First-tier Tribunal Sets Reasonable Pitch Fee Increase

1

First-tier Tribunal

Property Chamber

(Residential Property)

[RESPONDENT]

: CAM/12UE/PHI/2023/0124

[NAME]

: [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant

: [redacted]

: [COMPANY] & [COUNSEL] [NAME]

Respondents

: [redacted]

[RESPONDENT] of Applications : 19 May 2023

Type of application : To determine: A new level of pitch fee (Paragraph 16 (b) Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 Mobile Homes Act 1983)

Tribunal

: Judge JR [NAME] [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] of [NAME]

: 20 December 2023

[RESPONDENT] of Further and [NAME] : 17 January 2024

[RESPONDENT] of [RESPONDENT] : 23 July 2024

[RESPONDENT] of [NAME] [RESPONDENT] : 26 July 2024

[RESPONDENT] of Decision : 25 September 2024

____________________________________________

DECISION _________________________________ ©Decision

2

Decision

1. The Tribunal determined that the new pitch fees to take effect on the [RESPONDENT] of 1st March 2023 are as follows: The Tribunal decided that a reasonable increase was 6%. Applying this increase to the current pitch fees reviewed on 1 March 2022, the pitch fee increases for the 1 March 2023, are as follows: • To replace a current pitch fee of £274.82 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £291.31 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £281.69 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £298.59 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £295.43 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £313.16 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £302.82 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £320.99 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023.

Reasons

Introduction

2. The Applicant by a Notice in the prescribed form under paragraph 25A (1) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, dated 30 January 2023, proposed a new pitch fee. The increase was calculated based on an increase in the Retail Price Index (RPI) of 13.4% as the percentage increase in the RPI over 12 months by reference to the RPI published for December 2022. The RPI is applicable to this proposed increase as the Pitch Fee Review Form was served before 2 July 2023, after which [RESPONDENT] the [NAME]) applied to pitch fee increases. Applying this increase to the current pitch fees reviewed on 1 March 2022, the proposed pitch fee increases for the 1 March 2023, were as follows: • To replace a current pitch fee of £274.82 per month a proposed pitch fee of £311.64 per month reviewed on 1st March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £281.69 per month a proposed pitch fee of £319.43 per month reviewed on 1st March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £295.43 per month a proposed pitch fee of £335.01 per month reviewed on 1st March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £302.82 per month a proposed pitch fee of £343.39 per month reviewed on 1st March 2023.

3. The Respondents did not agree to the proposed pitch fee increase. Therefore, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal on 19 May 2023 for a determination of the pitch fees payable by the Respondents.

4. The Respondents presented their objection to the increase in two groups, each group appointing a representative from their number. [NAME] [COUNSEL] represented one group (Group 1) and [NAME] [NAME] the other (Group 2). [NAME] [NAME] group refer to themselves as the [COMPANY], however, this is not a [NAME]’ Association. The two groups are set out in Appendix 1. [NAME] [NAME] of 6 [NAME] represents himself. The Tribunal wrote to [NAME] some time before [RESPONDENT] to ask if he had any representations but no [RESPONDENT] was received. [RESPONDENT] the Applicant informed the Tribunal that the Application

3

regarding [NAME] [NAME] had been withdrawn and it was understood that he no longer resided on [NAME].

5. Each Group of Respondents provided written representations setting out the grounds for their objection by each representative which the Tribunal found to be similar although with some differences in detail and order and [NAME] [NAME] raised some additional points. Therefore, the Tribunal ‘consolidated’ the arguments of the two Groups which it considered to be to the advantage of both parties. The Applicant’s solicitor, Ms [COUNSEL], had provided a written [RESPONDENT] to each Groups’ representations. At [RESPONDENT] [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] confirmed their written representations and made oral submissions. The Applicant was represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] who confirmed Ms [COUNSEL] written representations and made oral submissions.

The Law

6. The Law is as set out in Appendix 3 to this Decision and Reasons. In summary this is that a [NAME] may review the pitch fee in accordance with the statutory amended implied terms of the written statement of agreement between a [NAME] and a [NAME]. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the implied terms provide that if on reviewing the pitch fee the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] do not agree the amount then the [NAME] must apply to a tribunal to determine a fee.

7. Paragraph 20 states that when a tribunal is determining the amount of a new pitch fee it should apply a rebuttable presumption (“the presumption”) that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the Retail Prices Index (RPI).

8. Paragraph 18 states that in applying the presumption regard must be had to several matters. Those relevant to these proceedings are under paragraph 18(1) (aa) any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of [NAME] or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner and under 18(1) (ab) any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to [NAME], pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services since 26th May 2013.

9. Paragraph 20 goes on to make general proviso that the presumption should apply unless this would be unreasonable. In [NAME] v [NAME] [2017] UKUT 24 (LC) Judge Robinson said at paragraph 45: “the factors which may displace the presumption are not limited to those set out in paragraph 18(1) but may include other factors …” which it was said at paragraph 50: “must have sufficient weight to outweigh the presumption in the context of the statutory scheme as a whole.” These are often referred to as “weighty factors.”

[RESPONDENT]

10. The Tribunal inspected [NAME] in the presence of [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] representing the Applicant, [NAME] (Solicitors to the Applicant), [NAME] [APPELLANT] ([NAME]), Ms [APPELLANT] ([NAME] Manager) and [NAME] [APPELLANT] (former Director of [COMPANY]). Also present was [NAME]

4

[NAME] representing [COMPANY] and several [NAME] [RESPONDENT]

11. A witness statement by [NAME] [APPELLANT], the Applicant’s Operations Manager, had been provided which gave a description of [NAME] (the [NAME]) which the Tribunal confirmed at its [RESPONDENT]. The [NAME] comprises a protected [NAME] [NAME] ([NAME]), for which a [NAME] has been granted for 194 pitches, a touring caravan [NAME] of approximately 78 pitches and a [NAME] [NAME] of 35 moorings 14 of which are for permanent houseboats. It is understood that there are around 124 owner occupied [COMPANY] at the time of [RESPONDENT].

12. The parties provided several plans together with aerial photographs of the [NAME] and [NAME] taken at various times since circa 2015. The [NAME] is bounded by the River Nene at its southern end. On the west side of the [NAME] there is a mill stream, which flows into the River Nene, running north to south. There is a rough road to the north of [NAME] and a pathway with a bridge over the mill stream. A fence marks the north boundary to [NAME]. To the east, the boundary of [NAME] has been temporarily marked out and beyond the markers is land owned by the [NAME] although currently not part of [NAME]. This adjacent land is a fallow field with a small lake to the north and an area planted with saplings to the south. There are also a few [COMPANY] and bases for [COMPANY] on this land. In the middle of the [NAME] is a lake around which is [NAME].

13. At the entrance to the [NAME] there is a [NAME] Office and visitor car [NAME]. Near the entrance to the south of the access road is a derelict building known as [NAME] and the Old Mill building which has been converted into residential units. To the north of the access road are several buildings. There is also a large compound containing a modern barn, building materials and plant.

14. The [COMPANY] on [NAME] are laid out along the bank of the Mill Stream and around the Lake on [NAME]. [NAME] are as follows: • [ADDRESS] runs south to north on the west side of the mill stream. The [COMPANY] at the northern end back on to the mill stream. • [NAME] runs south to north on the east side of the mill stream. There are [COMPANY] on both sides of the road, those on the west side have pitches with gardens backing onto the mill stream and those on the east side at the south end have pitches with gardens backing onto the Lake. At the north end, [NAME] provides access to [NAME]: Quayside, [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] • Quayside, [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] run parallel to each other, west to east, at the north end of [NAME]. There are some pitches at the far eastern end that are on adjacent land and not part of [NAME]. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] backs onto the northern boundary fence where a ditch had been filled and a hedge removed as noted from the pictures and topography. The [COMPANY] on the south side of Quayside have gardens that back onto the lake. Also off Quayside are [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS]. • [ADDRESS] and Meadowside run north to south from Quayside. The [COMPANY] on the west side of Lakeside have gardens that back onto the Lake. The pitches along Meadowside are under construction. The east side of

5

Meadowside is not currently within [NAME] and there are temporary markers showing the eastern extent of [NAME].

15. [NAME] is low lying and there are 9 pumping stations around [NAME] to deal with sewage and waste water.

16. At the southern end of [NAME] the parties indicated an area that had been set aside and used exclusively for [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. The [NAME] had replaced this in 2021 by an area near to the Mill Stream which could be booked for events.

17. At the southern end of the lake there was an area of scrub land. The parties stated that his was where the lake had been filled in. The Tribunal made its own assessment of the area that had been filled. From its own observations and the plans and photographs provided by the parties it estimated that about a fifth to a quarter of the lake had been filled. The parties identified the place, at the southernmost edge of the lake prior to its infill, where there had been some 12 trees which had been cut down.

18. There is a café which is understood to be run by volunteer [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. The area next to 45 Waterview next to the southern end of the lake and near the Mill Pond was identified by the parties as an area which could be booked by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] for functions and get togethers.

19. [NAME] to the west along [ADDRESS] and [NAME] and the area on the east side of the lake, [ADDRESS] is pleasant and well kept. The area to the eastern end of Quayside, [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and the eastern side of the lake where Meadow side is to be constructed is very much a work in progress. Notwithstanding that some bases have been laid with grass between, the overall impression of the eastern side of [NAME] and the immediate part of the adjacent field is one of a building [NAME]. The infilled portion of the lake has been left in a very poor state and is dismal, the trees having been felled and the land left to weeds. The Tribunal found it would be difficult to traverse by a [NAME].

