First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI

OUTCOME: Allowed

Page 1 of 18

Case Reference : BIR/17UD/PHI/2022/0012

Property : 70 [NAME_1], Staveley, Chesterfield

[POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME_8]

Date of Hearing : 9 November 2022

Video Hearing

Date of Decision : 8 December 2022

_________________________________________________________

DECISION

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Page 2 of 18

We determine that the pitch fee for the Property should increase from

the review date of 1st April 2022 in accordance with the Notice dated 1st

March 2022 in the amount detailed below:

70 [NAME_1] £382.58

Reasons for the Decision

Introduction

1. The Applicant is [NAME_10] Owner and the Respondents are occupiers of the Properties

described above. Each Respondent had signed a Written Statement in relation to

their respective Property described above which detailed the pitch fee and contained

an annual review date of 1 April. The pitch fees were last reviewed on 1 April 2021

when each Respondent agreed the pitch fee. The current monthly pitch fee isset out

below:

70 [NAME_1] £354.90

2. By Notice dated 1 March 2022, the Applicant gave notice to each of the Respondents

that they proposed to review the pitch fee from the review date of 1 April 2022. The

proposed pitch fee is set out below:

70 [NAME_1] £382.58

3. The proposed increase related to the increase in the RPI Index only, namely 7.8%.

4. The pitch fee does not include payment for water sewerage, gas, electricity and any

other services. Water and electricity bills are charged separately.

5. The Respondents did not agree to the proposed increase and did not make an

application to the Tribunal. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a

determination of new level of the pitch fee in relation to the Properties.

6. Directions in relation to Pitches 19, 45, 60 and 110 were issued on 30 May 2022 and

then set aside by Directions dated 31 May 2022. The latter Directions consolidated

the applications for the purposes of holding a hearing. Directions in relation to Pitch

21 dated 15 June 2022 consolidated that application with the aforementioned

applications. By letter dated 7 October 2022, the Tribunal proposed to consolidate

the application in relation to Pitch 6 with the other applications unless the

Respondent objected, which she did not. The Directions set out time limits for

submission of bundles. These were extended in relation to the Applicant.

7. All Respondents submitted a Statement in Response to the Applicant’s application

some of which included photographic evidence (undated) and the Applicant

submitted responses in Reply to each of the [NAME_11] respective submissions,

including dated photographic evidence.

8. There were previous Tribunal Decisions in 2017 and on 8 September 2020 regarding

pitch fee reviews which determined that there was no deterioration in the condition

or decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10] such as to displace the presumption of an

increase in the pitch fee by RPI Index.

Page 3 of 18

9. All Respondents have paid previous pitch fee increases.

The Law

10. The relevant legislation is contained within Schedule 1 Part 1 Chapter 2 of the Mobile

Homes Act 1983 (as amended) (‘the 1983 Act’). Paragraph 20 (1) provides that unless

it would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18 (1), there is a presumption

that the pitch fee will increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than the

percentage change in the RPI since the last review date.

11. Paragraph 18 (1) sets out factors to which “particular regard” must be had when

determining the amount of the new pitch fee.

‘18 (1) When determining the amount of the new pitch fee particular regard

shall be had to-

(a) any sums expended by the owner since the last review date on

improvements

(i) to (iii) …

(aa)… any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the

amenity, of the site or any adjoining land which is occupied or

controlled by the owner since the date on which this paragraph came

into force1 (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that

deterioration or decrease for the purpose of this sub paragraph);

(ab)… any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the site,

pitch, or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those

services since the date on which this paragraph came into force2 (in so

far as regard has not previously been had for the purpose of this subparagraph).’

12. The decisions in [COMPANY_12] v [NAME_13] and others

[2017] UKUT 28 (LC) and Vyse v Wyldecrest Parks Management Ltd

[2017] UKUT 24 (LC) both refer to it being possible for us to take into account

other factors which are “weighty factors”.

13. For the RPI presumption to be displaced under the provisions of paragraph 18, the

other considerations must be of considerable weight. “If it were a consideration of

equal weight to RPI, then applying the presumption, the scales would tip the balance

in favour of RPI”3.

14. Schedule 1 Part 1 Chapter 2 of the 1983 Act sets out terms implied in all Written

Statements including:

Site Owners obligations:

Paragraph 22

1 26th May 2013

2 26th May 2013

3 Judge Robinson Vyse v Wyldecrest Parks Management Ltd [2017] UKUT 24 (LC)

Page 4 of 18

The owner shall-

(c) be responsible for repairing the base on which the mobile home

is stationed and for maintaining any gas, electricity, water,

sewerage or other services supplied by the owner to the pitch or the

mobile home;

(d) maintain in a clean and tidy condition those parts of the

protected site, including access ways, site boundary fences and

trees which are not the responsibility of any occupier of a mobile

home stationed on the protected site.

The Inspection/ Hearing

15. The Tribunal inspected [NAME_10] on 8 November 2022. [NAME_14], [NAME_14], (both Directors of the Applicant Company), and [NAME_14] attended

on behalf of the Applicant. [NAME_16] (Pitch 19), [NAME_18] (Pitch 60), [NAME_23] (Pitch 110), and [NAME_21] (Pitch 70), attended.

16. [NAME_1] is a mobile home site located on the outskirts of Staveley,

approximately 5 miles from Chesterfield. The site provides over 80 [NAME_2] homes with

its main entrance/ exit off [ADDRESS] and includes an Estate office, store and several

visitor car parking areas. Staveley village which offers various local amenities

including a large supermarket is only 2.5 miles from Junction 30 of the M1 motorway

and [NAME_10] is also next to a bowling green and cricket club. [NAME_44] are also nearby. [NAME_10] has recently had several new

homes added which has required part of the roadway to be reconfigured at the rear

entrance.

17. A hearing was held by video on 9 November 2022. Both the Tribunal and the parties

experienced difficulties with the technology which significantly delayed the start of

the hearing and for which the Tribunal apologises. [NAME_14], [NAME_14],

(both Directors of the Applicant Company), and [NAME_14] attended by video on

behalf of the Applicant. [NAME_22] (Pitch 6) attended part of the hearing by phone.

