order and an order that the Respondent be restricted to acting in compliance with Tribunal [NAME].

14. On 18 February 2019 Judge Tildesley OBE issued [NAME], [D4], consenting to the withdrawal of 7 Respondents.

4 15. On 15 February 2019 [NAME] [RESPONDENT], in response to the Applicant said that he had always complied with the Tribunal [NAME] also made other points not relevant to this determination.

16. On 19 February 2019 Judge Tildesley OBE made further [NAME], [D5], in which he stated that in the absence of evidence of coercion of any of the remaining Respondents he would not direct the Applicant to provide a list of those who had received letters. He directed that the Applicant send any further correspondence regarding the pitch fees to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] if he represented the [NAME] to whom the correspondence was addressed. He attached a list of the [NAME] represented by [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. He directed that he was satisfied with the explanation made by the Applicant regarding the transfer of the [NAME] licence and that the Application could proceed to a hearing and he directed the parties to provide the Tribunal with dates to avoid.

17. On 19 February 2019 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] made a further application to the Tribunal seeking an order that the Respondent provide clear documentary evidence as to the ownership of the [NAME].

18. Judge Tildesley issued further [NAME] on 19 February 2019, [D6]. He issued [NAME] with revised dates which recorded that, since the commencement of the proceedings, he had received a range of applications from the parties, almost on a daily basis, as a result of which his patience was at an end; he directed that no party should make any further applications excepting any which directly impacted upon bringing the proceedings to a hearing: He also directed that:- a. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] was entitled to represent all the remaining Respondents save for the four [NAME] of 33, 58, 62 & 66 [NAME]; b. Communications with all [NAME] represented by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] should be sent to him; c. The status of the [COMPANY] was irrelevant in relation to the current proceedings; d. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] was not able to provide a “without prejudice” statement of [NAME] and must resubmit it without that reference and within the stated timescale; and e. The precise arrangements regarding ownership of the [NAME] were not relevant to the Application as the original applicant had consented to the substitution of the Applicant in the proceedings and the Tribunal had received satisfactory evidence that the [NAME] licence had been transferred to the Applicant. 19. [NAME], [D6], were sent to the parties on 20 February 2019 and both parties sent further submissions to the Tribunal. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] replied to the Applicant’s Response to [NAME],[D3], on 21 February 2019.

20. On 22 February 2019 the Applicant applied to vary the [NAME], [D5], on the grounds that the [COMPANY] was not a [COMPANY] within the Act and also suggested that the membership list for the Association was fraudulent.

5 21. On 24 February 2019 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] responded to the Applicant’s Application dated 22 February 2019.

22. On 26 February 2019 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] responded to the Applicant’s Application dated 25 February 2019.

23. On 25 February 2019 the Applicant made an application for an Order that the Respondent’s statement of [NAME] be struck out or that he removed all references to “without prejudice” and that this be done within 14 days.

24. On 14 March 2019 the Applicant applied for an Order that the Respondent would not be entitled at the Hearing to rely on (i) any documents not provided to the Applicant in accordance the [NAME] [D1], and (ii) evidence of “witnesses” for which no witness statement, compliant with those [NAME], had been served.

25. In a letter dated 29 March 2019, sent to the parties on that date, the Tribunal notified the parties of the Hearing date time and venue.

26. The Respondent replied to the Applicant’s last application on 4 April 2019.

27. The Tribunal notified the Applicant that Judge Tildesley OBE having considered its application dated 14 March 2019, had decided it should be dealt with as a preliminary point prior to the commencement of the hearing.

28. A bundle was provided by the Applicant for the use of Tribunal at the Hearing but although pages are numbered, the numbering is not continuous and therefore references used in this decision may be to page numbers within particular sections. The Inspection 29. The Tribunal members attended the Inspection. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] was present but did not accompany the Tribunal members on their inspection of the [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] was present and accompanied the Tribunal with [NAME] [NAME], [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME]. The Tribunal members were shown the main road within the [NAME], the boundary/bank at the top of the [NAME] on which trees appeared to have recently been cleared or lopped, two [NAME] evidencing settlement or slippage situate above different pitches. They also were given access through locked gates to the [NAME]. They saw the electricity meter boxes. [NAME] [NAME] showed [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] a new path which he had laid at the back/top of his pitch.

30. Following completion of the inspection Judge Rai spoke to [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] together and informed them that she wished to speak to them both before the commencement of the Hearing.

6 The Hearing Preliminary matters 31. In a meeting between the Tribunal and [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] before the Hearing, Judge Rai reminded both of the number of applications to the Tribunal each had made on behalf of the Applicant and Respondent after the date of the original Application and before being notified of the Hearing Date. [NAME] said that although 26 current applications to the Tribunal relating to the pitch fee review were outstanding, the Hearing only related to the application made in respect of 49A [NAME] for which [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] were Respondents. The [NAME] reference number for the Hearing is specific to that [NAME]. It was the only application set down for a hearing.

32. Judge Rai accepted that although the Tribunal had clearly intended to join all the applications relating to [NAME], the multiplicity of other applications made by the parties had apparently diverted it from so doing. That omission could be corrected before the commencement of the Hearing. It was agreed that the 25 other current respondents would be joined as Respondents to these proceedings. It was established that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] represented all the joined respondents save for Mrs [NAME] of 62 [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] agreed to check his records and to confirm that he agreed with those listed as Respondents after the Hearing. Judge Rai agreed to request confirmation of the names of the Respondents to be joined at the beginning of the Hearing so any Respondents present at the Hearing could confirm if they still wished to be joined into the proceedings.