[RESPONDENT]

20. [RESPONDENT] was attended by [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] representing the Applicant and [NAME] [COUNSEL] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] representing Groups 1 and 2 of the Respondents respectively.

21. Also present was [NAME] [APPELLANT] ([NAME]), [NAME], Solicitors to the Applicant, Ms [APPELLANT], [NAME] Manager and [NAME] [APPELLANT], former Director of [RESPONDENT] and a number of [NAME] [RESPONDENT], some, if not all, of whom were Respondents.

22. Ms [NAME]’s provided a Statement of [RESPONDENT] which was based on and supported by three witness statements made [NAME] [NAME] and Ms [NAME] and by a witness statement made by [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME]. Hereafter in these Reasons the reference made to statements and submissions by the Applicant includes the confirmation of Ms [APPELLANT] written representations, the witness statements and further oral submissions made by [NAME] at [RESPONDENT].

6

23. From the written representations made by [NAME] [NAME] (Group 1) and [NAME] [NAME] (Group 2) the Tribunal identified the following grounds and dealt with each in turn during [RESPONDENT]. Ground 1 Preliminary Points Ground 2 Lack of Amenity Ground 3 Loss of Amenity Ground 4 Deterioration in Condition and Loss of Amenity Ground 5 Reduction in Services Ground 6 On going Disruption Ground 7 Cost of Living Ground 8 [NAME] 9 [NAME] 10 Other Matters

24. The overall submission of the Respondents was that there had been a depreciation in the condition and a decrease in the amenity of [NAME] and that there were other weighty factors which made it unreasonable to apply the presumption. The proposed pitch fee which was calculated on the basis of the presumption gave an increase which was not, in the opinion of the Respondents, justified when the depreciation in the condition, decrease in the amenity and other weighty factors were taken into account.

25. These reasons address in summary form the key issues raised by the application. They do not recite each and every point raised or debated. The Tribunal concentrates on those issues which, in its View, go to the heart of the application. Where the Tribunal finds a particular matter as a fact, it does so on the basis that it is confident that on the available evidence that fact is established or proven on the balance of probabilities.

Ground 1 –Preliminary Points

a) [RESPONDENT]

1) Status of Applicant

26. [NAME] [APPELLANT] stated that the Applicant was one of a complex group of corporate entities. He said that the Pitch Fee review Form was signed on behalf of [COMPANY] as the [NAME] and [COMPANY] as the [NAME]. However, [COMPANY] has changed its name to [COMPANY] and therefore, he submitted, the Pitch Fee Review Form is incorrect and invalid, and therefore this application should be set aside. He then went into some detail about what he believed to be the financial arrangements between the companies and their directors.

2) [NAME]

27. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] submitted that the Pitch Fee Review Application Form contained erroneous information as it claimed [NAME] were not included

7

in the Respondents’ pitch fees whereas the Written Statements of Agreement state that these costs are included and this was confirmed by a tribunal decision in 2019, CAM/34/UD/PHC/2019/0003. They added that, contrary to what was said on the Pitch Review Form, other services were included such as lawn mowing, road maintenance and lighting.

3) Non-Receipt of Written Statement of Agreement

28. [NAME] [NAME] said that the Respondents did not receive a Statement of their Agreement with the Pitch Fee Review Form and therefore did not know the [RESPONDENT]

4) Non-compliance with [NAME]

29. [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] stated that the Applicant did not comply with the first [NAME] dated 20 December 2023 in that it failed to send copies to the Respondents by 22 January 2024. Under those [NAME] a party could seek an amendment to them by 8 January 2024. These [NAME] were not delivered to the Respondents until 8 January 2024. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] said that the Respondents were denied an opportunity to amend the first [NAME] dated 20 December 2023 and therefore put at a disadvantage. The Applicant on the other hand obtained an amendment to those [NAME] on 5 January 2024 and the amended [NAME] (the second [NAME]) were issued on 17 January 2024.

5) Pressure to Agree to Increased Pitch Fee

30. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] said that in November 2023, several Respondents received a Statement of Account from the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] clearly showing the Respondent to be in arrears on their Account due to their not paying the proposed increase. It was submitted that this is incorrect as the Pitch Fee Review process clearly states that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] who do not pay the increase will not be in arrears until the Tribunal has determined the outcome. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] have raised concerns with the [NAME] that this is (a) in contravention of the Pitch Fee Review process and (b) could also be seen as intimidation.

31. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] referred to the pitch fee review form: “if you do not agree to the proposed pitch fee you do not have to pay the proposed new amount from the effective [RESPONDENT], but you must continue to pay the current pitch fee…You will not incur arrears". They said that notwithstanding this the Applicant has a practice of telling [NAME] [RESPONDENT] who have not agreed the pitch fee increase that their account is in arrears and making demands for settlement of their account. This causes anxiety to vulnerable persons. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] have been offered incentives of £150.00 cash-back to agree the pitch fee increase.

[RESPONDENT]

32. The Applicant denied that there had been non-compliance with the process for making an application to the Tribunal for the determination of a new level of pitch fee. The second witness statement of [NAME] explains that the application form was hand delivered to Respondents first with the balance of the documents on 4 July

8

2023. It was denied that there has been non-compliance because the Respondents did not receive copies of the enclosures with the application forms until 4 July 2023.

1) Status of Applicant

33. The Applicant did not consider the corporate or financial arrangements of the Applicant relevant to these proceedings.

2) [NAME]

34. The Applicant stated that [COMPANY] in recent Written Statements of Agreement state that these are supplied free of charge although it was conceded that some earlier Written Statements of Agreement had stated that these services were included in the Pitch Fee. It was submitted that whether the services were free of charge or included did not impact on the pitch fee increase.

3) Non-Receipt of Statement of Agreement

35. The Applicant stated that there was no obligation for Written Statements of Agreement to be included with the Notification of Proposed Increase in Pitch Fee.

4) Non-compliance with [NAME]

36. The Applicant stated the further and amended [NAME] from 17 January 2024 are the relevant [NAME], which were delivered to the Respondents on 25 January 2024.

5) Pressure to Agree to Increased Pitch Fee

37. The Applicant said the witness statement of [NAME] [APPELLANT] addressed the concerns raised about the statement of account being sent to [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. Accounts had not previously been sent to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and the correspondence was intended to correct this situation by giving [NAME] [RESPONDENT] a clear statement of the amounts paid and any amounts outstanding. It was acknowledged that the accounts produced had assumed an acceptance of the proposed pitch fee.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determinations

38. The Tribunal found as follows:

1) Status of Applicant

39. The Tribunal noted the representations and Certificate of Incorporation on change of name of company 6864331 from [COMPANY] to [COMPANY] dated 24 April 2023. The Tribunal determined that on the evidence available [COMPANY], formerly [COMPANY], is the current [NAME] of [NAME] and the person entitled to now be party to the application for the proposed increased pitch fee through [COMPANY] as the [NAME].

9

40. The Tribunal further determined that any links the [NAME] or [NAME] has to other persons whether real, such as company directors, or artificial, such as other registered companies, is not relevant to the Pitch Fee Review.

2) [NAME]

41. The Tribunal found that earlier Written Statements of Agreement had stated that the [NAME] services were included in the Pitch Fee. Also, the Tribunal in 2019, CAM/34UD/PHC/2019/0003 had determined that the [NAME] were included in the pitch fee in the Written Statements of Agreement of the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] who were party to that [RESPONDENT]. This having been determined, the present Tribunal could not reconsider the matter again in respect of those who were party to that [RESPONDENT]. The Tribunal found that in respect of more recent Written Statements of [NAME] is stated as being supplied free of charge. The Tribunal determined that, in the present [RESPONDENT], whether the services were free of charge or whether they were included in the pitch fee did not influence the pitch fee increase which it was to determine.

3) Non-Receipt of Statement of Agreement

42. The Tribunal found that there was no obligation for Written Statements of Agreement to be provided with the Notification of Proposed increase in Pitch Fee. If a [NAME] had not received a copy of their written statement of agreement that was not a matter that could be dealt with under the present application. The Tribunal determined that this point was not relevant to the determination of the pitch fee.

4) Non-compliance with [NAME]

43. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not complied with the [NAME] of the 20 December 2023 notwithstanding that Further and [NAME] were issued on 17 January 2024. In the present [RESPONDENT] the Respondents had by the time of the [RESPONDENT] received all the necessary documentation and had had an opportunity to prepare their respective cases and ask for any further information needed. It was therefore determined that the failure had not caused any injustice.