[NAME_16] (Pitch 19) attended part of the hearing by video, Mr and [NAME_21]

(Pitch 70) and [NAME_23] (Pitch 110) attended by video. [NAME_18] (Pitch 60)

had to leave early due to a medical appointment and was thereafter represented by

[NAME_21]. [NAME_21] also represented [NAME_24] (Pitch 45) who could not

attend due to illness. [NAME_26] (Pitch 21) did not attend.

The issues

18. The Respondents variously gave the following reasons for disputing the

reasonableness of the pitch fee increase:

(i) Breach of [NAME_2]

(ii) State of road

(iii) Lack of/poor maintenance of [NAME_2] infrastructure and poor aesthetics

(iv) Drainage

(v) Licensing Report 2017

(vi) Changes to road layout

Page 5 of 18

(vii) Car parking spaces removed and each space reduced in size

(viii) Water pressure/leaks

(ix) Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

(x) Increase is more than inflation

(xi) Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

(xii) Lack of consultation with [COMPANY_28] re proposed works.

(xiii) Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works

(xiv) Development of [NAME_10].

(xv) Lack of amenities

(xvi) Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

(xvii) Misrepresentations when buying [NAME_10] home

(xviii) Cladding problems

The evidence and submissions on the issues

Breach of [NAME_2]

19. [NAME_29] say that the Applicant has not enforced [NAME_2] regarding

the minimum age requirement for residents; the prohibition of business activities on

[NAME_10]; vehicles and parking; unkempt and poorly maintained pitches; presence of

wooden structures on pitches; inflammable substances on [NAME_10].

20. [NAME_14] says that it is not possible to discuss matters pertaining to other

residents including any action that may or may not have been or are being taken. [NAME_14]’s evidence was that he was aware of the options available to him under the

Written Statement, including terminating agreements and confirmed that he had

taken such action in the past. The Applicant’s written submission identified steps

taken. In relation to [NAME_2] 14 regarding the age of occupants, [NAME_14]

advised that ‘reside’ was interpreted as being a person’s principal home and therefore

there was no breach if the person was registered for council tax at another address.

State of road

21. A number of Respondents say that until recent road surfacing in March/April 2022,

the road was uneven, had potholes and had been ‘patched’ for years. Photographic

evidence was submitted.

22. There is a footpath between nos. 58 and 56 connecting the outside row of homes to

the middle row and is claimed to be in a dangerous state of repair. Photographic

evidence was submitted.

23. [NAME_14] says that the road has been historically patched as and when required

as is evidenced by the photographic evidence he has provided.

Lack of/poor maintenance of [NAME_2] infrastructure and poor aesthetics

24. The Respondents refer to [NAME_10] being poorly maintained, with residents’ parking

spaces being used as storage yards for materials. Oil tanks, petrol and LPG canisters

are stored adjacent to residents’ homes leading to a potential health and safety risk.

Page 6 of 18

25. It is submitted that the Applicant has failed to remove trees, replace broken drain

covers and residents advised that they will have to pay if the works are completed;

refused to remove an oil tank after repeated requests and which was only removed

after the Tribunal application; failed to remove litter it has made; rectify damage it

caused to a [NAME_11] drive, kerb and garden edging and persistently damaged a

‘temporary’ kerb whilst demolishing two houses opposite one of the [NAME_11]

homes. It is also claimed that the Applicant has refused to provide [NAME_30]

with a copy of the inspection points.

26. There were two street lights out from August 2021 to October 2021 which created a

health and safety issue with the uneven road. Vegetation has not been cut back from

boundaries and building materials and dead plants can be observed in the

boundaries as evidenced by photographs included in the submission. Trees have not

been crowned.

27. It is submitted that the Applicant has not repaired or maintained boundaries, fences,

footpaths as is evidenced by the overall appearance of [NAME_10]. One Respondent says

that there are no designated walkways which means that you have to walk on the

main road.

28. It is submitted that the [NAME_32] is in a poor condition, in need of repair and has

been derelict since at least 2017, although new doors have been installed after the

Tribunal proceedings had commenced. It is claimed that there have been no

improvements to [NAME_10] over the last 5 years.

29. [NAME_14] says that there are very few areas within [NAME_10] for which the

Applicant has responsibility with the exception of the roads, visitor car parking, and

former laundry room. Maintenance was, and is carried out on a regular basis and he

listed details of the ongoing maintenance programme. He advised of improvements

made between April 2021 and March 2022 including altering the road layout

adjacent to plots 114, 112 and 44 to soften the curve in the road, installation of new

road kerbs to plots 63 and 59 where previously there had been none and replacing 4

street lamps with greener and brighter LED lamp heads. At the inspection he pointed

out [NAME_10]’s boundary fence and that vegetation referred to was on the

neighbouring Council land rather than [NAME_10].

30. The [NAME_32] is in the same condition it has been for years and is not in need of

repair. The outdoor store at the side of the [NAME_32] has been there since 2007

when the Applicant bought [NAME_10]. No LPG bottles or cannisters are stored there.

There are plastic oil tanks, wheelie bins and steps. There is no general rubbish stored

there. There is no ignition source to cause a fire risk. Occasionally, residents dump

unwanted items in the area without permission, which causes the area to look

unsightly until removed by the Applicant.

31. An oil tank was previously supplying oil to a rented home but the home now runs on

LPG and the tank removed. The Applicant is unaware of any litter problems and

these have not been brought to its attention. [NAME_14] says that any road kerbs

that are damaged will be replaced in line with their development plans. He says that

the Applicant has never been given a plan of [NAME_31] inspection points and that it has no

reason to have one.

Page 7 of 18

32. Comments regarding the removal of trees relate to a [NAME_11] former home

rented in 2017-18. The trees within [NAME_10] for which the Applicant is responsible

are maintained on an annual basis. Trees on resident’s plots, (other than [NAME_2] owned

trees) are the resident’s responsibility albeit the resident has to ask for prior

permission before carrying out work.

33. In relation to the street lamps, the lamp head was temporarily attached because it

had to be temporarily moved to allow for the delivery of the three new [NAME_2] homes

108, 110 and 112. It was securely held with tie wraps for a brief period whilst also

awaiting the delivery of the new LED heads.

