First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
📌 In brief
In this case, the claimant requested an increase in the pitch fee based on the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase. The respondent argued that this increase was discriminatory compared to other residents. The First-tier Tribunal decided in favour of the claimant, allowing the increase based on the RPI increase.
⚖️ Legal holding
A park owner may apply different percentage increases when undertaking pitch fee reviews.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant sought an increase in the pitch fee based on the RPI increase, while the respondent objected due to perceived discrimination. The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant sought an increase in the pitch fee based on the RPI increase, while the respondent objected due to perceived discrimination. The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, stating that park owners may apply different percentage increases when undertaking pitch fee reviews.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00DA/PHI/2022/0042
Property : 23 [NAME]’S [APPELLANT], HORSFORTH, LEEDS
Applicant: [redacted] PARK
Respondents : [redacted] : Determination of new pitch fee
Tribunal : [NAME] M [NAME], LLB I James, MRICS
Date of Decision : 7 October 2022
DECISION
1. The pitch fee payable by the Respondents with effect from 1 April 2022 is £176.17 per month.
REASONS
1. In 2017 the Respondents purchased a park home at the Applicants’ mobile home park known as [NAME]’s [ADDRESS]
2. On receipt of notice from the Applicants that their pitch fee was to be increased from £163.42 to £176.17 with effect from 1 April 2022, the Respondents refused to pay the increase.
3. The Respondents accept that the reviewed pitch fee proposed by the Applicants has been calculated by reference to the RPI percentage increase in the 12 months prior to the review.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
THE LAW 4. Pursuant to paragraph 17 of Chapter 2, Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Implied Terms”) the Applicants claimed an increase in the pitch fee with effect from 1 April 2022. When a park resident fails to agree to an increase in pitch fee, the park owner may apply to this Tribunal for a determination as to the correct pitch fee.
5. Paragraphs 18 and 20 of the Implied Terms govern pitch fee reviews and the matters to be taken into account if a pitch fee increase is not to reflect simply any increase or decrease in the Retail Prices Index (“RPI”) since the last review. So far as relevant they read:
“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) which are for the benefit of the occupiers of mobile homes on the protected site;…..
(aa) any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity of the site or any adjoining land since [26th May 2013] (insofar as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this sub-paragraph);……
20 (A1) 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 [RPI]”.
6. The Applicants seek a determination as to the correct pitch fee to be paid by the Respondents. This determination is made, with the consent of the parties, on the basis of documents and written representations from the Applicants and Respondents. The Tribunal has not inspected [NAME]’s [ADDRESS].
THE RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTION 7. The Respondents object to paying the increased pitch fee because in 2022 the pitch fees payable by other residents on the park have been increased by a percentage (5.5%) which is less than the RPI percentage increase in the previous 12 months (7.8%).
8. When the Respondents initially raised this objection the Applicants stated that because of the increasing cost of living they had chosen to cap any pitch fee increases in 2022 at £13 per month, but this decision did not mean that they were limiting all pitch fee
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
increases to 5.5%. They explained that as the Respondents were paying a pitch fee which was lower than that of other residents, adding the RPI equivalent percentage of 7.8% still resulted in a monthly increase which was less than the £13 capped figure.
9. The Respondents say that they feel victimised and discriminated against, as their pitch fee increase is higher than that of others on the park. They argue that all park residents should be treated in the same way, and that they are being prejudiced by a decision of the Applicants to “level up” the pitch fees.
CONCLUSION 10. The arrangements between the Applicants as site owners and each park resident are private and individual. There is no presumption that pitch fee increases should be applied in the same manner to all residents. It is not unreasonable for the Applicants to apply different percentage increases when undertaking pitch fee reviews. The Respondents’ increase has been calculated in accordance with the Implied Terms and is payable as proposed by the Applicants.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 6 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on Retail Prices Index
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on Retail Prices Index
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Despite Resident Complaints
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The park owner's proposed pitch fee increase was calculated based on the RPI percentage increase in the 12 months prior to the review.
- The arrangements between the park owners and each resident are individual, meaning there is no requirement for pitch fee increases to be applied uniformly.
- It is not unreasonable for the park owners to apply different percentage increases when reviewing pitch fees for different residents.
- The respondents' pitch fee increase was calculated according to the Mobile Homes Act 1983's implied terms.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The residents' objection that other park residents received a lower percentage increase was not accepted as a reason to refuse their own increase.
- The residents' argument that they were being victimized and discriminated against by a higher pitch fee increase was rejected.
- The residents' argument that all park residents should be treated the same way regarding pitch fee increases was not accepted.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal allowed the claimant's request for an increase in the pitch fee based on the Retail Prices Index (RPI) increase.
Who was involved?
The claimant was the park owner, and the respondent was a park resident.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant, ruling that park owners may apply different percentage increases when undertaking pitch fee reviews.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Mobile Homes Act 1983 sections 17, 18, and 20 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that park owners may apply different percentage increases when undertaking pitch fee reviews.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also seek an increase in the pitch fee based on the RPI increase.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the calculation of the pitch fee increase based on the RPI increase mattered.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case like this.