VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Local Authority Secures Annual Site License Fee Order Against Non-compliant Respondent

Case No.

📌 In brief

A local authority successfully obtained an order for the payment of an annual site license fee from a mobile home park operator after the operator failed to comply with court directions.

⚖️ Legal holding

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

Topics

tenancy disputessite license fees

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay an annual site license fee after the respondent failed to comply with directions.

📜 Headnote Official document

In a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) case, a local authority applied for an order to pay an annual site license fee of £280.00. The respondent failed to comply with directions and was subsequently barred from further participation, leading to a summary determination in favour of the local authority.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

[NAME]

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/31UC/PHP/2020/0002

Property

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

Applicant

: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

[NAME] : [NAME] by a local authority under s5A(3) of The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (as amended) for an order to pay the Annual site licence fee.

Date of Decision : 2 July 2020

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

2 The Respondent is ordered to pay the annual site licence fee of £280.00 for the Property, to the Applicant, within 28 days of the date of this order.

REASONS

1. The Applicant made [NAME] 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 2019 to 31 May 2020.

2. On 5 May 2020 directions were made requiring the Respondent to send to the Applicant and to the Tribunal a Statement of Case setting out all matters of fact and law relied upon and exhibiting all relevant documents no later than 4pm on 5 June 2020. The Respondent failed to comply with the direction.

3. On 18 June 2020 I made the following directions:

“Unless the Respondent complies by 25 June 2020 he will be automatically barred from taking further part in these proceedings (Rules 9(1) and (7)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules.

If the Respondent is barred from taking further part in proceedings the Tribunal need not consider any response or other submission made by him and may summarily determine all issues against him (Rule 9(8)).”

4. The Respondent has failed to comply with that direction and accordingly under Rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 the Respondent is barred from taking further part in these proceedings.

5. The Respondent has not made any submissions about the [NAME] and has failed to respond to all communications sent to him concerning this matter. The annual fee is overdue. I therefore summarily determine that an annual site licence fee of £280.00, for the period 1 June 2019 to 31 May 2020 is payable by the [NAME] and make an order that the sum of £280.00 shall be paid by the [NAME], within 28 days of the date of this decision.

Name: Deputy Regional Judge Barlow

Date: 2 July 2020

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

3 If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME].

If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 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 for the respondent to pay the annual site license fee.
  • The respondent failed to submit a Statement of Case as directed by the tribunal.
  • The respondent did not comply with the tribunal's direction to respond by a specific date, leading to their automatic bar from proceedings.
  • The respondent did not make any submissions or respond to communications regarding the application.
  • The annual site license fee was overdue.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the local authority should receive an annual site license fee of £280.00 from the mobile home park operator.

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 mobile home park operator failed to comply with 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 failure of the mobile home park operator to comply with directions was the central argument.

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 court directions to avoid automatic bar from further participation.

What evidence or documents mattered?

No specific evidence or documents are mentioned in the judgment.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a decision like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving legal proceedings.

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.