First-tier Tribunal Recognises Applicant as Qualifying Residents' Association
📌 In brief
In this case, the First-tier Tribunal recognised an applicant as a a person' association for a protected mobile home a person under the Mobile Homes Act. The decision was made after considering the a person’s support and adherence to legal requirements.
⚖️ Legal holding
The tribunal orders the recognition of the applicant as a representative under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, specifically paragraph 28.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal recognized the applicant as a representative of mobile home occupiers based on the provided conditions and the acknowledgment from the respondent.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that the applicant is a qualifying residents’ association under paragraph 28 of Chapter 2 to Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, based on the site owner's written acknowledgment.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case Reference
:
HAV/00HQ/PHK/2025/0001
Property
:
[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Applicant: [redacted]
:
[COUNSEL]
Respondent: [redacted]
[COMPANY] T/A [NAME]
:
Type of Application
:
Recognition of Applicant as a [NAME]’ [APPELLANT] (Paragraph 28(1)(h) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended)
Tribunal Member
:
Regional Judge Whitney
Date of Decision
:
30 April 2026
DECISION
2
This is a formal order of the Tribunal which must be complied with by the parties.
The parties must comply with the Statement of Tribunal Rules and Procedure
Communications to the Tribunal MUST be made by email to [EMAIL]. All communications must clearly state the Case Number and address of the premises.
Background
1. By an application dated 16 November 2025 and updated on 20 April 2026, the Applicant seeks an Order that Tall Trees Home [APPELLANT] is a [NAME] [APPELLANT] as defined by paragraph 28 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
2. Directions were made by the Tribunal on 27 April 2026 identifying a single issue to be determined:
• Whether the Respondent has acknowledged the Applicant is a [NAME]’ [APPELLANT]
3. In its original application, made using an out-of-date form, the Applicant referred to correspondence with the Respondent’s previous [NAME] manager who has “moved on”. The Applicant asks the Tribunal whether or not an email from the [NAME] [NAME] manager that he supports the application will be accepted as so.
4. The Tribunal has now received an application on form PH11 (the [NAME] application form) and considered the Respondent’s email to Tribunal dated 23 April 2026 confirming their support of [COMPANY], [NAME] to the [NAME]’ application for the registration, alongside the Applicant’s email dated 28 April 2026 stating the reasoning for making the application was ‘to ensure regular interface with the [NAME] for the benefit of both the [NAME] and the [NAME].’
The Law
5. Paragraph 28 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 states as follows:
(1) A [NAME]’ [APPELLANT] is a [NAME]’ [APPELLANT] in relation to a protected [NAME] if-
a) it is an [APPELLANT] representing the occupiers of mobile homes on that [NAME]; b) at least 50 per cent of the occupiers of the mobile homes on that [NAME] are members of the [APPELLANT];
3 c) it is independent from the owner, who together with any agent or employee of his is excluded from membership; d) subject to paragraph (c) above, membership is open to all occupiers who own a mobile home on that [NAME]; e) it maintains a list of members which is open to public inspection together with the rules and constitution of the [NAME]’ [APPELLANT]; f) it has a [NAME], secretary and [NAME] who are elected by and from among the members; g) with the exception of administrative decisions taken by the [NAME], secretary and [NAME] acting in their official capacities, decisions are taken by voting and there is only one vote for each mobile home; and h) the owner has acknowledged in writing to the secretary that the [APPELLANT] is a [NAME]’ [APPELLANT], or, in default of this, the appropriate judicial body has so ordered
(2) When calculating the percentage of occupiers for the purpose of sub- paragraph (1)(b) above, each mobile home shall 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 the [NAME] whose name first appears on the agreement.
6. For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(h) above this Tribunal is an appropriate judicial body.
Decision
7. In all the circumstances, and given that the [NAME] agrees, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is a [NAME] [APPELLANT] for the purposes of paragraph 28 of Chapter 2 to Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and so Orders accordingly.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
8. 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 [EMAIL] being the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.
9. 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.
10. 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 11. 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
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Permission for Emergency Repairs Without Consultation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Urgent Repair Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Landlord Permission for Major Works Without Cons…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Retroactive Permission for Urgent Roof Maintenance
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Wins Challenge to Service Charges in First-tier Tribunal
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Wins Fire Alarm Repair Dispensation
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Fire Safety Work
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Landlord Granted Dispensation for Urgent Building Works
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Grants Dispensation for Urgent Carpet Replacement
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 respondent company confirmed its support for the applicant's registration.
- The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a residents' association.
- The owner's written acknowledgment is a valid way to establish a residents' association.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal decided that the applicant is a qualifying residents’ association.
Who was involved?
An applicant seeking recognition as a qualifying residents' association, and a site owner who acknowledged support for the application.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and concluded that the applicant met all legal requirements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Paragraph 28 of Chapter 2 to Schedule 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The site owner's written acknowledgment of the applicant as a qualifying residents' association was crucial in making this decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the applicant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone seeking recognition as a qualifying residents’ association should ensure they meet all legal requirements and obtain written acknowledgment from the site owner.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The application form, correspondence with the site owner, and the site owner's email supporting the applicant were key pieces of evidence.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) within 28 days if permission is granted.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.
