VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tenant Entitled to Detailed Evidence of Utility Charges

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that a mobile home a person has the right to receive detailed evidence of water and electricity charges from the a person upon request. This ruling is based on the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

⚖️ Legal holding

Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the owner is obligated to provide free of charge documentary evidence in support and explanation of any charges for gas, electricity, water, sewerage or other services payable by the occupier under the agreement.

Topics

tenancy agreementutility charges

Provisions

Mobile Homes Act 1983 s.2Mobile Homes Act 1983 Sch.1 para.22(b)

📖 Technical summary

The tribunal ordered the respondent to provide detailed evidence of utility charges upon request and to reimburse the applicant's tribunal fee due to non-compliance.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that the site owner must provide the occupier with detailed evidence of water and electricity charges upon request, under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The occupier had repeatedly requested such information but was not provided with it.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : CHI/19UD/PHC/2019/0007

Property : Premises: 13 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Section 4 Mobiles Homes Act 1983: Application by [NAME] for determination of a question arising under the Act.

Tribunal Member : Judge M [NAME] of Decision with reasons : 14 October 2019

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME] (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Decision

1. In accordance with section 2 and paragraph 22 (b) of Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the Respondent is required to provide the Applicant with the details requested, with regard to demands received from the Respondent in respect of electricity and water charges in 2018 and 2019.

2. The Tribunal orders, under Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First- tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013, that the Respondent reimburse to the Applicant the fee of £100 paid by her to the Tribunal. Reasons for decision

The Application

3. These are the reasons for decision of the First-tier Tribunal ([NAME])(Residential Property) (“the Tribunal”) in respect of an application (“the Application”) to the Tribunal under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”).

4. The Application, which is undated, was for a declaration from the Tribunal as to the following matters: (a) that the [NAME] of [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“the site”) produce supporting evidence with regard to resale of utility services (water and electricity) to [NAME]; (b) the information that should be provided on a notice board in a conspicuous place on the site.

5. The Applicant, Mrs [APPELLANT], is [NAME] of a mobile home placed on pitch 13 of the site. The [NAME] is [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] (“the Respondent”).

6. Judge P J Barber issued Directions to the parties on 5 June 2019 stating that the Tribunal had identified the issue to be determined as “ whether the [NAME] should provide documentary evidence in support and explanation of water and electricity charges, if requested by [NAME].”

7. The Directions then set out a timetable for determination of the matter. Judge M [NAME] was subsequently appointed to determine the matter on the basis of the written representations of the parties, neither of the parties having requested an oral hearing.

The agreement

8. Mrs [APPELLANT] bought her home and stationed it on Pitch 13 of the site under the terms of an agreement with the Respondent [NAME], dated 29 June 2009. Clause 7 of that agreement contained an obligation by [NAME] to pay to the [NAME], as from 1 July 2009, a specified monthly pitch fee subject to periodic review on 1 July each year. The fee

was payable monthly in advance on the first day of each month. Clause 9 of the agreement stated that “An additional charge will be made for the following matters – Electric and water: all other utilities direct to supplier.”

The Law

9. The relevant law is set out in the Annex to this decision.

The Applicant’s case

10. The Applicant says that the Respondent has been asked on several occasions to substantiate the charges it makes for water and electricity. She says that all letters that she has written demanding the same, of which she has provided copies, have been unanswered and this is why she has made the Application to the Tribunal. In her letter of 9 June 2018, Mrs [APPELLANT] asked for a copy of the most recent water bill. In her letter of 12 August 2018, Mrs [APPELLANT] reiterated her request for the water bill and also asked for a copy of the electricity bill for the site. Her letter of 16 October 2019 repeated these requests.

11. In her subsequent letter of 18 January 2019, Mrs [APPELLANT] states that, having received the first electricity bill of 2019, she had still not received the information requested and referred to not having paid the last bills of 2018. She said that as a sign of good faith she would be providing a cheque in part payment of the electricity bills received in October and January, at a base rate of 12p per unit used. Mrs [APPELLANT] concluded, “If I receive another water bill and have no supporting evidence of that, I will similarly make a good faith payment as these services are indeed provided and used, but I will not pay the full amount without substantiation of the amounts paid by [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY].”

