First-tier Tribunal Rules on Minor Breach of Park Rules

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/22UN/PHC/2023/0013 Site : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Park Home address : [ADDRESS] : [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) Limited Representative : [COUNSEL] [RESPONDENT] Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the “Act”) Section 4 – to determine any question arising under the Act or an agreement to which it applies Tribunal members :

[NAME] - [NAME] of decision : 23 January 2025

DECISION Description of hearing This was a face-to-face hearing. The documents we were referred to are those described in paragraph 2 below. We have noted the contents. Procedural history 1. The Applicant owners of [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (the site owner) applied to the tribunal under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (the “Act”) to determine that there had been a breach of the Agreement and the Park Rules by Ms

2 [NAME] (the park home owner) and that they have failed to remedy the breach within a reasonable time of the notice of breach being served upon them.

2. On 16 September 2024, the judge gave case management directions. These provided for the Applicant to produce a bundle of case documents in support of the [NAME]. The Applicant produced a hard copy bundle of 101 pages. The directions then required the Respondent to produce their bundle, with copies of the original [NAME] documents and any further case documents. Nothing was received from the respondent.

3. The hearing on 16 December 2024 followed an inspection that morning. Mr [COUNSEL] (counsel) and Mr [COUNSEL], the original company owner and now a consultant for [NAME] ([APPELLANT], attended for the Applicant, who is the site owner. The Respondent was not at home when the tribunal inspected but had left a note in the window which said, ‘Back at 4.30pm’ and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal were satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the proceedings.

Background 4. The Applicant acquired the park in February 2020 from the previous owner, [COMPANY]. They in turn had bought it from the original owner, [COMPANY] (formerly known as [RESPONDENT])

5. The Respondent is the owner of the park home [ADDRESS] at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] a protected site within the meaning of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (‘the Act’).

6. The Respondent’s right to station their park homes on the pitch is governed by the terms of a written statement (i.e. an agreement) and the implied terms of the Act. The relevant pitch agreement (the agreement) commenced on 19 December 2013 and was made between Ms [NAME] and [NAME] ([COMPANY]) [COMPANY]. Law 7. The Act applies to any agreement under which a person is entitled to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site and to occupy that mobile home as their only or main residence. By Chapter 1 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Act, “pitch” in Part I means: “…the land, forming part of a protected site and including any garden area, on which an occupier is entitled to station a mobile home under the terms of the agreement”.

8. Chapter 2 of Part I sets out the terms (the “Implied Terms”) which are implied by the Act into the relevant agreement(s). By paragraph 1 of the

3 Implied Terms, subject to the specific limitations in paragraph 2, the right to station the mobile home on land forming part of the protected site shall subsist until the agreement is determined under specified paragraphs (termination by the occupier on notice, or termination by the owner if, in essence, one of the specified conditions is made out and the appropriate judicial body considers termination reasonable).

9. By paragraph 11 of the Implied Terms, subject to specific provisions in paragraphs 10 and 12-14 (temporary re-siting with a determination from the appropriate judicial body, and entry in accordance with the specified requirements), the occupier shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the mobile home together with the pitch during the continuance of the agreement.

10. By paragraph 21(d)(ii), the occupier shall maintain the pitch, including all fences and outbuildings belonging to or enjoyed with it and the mobile home, in a clean and tidy condition. By paragraph 22(d), the site owner shall maintain in a clean and tidy condition those parts of the protected site, including access ways, site boundary fences and trees, which are not the responsibility of any occupier of a mobile home stationed on the protected site.

11. In short, the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any question arising under the 1983 Act or any agreement to which it applies and to entertain any proceedings brought under the Act or any such agreement.

12. In addition, the powers of the tribunal are enhanced by provisions introduced into the Housing Act 2004 by the Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Mobile Homes Act 2013 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2014. So far as is relevant section 231A of the Housing Act 2004 states: 4.— Jurisdiction of a tribunal or the court (1) In relation to a protected site, a tribunal has jurisdiction— (a) to determine any question arising under this Act or any agreement to which it applies; and (b) to entertain any proceedings brought under this Act or any such agreement, subject to subsections (2) to (6). (2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to a question irrespective of anything contained in an arbitration agreement which has been entered into before that question arose. (3) In relation to a protected site, the court has jurisdiction— (a) to determine any question arising by virtue of paragraph 4, 5 or 5A(2)(b) of Chapter 2, or paragraph 4, 5 or 6(1)(b) of Chapter 4, of Part 1 of Schedule 1 (termination by owner) under this Act or any agreement to which it applies; and (b) to entertain any proceedings so arising brought under this Act or any such agreement, subject to subsections (4) to (6). (4) Subsection (5) applies if the owner and occupier have entered into an

4 arbitration agreement before the question mentioned in subsection (3)(a) arises and the agreement applies to that question. (5) A tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the question and entertain any proceedings arising instead of the court. (6) Subsection (5) applies irrespective of anything contained in the arbitration agreement mentioned in subsection (4).

