VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Local Authority Secures Mobile Home Park Licence Fee Order

Case No.

📌 In brief

A local authority successfully obtained an order from the First-tier Tribunal requiring a mobile home park operator to pay an annual site licence fee. The decision was based on the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

⚖️ Legal holding

A local authority is entitled to require a mobile home park operator to pay an annual site licence fee under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

Topics

annual site licence feemobile home parkslocal authority enforcement

Provisions

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

📖 Technical summary

The First-tier Tribunal ordered the mobile home park operator to pay an annual site licence fee.

📜 Headnote Official document

A local authority applied to the First-tier Tribunal for an order requiring a mobile home park operator to pay an annual site licence fee. The Tribunal granted the order, citing the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: BIR/31UC/PHP/2020/0001

Property

: [ADDRESS], [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.

Tribunal

: Judge D Barlow

Date

: 10 August 2020

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

2

DECISION

Pursuant to s5A(3) of The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 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 Property is situated in Thurmaston, Leicestershire. [ADDRESS] is a relevant protected site situated within the area of the Applicant Local Authority. The Applicant has issue a site licence in respect of the Property. The Respondent is the licence holder.

2. On 13 June 2019 the Applicant issued as invoice to the Respondent for the sum of £280.00 in respect of the 2019/2020 Mobile Home Site Fee.

3. Reminders were sent to the Respondent on the 12 July 2020 and 26 July 2020, of the need to pay the invoice.

4. On 4 May 2020 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a Payment Order under s5A(3) of The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (as amended) requiring the Respondent as licence holder to pay the Annual Fee.

5. The Applicant confirmed that as at the date of the [NAME] to the Tribunal the Annual Fee had not been received from the Respondent in response to the invoice.

6. On the 5 May 2020 the Tribunal issued a Direction 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 5 June 2020. The Respondent failed to comply with the Direction.

7. On 15 June 2020, a further Direction was made stating that unless the Respondent complied with the Direction by 22 June 2020 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) (Property Chamber) Rules. Also, that the Tribunal need not then consider any response or other submission made by him and may summarily determine all issues against him (Rule 9(8)).

8. The Respondent failed to comply with that Direction and on 24 June 2020 an order was made barring the Respondent from taking further part in these proceedings pursuant to Rules 9(1) and (7)(a).

9. No [NAME] has been received from the Respondent for the bar to be lifted.

10. 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 I June 2019 to 31 May 2020 is payable by the Respondent to

3 the Applicant and make an order that the sum of £280.00 shall be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant, within 28 days of the date of this decision.

Name: Deputy Regional Judge Barlow

Date: 10 August 2020

Rights of appeal

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

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 issued an invoice for the annual site licence fee, which was not disputed by the mobile home park operator.
  • Reminders were sent to the respondent regarding payment of the outstanding invoice, but no response was given.
  • The tribunal barred the respondent from further participation in the proceedings due to non-compliance with directions.
  • No submissions or responses were made by the respondent concerning the annual fee.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The mobile home park operator failed to comply with the tribunal's direction to submit a statement of case and relevant documents.
  • The respondent did not lift the bar on their participation in the proceedings despite being given an opportunity.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ordered the mobile home park operator to pay an annual site licence fee to the local authority.

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 the requirements set out in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, specifically section 5A(3), was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the failure of the mobile home park operator to comply with the payment of the annual site licence fee.

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

The decision was in favour of the local authority.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure compliance with local authority requirements regarding mobile home park operations.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Reminders sent to the mobile home park operator and the application for a payment order were key pieces of evidence.

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 disputes.

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.