12. On 1 April 2019, Mrs [APPELLANT] wrote to Mr [NAME] stating that she had now received the water invoice dated March 2019 but had not received the information regarding the same that she had requested on previous occasions. She stated that once again she would not make payment of the full amount and that she would apply to the Tribunal for a determination with regard to this matter.

The Respondent’s case

13. Mr [RESPONDENT] [NAME], stated the case on behalf of the Respondent, in a

written submission dated 22 July 2019. Mr [NAME] says that the only

information he had available with regard to electricity was a letter from

[NAME] dated 11 November 2016, which set out the details of a

proposed renewal of the Respondent’s existing contract for 12 months

from 29 January 2017. This stated that the standing charge would be

69 pence per day and the universal unit price would be 15.91 pence per

kWh. This was an increase, over the current year, from a standing

charge of 41.1 pence per day and a unit price of 14.60 pence per

kWh. All prices are exclusive of VAT. Annual electricity usage was

stated to be 108,485 kWh.

14. Mr [NAME] says that “when taking all extras into account” the sum paid by the Respondent is above 16 pence per unit but for the sake of ease they only charge the residents on [ADDRESS] 16p.

15. With regard to water charges Mr [RESPONDENT] produced a copy of an invoice issued by the Respondent to [NAME] at [ADDRESS] headed “Water Invoice October 2018”. It stated “WATER USED FROM 05/02/18 TO 31/08/18 £54.15” followed by a statement that “The above has been calculated on the basis of the water account received from [NAME]. This has been divided by the number of homes.”

16. Mr [NAME] also produced for the Tribunal a bill dated 25 September 2018, sent to the Respondent by [NAME]. The bill is for services at [ADDRESS] from 1 May 2018 to 31 August 2018. The usage charge was £1,781.91 (being for 1618 cubic metres at £1.1013 each and the fixed charge was £20.85. (Total £1,802.76). The reading on 31 August 2018 was estimated, as was the previous reading of 30 April 2018.

17. Mr [NAME] explained that the charge of £54.15 was calculated as follows. 4 months usage at £1,802.76 divided by 4 and multiplied by 7 = £3,154.83. Divide 64 occupied homes = £49.29 per home. Mr [NAME] says that the “permitted administration charge and availability is 2.5p per day x 364 days = £9.10 per year divide by 12 months = 75p per month x 7 = £5.25. This gives a total of £54.54 but, Mr [NAME] states “in view of the few days overlap, we decreased bill to say £54.15 as per copy invoice above.”

18. Mr [NAME] thus submitted that they had undercharged for water and electricity but continued

“However, for the sake of administration costs etc and entirely without

prejudice, we have already written off the applicant’s monies she has

refused to pay and for this reason will start afresh with full details

being given about calculation on all future invoices. We confirm we do

not keep records of any workings other than invoices issued to

residents, as these are always within the permitted guidelines.”

Discussion

19. The issue raised by the Application before the Tribunal can be simply stated. It is whether the [NAME] should provide documentary evidence in support and explanation of water and electricity charges, if requested by [NAME].

20. The law governing the rights and obligations of, on the one hand, mobile home site owners and, on the other hand, [NAME] who have bought a home and entered into an agreement with the [NAME] to station that home on the site, is contained in the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (“the Act”). The Act has since been amended on a number of occasions and has to be read alongside other related statutory orders and regulations.

21. Section 1 of the Act provides that the Act applies to any agreement under which a person (“[NAME]”) is entitled (a) to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and (b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence. It is not disputed that Mrs [APPELLANT]’s agreement meets those requirements.

22. Section 2(1) of the Act provides that in any agreement to which the Act applies there shall be implied the applicable terms set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act. The relevant terms that govern Mrs [APPELLANT]’s agreement are those set out in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1.

23. One of those terms is that contained in paragraph 22 which provides

“The owner shall –

……………….