33. It was also agreed, that as recorded in the Application, the date of the last pitch fee review, prior to that to which the Application relates, was 1 September 2015. The Application relates to the pitch fee review due on 1 September 2018.

34. Judge Rai told both parties that she was aware of the previous decision made in February 2013 by the Residential Property Tribunal, relating to the pitch fee increase due on 1 September 2012 at the [NAME], and that it had found that there had been decrease in amenity. The pitch fee increase in 2012 was less than it would have been had the relevant RPI increase been applied to calculate that review. Both she and [NAME] [NAME] had been members of that Tribunal. She explained to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] that any evidence in his statement which related to alleged loss of amenity for the years preceding 1 September 2012, to which that decision related could not be taken into account again because of paragraph 18 (aa) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act and on that basis she did not want [NAME] [RESPONDENT] to present any evidence about alleged losses of amenity occurring before that date.

35. The Tribunal also asked [NAME] to agree to any Respondent present at the Hearing, who had expressed a wish to do so, making an oral statement. Judge Rai explained that although written witness statements had not been provided to the Applicant and oral submissions could not be treated as evidence because [NAME] [NAME] would have no opportunity to cross examine the person making the statement, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for any Respondent, attending the

7 Hearing, to be given the opportunity to address it. [NAME] [NAME] agreed to the request and asked if [NAME] [NAME] could also address the Tribunal, to which both the Tribunal and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] agreed.

36. Finally Judge Rai asked [NAME] if he still wanted the Tribunal to deal with his last application, dated 14 March 2019, as a preliminary issue; [NAME] confirmed he did not.

37. Judge Rai also explained she was very keen to conclude the oral Hearing that day as it was in the interests of both parties, taking into account the age and mobility of some of the Respondents and that [NAME] [NAME] had travelled a considerable distance to attend. Both parties agreed to co-operate with the Tribunal to assist it in achieving that objective.

38. At the beginning of the Hearing Judge Rai explained to the parties and those present that following preliminary discussions between the Tribunal, [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT], it had been agreed that all the respondents currently represented by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] would be joined into the proceedings as Respondents; together with Mrs [RESPONDENT], No 62 who was the only other respondent to an application before the Tribunal for the review of a pitch fee on the [NAME]. [It is noted that although three other Respondents were not represented by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] when Judge Tildesley OBE made [NAME] [D6] it appears that the [NAME] of 33, 58 and 66 were represented by him on the date of the Hearing].

39. She said it was clear that Judge Tildesley OBE had intended to join all the current cases with the Application made in respect of [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME]’s pitch fee but had been diverted from so doing by the number of other applications submitted to him by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] between 27 November 2018, (the date of the Application) and 29 March 2019 (the date the Tribunal notified the parties of the date of the Hearing). Both parties had agreed to the applications being consolidated and determined collectively by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence provided in the Bundle and at the Hearing.

40. Judge Rai directed that 25 other Respondents cases be consolidated with the Application to be heard which related to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules. The evidence and submissions 41. Both parties also confirmed that it was agreed that the notice of increase in the pitch fees was made in compliance with the Act. 42. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said that whilst all the Respondents had received the notice of increase, none had responded or indicated their disagreement to the proposed increase because [NAME], the previous [NAME] owners were at that time well aware of all their complaints regarding their collective dissatisfaction with the way the [NAME] was maintained so there was no need to respond. He said that [NAME], historically, had never responded to correspondence. Following the transfer of the [NAME] the Applicant had written to all the [NAME].

8 43. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] had apparently offered to agree a 1% increase in the pitch fee albeit on a “without prejudice” basis. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said that [NAME] [RESPONDENT]’s offer was for the Respondents to pay the increase from 1 January 2019, and not from the date of the pitch fee review, (which was 1 September 2018). He interpreted that as an attempt to change the pitch fee review date. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] denied this. Whatever the basis of the offer, it had been subsequently withdrawn. 44. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated that the current Applicant was not entitled to receive any increased pitch fees relating to a period prior to it becoming owner of the [NAME] as this part of the pitch fee, if due, should have been paid to the previous owner.

45. The Tribunal explained that it was for the Respondent to persuade the Tribunal to depart from the presumption that the Applicant is not entitled to a pitch fee increase in accordance with the increase in RPI and referred [NAME] [RESPONDENT] to paragraphs 18 and 19 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Schedule to the Act. The Tribunal told him that he needed to explain what deterioration had taken place and referred him to paragraph 18 which would enable him to refer to any deterioration in the condition and any decrease in the amenity since the date on which the paragraph came into force but only in so far as it had not already been taken into account previously. [The amendments to the Act came into force on 26 May 2013]. 46. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] referred to the [NAME]. The bundle contains a copy of an email from [NAME] dated 22 May 2017. The plant was due to be replaced in January 2018. His agents [NAME] had apparently made an application for planning permission. The plant is not functioning properly and the disrepair is of concern to all the [NAME] on the [NAME].