5) Pressure to Agree to Increased Pitch Fee

44. The Respondents were correct in stating that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] who did not agree a pitch fee increase will not be in arrears until the Tribunal has determined the outcome. It is for a [NAME] to make their own decision regarding incentives such as discounts to accept a pitch fee. Regarding the allegation that the letter of account sent by the [NAME] to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] which showed the proposed pitch fee as arrears was harassment is not a matter that the Tribunal can determine.

b) [RESPONDENT]

45. In his written representations [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated that some of the Pitch Fee Review Forms were inaccurate. In 2022 some Respondents had refused the pitch fee uplift of

10

7.5%. The Applicant made applications for an increase to the tribunal in [RESPONDENT] No.: CAM/12UE/PHI/2022/0037-42, 44, 45, but later withdrew them. As a result, those Respondents who did not agree to the 2022 Pitch Fee Review continued to pay their original pitch fee, not the 7.5% increase. When issuing the Pitch Fee Review of 30 January 2023, the Applicant used the 2022 uplift as a base and then applied the contested 13.4% increase on top to at least some of those Respondents’ pitch fee figures, even though they had not agreed and did not pay that increase.

46. The Applicant checked its records and concurred that certain Respondents had not agreed to the proposed pitch fee increase in 2022 and no tribunal determination had been made increasing their pitch fees. These Respondents were therefore still paying the pitch fee agreed in 2021. Notwithstanding this the Applicant had erroneously served a Pitch Fee Review Form that identified the 2022 uplift as a base for their proposed new pitch fee. The Applicant therefore acknowledged that the Pitch Fee Review Forms were incorrect and applied to the Tribunal to have the application for a determination of a new pitch fee withdrawn in respect of the following Respondents: [redacted] [NAME] and Mrs [RESPONDENT] [ADDRESS] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] 5 [NAME] [NAME] 26 [NAME] [NAME] and Mrs [NAME] 21 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] and [NAME] 37 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] and Mrs [NAME]

47. The Tribunal agreed to the Applications in respect of these 6 pitches being withdrawn.

48. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] submitted that they had reason to believe that other Respondents were in the same position and the Applications in respect of them should also be withdrawn.

49. The Applicant admitted that some of the Respondents did not agree the pitch fee review for 2022. Applications in respect of the Respondents who did not agree to the 2022 Pitch Fee Review, and continued to pay their original pitch fee, had been withdrawn. If there were other Respondents in that position then if their names and addresses are provided and evidence adduced that they had only agreed the Pitch Fees for the 2021 Review, the Applicant would examine its records and on confirmation withdraw the current Application in respect of them.

50. On 26 July 2024 following [RESPONDENT] the Tribunal made [NAME] for the parties to make their respective submissions on this issue. The final [RESPONDENT] in the original timeline was 21 August 2024 but following an application by the Respondents this was extended to 2 September 2024.

51. When asking for an extension of time [NAME] [APPELLANT] requested the Tribunal to direct the Applicant to provide the Respondents’ accounts to check whether they had agreed the 2022 pitch fee review. The Tribunal did not agree to do so for the following reasons:

11

a) It would not be appropriate under data protection legislation to require the Applicant to divulge personal data without the written agreement of the individuals involved; b) The Tribunal in its [NAME] had given those Respondents who had not agreed the 2022 pitch fee opportunity to provide evidence that they had continued to pay the 2021 pitch fee e.g. through accounts with irrelevant entries redacted. It would then be for the Applicant to accept and withdraw the Application regarding the 2023 pitch fee review or provide contrary evidence to which the [NAME] enabled a [RESPONDENT] by 2 September 2024.

52. In the event no representations were received in accordance with the Direction’s revised timeline and therefore the Tribunal only agreed to the Applications in respect of the 6 pitches referred to above, being withdrawn.

Ground 2 – Lack of Amenity

a) Failure to provide the "[NAME]" [NAME] & [RESPONDENT]

53. [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said that promotional material had stated that a planning application for the [NAME] was made in 2015 for “a 25—seater cafe a Members Only Lounge that would run over two floors and be a much-used, social hub for the [NAME] [i.e. [NAME] [RESPONDENT]] as well as a retail space” with full CCTV, and secure gated community (the [NAME]). They said that all the Written Statements of Agreement thereafter were entered on the promise made in the publicity material (copies provided) that the [NAME] was forthcoming. It was stated that one [NAME] had a provision to this effect included in his Agreement although the Tribunal were not able to verify this.

54. It was submitted that the starting pitch fee of £250.00 per month reflected the level of amenity that would be provided by the [NAME] and the Respondents had agreed to that fee and accepted the subsequent increases in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 on the understanding that the start of the [NAME] was imminent and would be completed within a reasonable time. Advertising boarding at the entrance to [NAME] indicated that the Barns were "coming soon". [NAME] Managers and Sales Representatives repeatedly gave assurances that the [NAME] would be completed soon but these promises and assurances have not been met. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] said that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] had regularly asked when the [NAME] would be started.

55. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] added the on-[NAME] security is included in the monthly pitch fee. While there are cameras located along [ADDRESS] and [NAME], these are not working, as confirmed by the Applicant in their bundle. Mrs [APPELLANT] states in her witness statement “We do not have working cameras everywhere” …there are only cameras covering the entrance, [NAME] office and [NAME]'s compound.” In a letter to [NAME] dated 31 March 2023, it states “CCTV is being upgraded to include automatic number plate recognition for added security". While a trench has been dug and cables attached to a pole, no working system is in place.

12

56. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] submitted that the pitch fee should be reduced as per the findings in CHI/19UD/PHI/2023/0127—0164 (38), and the failure of the [NAME]’s [NAME] of [NAME] should be taken into consideration as a “weighty factor” under paragraph 20 making the proposed increase in pitch fee unreasonable.

[RESPONDENT]

57. The Applicant denied that the pitch fee payable under the agreements, reflected the level of amenity that would be included based on the expectations of the [NAME] as this was a facility yet to be provided. The pitch fee was the amount agreed at the commencement of the agreement for the right to station the mobile home on [NAME] and for the use of and maintenance of the common areas of the protected [NAME].

58. The Applicant said that allegations of representations made before the commencement of an agreement cannot be considered because the Tribunal's jurisdiction is to determine matters under the agreement not anything before it. Representations before the agreement is a contractual matter for the County Court.

59. The Applicant submitted that the statements were not a term of the contract and even if they were there was no time frame for the [NAME] and it was still intended that it should take place and the planning permission had been obtained. Reasons for the delay regarding the sewerage had been given and this work had now been carried out. The Respondents were entitled to make an application to the Tribunal under 32(3) of the 1983 Act to vary or delete an express term of the agreement within 6 months of the commencement of the agreement. No application was made by any of the Respondents to vary the express terms of their agreement to services included within the pitch fee.

60. Examples from previous cases of relevant circumstances relate to changes in [NAME] amenities and services provided and which exist. There has been no change in amenities therefore the non-[NAME] of the [NAME] cannot come within paragraph 18(1)(aa).

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

61. The Tribunal found that it was common ground between the parties that the failure to develop the [NAME] and the CCTV was not a deterioration in the condition or the amenity of [NAME] or a reduction in services or their quality and therefore was not a matter to be regarded under paragraph 18(1) (aa) or (ab). It could only be considered as a matter under paragraph 20 which might make it unreasonable to apply the presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by the Retail Prices Index.

62. The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the Respondents in respect of their claim that the current pitch fee was based upon a representation that [NAME] would be developed into a dedicated area for [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. It also considered the lack of CCTV as part of this overall [NAME] of [NAME].

13

63. The Tribunal found that the publicity statements about the [NAME] were definitive and strong. They gave the impression that planning permission had been obtained and that the works were imminent and would have influenced [NAME] [RESPONDENT] as to their acceptance of the amount of the pitch fee charged both initially and in relation to subsequent increases.

64. The Tribunal found that the CCTV coverage was a factor that would influence [NAME] [RESPONDENT] regarding the amount of the pitch fee.

65. The Tribunal determined that both the [NAME] and CCTV were “weighty matters” which rebutted the presumption under paragraph 20.

66. Any reduction in the pitch fee on this basis would not be irretrievable because the [NAME] could seek an increase on review once the [NAME] was complete based upon the improvement.

Ground 3 – Loss of Amenity

a) Loss of Designated Recreation Area

Respondent’s [RESPONDENT]

67. [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated that a dedicated recreational area had been provided in 2018 for use by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] only which was fenced and gated with “[NAME]” signage. The area had seating, a power supply, and a brick- built BBQ and a Boules pitch. They said that this area was removed in 2021 without consultation or explanation, and with no appropriate private alternative. [NAME] state that on sites where it is practical to do so, a suitable space equivalent to one-tenth of the total area of [NAME] shall be allocated for recreational purposes unless in the local authorities' opinion, there are adequate recreational facilities within proximity to [NAME]. The Respondents submitted that “allocated” meant for [NAME] [RESPONDENT] only.

[RESPONDENT]

68. The Applicant admitted that an area which [NAME] [RESPONDENT] were told they could use for recreation is no longer available to them. However, [NAME] [RESPONDENT] can book a space by the Mill Pond for the get togethers they had on land next to 45 Watersview. It was denied that there has been a decrease in amenity because the Respondents are no longer able to use the area they were using. There is not a [NAME] rule about the allocation of space for recreational purposes. There is a condition on [NAME] licence about recreational space but there is no suggestion from the Local Authority that the Applicant is in breach of this condition.

Tribunal’s Determination

69. The Tribunal found that the recreational area was an amenity that had existed and therefore its loss without replacement could amount to a decrease in amenity under paragraph 18(1) (aa).

14

70. The Tribunal found that the Respondents had lost an amenity by the removal of the dedicated recreational area. This was a permanent area in which they could at any time use and within which could socialise. It provided an everyday focal point where [NAME] [RESPONDENT] could stop and meet. The land next to 45 Watersview which had to be pre-booked provides a different amenity for organised social gatherings.

