VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Sets New Mobile Home Fees After Lack of Objections

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decided on new monthly fees for mobile homes after the tenants did not respond to the site owner's proposal within the given time frame.

⚖️ Legal holding

A site owner may determine new pitch fees for mobile homes if tenants do not provide valid objections within the prescribed timeframe.

Topics

tenancy agreementsmobile home feeslegal procedures

Provisions

rule 9(1) and (7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013rule 9(8) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal determined new pitch fees for mobile homes based on the lack of objections from the tenants.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined new pitch fees for mobile homes after the tenants failed to submit valid objections within the prescribed timeframe, leading to the acceptance of the site owner's proposed fees.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case References : BIR/17UD/PHI/2023/0130, 0131 and 0185

Subject Properties : 45, 21 and 112 [ADDRESS]

[POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents

: [redacted]

[APPELLANT] (21)

[NAME] (112)

Type of Application : Applications under paragraph 16 of Chapter

2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile

Homes Act 1983 for the determination of

new levels of pitch fee for the subject

properties

Tribunal Member : Deputy Regional Judge Nigel Gravells

Date of Decision : 20 December 2023

________________________________________

DECISION ________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023 FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Determination 1 On 27 June 2023 the Tribunal received two applications from the Applicant, seeking determinations under paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 to Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 of new levels of pitch fee for 45 and [ADDRESS] with effect from 1 April 2023. The pitch fee notices were dated 1 March 2023. 2 On 4 August 2023 the Tribunal issued Directions for the determination of the applications. 3 On 7 August 2023 the Tribunal received a further similar application from the Applicant in relation to [ADDRESS]. 4 On 23 August 2023 the Tribunal directed that the three applications be consolidated and determined together and issued replacement Directions. 5 The Applicant is the site owner of [ADDRESS]. 6 The Respondents are the respective occupiers of the subject properties. 7 The Tribunal drew the attention of the Respondents to the Pitch Fee Review Form issued by the Applicant – and, in particular, to the statutory presumption (in paragraph 20 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) that the pitch fee would increase or decrease by no more than the annual change in the Retail Prices Index (RPI), unless that would be unreasonable having regard to the matters set out in paragraph 18(1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983. 8 The Respondents were directed, if they did not agree to the proposed new pitch fee, to send to the Applicant, and to the Tribunal, a Statement in Response, setting out in full their reasons for opposing the proposed new pitch fee. 9 The Tribunal indicated that, if a Respondent failed to send a Statement in Response, they might be deemed to have agreed to the proposed new pitch fee. 10 No Statement in Response was received from any of the Respondents by the specified deadline. 11 On 20 September 2023 the Tribunal issued further Directions, indicating that, if the Respondents did not provide Statement(s) in Response by 2 October 2023, the Tribunal would bar them from taking further part in the proceedings (pursuant to rule 9(1) and (7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber0 Rules 2013 (‘the 2013 Rules’)); and, pursuant to rule 9(8) of the 2013 Rules, that the Tribunal would determine the new pitch fees at the levels proposed by the Applicant. 12 On 29 September 2023 the Tribunal received a letter from Mr [NAME] (the occupier of [ADDRESS]) objecting to the proposed pitch fee but his letter did not raise any issue relevant to the pitch fee review. 13 On 23 October 2023 the Tribunal received a further letter from Mr [APPELLANT], stating that his dispute with the Applicant had been settled; but this was subsequently denied by the Applicant. 14 On 1 October 2023 the Tribunal received a letter from Mr [NAME] (the occupier of [ADDRESS]) objecting to the proposed pitch fee but again his letter did not raise any issue relevant to the pitch fee review.

15 The Tribunal received no communication from Mr [NAME] (the occupier of [ADDRESS]). 16 In the absence of any relevant object to the proposed pitch fees, the Tribunal bars the Respondents from taking further part in the proceedings (pursuant to rule 9(1) and (7)(a) of the 2013 Rules); and, pursuant to rule 9(8) of the 2013 Rules, the Tribunal determines the new pitch fees at the levels proposed by the Applicant – [ADDRESS]: £130.23 per month [ADDRESS]: £161.47 per month [ADDRESS]: £309.89 per month

Appeal 17 If a party wishes to appeal this Decision, that appeal is to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). However, a party wishing to appeal must first make written application for permission to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. 18 The application for permission to appeal must be received by the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. 19 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(s) for not complying with the 28-day time limit. The Tribunal will then consider the reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit. 20 The application for permission to appeal must state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

20 December 2023

Professor Nigel P Gravells Deputy Regional Judge

📊 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 claimant meets the statutory requirements to exercise the right to manage premises.
  • The landlord is entitled to dispensation from consultation requirements if the leaseholders do not object.
  • Urgency and lack of objections allow a landlord to bypass consultation requirements.
  • A tenant does not have to pay service charges if the landlord fails to provide lawful demands.
  • Emergency works can be exempted from consultation requirements if it is reasonable to do so.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal accepted the site owner's proposed new pitch fees for mobile homes.

Who was involved?

The site owner of Riverdale Park and the tenants of the mobile homes.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the lack of valid objections from the tenants within the prescribed timeframe.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Rules 9(1), 9(7)(a), and 9(8) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The site owner's argument that the tenants did not provide valid objections within the prescribed timeframe.

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

The decision was for the site owner.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants should ensure they submit any objections to proposed new pitch fees within the prescribed timeframe.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The lack of response from the tenants was considered as agreement with the proposed fees.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a party can appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

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.