VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Local Authority Secures Licence Fee Payment Order

Case No.

📌 In brief

A local authority successfully obtained an order requiring the tenant to pay an annual site licence fee of £368.94 after the tenant failed to comply with previous directions.

⚖️ Legal holding

A local authority may obtain an order for payment of annual licence fees under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

Topics

tenancysite licence fees

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The claimant successfully obtained an order for the respondent to pay an annual site licence fee.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant local authority an annual site licence fee of £368.94, following the respondent's failure to comply with directions.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

[NAME]

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/31UC/PHQ/2022/0002

Property

: [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant

: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (as amended) for an order for payment of annual licence fees.

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 £368.94, for the period I June 2022 to 31 May 2023.

On 6 September 2022 the [NAME] issued Directions. The Respondent has failed to comply with paragraph 4 of those Directions.

On 28th October 2022 I further directed that unless the Respondent complied by 4 November 2022 he would 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.

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 him 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 £368.94 no later than 21 November 2022.

D [NAME] Judge 7th November 2022

📊 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 is entitled to an order for the payment of annual site license fees under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
  • A tenant must maintain their mobile home in a sound state of repair and condition, as per the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
  • A local authority must reconsider an applicant's fitness and propriety for registration if new evidence is presented during a tribunal hearing.
  • A pitch fee increase is reasonable if it reflects the high rate of inflation and takes into account reductions in amenity.
  • A mobile home occupier is entitled to certain protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the tenant must pay an annual site licence fee of £368.94.

Who was involved?

The case involved a local authority and a tenant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the local authority because the tenant 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 fact that the tenant failed to comply with previous directions was the most important argument.

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

The decision was for the local authority who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they comply with all directions to avoid facing similar consequences.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The directions issued by the Regional Surveyor were crucial in making the decision.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can typically 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 cases like this.

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.