Drainage

34. The Respondents say that there are insufficient drains on the road and when it rains,

standing water does not drain away.

35. [NAME_14] says that there were no top water drains when the Applicant bought [NAME_10] in 2007 and all rain water went to soak away. Since then, top water drains have

been installed all around [NAME_10] at various stages of development.

36. The Respondents refer to a constant smell of sewage from bathroom sinks which

suggests a drainage problem. A longstanding drainage problem still exists and

blockages still occur.

37. [NAME_14] says that traps are fitted to all sinks during manufacture of the home

and if there is a problem with the manufacture, the resident needs to contact the

manufacturer under the warranty. He confirms that the drains block on occasions

but this has always been due to solidified fat and/or baby/toilet wipes and residents

have been advised of how to dispose of such items to prevent future blockages.

Licensing Report 2017

38. [NAME_29] say that areas of concern identified in the 2017 report remain

matters of concern in 2022 and that this is evidence of lack of maintenance and

management of [NAME_10]. The Licence is still not displayed correctly, there is no up to

date site owner’s certificate of liability insurance and an expired Site Electrical

Survey. There is no Fire Safety Risk Assessment displayed. The onsite public phone

does not work as it is not connected. To raise a fire alarm a bell has to be rung which

is rusty and not fit for purpose. There are 81 homes on site with many disabled

residents. Residents have not been informed of evacuation procedures. There are

concerns regarding where the [NAME_33] could access water. Resurfacing works as

recommended have only been partially completed and that was in 2022.There

continues to be storage of LPG bottles and concerns regarding Domestic Fuel Tanks.

39. The [NAME_14] says that the Licensing Report 2017 was 5 years ago, advisory only,

not enforced and is not admissible as a reason for disputing the pitch fee. In 2017 and

September 2020, the Tribunal had found that there had been no decrease in amenity

or deterioration in condition of [NAME_10]. The Fire Risk Safety Assessment, electrical

test certificates, Site Licence and public liability insurance are all displayed in the

former laundry room.

Page 8 of 18

40. [NAME_14] says that fire safety equipment is maintained on a regular basis and a

log of this kept. The fire bells work correctly, the correct signage is on the fireboxes

and the fire extinguishers are serviced annually and certified. There has been no on -

site telephone since 2017. Residents have the [NAME_34] and emergency

number and should call 999 in case of a fire. Water for [NAME_33] would be sourced

from fire hydrants on [ADDRESS] not [NAME_10].

Changes to road layout

41. The Respondents say that a through road at [NAME_10] entrance allowing access for

vehicles to the ‘middle row’ of [NAME_10] has been removed leaving only one

access/exit route. Refuse collection is restricted and residents have to place wheelie

bins outside the [NAME_32] to be emptied.

42. [NAME_14] says that the road was removed in approximately December 2019 (as a

resident occupied a reprovisioned [NAME_2] home in May 2020 which takes

approximately 3 months to commission). As the issue is historic, it should be

disregarded. There are two entrances/exits on [NAME_1] and also two exits from

the ‘middle row’ and so there is always an alternative exit route if one road is

temporarily blocked. The Council had introduced larger bin wagons which could not

negotiate the corner and they have not been able to access the ‘middle row’ from

before [NAME_10] was bought by the Applicant in 2007.

Car parking spaces removed and each reduced in size.

43. The Respondents say that a number of car parking spaces have been removed or

reduced in size to allow new homes to be sited and visitor parking spaces removed by

allocating to new homes. For example, the car parking area next to Pitch 67 which

was originally for 3 small cars has now been reduced to 2 spaces which are so narrow

that 2 small cars cannot be parked next to each other such as to allow access and

therefore the space has been reduced effectively to 1 space.

44. [NAME_14] submits that whilst there has been a reconfiguration of the visitor car

parking spaces to provide visitor parking spaces on the ‘middle row’, the total

number of spaces on [NAME_10] has increased by one. During the redevelopment of

plots 67, 108, 110 and 112, on plot parking was provided for the homes rather than

spaces being ‘reserved’ in the visitor parking spaces as previously. The size of each

parking space has not changed as is evidenced by the pavers.

Water pressure/leaks

45. The Respondents say that the water pressure fluctuates and that the pipes leak. To

reflect the leak, the Applicant deduct 20% from the water bill invoice as was

evidenced by invoice for year ending 31st March 2020. Since the increase in the

number of homes, the water pressure has reduced. There has been no increase in the

infrastructure although new homes have been built on [NAME_10].

46. One Respondent referred to a test carried out by [NAME_35] on 19 September 2022

on their [NAME_2] home which indicated a pressure of 40psi and a flow of 9 litres per

minute compared to what they say is a recommended 45psi and 25 litres per minute.

Page 9 of 18

47. [NAME_14] says that water pressure is the responsibility of [NAME_35]. There has

only been an increase of one [NAME_2] home on [NAME_10] which does not affect the water

pressure. Bursts occur under [NAME_2] homes, which are the responsibility of [NAME_2] home

owners, and this can cause disruption to the water supply as occurred on 20 July

2022.He has not been advised of any leaks emanating from the water pipes for which

the Applicant has responsibility. The 20% reduction on water bill was calculated by

comparing the previous years total usage and adjusting by taking account of the

number of end users.

Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

48. The Respondents say that utility statements, which do not have start and finish

dates, are placed in the old laundry room which is not suitable for elderly people to

enter and which is locked and requires access to a key to enter. It is claimed that the

Applicant does not provide clear details to residents in relation to recharges for

services supplied and that they are merely provided with an invoice for their Pitch

with no proper explanation as to the basis of the calculation. Attempts to seek clarity

from the Applicant have not been successful as incomplete information has been

provided.

49. [NAME_14] says that the old laundry room is safe for residents to enter. Supplier

invoices for the 12 month billing period have been displayed there since 2007 and

residents are advised who has the key to the room. The supplier invoices are clear as

to unit price and standing charges and correspond to the price charged to residents.

Increase is more than inflation

50. [NAME_11] have referred to the increase being higher than inflation and

higher than the 3% increase on their fixed incomes of the state pension.

