VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Residents' Association Granted Qualifying Status Under Mobile Homes Act

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal recognised the residents' association as a qualifying residents' association, giving them certain rights under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. This means the association can now consult with the a person regarding important matters affecting the mobile home park.

⚖️ Legal holding

A residents' association qualifies as a qualifying residents' association if it meets the statutory requirements set out in the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Topics

qualifying residents' associationMobile Homes Act 1983

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.1(28)

📖 Technical summary

The First-tier Tribunal granted recognition to the residents' association as a qualifying residents' association under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal granted recognition to the residents' association as a qualifying residents' association under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, based on the association meeting the statutory requirements.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

First-tier Tribunal

Property Chamber

(Residential Property)

Case Reference

: CAM/38UD/PHK/2023/0003

[NAME]

: [APPELLANT], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

[COMPANY])

Respondent: [redacted] : 7 August 2023

Type of [NAME] : to determine whether the Applicant is

a [COMPANY]

________________________

DECISION __________________ ©

Background

1. By an [NAME] received on 7 August 2023, the Applicant, [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] , applied for recognition by the Tribunal as a qualifying [COMPANY]. Such recognition confers upon the [COMPANY] the consultation rights provided to such associations by Paragraph 22 (f) of the implied terms set out at Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (as amended).

2. The tribunal issued directions on 1 May 2024 and indicated that in the absence of a request for a hearing the matter would be decided on written submissions. No request for a hearing was made.

The law

3. The law is set out in the 1983 Act as an implied term of the occupation agreements between a park home [NAME] and each pitch occupier. The relevant statutory requirements of a QRA which can be recognised as such either by the [NAME] or, absent such recognition, this Tribunal can provide a certificate of recognition. The minimum requirements are:

“(a) it is an association representing the occupiers of mobile homes on that [NAME];

2

(b) at least 50 per cent of the occupiers of the mobile homes on that [NAME] are members of the association; (c) it is independent from the owner, who together with any agent of employee of his, is excluded from membership; (d) subject to paragraph (c) above, membership is open to all occupiers who own a mobile home on that [NAME]; (e) it maintains a list of members which is open to public inspection together with the rules and constitution of the [COMPANY]; (f) it has a [NAME], secretary and [NAME] who are elected by and from among the members; (g) with the exception of administrative decisions taken by the [NAME], secretary and [NAME] acting in their official capacities, decisions are taken by voting and there is only one vote for each mobile home;”

4. There is an additional requirement that for the purpose of calculating the 50%, each mobile home shall be taken to have only one occupier.

Position of the parties

5. The issue between the parties appears to revolve around the ‘rules’ of the association. The Respondent requested these in an email to the Applicant of 27 April 2023 and the Applicant responded on 4 May 2023 attaching the constitution and confirming that there were no rules as yet.

6. In their witness statement dated 20 May 2024 as part of their tribunal submission the Applicant confirmed that the association does not currently have any rules.

7. However, the Respondent continued to pursue this issue and sent an email to the association on 13 June 2024 and a reminder on 14 June 2024.

8. In their submission they state that the Respondent had not refused to recognise this [COMPANY] but required the rules of the association to make such termination. It requested the tribunal issued ‘draft’ directions stating the Applicant must serve the rules of association, and that within 14 days of receipt, the Respondent must respond and confirm whether or not they recognise the [COMPANY] as a qualifying [COMPANY].

Determination

9. The Tribunal has considered the information supplied. It will not issue further directions as it is satisfied that there are currently no rules of the association and that the Respondent has been informed of this on several occasions. Nor will it further delay the process by

3

giving the Respondent addition time to consider whether they are content to recognise the [COMPANY].

10. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant has met the requirements of Paragraph 28 (1) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and accordingly finds that [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] should be afforded qualifying [COMPANY] status under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

ANNEX - RIGHTS OF APPEAL

i. 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 [NAME] which has been dealing with the case.

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

iii. 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.

iv. 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.

4

First tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Residential Property CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION An [NAME] from [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] for a Certificate of Recognition under the provisions of paragraph 28 of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 has been considered by [NAME] [NAME]([NAME]) who is a person appointed under the Act to the panel of persons to act as members of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for the Eastern area. This is to certify that [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] is a recognised [COMPANY] for the purpose of the aforementioned section. The Certificate will be valid for a period of four years commencing 1 July 2024 [NAME] [NAME]([NAME]) 1 July 2024

5

📊 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 applicant association met the requirements of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
  • The tribunal was satisfied that the association currently had no rules.
  • The respondent had been informed multiple times that the association had no rules.
  • The tribunal decided not to delay the process further by giving the respondent more time.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The respondent's request for the tribunal to issue draft directions for the applicant to serve rules was rejected.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided that the residents' association qualifies as a qualifying residents' association under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Who was involved?

The residents' association and the site owner were involved.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the association meeting the statutory requirements set out in the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the association met the statutory requirements for a qualifying residents' association.

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

The decision was for the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation could also seek recognition as a qualifying residents' association if they meet the statutory requirements.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence and documents showing that the association met the statutory requirements mattered.

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 get advice from a qualified solicitor for a case 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.