47. Later in the Hearing it was suggested that the Applicant had not been told about the ongoing problems with the [NAME] and that the previous owner may not have disclosed the correspondence between its agent and [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. 48. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] referred to the newsletter, a copy of which is at pages 71 – 72 of the bundle. He said this was evidence that the [NAME] of the [NAME] had been working together to improve the appearance of the [NAME]. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said that if [NAME] themselves carry out maintenance works it saves costs for the [NAME].

49. He referred the Tribunal to emails at page 75 of the bundle which he said identified the maintenance issues raised with the previous owner’s agent. [Page 75 is a copy of an email from [NAME] [RESPONDENT] to [NAME] ([NAME]) dated 24 July 2017 in which he refers to water consumption, reconciliation of the sewerage charges against advance payments and outstanding ground works.] 50. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] also described the Applicant writing to [NAME] inviting them to settle the pitch fee review, which letter also implied that [NAME] would make an application for an award of costs if they failed to settle, as a threat. A copy of a letter undated and redacted, as to the

9 name of the recipient, had been emailed to the Tribunal by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] on 4 February 2019. It came from the accounts department of [NAME] but the address for correspondence was [NAME] ([COMPANY]) [APPELLANT] in West Thurrock. The registered office for the Applicant was shown in the footer to the letter as Harrow in Middlesex. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] referred to the threat as “coercive control”. [A copy of similar letter is at page 52 & 53 of the bundle]. 51. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated that notwithstanding the starting point for a review of the pitch fee is the change in RPI since the date when the pitch fee could last have been reviewed, other factors than those referred to within the Act, can influence the Tribunal when determining the review. 52. [NAME] [NAME] said the Pitch Fee does not include payment for services and referred the Tribunal to paragraph 29 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act; which is the interpretation clause which defines “pitch fee” as “the amount which [NAME] is required by the agreement to pay the owner for the right to station the mobile home on the pitch and for the use of the common areas of the protected [NAME] and their maintenance but does not include amounts due in respect of gas electricity water and sewerage or other services unless the agreement expressly provides that the pitch fee includes such amounts” [Tribunal’s emphasis]. 53. [NAME] [NAME] maintained that no evidence of any reduction in amenity since the last pitch fee review had been provided by the Applicant. He said that any works undertaken in December of 2018 could not have been done in anticipation of the current hearing. The Tribunal can only take account of the condition of the [NAME] on the day it inspects. 54. [NAME] [NAME] said that Cornwall Council has not issued notices to the owner regarding the sewerage system and that the problems with the sewerage system do not impact on the amenity of the [NAME]. He referred to the [RESPONDENT] [NAME] and distributed copies of the [NAME] to the Respondent and the Tribunal. In that [NAME] [NAME] QC, Deputy President of the Upper Tribunal, had stated that the presumed increase should only be displaced by “weighty issues”. He also referred to the decision in [NAME]. 55. [NAME] [NAME] said that if improvements are carried out following an appropriate consultation, these could be translated into pitch fee increases. He said no evidence had been provided which demonstrated a reduction in the amenity of the [NAME]. General maintenance has been carried out.

56. Some of the Respondents made statements which are summarised below:- a. [NAME], (No 75), said that he had received a letter giving notice of the 3.4% increase and then a letter from the Applicant threatening a costs application if he did not agree. He is unhappy with the procedure.

10 b. [NAME], (No 42), said that she has lived on the [NAME] for ten years. She considers herself to be a “vulnerable old lady” who is “up against” a vast [NAME]; she referred to it as a “wheeze to make money”. The majority of the [NAME] don’t want to encounter troublemakers. Threats have been made against [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. The reason she won’t pay the increase is that [NAME] are letting down the [NAME]. [She came across as genuinely feeling threatened by the letters received from [NAME].] c. [NAME], (No 43), has lived on the [NAME] for 22 years. He said that there had been various changes in ownership. [NAME] took over in 2008 when the [NAME] was “OK”. The [COMPANY] was formed in 2010. It has always been a Qualifying Association. No regular maintenance was carried out by [NAME]; they had no dedicated workforce but used “random” contractors from time to time. [NAME] always supported [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. Maintenance was never good. He believes that the cost of this maintenance is included in the Pitch Fee. [NAME] employed [NAME] whose workers were engaged for one day a fortnight. One of the [NAME] cut most of the grass. Tree surgery was carried out on 21 December 2018. There has been very little regular [NAME] maintenance for years. The [NAME] have always undertaken it themselves. They are not coerced into doing this. d. [NAME], (No 70), has lived on the [NAME] since 2007. When [NAME] took over it went “downhill”. The sewerage system needs regular checks which have not recently been undertaken; the [NAME] have themselves tried to deal with subsidence. [NAME] were not good. The [COMPANY] do everything legally and those Respondents represented by him are 100% behind [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. e. [NAME], (No 78), moved on to the [NAME] during the summer of 2012. Her reasons for not agreeing to the increase are broken promises relating to the slippage which has worsened over the years. This is impacting on her pitch and garden and she is fearful of the consequences if the ground collapses. The [NAME] is not kept in good order. [NAME] [NAME] cuts verges and grass. He gives a great deal of his own time to assist with improvements in the [NAME]. The Trees need attention . The meter sheds are in very poor condition. The main box is rotting. It has never been repaired or improved. [NAME] are concerned about the loss of amenity areas and the [NAME] reputation combined with a fear of change. f. [NAME] and [NAME], (No 71), have lived on the [NAME] for 12 years. Their home is above the slippage. They fenced their pitch. They had been told that [NAME] [NAME] was obtaining estimates for remedial work but the [NAME] has been sold. g. [NAME], (No 32), has lived in the [NAME] for 30 years. She said that the changes are “horrendous”. The maintenance of the