51. [NAME_14] says that the figure has been calculated in accordance with the

legislation and the published RPI figures.

Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

52. It was alleged by one Respondent that due to their mistreatment at the hands of the

Applicant, they were required to move address.

53. [NAME_14] denies mistreatment. The Applicant’s written submission sets out

details which are private to the parties concerned and therefore are not repeated in

this decision.

Lack of consultation with [COMPANY_28] re proposed works.

Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works

54. Road resurfacing works were started on 10 March 2022 and not completed until

April 2022. The Respondents say that occupiers have not been consulted about this

‘improvement’ and should not have to bear the cost as it is part of the Applicant’s

maintenance and repair obligations. A Respondent says that although there is no

Residents Association, the Applicant should have the courtesy to consult with the

[COMPANY_28]. There was no consultation with any resident regarding the

road resurfacing works. The Respondents have not been consulted regarding the new

Page 10 of 18

homes which have high wooden fences and decking areas which the present

occupiers are not allowed to have.

55. A Respondent says that less than one week’s notice of the resurfacing works was

given. No notice was given of the moving of mobile homes, installation of new homes,

removal of the exit road and visitor parking spaces.

56. [NAME_14] says that there is no requirement to consult with the [COMPANY_28]. Further, he was given short notice by the contractor and gave as much notice

as he had received. The works are not an improvement the costs of which are

included in the Pitch Fee review as the works commenced after its service and

therefore there is not a need to consult.

Development of [NAME_10].

57. The Respondents say that the further development of [NAME_10] by the Applicant has

placed additional burden on the infrastructure which has not been maintained or

upgraded, that main electrical circuit breakers are inadequate and require upgrade

and that the fuse switches have been blocked from tripping creating a health and

safety risk. For most of the year, one parking space was not available to be used as it

was used to store building materials and photographic evidence was attached.

58. The Respondents say that the development work to increase the number of [NAME_2]

homes by 6-8 is carried out during the week, at weekends and bank holidays and

commences prior to 7.30 am and finishes at 6pm or 9pm on bank holidays showing a

disregard for the residents living there.

59. [NAME_14] says that [NAME_10] has undergone a major development programme,

siting 8 new homes (7 of which replaced existing homes) and repositioning 3 homes

all on the same stretch. The redevelopment concluded with the siting and occupation

of the home on plot 114 in January 2022 which has been the only increase in the

number of homes since 2017. The standard and cleanliness of a developing site will

always be much lower than on an occupied site and clearance of the site has to be

done in a cost-effective manner. Building materials need to be kept on developing

sites and therefore there will be times when developing pitches and areas of [NAME_10]

are unsightly. The only way to achieve longevity for [NAME_10] is to buy older homes

and replace with new, thus improving the overall aesthetic of [NAME_10], although the

process will involve some disruption. He says that some Respondents bought homes

on the area of [NAME_10] being redeveloped and moved in during the redevelopment,

and therefore knew the condition of [NAME_10] before they made their purchase.

60. He says that workman arrive on site at 7.30am onwards and time before 8am is used

to quietly set up the necessary materials for work that day. Noisy machinery is not

used before 8am.

61. The Applicant was not made aware at any time of the allegation that the main fuse

switch in the former laundry room had been wedged. [NAME_36]’s evidence

was that even if this had occurred, a circuit breaker cannot be prevented from

functioning in such a way as it is necessary to get into the casing rather than disable

the switch.

Page 11 of 18

Lack of amenities

62. [NAME_29] say that [NAME_10] has no amenities or site enhancement features

for the residents. There is no staffed Estate office, no building for the use of the

residents and nothing of benefit to the residents. A Respondent says that the

electrical installation will not be able to deal with the likely future demand for electric

car charging points. Homes built on the land have resulted in [NAME_10] being more

crowded. Other sites have better amenities for residents and lower pitch fees.

63. [NAME_14] says that as those amenities have never existed on [NAME_10], they

cannot be considered to be a decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10], but would be

improvements towards which the Respondents would be required to contribute.

There has been an increase of only one home on [NAME_10].

Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

64. Three Respondents say that following discussions with the Applicant when buying

the mobile homes, they each entered into a verbal agreement to pay £50, £100 and

£100 respectively per month in addition to the pitch fee of £200, £250 and £250

respectively per month as part of a financial agreement to purchase the mobile home.

Therefore, any pitch fee review should be calculated on the lower pitch fees of £200

and £250 respectively per month with the amount for the financial agreement being

considered separately from the pitch fee.

65. [NAME_14] says that in these cases there was no financial agreement nor any

intention for there to be one. The Applicant took a commercial decision to reduce the

purchase price of the home in return for a higher pitch fee and the deal was

concluded when the relevant Respondents signed to say they had received the

Written Statement. There is no other agreement. No interest is charged and the

Applicant has no expectation of recovering the ‘difference’ between the asking price

and reduced price at some later date. He points out that some of the Respondents

had the benefit of legal advice when carrying out the purchase.

Misrepresentations when buying [NAME_10] home

66. A Respondent refers to being sold in 2017 a [NAME_38] when it was

subsequently confirmed to be a [NAME_40]. He was not advised that the

electricity was on the last year of a 4 year fixed term agreement or that some [NAME_2]

homes on [NAME_10] were privately rented by the Applicant rather than being owner

occupied. Another Respondent raises issues with the on-site commissioning and

construction work carried out by the Applicant on purchasing [NAME_10] home.

67. The Applicant’s written submission responds to the above issues in detail and

concludes by saying that this is not relevant to the application before the Tribunal.

Cladding problems

68. A Respondent refers to problems with the external cladding on new homes and a

dispute as to liability between the Applicant and the manufacturer, as the latter says

that the 10 year warranty may be invalid due to how the Applicant has constructed

the homes.

Page 12 of 18

69. [NAME_14] says that this is not relevant to the application before the Tribunal.

Decision

70. We considered all the written and photographic evidence submitted. We also had

regard to the inspection we carried out.

71. During the 12- month period applicable to this review, we agree that the RPI had

risen by 7.8 %.

