First-tier Tribunal Rules on Park Home Owner Charges

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/34UD/PHC/2019/0003 [NAME]

[NAME] Home address

: [NAME], Yarwell, Peterborough [POSTCODE]

[NAME] [ADDRESS] : [COUNSEL] & [COUNSEL] : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : None

Type of application : To determine a question arising under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) or the agreement to which it applies Tribunal :

Mr [NAME]. [NAME] :

HMCTS, Cambridge County Court 197 East St. Cambridge [POSTCODE]

Date of decision : 5 August 2019

DECISION

2

Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal’s interpretation and determination of the three questions raised by the applicant is:-

Question 1: (Electricity) “Whether the electricity charges paid by the applicant are within the limits set by OFGEM which require that the [NAME] may only charge a [NAME] for electricity at the rate paid to the [NAME] inclusive of standing charges. The Applicant asked for details of the electricity charges and has been provided with copies of electricity bills by the Respondent however all information contained in those bills was redacted and the Applicant cannot assess whether the charges they are paying are within those limits.” Decision 1: The Tribunal determines that the ‘hourly rates’ charged for day and for night electricity consumption, (exclusive of standing charge) are within the limits set by OFGEM, but that none of the other charges are.

Question 2: (Gas) “Whether the agreement made between the applicant and the respondent provides that the applicant may only buy LPG gas from the respondent; deliveries by other gas suppliers are prohibited and it would be impractical for the applicant to collect gas bottles themselves. If that is meaning of the Agreement the Tribunal is asked to determine whether the Agreement ought to be amended to allow deliveries by other providers. In any event the Respondent is asked to provide details as to the price paid by them for each gas bottle . The Applicant is currently paying £73.95 per bottle. “ Decision 2: The Tribunal determines that the agreement does not provide that the applicant may only buy LPG gas from the respondent, nor does it prohibit deliveries by other gas suppliers to the [NAME].

Question 3: (Water and Sewerage) “Whether the [NAME] payable by the applicant includes a charge for water and sewerage. The applicants agreement expressly states that those charges are included in the [NAME] fee but the respondent has recently informed all [NAME] that they do not pay for water and sewage. If that is the case then the Tribunal is asked to determine whether there ought to be a reduction in the [NAME] fee on the basis that when it was original set it included water and sewerage costs.”

3 Decision 3: The Tribunal determines that the monthly [NAME] fee of £250 referred to in the agreement includes provision of water and sewerage without additional charge.

Application 1. The application dated 10 April 2019 is for determination of three questions over the terms of the agreement for the [NAME] on the [NAME]. Section 4 of the 1983 Act gives this Tribunal power “to determine any question arising under the Act or any agreement to which it applies.” Enforcement is a matter for the County Court. Directions 2. Directions were issued from this Tribunal, 8 May 2019 and by request from the applicant, also on 16 May 2019 (albeit also dated 8 May). The bundle appears to have been prepared by the applicants’ representative solicitors. Copies of the Directions (two sets) were however unhelpfully not included in it.

3. The bundle prepared contained many documents. There were 350 numbered pages and some additional 50 pages provided after its initial completion. However many are duplicates of others and they are poorly indexed. Among them are multiple copies of bills and witness statements from applicant and respondent. Helpfully there is a copy of the signed but undated [NAME] agreement or “Written Statement” between the applicant and the respondent’s predecessor in title, and a copy of the OFGEM 2002 Decision Document on the recharge pricing of services. However there was also unrelated material for example, on an insurance claim arising from vehicle impact at part of the [NAME].

4. The respondent provided copies of many the [NAME]’s invoices, but the redactions are so extensive as to render much of this material of little or no assistance to the Tribunal. The reason given by the respondent for these extensive redactions is ‘data protection’: The Tribunal is unconvinced.

Applicant’s Case 5. The applicants witness statements and supporting material provided a background to the relatively recent [NAME] agreement, but highlighted in their view the lack of transparency and accountability by the respondent for the electricity re-charges; the apparently high re-

4 charges for bottled gas supplies and the restriction on alternative arrangements for residents; and the seemingly double counted charges for water and sewerage made by the respondent within their [NAME] fee. Respondent’s Case 6. The respondents witness statements and supporting material sought to counter these claims. They offered explanations for the number, apportionment and level of charges for electricity: The [NAME] had only relatively recently been acquired by the respondent; it contained a wide range of tenured occupiers; a mix of fluctuating electricity metering and recharging arrangements; the development of further pitches and the need for new power supply installations , being amongst them.

