VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Local Authority Secures Annual Site License Fee Order

Case No.

📌 In brief

A local authority successfully obtained an order from the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) requiring the respondent to pay an annual site license fee of £280 after failing to comply with previous directions.

⚖️ Legal holding

A local authority is entitled to an order for the payment of an annual site license fee under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

Topics

annual site license feelocal authority application

Provisions

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 s.5A(3)

📖 Technical summary

The local authority successfully obtained an order for the payment of an annual site license fee.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the annual site license fee of £280, following the respondent's failure to comply with previous directions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/31UC/PHP/2021/0003

Property

: [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Leicestershire, [POSTCODE]

Applicant

: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (as amended) for an order to pay the Annual site licence fee.

Tribunal : Judge D Jackson

Date of Decision : 25 June 2021

DECISION

2

The Local Authority has made application under s5A(3) of The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (as amended) for an order that the Respondent pay the annual site licence fee of £280.00, for the period I June 2020 to 31 May 2021.

On 11 May 2020 a Deputy Regional Judge issued Directions. The Respondent has failed to comply with paragraph 2 of those Directions.

On 10th June 2020 the Deputy Regional Judge further directed that unless the Respondent complied by 24 June 2021 it would be automatically barred from taking further part in these proceedings (Rules 9(1) and (7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules.

The Respondent has failed to comply and accordingly has been automatically barred from taking further part in proceedings

As the Respondent has been barred from taking further part in proceedings the I need not consider any response or other submission made by it and accordingly I summarily determine all issues against the Respondent (Rule 9(8)).

DECISION

Pursuant to section 5A(3) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 I ORDER that [RESPONDENT], being the Respondent licence holder, shall pay the Applicant Local Authority the sum of £280 no later than 9th July 2021.

D Jackson Judge of the First-tier Tribunal

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The local authority applied for an order to recover the annual site license fee.
  • The respondent failed to comply with the tribunal's directions.
  • The respondent was automatically barred from participating further in the proceedings.
  • The tribunal summarily determined all issues against the respondent due to their non-compliance.
  • The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the annual site license fee of £280.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the respondent must pay the annual site license fee of £280.

Who was involved?

The case involved a local authority and a mobile home park operator.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the local authority because the respondent failed to comply with previous directions.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The local authority's argument that the respondent should comply with the directions was the most important.

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

The decision was for the local authority.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure compliance with directions to avoid automatic bar from proceedings.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The directions issued by the Deputy Regional Judge were crucial.

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

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.