72. For the purposes of the 1983 Act, the issue is not the actual condition of [NAME_10], nor

indeed the actual amenity of [NAME_10] or how it compares to other Parks. We have to

consider whether there has been any deterioration in the condition or decrease in

the amenity of the site in the relevant period. If we do so find, we have to consider

whether allowing an RPI increase would generate an unreasonable result having

regard to our decision on the reasonableness of the pitch fee increase generally.

73. “Amenity” in this context means the quality of being agreeable or pleasant and so we

must look at any decrease in the pleasantness of [NAME_10] or those features of [NAME_10] which are agreeable from the occupier’s perspective.

74. In light of the Tribunal decision of 8 September 2020 which related to a pitch fee

increase from 1 April 2020 and which determined that, to that date, there was no

deterioration in the condition or decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10] such as to

displace the presumption of an increase in the pitch fee by RPI Index, the relevant

period for our consideration is the period 1 April 2020 to 1 March 2022.

75. Our first consideration therefore is whether anything that the Respondents have said

persuades us that it would not be reasonable to increase the pitch fee by the RPI

Index. In relation to each of the issues the Respondents asked us to consider, we

comment below:

Breach of [NAME_2]

76. It is correct that it would be inappropriate for the Applicant to disclose what action, if

any, he is taking against individual residents. There is a lack of documented evidence

from the Respondents of them raising alleged breaches of [NAME_10] with the

Applicant. Such a paper trail may, in certain circumstances, suggest that due to lack

of response from a Site Owner and the time during which the alleged breach

continues, that there is an ongoing breach of Site Rules which is not being

appropriately managed. Depending on the alleged breach, that could, in principle,

constitute a deterioration in the amenity of [NAME_10]. However, the Respondents have

not provided compelling evidence from which we can make such an inference.

Further, in relation to [NAME_10] regarding the age of residents allowed to reside

on [NAME_10], there is clearly a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the

word ‘reside’ which, if not resolved between the parties, could form an application to

the Tribunal under section 4 of the 1983 Act to determine any question arising under

the Act or any agreement to which it applies.

Page 13 of 18

State of road

77. From the inspection and evidence in the submissions provided by all parties, (which

includes photographic evidence), we find that in the relevant period, repairs have

been carried out to the road surfaces. Considering the road surface in those areas

that had not been recently resurfaced, in the main we found the road surface to be

satisfactory. We are not persuaded that in the relevant period there has been a

displace the presumption of an increase in the pitch fee by the RPI Index.

78. The Respondents’ submissions were not particularized as to where and when the

concerns arose and therefore, we are unable to assess whether they occurred during

the relevant period. The photographic evidence was not dated. Further, some

concerns are not relevant to a pitch fee review, such as location of [NAME_31] inspection

points. Some concerns are due to lack of knowledge e.g.as to the boundary of [NAME_10] and/or a misunderstanding of the extent of the Applicant’s responsibilities e.g

trees.

79. In the absence of any compelling evidence from the Respondents of issues during the

relevant period, we accept [NAME_14]’s evidence that normal maintenance took

place in 2021/22. [NAME_10] has never had footpaths and therefore the lack of

footpaths is not a deterioration or decrease in the condition or amenity of [NAME_10].

The failure to display up to date certificates, for a period of time, does not, in our

view, amount to a deterioration in the condition or decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10] although may be a breach of the Site Licence Conditions. That is a matter for the

Council rather than the Tribunal under this application. We are not persuaded that,

in the relevant period, that there has been a deterioration in the condition or

decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

Drainage

80. The evidence suggests that the current drainage system has been in situ for at least 15

years. There have been improvements by the inclusion of top water drainage. We do

not accept that the increase of one [NAME_2] home will have caused any significant impact

to the efficiency of the drainage system. The blockages are caused by improper use by

residents rather than by a problem with the drainage system itself. We find that

there has not been a deterioration or decrease in the condition or amenity of [NAME_10]

in relation to drainage.

81. There is no evidence that the smell of sewage from bathroom sinks is due to some

action/omission on the part of the Applicant as opposed to the manufacturer of the

home and therefore we have not considered the matter further.

Licensing Report 2017

82. If the Respondents consider that the Applicant is in breach of the Site Licence, the

appropriate avenue is a complaint to the Council in order that the matter can be

investigated. The Licensing Report is relevant to the extent that it shows the

condition of [NAME_10] as at 2017 and therefore, whilst the relevant period dates from 1

Page 14 of 18

April 2020, it is useful as a guide as to how much, if at all, the condition of [NAME_10]

has deteriorated or it’s amenity has decreased.

Changes to road layout

83. The access road referred to was removed by December 2019 and therefore falls

outside the relevant period.

Car parking spaces removed and the space reduced in size

84. We accept the Applicant’s written submission explaining the changes to car parking

spaces and [NAME_14]’s evidence that, whilst the configuration of visitors’ car

parking spaces has changed so as to provide car parking spaces in the ‘middle row’,

the total number of spaces has increased by one. During the hearing, it was clear that

the Respondents had not fully appreciated the extent of the reconfiguration. Having

inspected [NAME_10] and noted the location of the 5 areas of visitor parking, we do not

consider the reconfiguration of an increased number of visitor car parking spaces and

the provision of on plot parking to plots to be a deterioration in the condition or

decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

85. From our inspection, and as confirmed by [NAME_14], we note that the size of

individual car parking spaces has not reduced as the original marking pavers are

there. Whilst we accept that the size of cars may have increased which reduces the

efficacy of the car parking spaces when two or more cars are parked together, that is

not due to any action by the Applicant and does not amount to a deterioration in the

condition or decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

Water pressure/leaks

86. Whilst we accept that a Respondent obtained a report from [NAME_35], this was

after the date of the Pitch Fee Review Notice. Further, whilst the report establishes

flow and pressure as at September 2022, we do not have the corresponding figures

for April 2020 in order to establish whether there has been a deterioration in the

supply. Further, even if there was a reduction in flow or pressure, the Respondents

did not produce evidence to establish that such reduction was the responsibility of or

due to the actions of the Applicant. We are not satisfied that over the relevant period

there has been a reduction in the services that the Applicant supplies to the site or

any deterioration in the quality of those services.

