VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Orders Park Owner to Provide Detailed Electricity Charge Breakdowns

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a park owner must provide detailed breakdowns of electricity charges to residents upon request, ensuring transparency and compliance with the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

⚖️ Legal holding

A park owner must provide free of charge documentary evidence explaining charges for electricity and other services upon request.

Topics

tenancy disputeselectricity charges

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.22(b)

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ruled that the park owner must provide detailed breakdowns of electricity charges to residents.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ruled that the park owner must provide detailed breakdowns of electricity charges to residents upon request, ensuring transparency and compliance with the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00FB/PHC/2023/0013

Property : 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12 and [ADDRESS], Leven, Beverley

Applicants : [redacted] members – see schedule

Respondent: [redacted] : Section 4, MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME]

Tribunal Member [NAME] of Decision : 8 April 2024

DECISION

1. Until the Respondent has complied in full with paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Decision, no electricity charges shall be payable by the Applicants.

2. The Respondent shall provide each of the Applicants with a breakdown of the demands s/he has received since 4 May 2023 (1) for the cost of electricity consumed on his or her pitch, the breakdown to include the number of units consumed on the pitch, the price per unit and the VAT applied; (2) (if applicable) for his or her share of the cost of electricity consumed in the common parts of [ADDRESS]; (3) (if applicable) for his or her share of the standing charge; and

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

(4) for any Respondent’s administration costs related to the supply of electricity.

3. The Respondent shall provide the Applicants with copies of all electricity invoices received since 4 May 2023 in respect of [ADDRESS], limited to those invoices that include the cost of electricity which the Respondent re-sells to the Applicants. The invoices supplied shall be accompanied by an explanation of the area(s) of the Park in which the electricity was consumed.

4. The Respondent shall provide each of the Applicants with a statement of account in respect of electricity charges showing sums due and sums paid since 4 May 2023, and shall either invoice each Applicant in respect of any underpayment or credit the Applicant’s account in respect of any overpayment.

5. The Respondent shall provide the Applicants with free access at all times to view the readings on their sub-meters.

6. On each future occasion when payment for electricity is claimed from the Applicants, no payment shall become due until the Respondent has provided the Applicants with a breakdown of the claim as described at paragraph 2 above.

7. The Respondent shall give not less than 28 days’ notice to the Applicants of any alteration in the unit price of electricity which the Respondent proposes to pass on to the Applicants.

8. The Respondent shall within 28 days reimburse the £100 application fee paid by the Applicants to the Tribunal office.

REASONS

1. The Applicants are members of the [COMPANY], and own mobile homes sited on the Respondent’s park near Beverley (“the Park”). The Applicants pay pitch fees and, in addition, pay the Respondent for electricity, gas and water supplied to their pitches. The information has not been supplied to the Tribunal but the Applicants may also pay a contribution towards the cost of services supplied to the communal areas of the Park.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

2. The charge for electricity having increased, the Applicants asked the Respondent to produce its electricity invoices, to enable them to check that the requirements set out in OFGEM’s “The resale of gas and electricity: Guidance for Resellers” were being complied with. The Respondent failed to produce the documents and on 11 August 2023 the Applicants applied to this Tribunal for assistance.

THE LAW 3. Section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Act”) enables the Tribunal to determine any question arising under the Act or under any agreement to which the Act applies.

4. Section 22(b)(ii) of the Act provides that a park owner shall, if requested, provide free of charge documentary evidence in support and explanation of any charges for electricity and other services payable by the occupier of a pitch on his park. Subsection 22(b)(iii) adds that the same evidence must be provided, on request, in relation to any other charges, costs or expenses payable by the occupier.

5. OFGEM is appointed to set the maximum resale price that may be charged for resupplying electricity that has already been bought from an authorised supplier. From 1st January 2003 the maximum resale price is the same price as that paid by the reseller, including any standing charges. Except where the purchaser is buying in the course of his business, the VAT rate to be applied is 5%, even where a higher rate has been paid by the reseller.

THE APPLICATION 6. The Applicants do not necessarily object to the amount they have paid for electricity, but do want the amount to be justified by the Respondent. They have not provided the Tribunal with any figures for electricity charges paid to date, nor with the date of the price increase which may or may not have been the trigger for their application.

7. The Applicants have not informed the Tribunal whether they pay only for electricity consumed on their respective pitches, or whether they also contribute (outside the pitch fee) to the cost of electricity consumed in the common areas of the Park. Further, the Tribunal has no information as to when (if ever) the electricity charges were last explained to the residents. The Applicants merely say, in an undated and unsigned

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

statement received by the Tribunal in December 2023 “Over the last 2 years Members have approached the owners on various occasions both in person and on the phone to obtain a copy of the original [electricity] contract from the owner’s supplier.”

8. The Applicants say that the electrical sub-meters have, since 11 August 2023, been “cut off from us and padlocked, meaning that we have no way of reading and checking the meters at all”. Finally, they say that they were given no notice of the last increase in the price of electricity, being informed of it only 5 days after the increase took effect.

THE RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE 9. The Respondent does not challenge any of the Applicants’ statements. It did not supply a statement with supporting documents or otherwise comply with the Tribunal’s Directions. However in March 2024 Mr [RESPONDENT] of the Respondent sent to the Tribunal office (a) an [NAME] letter confirming the terms of an electricity contract with the Respondent and (b) an invoice for the period 5 February 2024 to 3 March 2024 in the sum of £1478.99 plus VAT. It is unclear whether, as required by the Tribunal, these documents were copied to the Applicants at the same time.

10. The Respondent’s electricity contract began on 4 May 2023 and is for a fixed term of 36 months at a fixed unit price. There is no indication as to whether the start of this contract was the occasion of the electricity price increase referred to by the Applicants. The invoice supplied by the Respondent does not indicate whether the electricity charged for was consumed in the whole or any particular part of the Park.

FINDINGS 11. The Respondent is in breach of its obligations to the Applicants as set out at section 22(b) of the Act.

12. It is reasonable to require the Respondent to provide a copy of its breakdown of charges with each request for payment, and to give notice to the Applicants prior to applying any increase in its charges for electricity. It is also reasonable to allow the Applicants access to view the readings on their sub-meters.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

13. The Respondent is obliged to provide a breakdown of electricity charges free of charge on request. Consequently the application fee paid by the Applicants is to be reimbursed by the Respondent.

📊 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 increase reflects the high rate of inflation.
  • The pitch fee increase is based on the actual state of the park, considering improvements and deterioration.
  • The park owner is entitled to adjust pitch fees based on CPI and site conditions.
  • The occupier must comply with the current Park Rules.
  • The park owner must provide requested documentation to the claimant.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ruled that the park owner must provide detailed breakdowns of electricity charges to residents upon request.

Who was involved?

The case involved residents of a mobile home park and the park owner.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the residents because the park owner failed to provide necessary documentation regarding electricity charges.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 was applied, specifically section 22(b) which requires park owners to provide documentary evidence explaining charges for electricity and other services upon request.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the residents' right to receive transparent and detailed information about the charges they are paying.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the residents.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should request detailed breakdowns of charges from their park owner to ensure transparency and compliance with the law.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered included the residents' requests for documentation and the park owner's failure to provide such documentation.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal disputes over charges and services.

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.