11 [NAME] is very important; it is the major issue. There are other lesser niggles. She considers that the [NAME] letters are threatening. [NAME] are being bullied and feel neglected. 57. [NAME] wanted to speak. She explained that she was not a [NAME] but from the [NAME] Home Owners Justice Campaign. [NAME] objected so she was not heard. 58. [NAME] spoke explaining that he is [NAME] on the [NAME], but not a Respondent. He said he was the [NAME] manager having taken over in 2017. He checks the [NAME] daily. At the beginning of 2018, following a meeting with [NAME], it was agreed a replacement was needed. The Environment Agency had investigated sludge discharging downstream by putting dye into the system but it came out well beyond the fence which indicated that the discharge in the stream had not come from the [NAME]. He said the plant is unpleasant and has been vandalised. Cleaning it is difficult. He was annoyed when the sale was announced. [NAME] had misled him. He is aware that surveys and preparatory work had been undertaken by [NAME] which he understood to have been in anticipation of the replacement of the [NAME]. He believes that [NAME] did not know that the system was defective when it bought the [NAME]. Their area manager has recently visited the [NAME] and pump engineers are scheduled to visit. He considers that two new holding tanks are needed. The two existing tanks both leak into the filtration bed.

59. He produced the newsletters during [NAME] ownership. He was assisted by friends. He was harassed by some [NAME] when carrying out maintenance work. He has removed trees and replanted hedges and trees. He cannot work during July because it would disturb nesting birds. He wants improvements to the [NAME] to be made. A quotation was obtained by [NAME] for the repair to the subsiding bank. It will cost between 10 – 25 thousand pounds. He does not believe that [NAME] has seen the quotation. The electric houses will be repaired eventually. [NAME] did not undertake a property survey.

60. In response to a comment from [NAME] who questioned if [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] was the “[NAME] Manager” [NAME] [NAME] said he did not want to give him a “title” because on [NAME] mangers get abused. He referred to [NAME] [NAME] as an unpaid armchair manager who looks after the Applicant’s interests. He does what is asked of him. His letters are received with hostility and some [NAME] will not converse with him. It is a difficult [NAME] which has been neglected for years. He said [NAME] is not comparable to [NAME]. He supports [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] who relays information to him. He is very concerned by the way some [NAME] treat him. [NAME] should speak directly to him. He said he wanted to make improvements to the [NAME] 61. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said that some of what has been said is untrue. The [COMPANY] was properly constituted in 2010 and he is Chair. He is well supported by the [NAME] and has advised [NAME] on this [NAME] and on others, without charging them. The Association holds regular meetings, [NAME] participate in considered discussions and examine

12 all options. No contrary evidence has been put forward. His aim is to protect the [NAME]. He works across a number of parks and the problems this [NAME] has with the [NAME] is common. 62. [NAME] [NAME] reminded the Tribunal that:- a. The Respondents are unhappy but they have not made submissions which are sufficient to displace the presumed increased in pitch fee which is in accordance with the mechanism set out in the Act. b. General malaise is not a legal reason to depart from the presumption of a RPI increase. No evidence has been supplied of a reduction in the amenity of the [NAME].

63. Whilst he accepted that the condition of the [NAME] is poor, it is the same as it has been in previous years and has not deteriorated. It was open to the Respondents to make the Tribunal application but none did. He referred again to the [NAME] in which the Judge stated that “weighty matters” had to exist to displace the presumption of a RPI increase in the pitch fee. 64. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said the Applicant’s only justification for the increase is the statutory presumption. Account should be taken of other factors. In his written statement he suggested that it would be appropriate to infer guidance from the Landlord and Tenant Act definition of reasonableness applicable to determining if service charges payable to a landlord are in respect of reasonable costs. [He had referred to section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985]. He did not explain why it would be possible to apply that interpretation to the wording within the Act but just suggested that it was a factor to which the First Tier Tribunal might take account. He also said that although payment of the pitch fee is a contractual obligation it is not an absolute requirement to pay. If the [NAME] has omitted to comply with his obligations [NAME] must be entitled to break the contract and pay less on account of that breach or non-compliance. He referred to the contractual right of “set off”, suggesting that the [NAME] were entitled to set off breaches by the [NAME] against payment of their pitch fees and that the Tribunal should consider awarding them compensation. Cleaning the [NAME] and tidying it up would not compensate for failings in maintenance which existed since 2010. The failing [NAME] is the most fundamental issue.

65. He also referred to the [NAME] of [NAME] v. [NAME] but provided an incorrect reference to the [NAME] and no copy.

66. He also mentioned the [NAME] schedule of charges, set out in a letter at page 42 of the bundle which he said could add 2% to the Pitch Fee. He was referring to the charge of £2.50 for a cheque payment. He suggested that a [NAME] could pay 16 separate charges if they paid monthly pitch fees and quarterly service charges by cheque.

67. Mrs [NAME], (No 62), was not present at the Hearing. She has not provided a written statement of her [NAME] and the Tribunal has received no evidence from her as to why she did not agree to the pitch fee review.