87. We prefer the Applicant’s submission that the 20% reduction to the water bill sent to

each resident reflects an acknowledgement of the use of the water by the Applicant

during the development works, rather than an admission that there are significant

water leaks which are the responsibility of the Applicant. The Respondents have not

produced any compelling evidence of water leaks prior to April 2020 nor that any

such leaks have got worse in the relevant period and we are therefore not satisfied

that there has been deterioration in the condition of [NAME_10].

Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

88. We accept the Applicant’s evidence that the utility statements are kept in the old

laundry room. If a Respondent wishes to have their own copy, under the provisions

of their respective Written Statements, the Site Owner is required to provide, free of

Page 15 of 18

charge, documentary evidence of any charges for utilities payable by the occupier to

the Site Owner.

89. The alleged lack of transparency of the bills is not relevant to the question we have to

determine and an application can be brought by the Respondents to the Tribunal

under section 4 of the 1983 Act.

Increase is more than inflation

90. Section 20(A1) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act sets out how the

RPI is to be calculated. As the review date is 1 April 2022, the increase of 7.8%

corresponds to the last RPI Index published before 1 March 2022 as is required by

the legislation (and which is further explained in the Notes attached to the Pitch Fee

Review Form). That is the figure required to be used regardless of the Respondents’

income.

Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

91. The Respondent concerned did not provide any details and we were therefore unable

to consider this matter. If the Respondent considers that the Applicant is in breach of

its obligation under paragraph 11 of the Written Statement (entitlement to quiet

enjoyment of the mobile home), then they may wish to seek legal advice as to the

avenues available to them.

Lack of consultation with [COMPANY_28] re proposed works.

Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works.

92. The road resurfacing works were carried out on 10 March and 6 April 2022, therefore

after the Pitch Review Notice was issued and the Applicant has not sought to recover

the cost in the Pitch Review Notice as ‘improvements’. If the Applicant seeks to

recover the costs as an improvement in next year’s pitch fee review, the Respondents

may wish to raise the above points, but they are premature in relation to this year’s

proposed pitch fee increase. We would point out that the law requires consultation

with a ‘qualifying resident’s association’ which the Residential Social Group is not.

Development of [NAME_10]

93. [NAME_10] has been subject to redevelopment for a number of years. More recently,

this has resulted in the reprovision of [NAME_2] homes on ‘the back row’ of [NAME_10] by

removing existing [NAME_2] homes and replacing them with new models. In total, the

redevelopment has increased the number of [NAME_2] homes and parking spaces by one.

94. We accept the Respondents’ evidence, confirmed by [NAME_14], that since

September 2020, building materials and pallets were stored on the visitor parking

areas, although [NAME_14] says that the areas could still be used. We have noted

the photos submitted by the Respondents. We considered paragraph 22(d) of the

Written Statement regarding the Applicant’ obligations to maintain [NAME_10] in a

clean and tidy condition. The cleanliness and tidiness of a development site is always

going to be much lower than a finished occupied site. The Respondents of two [NAME_2]

homes bought their [NAME_2] homes on the ‘back row’ as part of that redevelopment and

therefore occupied their homes in the full knowledge of the ongoing redevelopment.

We find that the cleanliness and tidiness of the ‘back row’ of [NAME_10] was less than

Page 16 of 18

should be expected, but it only [NAME_41] part of [NAME_10], and was within the context

of redevelopment. We also accept that there was noise relating to the development

but we have anecdotal evidence rather than documented evidence such as complaints

to the Applicant or diaries which would assist us assessing the extent of the noise. We

We therefore determine that any breach of the Applicant’s obligation is not sufficient

as to have amounted to a decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

95. In the absence of any evidence as to when it was alleged that the main fuse board

switch had been wedged, by whom and when, if at all, the Applicant had been made

aware, we cannot consider the matter further.

Future need for electric car charging points

Lack of amenities

96. We have to consider [NAME_10] as it is, rather than compare it to other Parks, the pitch

fees on other Parks or what the residents may wish to see regarding amenities.

Matters relating to the infrastructure of [NAME_10] which the Respondents wish to see

improved, (as distinct from being maintained), fall outside of these proceedings

which is concerned only with deterioration in the condition or decrease in the

amenity of [NAME_10]. A pitch review is not the method by which to obtain

improvements. The provision of footpaths, electric car charging points, bigger car

parking spaces, a staffed [NAME_32], and amenity areas for residents comprise

improvements, as distinct from maintenance. We should add that any improvements

requested by residents would likely be reflected in future pitch fee reviews.

Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

97. During the hearing it became apparent to the Tribunal that there had been a

misunderstanding by [NAME_42] who were present at the

hearing as to the nature of the commercial relationship entered into. Despite the

respective Respondents being of the view that at the end of their agreements the

Applicant would recover the amount of the reduction in the purchase price, it was

confirmed by [NAME_14] that there was no such expectation by the Applicant and

that did not form part of the verbal agreement. We noted that two of the

Respondents were legally represented when purchasing [NAME_10] homes. We find it

implausible both that a Site Owner would enter into a financial arrangement of the

type described by the Respondents without protecting their position by having the

agreement in writing and also that legal advisers for purchasers would not require

such a financial agreement to be in writing. Further, the pitch fees in the relevant

agreements refer only to ‘pitch fees’ and make no distinction between what the

Respondents allege to be the actual ‘pitch fee’ as distinct from the additional payment

made to reflect the verbal ‘financial agreement’ regarding the reduction in purchase

price. We prefer [NAME_14]’s evidence and find that the pitch fees for the

Respondents concerned are correctly stated in the Pitch Fee Review Notice.

Misrepresentations when buying the mobile home

Cladding problems

98. Such matters are not relevant to the application before us (which relates solely to

pitch fee increase) and are separate legal issues that need to be resolved between the

relevant Respondent and the Applicant.

Page 17 of 18

Conclusion

99. We are not persuaded that it would be unreasonable for there to be a pitch fee

increase as a result of deterioration in the condition or decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10], or otherwise in the relevant period.

100. There have been no improvements to [NAME_10] since the last review for which

the Applicant is seeking to recover their costs by an increase in pitch fee. There has

been no reduction in the services or the quality of services supplied by the owner in

the relevant period

101. We therefore accept the presumption that the pitch fee should be increased in

line with the increase in RPI index over the relevant period shall apply. We are not

satisfied that the Respondents have provided sufficient evidence to displace that

presumption.