(b) if requested by [NAME], provide free of charge documentary

evidence in support and explanation of

(i) …………

(ii) any charges for gas, electricity, water, sewerage or other

services payable by [NAME] to the owner under the

agreement; and

(iii) any other charges, costs or expenses payable by [NAME] to

the owner under the agreement.”

24. The Tribunal has no hesitation in finding that the Respondent was in breach of this obligation from at least 9 June 2018, because it has evidence that the Applicant requested the relevant information from that date onwards. Mr [APPELLANT] says that he has called at Mrs [APPELLANT]’s home on more than one occasion to discuss Mrs [APPELLANT]’s concerns but has not been able to make contact with her in person or in the absence of her telephone number, by telephone. Be that as it may there is no evidence of any written replies from the Respondent to any of Mrs [APPELLANT]’s repeated written requests.

25. The Respondent provided some limited information with regard to utility charges in its response to this Application on 22 July 2019 and

only then in relation to (a) a proposed renewal of the Respondent’s contract with an [COMPANY] in respect of the period from 29 January 2017 to 28 January 2018 and (b) a water invoice dated October 2018 based on a water company bill to the Respondent for the period 1 May to 31 August 2018. Furthermore, with regard to the latter, there is no reference to the authority by which the Respondent claims to be able to levy a “permitted administration and availability” charge on [NAME].

26. There is no evidence of any information provided by the Respondent with regard to the electricity charge demand made of Mrs [APPELLANT] in January 2019 or the water charge demand made of her in March 2019. The Respondent should therefore reply fully to the outstanding requests made by the Applicant.

27. The Tribunal notes Mr [APPELLANT] statement that he has written off Mrs [APPELLANT]’s unpaid charges and in future will provide the necessary required information along with the invoices for electricity and water charges.

28. Because the Respondent did not respond to the Applicant’s request for information with regard to the fuel bills for October 2018 to March 2019 until these proceedings were underway, and even then only partially, the Tribunal orders, under Rule 13(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME]) Rules 2013 that the Respondent reimburse the fee of £100 paid by the Applicant to the Tribunal.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office, which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, that person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of

the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

[NAME] 14 October 2019

Annex: The Law

Mobile Homes Act 1983

Section 1 Particulars of agreement

(1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person (“[NAME]”) is entitled—

(a) to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected

site; and

(b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.

Section 2 Terms of agreements.

(1) In any agreement to which this Act applies there shall be implied the

terms set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and this subsection

shall have effect notwithstanding any express term of the agreement.

Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983

Paragraph 22 The owner shall—

(a)………………….

(b) if requested by [NAME], provide (free of charge)

documentary evidence in support and explanation of—

(i) any new pitch fee;

services payable by [NAME] to the owner under the

agreement; and

(iii) any other charges, costs or expenses payable by [NAME] to the owner under the agreement

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 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 claimant is entitled to receive free documentary evidence related to charges under the agreement.
  • The Mobile Homes Act 1983 supports various entitlements for tenants, including maintenance responsibilities and quiet enjoyment rights.
  • Conditions attached to a site licence must be reasonable and not overly burdensome.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The claimant's request for quiet enjoyment was denied when it did not align with the specific provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
  • When a site owner is not explicitly required by law to maintain certain aspects of the site, such claims are often dismissed.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision ruled that the site owner must provide the occupier with detailed evidence of water and electricity charges upon request.

Who was involved?

The case involved a mobile home occupier and the site owner.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the site owner must provide the occupier with detailed evidence of water and electricity charges upon request, as stipulated by the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 was applied, specifically Section 2 and Paragraph 22(b) of Schedule 1.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The occupier's argument that they are entitled to receive detailed evidence of water and electricity charges upon request was the central reasoning.

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

The decision was in favour of the occupier.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation can request detailed evidence of water and electricity charges from their site owner under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Letters requesting detailed evidence of water and electricity charges were important evidence.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions from the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

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

It is recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving tenant rights and utility charges.

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.