71. The Tribunal determined that the loss of the recreational area was a loss of amenity under paragraph 18(1) (aa) which rebutted the presumption.

b) Removal of Free Family [RESPONDENT]

72. [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] had for at least the last 5 years the benefit of free camping for family and friends on the adjacent camping part of the [NAME] which had become custom and practice. This amenity was removed in 2022.

[RESPONDENT]

73. The Applicant admitted that there was family free camping offered to [NAME] before COVID but very few [NAME] took this up. The camping area is outside the existing [NAME] and it was submitted that the offer of complimentary stays could not be an amenity or facility as it was not a contractual term of the of the Written Statement of Agreement which could be varied.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

74. The Tribunal found that this was not an amenity or facility offered on [NAME] that related to the pitch fee and therefore determined it did not rebut the presumption.

c) [NAME] [RESPONDENT]

75. It was stated by the Respondents that access to the [NAME] is via a barrier at the entrance controlled by pass card which is available to all [NAME] [RESPONDENT] as well as visitors to the [NAME] such as campers and holiday caravaners. A barrier code, can be used in the absence of the pass for use in an emergency, such as [COMPANY] after hours. From 2015 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] had access to the code but this was no longer available to them from March 2022. It was submitted that access to the code formed part of the Implied Term to provide [COMPANY] as required. On 19th June 2022, there was a serious medical emergency and the ambulance could not get access. To [RESPONDENT], the barrier code remains withheld. A reason given by the Applicant is that [NAME] [RESPONDENT] abused the code by giving it to relatives and friends. However, it is available to caravan [RESPONDENT], boat [RESPONDENT], holiday campers and even the ice cream man. The barrier gate is “almost constantly” in a state of disrepair or stuck in the open position.

15

[RESPONDENT]

76. The Applicant confirmed that there is a barrier to gain access to the [NAME] and [NAME]. The method of accessing the barrier has changed since 2022, prior to that [RESPONDENT] there was only a code system. Now all [NAME] have one or more fobs to be able to enter the [NAME] via the barrier and the [COMPANY] have the barrier code. It was submitted that changing the method of gaining access through the barrier does not constitute a decrease in an amenity of [NAME].

77. The Applicant denied that the barrier is “almost constantly” in a state of repair saying, if it is broken, it is repaired.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

78. The Tribunal found there was no loss of amenity by the introduction of a fob system. The fobs enable the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] to enter [NAME] at any time indefinitely. Provided the [COMPANY] are kept informed, the barrier code may change and so withdrawing the ability of those not privy to the updated code from entering [NAME]. This can provide additional security.

79. The Tribunal determined the change to fobs was not a loss of amenity and did not rebut the presumption.

Ground 4 – Deterioration in Condition and Loss of Amenity

a) Damage to Environment & [RESPONDENT]

80. The Respondents submitted that since 2021, there had been a systematic removal of trees, shrubs, and bushes which has led to the loss of wildlife (e.g. otters) due to the removal of natural ground cover. Reference was made to CHI/19UD/PHl/2023/0127 -0164 (33). Trees were destroyed, hedges removed and ditches filled in to make way for [COMPANY] along the road now known as [NAME] [RESPONDENT].

81. [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT] stated that access to the lake has been reduced by the Applicant’s infilling. The only side of the lake open to all [NAME] is currently too dangerous to access because it is unstable, rain causes landslides on the artificially created edge. Concern was expressed as to the material being used to infill the lake.

82. Witness statements from [NAME] and [NAME] stated that the infilling of the lake has had a serious impact on its quality and led to a deterioration in fish stock. They added that the lake was poorly managed and access for fishing had been significantly reduced.

[RESPONDENT]

83. The Applicant denied that the environment has been destroyed. All Respondents knew that they were moving onto a [NAME] which was in the process of being re- developed.

16

84. The [NAME] is in a rural location next to the River Nene and is part of an old Mill complex, where there is a Mill Pond, boats and a cafe area. There are walking trails around the [NAME]. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] are free to walk the [NAME] including the camping area. The land which is being redeveloped is part of the land which can be redeveloped for [COMPANY]. The photographs attached to the witness statements made in support of the Applicant show [NAME]'s rural setting, the wildlife and how it is used and enjoyed.

85. The Applicant admitted that the lake has been reduced in size but not by much and not by one third, as alleged. The area which has been filled in is at the south end of the lake away from the part of [NAME] where occupied [COMPANY] are sited.

86. The Applicant said that the area around the lake has always been earmarked for [NAME]. Before any of the Respondents came to [NAME], there were touring and static caravans around the lake. The [NAME] [RESPONDENT] of [ADDRESS] and Watersview whose [COMPANY] face the lake have witnessed the construction of the plots and siting of [COMPANY] at the top of the lake at Quayside and those living at Quayside and around the lake, have witnessed the construction of plots along Lakeside.

87. The reduction in the size of the lake has not impacted on the pleasantness of [NAME] as a whole, and it is possible that the work done may have to be “undone" if retrospective planning consent is not granted. If the Tribunal considers that there has been a decrease in the amenity or a deterioration in the condition of [NAME] as a whole, by the partial infilling of the southern part of the lake, the Tribunal has to weigh up all the relevant factors in reaching its decision. It was submitted that there has not been any decrease in amenity or deterioration in the condition of [NAME] as a whole.

Submissions as to the [RESPONDENT] for comparison of condition and amenity

88. In making their submissions under this heading both parties referred to paragraphs [26] to [29] of [COMPANY] v Finch [2024] UKUT 197 (LC) which states:

26. The FTT found that the condition of the [NAME] had been "pristine" while it was under its previous ownership and that it had deteriorated from that condition in the period of less than three years since [NAME] had taken over. When it visited the [NAME] it made detailed findings about its current condition, but the following summary is sufficient to set the scene for the second ground of appeal: " … the condition of the [NAME] is by no means dreadful. The pitches themselves were well-maintained. The trees, shrubs and grassed areas and the general original landscaping scheme are still apparent. However, they are not controlled and are significantly affected by brambles, weeds and grasses and what the Tribunal finds to be a general lack of maintenance."

27. [NAME] [NAME] submitted that the FTT had erred in law in considering a change in the condition of the [NAME] from "pristine" to "by no means dreadful" to be a "deterioration" for the purpose of paragraph 18(1). He did not challenge the FTT's

17

findings of fact that there had been a negative change, but instead focussed on the standard of maintenance which he submitted it ought to have had in mind when considering if there had been a deterioration.

28. [NAME] [NAME] referred to paragraph 22 in the implied terms of the pitch agreement which oblige the owner to "maintain in a clean and tidy condition those parts of the protected [NAME], including access ways, [NAME] boundary fences and trees, which are not the responsibility of any [NAME] of a mobile home stationed on the protected [NAME]." An owner which kept a [NAME] in a clean and tidy condition would satisfy its contractual obligation and, [NAME] [NAME] suggested, occupiers of pitches on [NAME] were not entitled to expect any higher standard. In maintaining the [NAME] in pristine condition, [NAME]'s predecessor had therefore gone beyond what was required of it by the pitch agreements. When considering whether there had been a deterioration in the condition of a [NAME], [NAME] [NAME] submitted that the FTT should have asked itself only whether the [NAME] had fallen below the minimum contractual standard of cleanliness and tidiness which the occupiers were entitled to. Only a deterioration below that standard should be taken into account. Additionally, he suggested, changes which were not changes in standards of cleanliness or tidiness should be ignored. To the extent that the FTT had taken into account wider matters of condition, or a deterioration of the [NAME] from a previous pristine state to a merely contractually compliant state it had been in error and its assessment should be reconsidered.

29. I reject these submissions. Paragraph 18(1)(aa) is quite clear. Regard must be had to "any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of [NAME]". The only relevant considerations are: first, whether [NAME] was previously in a superior condition from which it has deteriorated since the paragraph came into force in 2013; secondly, whether that deterioration has been taken into account in a previous pitch fee determination; and, if not, thirdly, whether it would be unreasonable to implement the usual RPI increase in view of that deterioration. The proper comparison is between the current condition of [NAME] and its previous condition, and not between its current condition and some notional minimum compliant standard.

Applicant’s Submission

89. [NAME] [APPELLANT] for the Applicant referred to [26] and [29] of [COMPANY] v Finch [2024] UKUT 197 (LC). He submitted that the relevant comparison for assess deterioration is the “current condition” of [NAME] and the condition as the point the 2013 Regulations came into force. He said that the “current condition” was the condition as at the [RESPONDENT] of a tribunal [RESPONDENT], which in this [RESPONDENT] is 23 July 2024, and not the pitch fee review [RESPONDENT] which in this instance is 1 March 2023.

Respondents’ Submission

90. [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] referred to [29] and submitted that the phrase “The proper comparison is between the current condition of [NAME] and its previous condition, and not between its current condition” is simply the description of the condition of [NAME] when the pitch fee review was issued and the condition of the

18

[NAME] before any deterioration or loss of amenity was claimed. The “current condition” as being “[RESPONDENT]” is only the Applicant’s interpretation not what appears in the decision.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

91. The Tribunal found that the changes to the environment and the lake could amount to a deterioration in condition and a deterioration in condition or loss of an amenity under paragraph 18(1) (aa).