102. We determine that the pitch fee for the Properties should increase from the

review date of 1 April 2022 in accordance with the Pitch Fee Review Notice dated 1

March 2022.

103. If the Respondents have continued to pay the original pitch fee since that date,

they must pay the difference to the Applicant.

104. We are not clear whether the Applicant has issued letters to the Respondents

regarding arrears of pitch fees arising from the proposed increase. We confirm that

the Respondents are not in arrears if they have continued to pay the pitch fee due

before the service of the Notice of increase. The difference between the current pitch

fee and the reviewed pitch fee becomes payable 28 days after this decision is issued

(paragraph 17 (4)(c) Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act).

Additional thoughts

105. We appreciate that this case was the first time the Respondents had been

involved in such an application and were therefore unclear as to the legislative

parameters within which we are required to consider such an application. They also

did not appreciate the need to have specific, particularized and time specific evidence

relating to the relevant period rather than anecdotes covering several years. They

raised many ‘historical’ grievances (some of which were raised by Respondents who

did not live on [NAME_10] when the matters occurred e.g. removal of roadway). Some

Respondents raised issues which they had not experienced themselves whilst living

on [NAME_10] e.g. blocked drains.

106. From our experience, disputes over pitch fee increases generally arise from a

lack of communication between a Site Owner and residents, which results in a lack of

clarity as to respective obligations, more particularly what is required of a Site

Owner under the terms of the written agreement, as distinct from what residents

may wish the Site Owner to do.

107. Whilst the Applicant has a maintenance and redevelopment programme, it

does not appear to be shared with the Respondents. This is entirely a matter for the

Applicant. However, we suggest that if the details were shared, the Respondents’

expectations may be better managed regarding works to be carried out and timescale

Page 18 of 18

and would allow more open and timely discussion of any issues. However, it must be

emphasized that it is not the Respondents’ role to micromanage [NAME_10].

108. We would encourage the Applicant and Respondents to look at methods to

improve communication and understanding of their respective obligations under the

written agreements. Any remaining areas of dispute could form the basis of an

application to the Tribunal for determination of a question on a specific issue under

section 4 of the 1983 Act.

Costs

109. No party applied for costs and we make no such award.

Appeal

110. If either party is dissatisfied with this decision, they may apply to this Tribunal

for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Any such

application must be received within 28 days after these written reasons have been

sent to the parties and must state the grounds on which they intend to rely in the

appeal.

…..............................................

Judge T N Jackson

Page 1 of 18

Case Reference : BIR/17UD/PHI/2022/0012

Property : 70 [NAME_1], Staveley, Chesterfield

[POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME_8]

Date of Hearing : 9 November 2022

Video Hearing

Date of Decision : 8 December 2022

_________________________________________________________

DECISION

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Page 2 of 18

March 2022 in the amount detailed below:

70 [NAME_1] £382.58

Reasons for the Decision

Introduction

below:

70 [NAME_1] £354.90

proposed pitch fee is set out below:

70 [NAME_1] £382.58

including dated photographic evidence.

increase in the pitch fee by RPI Index.

Page 3 of 18

9. All Respondents have paid previous pitch fee increases.

The Law

percentage change in the RPI since the last review date.

determining the amount of the new pitch fee.

shall be had to-

improvements

(i) to (iii) …

12. The decisions in [COMPANY_12] v [NAME_13] and others

other factors which are “weighty factors”.

in favour of RPI”3.

Statements including:

Site Owners obligations:

Paragraph 22

1 26th May 2013

2 26th May 2013

Page 4 of 18

The owner shall-

mobile home;

home stationed on the protected site.

The Inspection/ Hearing

entrance.

attend due to illness. [NAME_26] (Pitch 21) did not attend.

The issues

reasonableness of the pitch fee increase:

(i) Breach of [NAME_2]

(ii) State of road

(iv) Drainage

(v) Licensing Report 2017

(vi) Changes to road layout

Page 5 of 18

(viii) Water pressure/leaks

(ix) Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

(x) Increase is more than inflation

(xi) Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

(xiii) Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works

(xiv) Development of [NAME_10].

(xv) Lack of amenities

(xvi) Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

(xvii) Misrepresentations when buying [NAME_10] home

(xviii) Cladding problems

The evidence and submissions on the issues

Breach of [NAME_2]

State of road

evidence was submitted.

evidence was submitted.

Page 6 of 18

with a copy of the inspection points.

been crowned.

main road.

improvements to [NAME_10] over the last 5 years.

neighbouring Council land rather than [NAME_10].

unsightly until removed by the Applicant.

reason to have one.

Page 7 of 18

permission before carrying out work.

awaiting the delivery of the new LED heads.

Drainage

standing water does not drain away.

blockages still occur.

Licensing Report 2017

former laundry room.

Page 8 of 18

from fire hydrants on [ADDRESS] not [NAME_10].

Changes to road layout

bins outside the [NAME_32] to be emptied.

before [NAME_10] was bought by the Applicant in 2007.

Car parking spaces removed and each reduced in size.

Water pressure/leaks

Page 9 of 18

number of end users.

Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

provided.

Increase is more than inflation

legislation and the published RPI figures.

Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

Applicant, they were required to move address.

this decision.

Lack of consultation with [COMPANY_28] re proposed works.

Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works

Page 10 of 18

occupiers are not allowed to have.

removal of the exit road and visitor parking spaces.

therefore there is not a need to consult.

Development of [NAME_10].

disregard for the residents living there.

used before 8am.

the switch.

Page 11 of 18

Lack of amenities

There has been an increase of only one home on [NAME_10].

Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

considered separately from the pitch fee.

Misrepresentations when buying [NAME_10] home

Cladding problems

the homes.

Page 12 of 18

Decision

regard to the inspection we carried out.

risen by 7.8 %.

comment below:

Breach of [NAME_2]

the Act or any agreement to which it applies.

Page 13 of 18

State of road

trees.

decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

Drainage

in relation to drainage.