Decisions with Reasons:

Question 1: (Electricity) “Whether the electricity charges paid by the applicant are within the limits set by OFGEM which require that the [NAME] may only charge a [NAME] for electricity at the rate paid to the [NAME] inclusive of standing charges. The Applicant asked for details of the electricity charges and has been provided with copies of electricity bills by the Respondent however all information contained in those bills was redacted and the Applicant cannot assess whether the charges they are paying are within those limits.” Decision 1 with reasons:

The Tribunal determines that the ‘hourly rates’ charged for day and for night electricity consumption, (exclusive of standing charge) are within the limits set by OFGEM, but that none of the other charges are. The Tribunal determines that the ‘hourly rates (kwh/hr) charged for day and for night electricity consumption, (exclusive of standing charge) shown on the invoices from the [NAME] to the respondent and if shown to be at or lower than these rates in the bills from respondent to applicant; are within the limits set by OFGEM’s January 2002 ‘Decision Document’ in the bundle. VAT may be recharged at 5% on these. However the [NAME] invoices to the respondent also contain four other items: ‘Standing Charge’; ‘Extended Availability Charge’, ‘Data Collection Agent Charge’ and ‘Settlement Agency Charge’. While a standing charge may also be levied by the respondent to the applicant, the Tribunal determines that the standing charge falls outwith the limits set by OFGEM. This is because it is not possible to establish the standing charge attributable to this [NAME], owing to the respondent’s removal of data which might have identified the number of pitches which the [NAME] invoiced connection serves. The OFGEM decision does not identify the other three items of charge made by the [NAME] to the respondent as ones which may in turn be recharged to the [NAME] as the final consumer. In any event there remains the same problem as for the ‘standing charge’, in that they cannot be accurately divided among the pitches, the information having been withheld by the respondent. Moreover the [NAME] invoices are in respect of ‘[NAME]’. This is not the [NAME]; nor the [NAME]; nor has the respondent provided a transparent and coherent explanation linking the overall supply to the applicant’s [NAME], rendering the quantities of power consumed and apportionment of fixed charges impossible to calculate accurately.

Question 2: (Gas) “Whether the agreement made between the applicant and the respondent provides that the applicant may only buy LPG gas from the respondent; deliveries by other gas suppliers are prohibited and it would be impractical for the applicant to collect gas bottles themselves. If that is meaning of the Agreement the Tribunal is asked to determine whether the Agreement ought to be amended to allow deliveries by other providers. In any event the Respondent is asked to provide details as to the price paid by them for each gas bottle . The Applicant is currently paying £73.95 per bottle. “ Decision 2 with reasons:

The Tribunal determines that the agreement does not provide that the applicant may only buy LPG gas from the respondent, nor does it prohibit deliveries by other gas suppliers to the [NAME]. The agreement, the ‘Written Statement’, signed but undated, made between the applicant and the respondent’s predecessor in title, does not expressly provide that the applicant may only buy LPG gas from the respondent. Nor does the agreement expressly prohibit deliveries by other gas suppliers to the [NAME]. This application is for the Tribunal to determine a question or questions under the Act or the agreement to which it applies. However the application does not extend to the Tribunal considering, making, or otherwise amending, an existing agreement. Such request would have to be the subject of a separate application to the Tribunal. If such an application were to be made, then a priced, quantified and un-redacted copy of the contract between the respondent and the [NAME], is likely to be relevant information and should be made available.

Question 3: (Water and Sewerage) “Whether the [NAME] payable by the applicant includes a charge for water and sewerage. The applicants agreement expressly states that those charges are included in the [NAME] fee but the respondent has recently informed all [NAME] that they do not pay for water and sewage. If that is the case then the Tribunal is asked to determine whether there ought to be a reduction in the [NAME] fee on the basis that when it was original set it included water and sewerage costs.” Decision 3 with reasons:

The Tribunal determines that the monthly [NAME] fee of £250 referred to in the agreement includes provision of

6 water and sewerage without additional charge. The agreement, the ‘Written Statement’ signed but undated, made between the applicant and the respondent’s predecessor in title, expressly states that the monthly [NAME] fee of £250 includes water and sewerage. This application is for the Tribunal to determine a question or questions under the Act or the agreement to which it applies. However the application does not extend to the Tribunal considering, making, or otherwise revising, the [NAME] fee. Such request would have to be the subject of a separate application to the Tribunal. If such an application were to be made, then a priced, quantified and un-redacted copy of the contract between the respondent and the [NAME] of water and sewerage services, is likely to be relevant information and should be made available.

Name: [NAME]: 5 August 2019

7 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 application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application 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 making the application is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).