92. The Tribunal examined the screen shots from the internet of the satellite pictures provided. • The pictures circa 2015 showed that there were hedges to the north and east boundaries and a ditch along the north boundary. The areas to the north and east appeared to be used for agriculture. There were trees around the south end of the lake which was its original size. There were [COMPANY] along the west side of [ADDRESS] and the east side of [ADDRESS] backing onto the lake. There were also some five or six homes sited on what is now Quayside at the north end of the lake. • The pictures dated 14 September 2020 showed that the hedges to the north and east boundaries had been removed and the ditch along the north boundary had been filled in. The areas to the north and east of [NAME] still appeared to be used for agriculture. There appeared to be substantial earth works being carried out on the land adjacent to the north east corner of [NAME]. There were still trees around the south end of the lake which was still its original size. The Water’s View pitches had been constructed and the [COMPANY] had been sited. The roads and the hard standing for the pitches of [NAME] [RESPONDENT], [NAME] and Quayside were constructed with [COMPANY] sited to the West. Most of the pitches towards the east on these roads were vacant. Both sides of [ADDRESS] now had occupied pitches. [ADDRESS] appeared to be under construction. • The pictures from about 2023 showed the trees around the south end of the lake had been felled and removed and part of the lake had been infilled. The areas to the north and east of [NAME] still appeared to be used for agriculture. It was apparent that the earth works being carried out on the land adjacent to the north east corner of [NAME] were to create another lake. No change was observed on [ADDRESS], [NAME] and [ADDRESS] and the number of occupied pitches where [COMPANY] were sited and the number of vacant pitches on which there was hardstanding only on [NAME] [RESPONDENT], [NAME] and Quayside appeared to have changed little since 2020. However, the [ADDRESS] had been laid and pitches were being constructed. The trees at the south end of the lake had been felled and the lake was being infilled or was being infilled. • The Tribunal made its [RESPONDENT] on 23 August 2024 and its finding are set out above.

93. The Tribunal found that from the satellite pictures provided for 2015 to 2020 the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] enjoyed a vista towards the south across the lake to the willow trees at its edge and hedges. The pictures from 2023 showed a marked change the

19

trees had been felled and the lake was being infilled. Between 2015 and the [RESPONDENT] of the [RESPONDENT] [NAME] has been the scene of continuing extensive building works.

94. Although, from the tree surgeons report provided, some of the willow trees around the lake were diseased, nevertheless, [NAME] were not and were removed to expand [NAME]. The planting of trees on the adjacent land is not a visual replacement for the healthy willows around the lake and the saplings will take many years to mature. The area of the lake that has been infilled since 2021 has been left as rough scrub land and is unsightly and unsuitable for walking near the lake edge.

95. The Tribunal found that the loss of the healthy trees and the infilling of the lake has resulted in a marked deterioration in [NAME] since 2022 and the restricted access to the lake edge has a significant adverse impact on amenity.

96. The Tribunal found from its knowledge and experience that the building works and the removal of the trees and hedgerows will have resulted in a loss of wildlife habitat. The extent to which this has had an adverse effect is a matter for expert evidence which was not provided.

97. The issue is not whether there has been a deterioration in the condition or loss of amenity of [NAME] “as a whole” but whether there has been “any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity,” of [NAME]

98. The Tribunal determined from these findings that there had been a deterioration in condition and a decrease in amenity over time but particularly since 2022 which rebutted the presumption and is dealt with in the decision below.

99. In considering the parties’ submissions as to the [RESPONDENT] for comparison of condition and amenity, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the “current condition” was intended to refer to the condition as at the [RESPONDENT] of the pitch fee review.

100. However, in this [RESPONDENT] the [RESPONDENT] of comparison is not a deciding issue as the Tribunal found that at the [RESPONDENT] of the [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT] the deterioration in condition and decrease in amenity of the loss of the trees and infill of the lake were still apparent.

b) Inadequate Sewerage

101. References to the [NAME] in this section include [NAME].

[RESPONDENT]

102. The Respondents stated that since 2019, there had been an ever-increasing problem resulting in an over-whelming smell of sewerage around the whole [NAME] which comes from the [NAME]’s own onsite sewerage system. Raw sewage has overflowed onto roads from drains around [NAME] and has taken weeks to resolve. As the [NAME] has grown, the sewerage system has proved to be not fit for purpose, with constant breakdowns of the pumping stations being a major factor. Once these pumps fail, the sewage rises

20

and creates very pungent odours. The sewerage pumps around the [NAME] require a major overhaul before being adequate to sufficiently pump the sewage to the main plant on the [NAME].

103. The planning approval to develop [NAME] states that works on the Barn cannot commence until the [NAME] had laid a connecting sewerage system and connected it to [NAME]'s main sewer, which as of 15 March 2023, had not been completed. The [NAME] [RESPONDENT] have had since 2018 to sort out this sewerage system as they had permission from [NAME] to commence the connection at that time.

Applicant’s [RESPONDENT]

104. The Applicant said that as from 1 December 2023 the [NAME] has been connected to the mains sewerage system which has been a significant improvement. There are 9 pumping stations on [NAME] which pump sewage to the mains.

105. The Applicant said that the first witness statement of [APPELLANT] explained the issues experienced in the past year to do with the workings of the Klargester system and how this has been replaced with the system now in place. Improvements have been made to the system of sewerage disposal on [NAME]. It was denied that there is a sub-standard sewerage system. The sewerage system is appropriate.

106. It was added that the allegations regarding the sewerage system needed to be supported by expert evidence.

107. In response to the Tribunal’s questions, it was stated that the sewerage system was not a combined sewage and storm water system. Storm water drained away into the ground, lake, mill stream, and River Nene. The issues regarding [NAME] drainage are separate from those relating to the sewerage system.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

108. The Tribunal found that problems with the sewerage system could amount to a deterioration in condition and a loss of amenity under paragraph 18(1) (aa).

109. The Tribunal accepted that where issues had arisen, the Applicant had sought to remedy them. It was apparent that [NAME] is situated on a flood plain and that, in the knowledge and experience of the Tribunal, this can cause the sort of problems the Respondents describe, irrespective of the efficiency of the sewerage system. However, if the issues are a result of a defective system, as alleged by the Respondents, then expert evidence needed to be adduced. The Tribunal determined that without an expert report there was insufficient evidence to find there had been a deterioration in condition or loss of amenity to rebut the presumption.

21

c) [NAME] and Mill Stream

Respondent’s [RESPONDENT]

110. The Respondents stated that there had not been any problems with roads flooding before 2020, but since new roads have been laid, there has been constant flooding and large puddles of water sitting on road surfaces. These are often muddy and dirty due to continuous [NAME] [NAME] vehicles. The [NAME] has made no effort to rectify the problem. [NAME] and Quayside are very heavily flooded after rainstorms, with large puddles also appearing along Lakeside. [NAME] rules and [NAME] licence both state that “all roads shall have adequate surface water/storm drainage”. This is not the [RESPONDENT] in the newer areas of the [NAME], such as Quayside, [NAME], Parkside, Lakeside and Meadowside, which all simply have kerbside gully outlets that are not connected to a drainage system. Roads are now, at times, not passable on foot.

111. In 2016 there was a drainage ditch along the boundary along [ADDRESS], which collected water that came off the adjacent field and dispersed it into the river. This was infilled to provide gardens for [COMPANY] along [ADDRESS]. There was also a ditch along the boundary between the neighbouring sheep field that was lined with trees, hedges and a ditch that ran the length of the field to the river. The Respondents believe these ditches and vegetation should have been preserved to help with the surface water drainage and flooding on the [NAME] and their destruction by the Applicant has compounded the drainage problems.

112. The Respondents stated the Applicant is not upholding their responsibilities for the regular maintenance of the Mill Stream that is required under the terms of their agreement between [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and the Environment Agency and that this is having an impact on the ability of [NAME] to cope with flooding. The Respondents stated that a riparian owner is required to “maintain the beds and banks” of the watercourse and is not “only responsible for the flow of water" and the removal of blockages, as the Applicant claims.

113. The Respondents said they were concerned the Applicant had raised the ground level on [NAME] which had impacted the flow of water, this coupled with the infilling of the lake, ditches and removal of several established trees had hampered [NAME]’s ability to cope with excess water. [NAME] [NAME] added that he believed the heavy plant used to move earth in constructing the new pitches had damaged or displaced the drainage system that had existed. He said that the drainage system was able to cope with the water until [NAME] was extended and developed.

[RESPONDENT]

114. The Applicant said that it is denied that there has been a deterioration in the condition of the Mill Stream due to a lack of maintenance or that it is any less pleasant for those living adjacent to the Stream. The Environment Agency has not raised any concerns about maintenance. The Mill Stream is maintained and reeds are removed.

22

115. The Applicant said it was admitted that when there has been continuous periods of heavy rain or circumstances where [NAME] floods because the River Nene bursts its banks, surface water takes longer to drain away. Some parts of [NAME] are more effected than [NAME] and some of the [NAME] living on or around [NAME] [RESPONDENT] have experienced issues on the roads when the water table rises. The difficulty is the location of [NAME] on a flood plain and balancing the issues brought by an increase in the water table due to the heavy periods of rainfall and storms. It was denied that the condition of [NAME] has worsened because of standing water due to heavy periods of rain or that the pleasantness of [NAME] has deteriorated.