Licensing Report 2017

Page 14 of 18

has deteriorated or it’s amenity has decreased.

Changes to road layout

outside the relevant period.

Car parking spaces removed and the space reduced in size

decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

condition or decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

Water pressure/leaks

any deterioration in the quality of those services.

Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

Page 15 of 18

the Site Owner.

under section 4 of the 1983 Act.

Increase is more than inflation

income.

Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

avenues available to them.

Lack of consultation with [COMPANY_28] re proposed works.

Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works.

Development of [NAME_10]

Page 16 of 18

aware, we cannot consider the matter further.

Future need for electric car charging points

Lack of amenities

Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

misunderstanding by [NAME_42] who were present at the

Misrepresentations when buying the mobile home

Cladding problems

relevant Respondent and the Applicant.

Page 17 of 18

Conclusion

the relevant period

presumption.

March 2022.

they must pay the difference to the Applicant.

(paragraph 17 (4)(c) Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act).

Additional thoughts

on [NAME_10] e.g. blocked drains.

may wish the Site Owner to do.

Page 18 of 18

section 4 of the 1983 Act.

Costs

109. No party applied for costs and we make no such award.

Appeal

appeal.

…..............................................

Judge T N Jackson

Page 1 of 18

Case Reference : BIR/17UD/PHI/2022/0012

Property : 70 [NAME_1], Staveley, Chesterfield

[POSTCODE]

Applicant : [redacted]

Respondents : [redacted]

Tribunal Members : Judge [NAME_8]

Date of Hearing : 9 November 2022

Video Hearing

Date of Decision : 8 December 2022

_________________________________________________________

DECISION

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Page 2 of 18

March 2022 in the amount detailed below:

70 [NAME_1] £382.58

Reasons for the Decision

Introduction

below:

70 [NAME_1] £354.90

proposed pitch fee is set out below:

70 [NAME_1] £382.58

including dated photographic evidence.

increase in the pitch fee by RPI Index.

Page 3 of 18

9. All Respondents have paid previous pitch fee increases.

The Law

percentage change in the RPI since the last review date.

determining the amount of the new pitch fee.

shall be had to-

improvements

(i) to (iii) …

12. The decisions in [COMPANY_12] v [NAME_13] and others

other factors which are “weighty factors”.

in favour of RPI”3.

Statements including:

Site Owners obligations:

Paragraph 22

1 26th May 2013

2 26th May 2013

Page 4 of 18

The owner shall-

mobile home;

home stationed on the protected site.

The Inspection/ Hearing

entrance.

attend due to illness. [NAME_26] (Pitch 21) did not attend.

The issues

reasonableness of the pitch fee increase:

(i) Breach of [NAME_2]

(ii) State of road

(iv) Drainage

(v) Licensing Report 2017

(vi) Changes to road layout

Page 5 of 18

(viii) Water pressure/leaks

(ix) Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

(x) Increase is more than inflation

(xi) Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

(xiii) Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works

(xiv) Development of [NAME_10].

(xv) Lack of amenities

(xvi) Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

(xvii) Misrepresentations when buying [NAME_10] home

(xviii) Cladding problems

The evidence and submissions on the issues

Breach of [NAME_2]

State of road

evidence was submitted.

evidence was submitted.

Page 6 of 18

with a copy of the inspection points.

been crowned.

main road.

improvements to [NAME_10] over the last 5 years.

neighbouring Council land rather than [NAME_10].

unsightly until removed by the Applicant.

reason to have one.

Page 7 of 18

permission before carrying out work.

awaiting the delivery of the new LED heads.

Drainage

standing water does not drain away.

blockages still occur.

Licensing Report 2017

former laundry room.

Page 8 of 18

from fire hydrants on [ADDRESS] not [NAME_10].

Changes to road layout

bins outside the [NAME_32] to be emptied.

before [NAME_10] was bought by the Applicant in 2007.

Car parking spaces removed and each reduced in size.

Water pressure/leaks

Page 9 of 18

number of end users.

Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

provided.

Increase is more than inflation

legislation and the published RPI figures.

Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

Applicant, they were required to move address.

this decision.

Lack of consultation with [COMPANY_28] re proposed works.

Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works

Page 10 of 18

occupiers are not allowed to have.

removal of the exit road and visitor parking spaces.

therefore there is not a need to consult.

Development of [NAME_10].

disregard for the residents living there.

used before 8am.

the switch.

Page 11 of 18

Lack of amenities

There has been an increase of only one home on [NAME_10].

Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

considered separately from the pitch fee.

Misrepresentations when buying [NAME_10] home

Cladding problems

the homes.

Page 12 of 18

Decision

regard to the inspection we carried out.

risen by 7.8 %.

comment below:

Breach of [NAME_2]

the Act or any agreement to which it applies.

Page 13 of 18

State of road

trees.

decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

Drainage

in relation to drainage.

Licensing Report 2017

Page 14 of 18

has deteriorated or it’s amenity has decreased.

Changes to road layout

outside the relevant period.

Car parking spaces removed and the space reduced in size

decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

condition or decrease in the amenity of [NAME_10].

Water pressure/leaks

any deterioration in the quality of those services.

Lack of access to and transparency of utilities bills

Page 15 of 18

the Site Owner.

under section 4 of the 1983 Act.

Increase is more than inflation

income.

Alleged mistreatment of a Respondent

avenues available to them.

Lack of consultation with [COMPANY_28] re proposed works.

Failure to give 28 days’ notice of proposed works.

Development of [NAME_10]

Page 16 of 18

aware, we cannot consider the matter further.

Future need for electric car charging points

Lack of amenities

Incorrect current monthly pitch fee

misunderstanding by [NAME_42] who were present at the

Misrepresentations when buying the mobile home

Cladding problems

relevant Respondent and the Applicant.

Page 17 of 18

Conclusion

the relevant period

presumption.

March 2022.

they must pay the difference to the Applicant.

(paragraph 17 (4)(c) Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1983 Act).

Additional thoughts

on [NAME_10] e.g. blocked drains.

may wish the Site Owner to do.

Page 18 of 18

section 4 of the 1983 Act.

Costs

109. No party applied for costs and we make no such award.

Appeal

appeal.

…..............................................

Judge T N Jackson