13 The Law 68. The relevant legislation pertinent to this application is reproduced in Schedule 2. The definition of pitch fee in paragraph 27 of Chapter 2 of the Schedule to the Act has been reproduced in paragraph 52 above.

69. Both parties referred to [NAME] law but only [NAME] [NAME] provided the tribunal with a copy of [COMPANY] v Kenyon and others [2017] UKUT 28 (LC), (the [NAME] [NAME]) Reference was also made to the [NAME] v [NAME] and another [2016] UKUT 144 (LC) (the [NAME]) and the [NAME] of [NAME] v [NAME] [2017] UKUT 24 (LC) ([NAME]).

70. It is worth noting that decisions in the [NAME] and [NAME], although made by different judges, were made at very similar times and each judge was able to read the others preliminary judgement prior to issuing their own judgement.

71. In the [NAME] [NAME] QC, Deputy President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered what questions should be asked when implementing a pitch fee review and identified three. He explains this in paragraphs 32 and 33 of his judgement.

72. The Act states that a pitch fee will be reviewed annually as at the review date. (Paragraph 17(1)). It can only be changed with the agreement of [NAME] or if the Tribunal makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee. (Paragraph 16). [NAME] or the owner can apply to the Tribunal. The Act provides time limits. Although in this [NAME] the parties agree that the procedure set out in the Act was followed correctly and the application made by the previous owner was in accordance with the Act, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant procedure should an [NAME] wish to make an application to the Tribunal, since it impacts on the content of the Respondent’s statement of [NAME].

73. That procedure is set out in in paragraphs 17(4) and 17(5) of the Act. [NAME] may make such an application at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the review date….so in relation to these proceedings after the 29 September 2018….but no later than three months after the review date so before 2 December 2018.

74. Paragraph 20(1) states the presumption that the pitch fee will increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than the percentage change in the RPI since the last review date. During the 12 month period applicable to this review the RPI had risen by 3.4% and this is the increase which the Application seeks should be applied to the existing pitch fees to determine the new pitch fees.

75. Paragraph 18 sets out the factors to which “particular regard” must be had when determining the amount of the new pitch fee. The pertinent part of the paragraph is (1)(aa) …… “any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the [NAME] or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner since the date on which this

14 paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purpose of this sub- paragraph)”. The Tribunal can take account of improvements carried out since the date of the last review and also (ab) “….any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the [NAME], pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality those services, since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this sub- paragraph)”. [The underlining is the Tribunal emphasis].

76. The decisions in the [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] both refer to it being possible for the Tribunal to take into account other factors which are “weighty factors”. The cases, despite exploring the extent of the provisions of the Act and its limitation, also stress that the amendments to the Act were intended to bring stability and certainty to those pitch fee reviews which cannot be determined between parties by agreement. Reasons for its Decision 77. This Application was made because the Applicant seeks to increase the pitch fee by 3.4% being the applicable increase in the retail price index (RPI) since the last pitch fee review date. The Respondent disagrees and seeks a reduction of 1% in the pitch fee. The Respondents have not explained in detail why they disagree with the increase save but to suggest that there has been a deterioration in the condition of the [NAME] and a decrease in amenity. The reasons put forward in the Respondents written statements are summarised below:- a. The timing of the Application was intended to disadvantage the Respondents because the original [NAME] sold the [NAME] which interfered with the Respondents making an application; b. The condition of the [NAME] has deteriorated and/or the amenity of the [NAME] has decreased; c. The agreement to pay pitch fees is contractual and the Applicant has breached the contract by not maintaining the [NAME] properly or at all; and d. The Tribunal can take into account factors other than those set out in the Act and should do so in this [NAME].

78. The Respondents, did not make an application to the Tribunal after receiving notice of the pitch fee increase. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said that had the premises not changed hands, the Respondents would have applied for a reduction in the pitch fee. His amended statement of [NAME], [Pages 1 – 13, immediately after the divider between the Applicant’s documents and the Respondents documents, in the Bundle], states that the proposed increase is unjustified and that we seek a reduction in the prevailing fees of 1%. [Pages 1-2]. “We ask the Tribunal to note that had the premises not changed hands and the Application retained by the former ownership, we would have made a counter-application for a reduction in the same sum of 1% and we do not accept that the change in ownership makes any material difference to that position”.

79. However on the basis of the evidence before it, not disputed by [NAME] [RESPONDENT], the [NAME] was transferred to the Applicant in late December. Had the Respondents wished to challenge the review and apply to the

15 Tribunal they would have to have made an application before the [NAME] was transferred to the Applicant. For those reasons the Tribunal does not accept [NAME] [RESPONDENT]’s submissions regarding a Respondent application carry any weight. 80. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] has sought to demonstrate that there has been deterioration in the condition of the [NAME] and a reduction in the amenity on account of:- a. Neglect and a failure to maintain the condition of the [NAME] because of the [NAME] omission to carry out regular maintenance; b. Failure to keep the sewerage system working satisfactorily; and c. Failure to address subsidence in at least two identified areas of the [NAME] which have resulted in some [NAME] becoming and remaining fearful that their pitches and homes may suffer consequential damage.