Inspection 13. The tribunal inspected the site on the morning of the hearing. They were accompanied by Mr [APPELLANT] and Mr [APPELLANT] for the Applicant. The park home owner was not present – as indicated in paragraph 3 above.

14. The subject property is located to the top right of the park. It is attached to pitch 117 by a pair of concrete sheds with wooden doors which remain the property of the site owner but are occupied by the respective park home owners.

15. The home is painted in a pastel yellow. There are some areas where the shading differs where it appears to have been overpainted. There was little obvious evidence of areas still painted black although there was some evidence that this had been overpainted white. The plastic skirt around the mobile home had been subject to repair in parts and there was evidence of smaller pieces of plastic sheeting inserted behind the skirt in some places to the front of the mobile home.

16. The door to the shed had been roughly repaired with what appeared to be filler to the bottom right-hand corner and the adjacent gas pipe painted white. There was evidence that ventilation gaps in the grille in the brickwork perimeter had been filled – presumably to reduce draughts. The Applicant’s case.

17. The Applicant says that the Respondent has express obligations under the Agreement and the current version of the Park Rules. Namely Clause 3 (h) – You must not without the prior written consent of the site owner (which must not unreasonably be withheld) carry out any of the following: (i) Building works to the mobile home or the base or the pitch except any repairs or maintenance carried out by you in accordance with clauses 2(c) and/or 21(d) of the Implied Terms. Clause 3 (k) - You must comply with the park rules. A copy of the current park rules is attached to this Written Statement. Clause 3(l) - You must not do, or allow to be done, anything which may: -

5 (ii) cause damage to any property belonging to the site owner or anyone else Park Rules 2 – Occupiers will maintain the plot allocated in a tidy condition free from litter and refuse. The underneath of each Home is to be kept absolutely clear and not used as a storage space ... Park Rule 30 - Homeowners must maintain the outside of their park homes in a clean and tidy condition. Where the exterior is repainted or recovered homeowners must use reasonable endeavours not to depart from the original exterior pastel shades colour-scheme. Park Rule 35 – No occupier shall do or permit to be done anywhere on the Park any act or action which may be or become a nuisance, damage, annoyance or inconvenience to the Company of the neighbours of Occupiers of any other Home on the Park ...

18. The Applicant said that on or around 4 January 2021 the Respondent had painted parts of the exterior of the home in black paint. They had also painted parts of the brickwork perimeter including the hatch access cover and the hardstanding base of the mobile home. They had sealed the ventilation gaps by the access steps to the home, all of which were the property of the Applicant and were damaged by these actions. They were also concerned that the wrong type of paint had been used to paint the exterior of the home which could cause damage to the structure of the walls as it may lift.

19. The following month they had painted the incoming gas supply pipe, including the ECV valve and the meter box – which were the property of [NAME]. They had also painted the brickwork edges to the door of the home. All of which the Applicant said damaged the property of the site owner and of [NAME].

20. The hatch access cover was repainted white in January 2022 and in July 2022 the Respondent attempted to remove a section of the brickwork perimeter. This was subsequently cleansed or repainted white. In August 2022 the Respondent tried to remove the sealant in the ventilation gap but was unable to do so.

21. The same month the Applicant notified the Respondent that the skirting boards to the exterior of the home were deteriorating and needed replacing.

22. The Applicant wrote 8 letters to the Respondent between 4 January 2021 and March 2023 asking her to undertake remedial work which she failed to adequately respond to. They had warned the Respondent on 3 March 2023 that they felt they had no alternative but to issue a Breach of Agreement Notice.

23. On 4 March 2023 the Respondent had replied to say that she had repaired the rear fascia (skirting) but the front board had not been secured.

6 24. On 24 March 2023 the Applicant served the Respondent with Notice of Breach of Agreement. The notice required the Respondent to undertake remedial work to her home, namely: a. to remove extraneous material from the skirting boards (drip rails) b. to renew the skirting boards (drip rails) where necessary. c. to remove extraneous material sealing the ventilation gaps. d. to redecorate the exterior of the mobile home advising the Applicant of her colour choice, and to use her best endeavours not to depart from the original pastel shades. e. to repair or otherwise replace the stores building door.

23. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent’s failure to carry out works would cause further deterioration of the mobile home and property owned by the Applicant. They believed that the failure to maintain the drip rails may result in the bricks to the brickwork perimeter spalling – whilst there was no sign of this presently it could happen and may be worse on the reverse side of the perimeter.

24. The Respondent had failed to carry out the works and in response to a letter from the Applicant’s solicitor of 29 November 2023 she wrote stating that ‘she had done my upmost to keep up with the presentation of the property’ and suggesting that they had mistaken her property for another property.