116. There is a condition of [NAME] licence about the adequacy of surface water drainage but no concerns have been raised by the Local Authority under the conditions of [NAME] licence over the adequacy or otherwise of the surface water drainage on [NAME].

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

117. The Tribunal found that problems with the drainage system could amount to a deterioration in condition and a loss of an amenity under paragraph 18(1) (aa).

118. As [NAME] is situated on a flood plain and, in the knowledge and experience of the Tribunal, the sort of problems the Respondents describe can occur due to the topography of the land or particularly heavy rainfall. To show that the slowness of surface water to drain away resulting in large puddles and muddy roads is due to either action or inaction of the [NAME] and not just natural causes, needs to be supported by evidence. The Respondents need to adduce evidence, for example from the Environment Agency, Local Authority, or an experts’ report to show that there had been a deterioration in the condition of [NAME] or loss of amenity due to the failure by the [NAME] to provide adequate drainage or that the actions of the [NAME], in extending [NAME], had caused the drainage to become inadequate e.g. due to filling ditches or damaging the existing drainage system.

119. The Tribunal determined that without an expert or similar report there was insufficient evidence to find there had been a deterioration in condition or loss of amenity to rebut the presumption.

Ground 5 – Reduction of Services

120. In paragraph 18(1) (ab) “services” provided by the [NAME] refers to the provision of [NAME]. The Respondents’ reference to services in their statement of [RESPONDENT] is to [RESPONDENT] such as waste collection and grass cutting which relate to condition and amenities of [NAME] and so come within paragraph 18(1) (aa).

a) Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan

Respondent’s [RESPONDENT]

121. The Respondents submitted that the flood Awareness criteria and action plan have not been renewed or reviewed since 2019, therefore severely reducing the services Respondents should expect.

23

[RESPONDENT]

122. The Applicant stated that a flood awareness plan is in place and that it liaised with the [NAME] higher up stream on the River Nene to provide early warning of possible flooding.

Tribunal Findings and Determination

123. The Tribunal found that a flood plan was in place and determined that there had been no reduction in amenity under paragraph 18(1) (aa).

b) Collection of Recycling & [RESPONDENT]

124. The Respondents said that over at least 5 years [NAME] [NAME] collected garden waste and cardboard recycling daily. This now only occurs once per week, on a specific day, which is not always suitable for [NAME] [RESPONDENT].

[RESPONDENT]

125. The Applicant replied that garden waste is collected from [NAME]’s pitches. It is not a contractual obligation to collect garden waste daily. The collection of garden waste does not constitute a service envisaged by paragraph 18(1) (ab).

Tribunal Findings and Determination

126. From the Tribunal’s knowledge and experience household waste, whether compostable or recycling is in the wider community not collected more than once a week. The Tribunal found from its [RESPONDENT] that the change in collection did not amount to a reduction in amenity which rebutted the presumption.

c) Staffing Levels

127. The Respondents said that the grounds staff keep the grass around gardens and frontages cut as well as other routine duties such as delivering gas bottles, reading electricity meters, sweeping empty plots, and cleaning the roads. Since 2018 there have been 4 grounds staff however the size of [NAME] has doubled. As a result, there has been a reduction in the level of service offered to Respondents. Staff have difficulty in doing all the work. Tasks such as grass cutting, strimming, road cleaning, emptying of dog waste bins (resulting in very unpleasant smells very near to [COMPANY]), as well as general maintenance around [NAME] are often left until the staff have time to fit them in between doing other work. [NAME] [RESPONDENT] now must maintain the riverbank on the Mill Stream (outside their homes) themselves.

[RESPONDENT]

128. The Applicant said that there had been no reduction in staffing levels nor had there been a deterioration in the condition of [NAME] due to any alleged reduction in services.

24

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

129. The Tribunal found from its [RESPONDENT] areas of [NAME] where [COMPANY] were occupied were kept in good condition. No evidence was adduced of historic failure to maintain [NAME] in these areas. The Tribunal determined that there had been no reduction in the condition or amenity to rebut the presumption.

d) Goldshield Registration

Respondent’s [RESPONDENT]

130. The Respondents said that the Applicant had failed to put the 10-year Goldshield insurance warranty in place until [NAME] [RESPONDENT] raised the issue.

[RESPONDENT]

131. The Applicant said that the Goldshield warranty and now Platinum warranty is a warranty provided by the manufacturers of the [COMPANY]. It is for [NAME] [RESPONDENT] to register their [COMPANY] under the warranty.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

132. The Tribunal found that any issue regarding the warranties of [COMPANY] was a matter between the seller, [NAME], and [NAME]. The Tribunal determined that it did not concern [NAME] condition, amenities, or services and therefore did not relate to the pitch fee.

e) Gas Bottle Delivery

Respondent’s [RESPONDENT]

133. The Respondents said that Gas bottle delivery to [COMPANY] was 7 days a week 52 weeks a year. Delivery is now only twice per week with an additional cost of £25 per bottle if one is required as an emergency. 47kg bottles to were sold to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] which the [NAME] would supply and fit. This service is now only available to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] who are considered by the Applicant to be vulnerable and/or pay £5 extra for each bottle each time.

[RESPONDENT]

134. The Applicant said that gas bottles are delivered twice a week to [NAME] [RESPONDENT] after an order is placed. The regularity of the supply is not something which is prescribed under the Mobile Homes Act agreement. The regularity of the supply is not a contractual obligation. It was denied that there has been a decrease in amenity and reduction in service.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

25

135. The Tribunal found that the delivery of gas bottles is a separate contractual matter between the provider of the service, which in this [RESPONDENT] is the [NAME] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. The Tribunal determined that it is not a part of the Written Statement of Agreement and so not related to the pitch fee.

f) Motor Home Storage

136. The Tribunal determined that arrangements for motor home storage are contractual arrangements that fell outside the Written Statement of Agreement. Therefore, they did not relate to the pitch fee and so could not rebut the presumption.

Ground 6 - Disruption/[RESPONDENT]

137. The Respondents said they had suffered from noise, nuisance, and disruption due to continuous ongoing [NAME] work across the [NAME] including [NAME]. Phase 2 of [NAME] works was not fully completed before the [NAME] started works on phase 3, which is still unfinished. This was compounded when the [NAME] started to infill the lake which has since been stopped by the Environment Agency. This importation of spoil and infill material resulted in over 100 large tipper trucks converging onto [NAME] bringing in mud, dust and fumes, which affected the lives of all Respondents with only two service roads on [NAME] for heavy tipper trucks and excavating machinery. Photographs were provided to show the extent of the work.

138. The Respondents referred to [NAME] v [COMPANY] 2017 (UKUT) 24 and CHI/19UD/2023/0127-0164 and [COUNSEL] comments in the Upper Tribunal when considering an appeal of the First Tier Tribunals decision with reference CAM/26UC/PHI/2013/0004. He said the question is not whether deterioration in condition or decline in amenity will continue for all-time but rather whether there has been such deterioration or decline at the relevant time. He stated:

“It does not follow that a temporary loss of amenity cannot reasonably be the basis of the RPI increase in pitch fees. Such curtailment need not have a permanent effect” and "It is therefore open to the First Tier Tribunal on the next review to adjust the appropriate increase to reflect the fact that a temporary disruption, which justified restricting the increase is no longer relevant.”

139. It was submitted the Tribunal should consider this based on the disruption the Respondents have had to put up with over the past three years.

[RESPONDENT]

140. The Applicant stated that all [NAME] [RESPONDENT] come to [NAME] knowing that it is under [NAME]. The aerial photographs of [NAME] show that building materials and equipment have been kept in an area away from the occupied [COMPANY]. The photographs from the [NAME]’s Facebook page show [NAME]’s roads and developed pitches in a clean and tidy condition.

26

141. The Applicant submitted that any disruption was transient in nature and therefore neither within paragraph 18(1) nor a “weighty factor” making it reasonable to rebut the presumption under paragraph 20.

142. The Applicant said that the Upper Tribunal decision of [COUNSEL] regarding the first Tribunal Decision CAM/26UC/PHI/2013/0004 is a decision from 2013, which predates the current statutory pitch fee review provisions. This decision could not be located.

143. It was submitted that a “deterioration in condition” or a “decrease in amenity" must be permanent or long lasting to be a “weighty factor” and not transitory in nature.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

144. The Tribunal was aware of both the Upper Tribunal decision of [COUNSEL] and the First-tier Tribunal Decision CAM/26UC/PHI/2013/0004. At that time the loss of amenity had to occur since the last review. This has since changed. However, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the loss of amenity does not need to be permanent and it depends on the loss of amenity as to whether it can be described as long lasting for it to come within paragraph 18(1) (aa). The Tribunal was also of the view that significant disruption could amount to a “weighty factor” making it reasonable to rebut the presumption under paragraph 20.

145. The Tribunal does not consider the [NAME] able to be exempt from a loss of amenity because the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] knew that construction works were being carried out. For example, if a [NAME] is resurfaced or new pipes are laid the resultant loss of amenity may be considered transitory provided the work is done expeditiously. Such disruption is ultimately for the benefit of the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and on balance is unlikely to rebut the presumption. However, the disruption caused by the [NAME] of a [NAME] over a period of years is likely to cause a loss of amenity which may rebut the presumption.

