VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Site Owner Sets New Pitch Fees for Mobile Homes Due to Lack of Response

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided on new monthly fees for mobile homes in Cupola a person after the residents did not respond to the notice. The fees were set according to the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, respondents who fail to respond to a pitch fee notice within the specified timeframe may be deemed to have agreed to the proposed new pitch fee.

Topics

mobile homespitch feesdefault judgment

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.16

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal determined new pitch fees for mobile homes based on the lack of opposition from the respondents.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined new pitch fees for mobile homes in Cupola Park after the residents failed to respond to the notice within the specified period. The decision was based on the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : BIR/17UB/PHI/2023/0154-0158

Subject Properties : 2, 15, 47, 47c and 4 The [APPELLANT] [COMPANY]

[POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondents

: [redacted]

(2) Mr [NAME] (15)

(3) Mr [NAME] (47)

(4) Mr [NAME] and Mrs [NAME] (47c)

(5) Estate of Mr [NAME] (4 The Glade)

Type of Application : Applications under paragraph 16 of Chapter

2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile

Homes Act 1983 for the determination of a

new level of pitch fee for the subject

property

Tribunal Member : [NAME]

Date of Decision : 17/04/2024

________________________________________

DECISION ________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Preliminary

1 On 29 June 2023 the Tribunal received five applications from the Applicant, seeking determinations under paragraph 16 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 to Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 of new levels of pitch fee for the subject properties with effect from 1 April 2023. The pitch fee notices were dated 24 February 2023.

2 The Applicant is the site owner of [APPELLANT] [NAME].

3 The Respondents are the occupiers of the subject properties.

4 On 11 September 2023, the Tribunal issued Directions for the determination of these applications.

5 The Respondents were instructed that if they did not agree to the proposed new pitch fee, they must, not later than 25 September 2023, send to the Applicant, and to the Tribunal, a Statement in Response, setting out in full their reasons for opposing the proposed new pitch fee.

6 The Respondents were further warned that if they failed to comply with paragraph 9 above, they may be deemed to have agreed to the proposed new pitch fee.

7 No statements were received from any of the Respondents.

8 On 1 November 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the Respondents as follows:

On 11th September 2023 the Tribunal issued Directions.

The Respondents have failed to comply with Paragraph 9 of Directions with the consequence that they may be deemed to have agreed the proposed new pitch fee:

“9.If any of the Respondents do not agree to the proposed new pitch fee, they must, not later than 25 September 2023, send to the Applicant, and to the Tribunal, a Statement in Response, setting out in full their reasons for opposing the proposed new pitch fee. The Statement in Response must set out all matters of fact and law relied upon and must include all relevant documents.

10 If any of the Respondents fail to comply with paragraph 9 above, they may be deemed to have agreed to the proposed new pitch fee.”

Accordingly a Procedural Judge has issue the following further Directions to each Respondent: [redacted] p.m. on 7th November 2023 that Respondent will be automatically barred from taking further part in these proceedings under Rules 9(1) and (7)(a).

2. If a Respondent fails to comply with Directions, the Tribunal need not consider any response or other submission made by that Respondent and may summarily determine any or all issues against that Respondent (Rule 9(8))”

9 The Respondent of 47 [APPELLANT] [NAME] confirmed that they were paying the new pitch fee. No reply was received from any other Respondent.

Determination

10 Accordingly, the Tribunal summarily determines the following pitch fees are payable from 1 April 2023 (all per month):

2 [APPELLANT] [NAME]

£165.85 15 [APPELLANT] [NAME]

£165.85 47 [APPELLANT] [NAME]

£165.85 47c [APPELLANT] [NAME]

£239.17

4 The Glade

£165.85

Appeal

11 A party seeking permission to appeal this decision must make a written application to the Tribunal for permission to appeal. This application must be received by the Tribunal no later than 28 days after this decision is sent to the parties. Further information is contained within Part 6 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (S.I. 2013 No. 1169).

📊 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 pitch fee increase aligns with the Retail Price Index (RPI).
  • The site owner follows the proper statutory procedures for changing pitch fees.
  • The mobile home residents fail to respond to the notice within the given timeframe.
  • The increase reflects inflation and considers site improvements.
  • Proper service of notices to change pitch fees is provided under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The pitch fee can only be changed by agreement between the parties or through statutory procedures.
  • The increase is not solely based on the Retail Price Index (RPI) and includes unreasonable factors.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

It decided on new monthly fees for mobile homes in Cupola Park.

Who was involved?

The site owner of Cupola Park and the residents of the mobile homes.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided based on the lack of response from the residents to the notice.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The failure of the residents to respond to the notice was the critical factor.

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

The decision was for the site owner.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If residents do not respond to a notice regarding new fees, the site owner can set the fees as proposed.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The lack of response from the residents was the key evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, a party can apply for permission to appeal within 28 days of receiving the decision.

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.