81. Although, save for that provided by [NAME] [RESPONDENT], no written statements were supplied by other Respondents, oral statements made by several Respondents during the Hearing demonstrated to the Tribunal that letters sent to them by the new [NAME] upset them. Some felt threatened notwithstanding that the letters may have been in a “standard” form and were sent after the date of the Application. All agreed that the condition of the [NAME] had deteriorated over a period of years but mostly during the period it was owned by the previous owners, [NAME]. 82. [NAME], ([COMPANY]), the company appointed by [NAME] to manage the [NAME], do not appear to have carried out regular maintenance. According to [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME], who at the invitation of the Applicant, also made an oral statement at the Hearing, [NAME] misled him in relation to its promise to carry out renewal or repairs to the [NAME].

83. Copies of emails exchanged between [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and Cornwall Council in September 2018 have been included within the bundle. However these postdate the notice of increase. There is no survey of the condition of the [NAME] or indeed any material evidence as to its condition when the Act was amended and the current sections came into force. Furthermore, as admitted by the Respondent, a previous decision of the Tribunal in 2013 allowed a downward adjustment to a proposed RPI pitch fee increase in reliance upon a decrease in amenity. Regard cannot be had to those deteriorations or decreases again since all subsequent pitch fee reviews would have reflected that reduction. 84. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] did not put forward arguments attempting to distinguish between the deterioration or decreases which the previous Tribunal took into account when making the 2013 decision. The amendments to the Act came into force on 26 May 2013.

16 85. Instead he referred to the fact that the Tribunal is entitled to have regard to other factors and is not restricted from only having regard to the factors particularly set out in paragraph 18 of Chapter 2 of the Schedule to the Act.

86. In response [NAME] [NAME] referred to the [NAME], and stated that [NAME] QC Deputy President of the Upper Tribunal had referred, in that [NAME], to the fact that the presumption that a pitch fee would increase in line with RPI should only be set aside by a weighty factor. He suggested although he accepted that the [NAME] was not in a well maintained condition, that condition had not changed for many years on account of the identified neglect. Therefore no evidence of deterioration in the condition or a decrease in amenity or another weighty factor which the Tribunal should take into account had been provided which might have enabled it to depart from the presumed increase linked to the change in the RPI.

87. He also mentioned that the Respondents had made no applications themselves, nor actually responded to the notice of increase or explained why they were not prepared to agree to it.

88. In the [NAME] the Tribunal identified that the statutory framework for pitch fee review is shaped by three basic principles. a. Pitch fees may be reviewed annually; b. Pitch fees cannot be changed unless the change is agreed or unless following an application, the FTT “considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed”, and makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee; c. Unless it would be unreasonable, having regard to the factors set out in section 18(1), there is a presumption that the pitch fee will change by no more that the percentage fluctuation in RPI since the previous review date (20(A1)).

89. In that [NAME], the Tribunal made it clear that whilst the factors set out in paragraph 18 must be taken into account in every [NAME] these are not the only factors which might be relevant to a change in the pitch fee. The presumption of the change being limited to an increase or decrease in line with RPI might be displaced.

90. In the [NAME] the Tribunal stated that pitch fee review provisions give rise to at least three questions:- a. The pitch fee can only be changed if the appropriate judicial body “ considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed”. (paragraph 16(b)); b. What was the status of the factors set out in paragraph 18(1) to which “particular regard” is to be had? c. What is the relationship between paragraphs 16(b) and 18(1)? 91. What that Tribunal was exploring is, starting with the presumption of a RPI increase, how strong was it and in what circumstances should other factors displace or rebut it.

17 92. The Tribunal also considered Judge Alice Robinson’s decision in [NAME], which appeal was heard following the appeal in the [NAME] [NAME] but which decision [NAME] had already read before he issued his decision in that [NAME] in which he particularly drew attention to two of her considerations. She had said that, although the First Tier Tribunal may not alter the amount of a pitch fee unless it considered it to be reasonable to do so, the issue of reasonableness was not of itself a consideration for the Tribunal. “It is not open to the FTT simply to decide what it considers a reasonable pitch fee to be in all the circumstances. Reasonableness has to be determined in the context of the other statutory provisions”.

93. The second of Judge Alice Robinson’s considerations offered guidance in relation to the relative weight to be given to the RPI presumption when weighing it up against any other factors which could be taken into account in determining the pitch fee increase. In paragraph 50 of her decision, Judge Alice Robinson said that for the RPI presumption to be displaced the other consideration must be of considerable weight. “If it were a consideration of equal weight to RPI then, applying the presumption, the scales would tip the balance in favour of RPI. Of course it is not possible to be prescriptive as to precisely how much weight must be attached to an “other factor” before it outweighs the presumption in favour of RPI”.

94. Applying the statutory requirements and also having regard to the [NAME] law in which the Upper Tribunal has provided further helpful guidance, the Tribunal has concluded that in this [NAME]:- a. On their own admission the Respondents did not attempt to explain why they would not agree to the proposed pitch fee increase; b. Neither did any Respondent apply to the Tribunal to dispute it; c. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] has referred to the problems with the [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] expressed an opinion that it needed to be replaced. No written evidence indicating the period over which it has needed to be replaced or the timeline during which the disrepair or deterioration took place has been provided. No copy of a condition survey has been produced. Oral submissions, although without evidential status, not having been produced in accordance with any of the Tribunal [NAME] simply underlined that the condition of the [NAME] and the sewerage system have been unsatisfactory for many years and almost certainly since before the current provisions of the Act came into force in 2013; d. [NAME] [NAME] refers to estimates for rectification of the subsidence having been obtained either by [NAME] or the [NAME] but no documentation has been provided by the Respondents or disclosed by their representative [NAME] [RESPONDENT]; e. No copies of relevant correspondence with the Environment Agency documenting problems or a recent deterioration in the sewerage system have been provided, just copies of random emails, some of which postdate the last pitch fee review date; and f. Some of the evidence provided by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] was unclear in that he refers to services although the Tribunal believes he meant

18 maintenance of the [NAME] and he sought to suggest that the FTT can take into consideration “reasonableness” when considering the amount of the proposed increase in the pitch fee.

