First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal upheld the increase in the pitch fee from £177.05 per calendar month, based on the Retail Price Index adjustment over the previous 12 months, as required by the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
⚖️ Legal holding
A pitch fee may increase or decrease by a percentage no more than the RPI adjustment over the previous 12 months.
📖 Technical summary
The tribunal upheld the increase in the pitch fee based on the RPI adjustment.
📜 Headnote Official document
The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) upheld the increase in the pitch fee from £177.05 per calendar month, based on the Retail Price Index adjustment over the previous 12 months, as required by the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
1
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER ([APPELLANT]) Case Reference : MAN/30UD/PHI/2021/0014
Property : [ADDRESS], Burnley, Lancashire
Applicant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted] : Determination of new pitch fee
Tribunal : [NAME], LLB E [NAME], MRICS
Date of Decision : 2 September 2022
DECISION
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022
2
1. The pitch fee payable by the Respondents for the year ending 31 July 2022 is £177.05 per calendar month.
2. The Respondents shall reimburse the application fee paid by the Applicants in the sum of £20.
REASONS
1. On or about 20 June 2021 the Applicant served a Pitch Fee Review Form on the Respondents, who occupy a pitch on the Applicant’s protected site known as [ADDRESS], Burnley. The Pitch Fee Review Form advised the Respondents that the pitch fee from 1st August 2021 was to be £177.05 per calendar month.
2. The Respondents have not expressly objected to the new pitch fee, but have continued to pay the pitch fee payable prior to 1st August 2021.
3. The Applicant followed the correct procedure for a pitch fee review as set out at paragraph 17 of Chapter 2, Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Implied Terms”), and correctly calculated the annual pitch fee increase in line with the Retail Price Index [RPI] adjustment over the previous 12 months.
THE LAW 4. Paragraphs 18, 20 and 22 of the Implied Terms govern pitch fee reviews. Paragraph 20 includes the following provision:
“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]”.
DECISION 5. The Respondents have not provided a statement of their case. They have not alleged that it would be unreasonable to apply the presumption authorised by paragraph 20 of the Implied Terms.
6. The pitch fee payable from 1st August 2021 to 31 July 2022 is therefore £177.05 per calendar month. Because they have not attempted to justify their refusal to pay the increase, and have put the Applicant to the trouble and expense of this application, the Respondents are to reimburse the application fee in the sum of £20.
Judge A Davies 2 September 2022
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 7 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increase Under CPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Upholds Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Approves Pitch Fee Increase Based on CPI
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules on Pitch Fee Increase Based on RPI
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 pitch fee increase follows the Retail Prices Index (RPI) adjustment.
- Procedural requirements for proposing a pitch fee increase are met.
- No significant deterioration in site conditions or services occurs.
- The proposed increase is within a reasonable percentage of the RPI increase.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Significant factors justify a deviation from the RPI increase.
- The pitch fee increase is considered unreasonable despite following the RPI.
- The decision does not fully align with the procedural requirements for proposing an increase.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision upheld the increase in the pitch fee from £177.05 per calendar month.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the park owner were involved in the dispute over the pitch fee.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the Retail Price Index adjustment over the previous 12 months, as required by the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Mobile Homes Act 1983, specifically sections 17, 20, and 22, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the calculation of the pitch fee increase based on the Retail Price Index adjustment.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the park owner who sought to increase the pitch fee.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any pitch fee increase is calculated according to the Retail Price Index adjustment.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The Pitch Fee Review Form and the calculation of the pitch fee increase based on the Retail Price Index adjustment 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 seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.