146. The Tribunal found that the aerial photographs show a changing topography over a period of years from 2015. As one part of [NAME] is completed another set of works are commenced, affording little respite from the [NAME] works for the [NAME] [RESPONDENT]. Depending on when a [NAME] took up their pitch each would have experienced a new series of disruptions as [NAME] work progressed. The photographs provided show that at certain times the construction was significant and on the balance of probabilities caused very significant disruption through noise and dust irrespective of it being carried out on the periphery of where the occupied [COMPANY] were sited. The [NAME] [RESPONDENT] contracted for a pitch on a [NAME] [NAME] in a rural setting not next to a building [NAME]. When they entered their written statement of agreement, they cannot be expected to have anticipated the level of works that have been undertaken, as was evident from the Tribunal’s [RESPONDENT].

147. The Tribunal determined that there had been a deterioration in condition and a loss of amenity due to the disruption caused by the building works. Even if this were considered not to come within paragraph 18(aa) it would be a “weighty factor” under paragraph 20 and rebutted the presumption.

27

Ground 7 - Cost of [RESPONDENT]

148. The Respondents submitted that at the [RESPONDENT] the Pitch Fee was calculated, the RPI was at its absolute peak which was caused by several factors, including the war in Ukraine and post—COVID inflation. The Respondents stated that the in [NAME] v [NAME]/00HE/PHC/2023/001 and CHI/00HE/PHI/2023/0285-0313 the tribunal took into acount that when the pitch fee was set the RPI was at 14.2% (13.4% in our [RESPONDENT]), reflecting the peak of the increase in the relevant index during the last 12 months. The percentage change in RPI was 13.3% in February 2023 and was 11.4% in April 2023. By October 2023, the change in the RPI (for the preceding 12 months) had dropped to 6.1%.

[RESPONDENT]

149. The Applicant noted that there is a difference in approach between the Tribunals in different regions. In the Northern Tribunal in the [RESPONDENT] of MAN/SOUQ/PHI/2023/0046-0049, 0051-0055.0057, 0059—0068, decided on 15 November 2023, that at paragraph 92:

“The Tribunal of course appreciates how important everyone’s own personal and financial circumstances are, but also notes that the legislation has referred to a need to particularly focus the determination of new pitch fees on physical matters relating to [NAME], its amenity and the services and a presumption of a link to the RPI. There is no reference in the statutory provisions as to affordability, whether for the [NAME] or homeowners. The Tribunal is also minded that increases in the general costs of living, rapid or otherwise, apply to all, businesses as well as individuals. The Tribunal has concluded that affordability is not a relevant consideration within the statutory context.

Unless it would be unreasonable, there is a presumption that the pitch fee will increase or decrease by no more than the percentage change in RPI.

The factors in paragraph 18(1) do not include a high rate of inflation. It would be a nonsense if it did when the presumption of an inflationary change to the pitch fee exists.”

150. It was added that Martin Rodger KC in [COMPANY] v Bamborough [2016] UKUT 144 (LC) stated:

“The high rate of inflation is an external, economical factor, which is outside of the control of the parties to the pitch agreement and affects both parties. It is not something which has brought about an improvement or a deterioration to the condition of [NAME] or a decrease in amenity or a reduction in the level of services and it does not relate to any change to the pitch agreement made by the parties either. The high rate of inflation cannot be a weighty factor.”

28

151. The Applicant submitted that if the high rate of inflation is a weighty factor because of the cost so can a low of rate of inflation where a [NAME]’s costs had increased well above the retail price index to be adopted.

152. The Applicant referred to [COMPANY] v [NAME]: [2019] UKUT 0248 (LC) where Judge Elizabeth Cooke said in paragraph 40 the pitch fee is not intended to be examined as the cost of a collection of services to be examined on a pitch fee review. It was stated that Parliament had seen it fit to draft for a broad- brush approach when it comes to a change in the pitch fee and to limit the change by inflation unless that would be unreasonable. In [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] [2017] UKUT 0024 (LC) [RESPONDENT]/93/2016 it was stated that "the application of RPI is straightforward and provides certainty for all parties". It was submitted that it would be irrational for the presumption of an inflationary increase to be displaced by the inflationary increase. Therefore, the high rate of RPI cannot be a “weighty factor.”

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

153. Under paragraph 20 the presumption will apply unless there are a) improvements or b) deterioration in condition, decreases in amenity or reduction in services or their quality or c) some other matter justifies a rebuttal of the presumption either way. The review [RESPONDENT] is now set and the formula for calculating the pitch fee is standardised so that as the RPI fluctuates, over time the pitch fee should broadly keep pace with inflation.

154. Inflation affects both parties and the Tribunal found that inflation had increased over the period when the review in issue took place. Notwithsandiong this RPI as an indicator of the increase in inflation has been found to be unreliable and tends to overstate that inflation which is one of the reason the Consumer Price index is now favoured. Taking this into account the Tribunal considered that there is an argument for saying that if the RPI reaches such an exceptionally high figure when compared with the figures that come before and after that it might cause the pitch fee to be unreasonably high, adversely affecting the [NAME] [RESPONDENT] ever after. The issue in those circumstances is not that identifiable costs have increased or decreased nor merely that the RPI has increased but that the calculation based on the RPI at the review [RESPONDENT] gives an exceptionally high figure which is not a true reflection of the rate of inflation. The Tribunal is of the opinion that this could be a weighty factor making it unreasonable to apply the presumption.

155. The Tribunal examined the RPI for the period from March 2021 to December 2023 and found that the RPI for the months between April 2022 and May 2023 was disproportionately high when compared with previous and subsequent years reaching its highest point in December 2022. The Tribunal found that a review based on the annual increase between January 2022 and December 2023 of 13.4% was not a fair reflection of the rate of inflation and made it unreasonable to apply the presumption. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that it was a factor to consider when determining the pitch fee increase.

29

Ground 8 - [NAME]

156. In this section both parties referred to [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] [2017] UKUT 0024 (LC) [RESPONDENT]/93/2016 at paragraph 64:

“The pitch fee is a composite fee being payment for a package of rights provided by the owner to the [NAME], including the right to station a mobile home on the pitch and the right to receive services, [NAME] (2016) paragraph 24. In the absence of any express agreement for them to be charged for separately, the fee has to reflect all the [NAME]’s administration costs which now include [NAME] licence fee. Not all the [NAME]’s costs will increase or decrease every year, nor will they necessarily increase or decrease in line with RPI. The whole point of the legislative framework is to avoid examination of individual costs to the owner and instead to apply the broad brush of RPI. Parliament has regarded the certainty and consistency of RPI as outweighing the potential unfairness to either party of, often modest, changes in costs. That does not prevent any increase or decrease in licence fee from displacing the presumption of change in line with RPI. The example given by the FTT where a [NAME] changes significantly in size might be such a [RESPONDENT]. On the other hand, it might not, as the change in [NAME] licence fee would be reflected by a change in the number of pitches in respect of which fees were payable. However, the mere fact that a cost to the [NAME] has not changed is unlikely of itself to displace the presumption.”

[RESPONDENT]

157. The Respondents stated that the costs of running [NAME] had not increased in the twelve months before this pitch fee increase. Reference was made to paragraph 64 of [NAME]. It was submitted that the increases in the number of homes and their respective pitch fees have more than covered the Applicant’s costs of running [NAME]. [NAME] arranged a fixed four years electricity deal, which came into force in January 2022 therefore the Applicant was not affected by any added energy costs for running [NAME]. Any increase in water charges would have been absorbed by the previous pitch fee increase as would have any wage increases. No additional staff have been employed. As the running cots have not increased the pitch fee should not increase.

[RESPONDENT]

158. The Applicant also referred to [APPELLANT] paragraph 64 as follows: “The whole point of the legislative framework is to avoid the examination of individual costs to the owner and instead to apply the broad brush of the RPI. Parliament has regarded the certainty and consistency of RPI as outweighing the potential unfairness to either party of often modest changes to costs.” It was submitted that in the light of this the Tribunal should not examine the costs of running [NAME] and compare this with the income it receives and that the running costs of [NAME] is not a weighty factor.

Tribunal’s Findings and Determination

159. As stated in [NAME] at paragraph 64, the pitch fee is a composite fee for the right to station a mobile home on the pitch and the right to receive services. It covers the cost

30

of maintaining [NAME] as well as the administrative costs of the [NAME]. The presumption that the pitch fee will increase in line with inflation is intended to include both the right to station a mobile home as well as the related costs collectively. Unless there is an agreement that an item is paid for individually, the pitch fee legislation makes no provision for the costs to be determined separately.

160. The Tribunal found that the extent to which income produced by the pitch fee increase exceeds the running costs of [NAME] are not a factor it can consider in making its determination and so cannot rebut the presumption.

Ground 9 -[NAME]

161. [NAME] [NAME] referred to the 2019 tribunal decision in [RESPONDENT] number CAM/34UD/PH01201910003 regarding the electricity charges and the purchase of LPG from the [NAME]. The Tribunal determined that these were contractual arrangements that fell outside the Written Statement of Agreement. They did not relate to the pitch fee and so could not rebut the presumption.