25. The Applicant had obtained evidence from an independent professional, Mr [NAME] in the form of an Inspection Report dated 3 May 2023. A copy of the report was included in the bundle which in summary said that ‘In my professional opinion the external condition of the unit would constitute a breach of the park rules under section 30’ 26. The Applicant was seeking a declaration of breaches of express clauses (3)(h)(i), (3)(l)(ii) & (3)(k), relating to breach of Park Rules 2, 30 & 35. Thereafter, consequent upon that, an order that the Respondent carries out the remedial actions, together with a caution that unless the Respondent does so, the Applicant is entitled to apply to the court for termination of her agreement. The Respondent’s case. 27. [ADDRESS] owner did not respond to the directions nor were they present at the inspection or the hearing.

28. There are three letters from the Respondent included in the Applicant’s bundle which do not really add anything to the Respondent’s case beyond saying in May 2023 that she ‘was informing them that the rear facial lower board was done by self. Front fascia got done but have to secure. Outside snow forecast for week ahead.

7 29. On 30 November 2023 she wrote and said that she had ‘done my upmost to keep up with the presentation of property... Visibly by site office they can see outside has been maintained so can't understand any further paperwork to myself perhaps with 200 static homes on site one is mistaking my property for someone else’s.

30. In November 2024 she said she was annoyed that the Respondent had continued to pass judgment on the work she was doing on the property. She had used Valspar paint on the exterior, she felt the photographs that were enclosed with the breach notice were of another site. She said the unit was manufactured in about 1980. One of the lower fascia boards had been replaced and work near the steps had been done properly now and work had been done to the door of the store cupboard. Discussion and Determination 31. The Tribunal was referred to an inspection report by Mr [APPELLANT] of [COMPANY]. The Applicant referred to Mr [APPELLANT] as a ‘independent professional’ but when questioned by the Tribunal they were unable to explain his expertise beyond that he worked for insurance companies, nor to explain how he was independent. Based on this and in the absence of Mr [NAME], the Tribunal has attached limited weight to his report.

32. The Tribunal inspected the site on the morning of the hearing and noted that there were other mobile homes in a not dissimilar state to the subject property. In terms of paintwork there were others where the wall colour was not uniform and a number of other homes which had the older type of plastic skirting (drip rail) – rather than the timber- based drip rail favoured by the Applicant.

33. In relation to the list of breaches, and remedies pursued by the Applicant, namely :

• i) to remove extraneous material from the skirting boards (drip rails);

• ii)to renew the skirting boards (drip rails) where necessary.

• iii) to remove extraneous material sealing the ventilation gaps.

iv) to redecorate the exterior of the mobile home advising the Applicant of her colour choice, and to use her best endeavours not to depart from the original pastel shades.

• v) to repair or otherwise replace the stores building door.

The Tribunal is not persuaded that the Respondent is in breach of the express clauses (3)(h)(i), (3)(l)(ii) & (3)(k), relating to breach of Park Rules 2, 30 & 35 in respect of item iv) – whilst the paintwork of the home is not uniform, it is of a pastel colour and there is no requirement in the express obligations or the park rules as to the make or type of paint .

8 34. It does not find that the Respondent is in breach of the express clauses (3)(h)(i), (3)(l)(ii) or Park Rule 35 in respect of any of the alleged breaches.

35. It finds that the Respondent is in breach of the express clause (3)(k), relating to breach of Park Rules 2 & 30 in respect of items i) ii) iii) and v). However, the breaches are minor.

36. The Tribunal has the power, pursuant to s231A (4) (c) of the Housing Act 2004 to give directions requiring cleaning, repairs and other works to be carried out. Given that the Applicant’s aim is to remedy the breaches it is the Tribunal’s intention to make such Directions.

37. The Tribunal therefore directs that the Respondent will, within 12 weeks of this decision, taking into account the likely delays due to adverse winter weather: i) Remove the material inserted into the drip rails and make good the drip rails where they require repair ii) Remove the material blocking the ventilation gaps iii) Repair the door to the stores to a good standard so that there are no gaps, it is serviceable and of good appearance 38. The Respondent should be aware that failure to do so could result in the Applicant taking action in the County Court. Refund of fees and costs 39. The Tribunal was concerned to note that the Applicant had submitted to the Tribunal, copied to the Respondent, a statement of costs dated 10 December 2024 amounting to £8,928.

40. However, when asked at the hearing what submissions the Applicant wished to make on costs, and if so on what basis, Counsel for the Applicant stated that they did not wish to make any such [NAME].

41. The Tribunal takes a dim view of represented parties pursuing such actions, which are likely to intimidate a litigant in person and made their view very clear at the hearing.

42. The Tribunal makes no order for costs. Name: [NAME]: 23 January 2025

9

Annex 1 Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).