First-tier Tribunal Rejects Invalid Pitch Fee Increase Notice
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal decided that a park owner's attempt to increase pitch fees was invalid because the notice did not follow the correct format as required by law.
⚖️ Legal holding
A mobile home park owner must provide a valid notice of pitch fee increase according to the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal ruled that the pitch fee increase was invalid due to improper notice format.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that the pitch fee increase notice served by the park owner was invalid because it did not comply with the required format under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
📚 Full judgment Official document
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00EQ/PHI/2019/0002 Property : [NAME], [NAME], CHURCH MINSHULL, CHESHIRE [POSTCODE]
Applicant : [redacted] Respondents : [redacted] attached list
Type of Application : DETERMINATION OF PITCH FEE Mobile Homes Act 1983 Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 2, Para 16
Tribunal Members : [NAME] M [NAME], LLB
P Mountain, FRICS
Date of Decision : 17 June 2019
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
The pitch fee payable by each of the Respondents shall not be increased pursuant to the Applicant’s notice of increase dated 14 November 2018.
REASONS BACKGROUND 1. [NAME] is a protected site containing upwards of 60 park homes occupied by residents over 50 years of age. It is owned by the Applicant.
2. On 14 November 2018 the Applicant served notices on the Respondents seeking to increase their pitch fees by reference to the percentage RPI increase in the year to October 2018. The Applicant’s statement that the relevant percentage is 3.3% has not been disputed by the Respondents.
3. The Respondents refused to pay the increased pitch fee, and on 7 February 2019 the Applicant applied to this tribunal for determination of the pitch fee for the current year.
THE LAW 4. Each Respondent is party to an agreement with the Applicant, into which are incorporated the Implied Terms set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
5. Paragraph 17 of the Implied Terms contains the following provisions: “(2) At least 28 clear days before the review date the owner shall serve on the occupier a written notice setting out his proposals in respect of the new pitch fee. (2A) In the case of a protected site in England, a notice under subparagraph (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.”
6. Paragraph 25A of the Implied Terms states “(1) The document referred to in paragraph 17 (2A)… must – (a) be in such form as the Secretary of State may be regulations prescribe, (b) specify any percentage increase or decrease in the retail prices index calculated in accordance with paragraph 20 (A1), (c) explain the effect of paragraph 17, (d) specify the matters to which the amount proposed for the new pitch fee is attributable, (e) refer to the occupier’s obligations in paragraph 21(as) to € and the owner’s obligations in paragraph 22 © and (d), and (f) refer to the owner’s obligations in paragraphs 22 € and (f) ( as glossed by paragraphs 24 and 25).”
THE APPLICATION 7. The parties did not request an inspection or a hearing, and the application was determined on the basis of documents supplied by the parties.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
8. Each of the Respondents provided the tribunal with a statement setting out his or her reasons for not agreeing to the increase in pitch fee. Many of these related to the arrangements for collecting payments for water, sewerage services, gas and electricity, all of which are payable in addition to the pitch fee and are therefore not relevant to the current application.
9. The Applicant provided the tribunal with a blank copy of the Written Statement it uses as the basis of its agreements with the owners of park homes on the site. It was not apparent from this document on what date the new pitch fees take effect in each year.
10. The Applicant also provided a copy of the letter it had sent to each Respondent on 14 November 2018, which reads:
“Dear Resident, The RPI for October 2018 is 3.3%. Therefore from the 1st January, 2019 your site fee will increase from £[ ] to £[ ] a month.”
The amount of the current and new pitch fees varies from pitch to pitch.
CONCLUSION 11. The Applicant has not served the Respondents with a notice of proposed increase of pitch fee in the form required by paragraphs 17 and 25 of the Implied Terms. Therefore the pitch fees payable in 2018 are not increased in 2019.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
LIST OF RESPONDENTS
Pitch number
Mr and Mrs [NAME]
1 [NAME]
4 [NAME]
5 Mrs [NAME]
12 Mrs [NAME]
25 Mr and Mrs [NAME]
27 Mr and Mrs [NAME]
29 Mr and Mrs [NAME]
36 Mrs [NAME]
52 Mrs [NAME]
54 [NAME]
56 Mr and Mrs [NAME]
59 Mrs [NAME]
60 Mrs [NAME]
62 Mr [NAME]
63
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Park Home Pitch Fee Based on CPI Increase
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Increase in Pitch Fees for Two Park Homes
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Reduces Pitch Fees for Park Homes
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Declares Invalid Pitch Fee Increases
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Sets New Pitch Fee for Mobile Home Based on RPI Increas…
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rejects Pitch Fee Increase for Mobile Home Park
- Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Upper Tribunal Dismisses Pitch Fee Increase Appeal
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 park owner's notice of pitch fee increase was ineffective because it did not include a required document.
- The park owner failed to provide the notice of proposed increase in the correct form as required by the implied terms.
- The pitch fees for 2018 will not be increased for 2019 because the proper notice was not given.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The residents' arguments about water, sewerage, gas, and electricity payments were not relevant to the pitch fee application.
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 pitch fee increase notice was invalid because it did not follow the proper format.
Who was involved?
The case involved a park owner and several tenants at a protected site.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the notice was invalid because it did not comply with the requirements set out in the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Mobile Homes Act 1983, specifically the requirements for notices of pitch fee increases.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the notice followed the correct format as required by law.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the park owner.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any notice of pitch fee increase follows the correct format as required by law.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the notice of pitch fee increase and the relevant sections of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can typically be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is always recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal disputes.