Ground 10 - Other Matters

162. [NAME] [NAME] referred to a meeting on 21 April 2023 in which [NAME] [APPELLANT], [NAME], which had just purchased [NAME], had said that [NAME] had been poorly run with breaches of [NAME] since 2015, prior to it being taken over. [NAME] [NAME] referred to this as evidence of the deterioration in [NAME] amenities and services provided since 2015. It was alleged that there had been a deterioration in the condition of the roads and lighting.

163. He also stated that there had been issues of harassment.

164. The Applicant stated that there had been no breaches of the conditions of [NAME] licence nor any deterioration regarding roads or lighting and refuted the allegations of harassment.

165. The Tribunal found that [NAME] [NAME] alleged statements were insufficient evidence to form a ground of deterioration in condition, decreases in amenity or reduction in services or their quality in respect of [NAME].

166. With regard to the allegations of harassment this is not a matter with which the Tribunal can deal.

Decision

167. The Tribunal decided that: 1. Both the [NAME] and CCTV were matters which rebutted the presumption being what the Tribunal determined were weighty factors making it unreasonable to apply the presumption under paragraph 20. 2. The loss of the recreational area rebutted the presumption being a loss of amenity within paragraph 18(1) (aa).

31

3. The removal of the healthy trees and hedgerows and the area of infilled lake was sufficient loss of amenity to rebut the presumption within paragraph 18(1) (aa).

4. There had been a deterioration in condition and a loss of amenity due to the disruption caused by the building works. Even if this were considered not to come within paragraph 18(1) (aa) it would be a weighty factor under paragraph 20 and rebutted the presumption.

5. A review based on the annual increase between January 2022 and December 2023 of 13.4% was not a fair reflection of the rate of inflation and was a weighty factor under paragraph 20 which made it unreasonable to apply the presumption.

168. Having determined that it would be unreasonable to apply the presumption the Tribunal considered whether each of the above had affected all the Respondents equally and whether there should be any differentiation between them. From the dates of the agreements, all the Respondents had taken up residence between 2015 and 2022 so they all would have been enticed by the promise of the [NAME], felt the loss of the recreational area, the removal of the trees, the infilling of the lake, and the disruption caused by the building works.

169. The Tribunal considered the amount of the new pitch fee. It took into account an increase in inflation and all the factors referred to above together, not giving more weight to one than another.

170. The Tribunal decided that a reasonable increase was 6%. Applying this increase to the current pitch fees reviewed on 1 March 2022, the pitch fee increases for the 1 March 2023, are as follows: • To replace a current pitch fee of £274.82 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £291.31 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £281.69 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £298.59 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £295.43 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £313.16 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023. • To replace a current pitch fee of £302.82 per month the Tribunal determined a pitch fee of £320.99 per month as reviewed on 1 March 2023.

Judge JR Morris

32

Appendix 1 - Respondents

The Applications relating to the following were withdrawn Address Respondent [ADDRESS] [RESPONDENT] & [NAME] [RESPONDENT] 5 [NAME] [NAME] 21 [NAME] [NAME] 37 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [RESPONDENT] 26 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 8 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] & Mrs [RESPONDENT]

Respondents represented by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] (Group 1) Address Respondent 7 [NAME] & Mrs [RESPONDENT] 14 [NAME] 16 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [ADDRESS] J Romer & [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] Mrs [NAME] 6 [NAME] J [NAME] H 7 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] H 8 [NAME] [NAME] H 9 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] H 10 [NAME] [NAME] H 25 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 30 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] 32 [NAME] [NAME] 33 [NAME] A Brennan 35 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 38 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 40 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 43 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] 44 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 45 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 2 [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 4 [NAME] L Street 6 Quayside Ms [NAME] 14 [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 15 [NAME] 16 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 18 [NAME] [NAME] & [NAME] 1 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 15 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]

33

Respondents represented by [NAME] [RESPONDENT] (Group 2) Address Respondent [NAME] & Mrs [RESPONDENT] 1 [NAME] 8 [NAME] 10 [NAME] 11 [NAME] 12 [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 13 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 17 [NAME] [ADDRESS] [NAME] [ADDRESS] & [NAME] 22 [NAME] 23 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 25 [NAME] P & Mrs [NAME] 26 [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 1 [NAME] [NAME] 3 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 4 [NAME] Ms [NAME] 12 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] 13 [NAME] [NAME] 14 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 16 [NAME] [NAME] 18 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 23 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 24 [NAME] [NAME] 27 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 31 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] [NAME] 34 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 36 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 39 [NAME] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] 24 [NAME] 1 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] & [NAME] 2 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 4 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 7 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 9 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 10 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] & [NAME] 11 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 12 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 25 [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] 10 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [RESPONDENT] 11 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 12a [NAME] Ms Cooke & [NAME] 14 [NAME] [NAME] 18 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 19 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 22 [NAME] Mrs [NAME] & [NAME] [NAME] 24 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME]

34

26 [NAME] [NAME] & Mrs [NAME] 2 – Right of Appeal

1. 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 [NAME] which has been dealing with the [RESPONDENT].

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the [NAME] within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

3. 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.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the [RESPONDENT], the property and the [RESPONDENT] number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

35

Appendix 3 – The Law

1. Section 2 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Act”) provides that the terms of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act shall be implied and shall have effect notwithstanding the express terms of the Agreement. Paragraphs 16 to 20 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act were introduced by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (England) Order 2006. The relevant provisions of the legislation that apply to this decision given the issues raised are as follows:

2. Paragraph 16 provides:

The pitch fee can only be changed in accordance with paragraph 17, either— (a) with the agreement of the [NAME], or (b) if the court, on the application of the owner or the [NAME], considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed and makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.

3. Paragraph 17 provides:

(1) The pitch fee shall be reviewed annually as at the review [RESPONDENT].

(2) At least 28 clear days before the review [RESPONDENT] the owner shall serve on the [NAME] a written notice setting out his proposals in respect of the new pitch fee.

(2A) In the [RESPONDENT] of a [NAME], 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.

(3) If the [NAME] agrees to the proposed new pitch fee, it shall be payable as from the review [RESPONDENT].

(4) If the [NAME] does not agree to the proposed new pitch fee— (a) the owner or (in the [RESPONDENT] of a [NAME]) the [NAME] may apply to the court for an order under paragraph 16(b) determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (b) the [NAME] shall continue to pay the current pitch fee to the owner until such time as the new pitch fee is agreed by the [NAME] or an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee is made by the court under paragraph 16(b); and (c) the new pitch fee shall be payable as from the review [RESPONDENT] but the [NAME] shall not be treated as being in arrears until the 28th day after the [RESPONDENT] on which the new pitch fee is agreed or, as the [RESPONDENT] may be, the 28th day after the [RESPONDENT] of the court order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.

(5) An application under sub-paragraph (4)(a) may be made at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the review [RESPONDENT].

36

Sub- Paragraphs (6) to 10 are not applicable to this [RESPONDENT]

(11) Sub-paragraph (12) applies if a tribunal, on the application of the [NAME] of a pitch in England, is satisfied that— (a) a notice under sub-paragraph (2) or (6)(b) was of no effect as a result of sub-paragraph (2A) or (6A), but (b) the [NAME] nonetheless paid the owner the pitch fee proposed in the notice.

(12) The tribunal may order the owner to pay the [NAME], within the period of 21 days beginning with the [RESPONDENT] of the order, the difference between— (a) the amount which the [NAME] was required to pay the owner for the period in question, and (b) the amount which the [NAME] has paid the owner for that period.

4. Paragraph 18 provides:

(1) When determining the amount of the new pitch fee particular regard must be had to – (a) any sums expended by the owner since the last review [RESPONDENT] on improvements- (i) which are for the benefit of the occupiers of mobile homes on the protected [NAME]; (ii) which were the subject of consultation in accordance with paragraphs 22(f) and (g); and (iii) to which a majority of the occupiers have not disagreed in writing or which, in the [RESPONDENT] of such disagreement, the court [tribunal] on the application of the owner, has ordered should be taken into account when determining the amount of the new pitch fee; (aa) in the [RESPONDENT] of a [NAME], any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of [NAME] or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner since the [RESPONDENT] on which this paragraph came into force [26th May 2013] (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this subparagraph); (ab) in the [RESPONDENT] of a [NAME], any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to [NAME], pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services, since the [RESPONDENT] on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that reduction or deterioration for the purposes of this subparagraph); (b) … (ba) in the [RESPONDENT] of a [NAME], any direct effect on the costs payable by the owner in relation to the maintenance or management of [NAME] of an enactment which has come into force since the last review [RESPONDENT];

(1A) But, in the [RESPONDENT] of a pitch in England, no regard shall be had, when determining the amount of the new pitch fee, to any costs incurred by the

37

owner since the last review [RESPONDENT] for the purpose of compliance with the amendments made to this Act by the Mobile Homes Act 2013

5. Paragraph 20 provides that:

(A1) In the [RESPONDENT] of a [NAME], unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1), there is a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the retail prices index calculated by reference only to— (a) the latest index, and (b) the index published for the month which was 12 months before that to which the latest index relates.

(A2) In sub-paragraph (A1), “the latest index”— (a) in a [RESPONDENT] where the owner serves a notice under paragraph 17(2), means the last index published before the day on which that notice is served; (b) in a [RESPONDENT] where the owner serves a notice under paragraph 17(6), means the last index published before the day by which the owner was required to serve a notice under paragraph 17(2)