95. The Tribunal accepts that the presumption that the pitch fee should be increased in line with the increase in the RPI index over the relevant period shall apply. No evidence of factors within paragraph 18 to which it might have regard have been provided. It is satisfied that it has not received any evidence supplied by the Respondents in accordance with the multiplicity of [NAME] issued by the Tribunal which amount to “weighty matters” sufficient to displace that presumption.

96. Having considered [NAME] the Tribunal is satisfied that it contains clear guidance as to why the Tribunal cannot take into account consideration of whether the amount of the pitch fee increase is, of itself, reasonable.

97. The Tribunal orders that the Pitch Fees for the Respondents at the [NAME] be increased by 3.4% from the 1 September 2018. Any Respondent who has continued to pay the original pitch fee since that date must pay the difference to the Applicant. It is for the Applicant to apportion any part of that payment due to [NAME] in accordance with any agreement made between them when the [NAME] was sold.

98. Its order is applicable to all of the Respondents, including Mrs [NAME], although it is acknowledged that she was not represented by [NAME] [RESPONDENT].

99. It is not clear to the Tribunal if letters have been issued by the Applicant to any of the Respondents regarding arrears of pitch fees. The Tribunal confirms that no Respondent is in arrears if they have continued to pay the pitch fee due before the service of notice of increase. The difference between the current pitch fee and the reviewed pitch fee becomes payable 28 days after the decision is issued. [Paragraph 15 (11) Chapter 2 of the Schedule to the Act]. 100. Whilst not pertinent to its decision, the Tribunal has noted what [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated in relation to the schedule of charges which the Applicant will apply to certain payments and late or overdue payments. This is contained in the copy letter, produced at page 43 of the Bundle. Whilst it may be regrettable that the number of rural branches of [NAME] are diminishing, it is understandable that [NAME] may wish to streamline payment procedures and also try to minimise costs and exposure to scams. It is therefore possible that changes to the banking practices and systems, whether or not considered to be progress, might result in cheques becoming obsolete. 101. It would be appropriate for [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and the [COMPANY] to help [NAME] within the [NAME] avoid incurring costs for payments by cheque by assisting them to utilise other payment methods which will not attract charges. Judge C A Rai (Chairman)

19

Schedule 1

List of Joined Respondents

Pitch Number in [NAME] 15 [NAME] [NAME] 17 [NAME] [NAME] 21 Mrs [NAME] 23 [NAME] [NAME] 24 [NAME] [NAME] 26 [NAME] [NAME] 28 Miss [NAME] 31 [NAME] [NAME] 32 [NAME] [NAME] 33 [NAME] [NAME] 34 [NAME] [NAME] 36 [NAME] [NAME] 41 [NAME] 42 [NAME] [NAME] 43 [NAME] [NAME] 45 [NAME] [NAME] 46 [NAME] [NAME] and Miss [NAME] 49 [NAME] [NAME] 54 [NAME] 58 [NAME] 62 Mrs [NAME] 66 [NAME] [NAME] 70 [NAME] [NAME] 71 [NAME] [NAME] and Miss [NAME] 72 [NAME] [NAME] 75 [NAME] [NAME]

20 Schedule 2

Extracted paragraphs from Mobile Homes Act 1983 as amended Schedule 1 Part I Chapter 2

16 The pitch fee can only be changed in accordance with paragraph 17, either-- (a) with the agreement of [NAME], or (b) if the court [appropriate judicial body], on the application of the owner or [NAME], considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed and makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.

17 (1) The pitch fee shall be reviewed annually as at the review date. (2) At least 28 clear days before the review date the owner shall serve on [NAME] a written notice setting out his proposals in respect of the new pitch fee. [(2A) In the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England, a notice under sub-paragraph (2) which proposes an increase in the pitch fee is of no effect unless it is accompanied by a document which complies with paragraph 25A.] (3) If [NAME] agrees to the proposed new pitch fee, it shall be payable as from the review date. (4) If [NAME] does not agree to the proposed new pitch fee-- (a) the owner [or (in the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England) [NAME]] may apply to the court[appropriate judicial body] for an order under paragraph 16(b) determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (b) [NAME] shall continue to pay the current pitch fee to the owner until such time as the new pitch fee is agreed by [NAME] or an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee is made by the court [appropriate judicial body] under paragraph 16(b); and (c) the new pitch fee shall be payable as from the review date but [NAME] shall not be treated as being in arrears until the 28th day after the date on which the new pitch fee is agreed or, as the [NAME] may be, the 28th day after the date of the court [appropriate judicial body's] order determining the amount of the new pitch fee. (5) An application under sub-paragraph (4)(a) may be made at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the review date [but, in the [NAME] of an application in relation to a protected [NAME] in England, no later than three months after the review date]. (6) Sub-paragraphs (7) to (10) apply if the owner-- (a) has not served the notice required by sub-paragraph (2) by the time by which it was required to be served, but (b) at any time thereafter serves on [NAME] a written notice setting out his proposals in respect of a new pitch fee. [(6A) In the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England, a notice under sub-paragraph (6)(b) which proposes an increase in the pitch fee is of no effect unless it is accompanied by a document which complies with paragraph 25A.] (7) If (at any time) [NAME] agrees to the proposed pitch fee, it shall be payable as from the 28th day after the date on which the owner serves the notice under sub- paragraph (6)(b). (8) If [NAME] has not agreed to the proposed pitch fee--

21 (a) the owner [or (in the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England) [NAME]] may apply to the court [appropriate judicial body] for an order under paragraph 16(b) determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (b) [NAME] shall continue to pay the current pitch fee to the owner until such time as the new pitch fee is agreed by [NAME] or an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee is made by the court [appropriate judicial body] under paragraph 16(b); and (c) if the court [appropriate judicial body] makes such an order, the new pitch fee shall be payable as from the 28th day after the date on which the owner serves the notice under sub-paragraph (6)(b). (9) An application under sub-paragraph (8) may be made at any time after the end of the period of 56 days beginning with date on which the owner serves the notice under sub-paragraph (6)(b) [but, in the [NAME] of an application in relation to a protected [NAME] in England, no later than four months after the date on which the owner serves that notice]……… [(9A) A tribunal may permit an application under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (8)(a) in relation to a protected [NAME] in England to be made to it outside the time limit specified in sub-paragraph (5) (in the [NAME] of an application under sub-paragraph (4)(a)) or in sub-paragraph (9) (in the [NAME] of an application under sub-paragraph (8)(a)) if it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, there are good reasons for the failure to apply within the applicable time limit and for any delay since then in applying for permission to make the application out of time.] (10) [NAME] shall not be treated as being in arrears-- (a) where sub-paragraph (7) applies, until the 28th day after the date on which the new pitch fee is agreed; or (b) where sub-paragraph (8)(b) applies, until the 28th day after the date on which the new pitch fee is agreed or, as the [NAME] may be, the 28th day after the date of the court [appropriate judicial body's] order determining the amount of the new pitch fee. [(11) Sub-paragraph (12) applies if a tribunal, on the application of [NAME] of a pitch in England, is satisfied that-- (a) a notice under sub-paragraph (2) or (6)(b) was of no effect as a result of sub- paragraph (2A) or (6A), but (b) [NAME] nonetheless paid the owner the pitch fee proposed in the notice. (12) The tribunal may order the owner to pay [NAME], within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the order, the difference between-- (a) the amount which [NAME] was required to pay the owner for the period in question, and (b) the amount which [NAME] has paid the owner for that period.]

18 (1) When determining the amount of the new pitch fee particular regard shall be had to-- (a) any sums expended by the owner since the last review date on improvements-- (i) which are for the benefit of the [NAME] of mobile homes on the protected [NAME]; (ii) which were the subject of consultation in accordance with paragraph 22(e) and (f) below; and (iii) to which a majority of the [NAME] have not disagreed in writing or which, in the [NAME] of such

22 disagreement, the court [appropriate judicial body], on the application of the owner, has ordered should be taken into account when determining the amount of the new pitch fee; [(aa) in the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England, any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the [NAME] or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this sub-paragraph); (ab) in the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England, any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the [NAME], pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services, since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that reduction or deterioration for the purposes of this sub-paragraph);] (b) [in the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in Wales,] any decrease in the amenity of the protected [NAME] since the last review date; and [(ba) in the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England, any direct effect on the costs payable by the owner in relation to the maintenance or management of the [NAME] of an enactment which has come into force since the last review date; and] (c) [in the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in Wales,] the effect of any enactment, other than an order made under paragraph 8(2) above, which has come into force since the last review date. [(1A) But, in the [NAME] of a pitch in England, no regard shall be had, when determining the amount of the new pitch fee, to any costs incurred by the owner since the last review date for the purpose of compliance with the amendments made to this Act by the Mobile Homes Act 2013.] (2) When calculating what constitutes a majority of the [NAME] for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii) each mobile home is to be taken to have only one [NAME] and, in the event of there being more than one [NAME] of a mobile home, its [NAME] is to be taken to be [NAME] whose name first appears on the agreement. (3) In a [NAME] where the pitch fee has not been previously reviewed, references in this paragraph to the last review date are to be read as references to the date when the agreement commenced.

20 (1) There is a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the retail prices index since the last review date, unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1) above. [(A1) In the [NAME] of a protected [NAME] in England, unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1), there is a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the retail prices index calculated by reference only to-- (a) the latest index, and (b) the index published for the month which was 12 months before that to which the latest index relates.

29 In this Schedule [this Chapter]-- ……………………………; "pitch fee" means the amount which [NAME] is required by the agreement to pay to the owner for the right to station the mobile home on the pitch and for use of the common areas of the protected [NAME] and their maintenance, but does not include amounts due in respect of gas, electricity, water and sewerage or other services, unless the agreement expressly provides that the pitch fee includes such amounts;

23 Appeals

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 [NAME].

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.