Tribunal rules on mobile home park changes

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : CAM/42UD/PHC/2020/0004 Property : [ADDRESS], Ipswich, Suffolk [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Respondent : [redacted] : For determination of any question arising under the [COMPANY_5] Act 1983 or agreement to which it applies [MHA 1983, s.4] Tribunal : Judge G K Sinclair Date of decision : 14th October 2020

DECISION following a paper determination • Questions and determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . paras 1–3 • Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . paras 4–9 • Material statutory and regulatory provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . paras 10–17 • The evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . paras 18–23 • Discussion and findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . paras 24–46 Questions and determination 1. The respondent site owner seeks : a. to amend the method of charging for water consumed by occupiers of the licensed park home site, by introducing individual water meters (the cost of installing meters being met by itself); and b. To alter the Park Rules by limiting parking to one vehicle per pitch, with the parking of any additional vehicles (subject to availability) being by separate agreement and at additional cost. The required consultation

began in March 2020.

2. The applicant occupier, with her husband, of a pitch on the site asks the tribunal to determine the following questions. The majority are set out in her application, with two additional numbered points included in her Statement of Case found at the front of her hearing bundle :

1) Please determine whether the way the respondent wants to change the way water is charged will mean higher costs for water. They claim this will be fairer, is this true? 2) The petition which was signed by the residents should have settled the matter. The owner made a new proposal but the issue seemed exactly the same except some residents would have meters and others would not. The tribunal needs to be aware, some people want a meter, but not if that is going to mean higher bills and padded bills.

3) The respondent is forbidding the use of hosepipes unless they implement their change to water charges. Why is this if we are already paying for water and only if we accept water meters? Does this conform with our agreement? 4) Please see the first water bill from the owner with their letter. They have added 50m³ of water without proof of the reading or the rate. They have also asked for payment even though at least two households continued to pay the site fee and the amount approved by the FTT 2018 decision which was £17.53 per month, so £52.59 over the 3 months. This was not deducted from our invoice.

5) The respondent is once again trying to charge for 2nd cars' parking even though parking is not a problem and they were told in a decision in June 2018 they could not do this. Please restate what the position is.

6) The respondent has forbidden the owner at No. 21 from parking his car next to his home. As this ban does not apply to other residents we believe our neighbour is being victimised. Please could the Tribunal instruct the respondent to allow this as his parking would not be in breach of the respondent's council licence.

7) The respondent has issued a new rent review and added electricity - is this a recoverable cost? 8) The attendant list of items at the end of the proposal having nothing to do with water and car parking charges cause the site some anxiety. We were told this was a legal requirement - can the tribunal please confirm if this is true and why? 3. The tribunal determines these questions as follows :

1) The tribunal cannot say whether the cost of water for the applicant and/or other occupiers will be higher or lower than at present, save that the [NAME_6] “wholesale” and “retail” rates are cheaper than the [domestic] “customer” rate. Further, charging for actual usage is likely to save money for single occupiers, and those who do not use a hosepipe to water their gardens or wash their cars.

2) This is not a question arising under the agreement which the tribunal can answer.

3) Rule 7 of the Park Site Rules states that : Where water is not separately metered or rated the use of hoses is forbidden without prior approval of the Owner, except in case of fire.

The site owner’s present stance is therefore in conformity with the site rules, which form part of the written statement, and is lawful.

4) The respondent has, by email dated 10th August 2020, acknowledged a typographical error in the covering letter with its demand dated 31st July 2020. The result is that the calculation of 612m³ is and was correct. This illustrates the importance of checking the meter readings carefully, ideally in the presence of the occupier.

5) The proposed parking amendment to the Site Rules is dependent upon the change being necessary : (a) to ensure that acceptable standards are maintained on the site, which will be of general benefit to occupiers; or (b) to promote and maintain community cohesion on the site. The respondent has failed to satisfy the tribunal of either, so the charge for a second vehicle is unenforceable.

6) By site rule 10 : Vehicles must keep to the authorised parking spaces and to the roads, which must not be obstructed. Unless parking next to a mobile home (and subject to compliance with site licence conditions 5.8 and 14.2) has been authorised by the site owner then parking there is not permitted.

7) The contribution of £2.51 per month towards the cost of electricity for “pumps/office” is not recoverable under paragraph 3(b) of Part IV of the agreement [express terms], and thus cannot be added as item (C) in section 4 of the pitch review form dated 28th April 2020.

8) As previously explained by the respondent, the notes set out on pages 2–4 of the prescribed form of Site Rules Proposal Notice must be included, and those of particular concern to the applicant are clearly marked : Prescribed matters to which site rules are of no effect so far as they make provision in relation to (Regulation 5 (Schedule 5) – matters prescribed for the purposes of section 2C(8) of the 1983 Act Had the applicant read the notice carefully and/or taken the advice of the [NAME_7] (not the tribunal) and sought advice from a solicitor then such concerns would have been allayed. Background 4. The subject licensed residential park home site is situate between the eastern end of [ADDRESS], Ipswich and the main London to Norwich railway line, near Bourne Bridge. It has been the subject of past litigation leading to a consent order in the Ipswich County Court on 17th May 1990 and a determination by this tribunal dated 24th September 2018 concerning the proposed pitch fee increase as from 1st May of that year.

5. From the tone of the correspondence put before the tribunal on this occasion the relationship between site owner and occupiers (and certainly the applicant) is governed by profound mistrust. Some of this is caused by misunderstanding, and a failure to read documents carefully.

6. The site owner is entitled to add to the annual pitch fee a sum to cover the cost of water consumed by the occupiers. To date this has been done by dividing the cost equally between all the pitches, regardless of size of the number of occupiers. The site owner now wishes to move to a system of individual water meters, these

to be installed free of charge and read quarterly by its staff. By doing so it will be able to permit individual occupiers to make free use of hosepipes (subject to any restrictions imposed by the utility supplier in times of drought or other reasons for water shortage), safe in the knowledge that this will not adversely affect the cost imposed on those not choosing to use hosepipes, or making more modest use of them.

7. The initial proposal was that all occupiers should switch to meters, but upon this meeting some resistance a second proposal was advanced whereby occupiers could choose. Those with meters would pay for their actual consumption; those without would pay an equal share of the balance of the supplier’s overall charge to the site. Some have had meters installed, and some demands were issued on this basis. Due to this application those have been withdrawn and fresh demands based on equal shares were issued.

8. A pitch review form dated 28th April 2020 also included a small additional charge for electricity for “pumps/office”. This is challenged on the basis that the tribunal ruled against such additions in its previous decision.

9. Separately, the respondent site owner has sought to amend the site rules so that it may charge occupiers for the parking of any second or additional vehicle. The applicant, supported by another occupier who was party to the previous tribunal proceedings, disputes the need for such a rule and says there is plenty of unused parking space already. As the applicant has raised the issue as part of this application the tribunal presumes that the respondent has not yet deposited the proposed new rule with the local authority, Ipswich Borough Council. Material statutory and regulatory provisions 10. This is a park home site (a “protected site”) licensed by the local authority and governed by the provisions of the [COMPANY_5] Act 1983, as amended. By section 2(1) : In any agreement to which this Act applies there shall be implied the applicable 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.

11. By section 4, this tribunal has jurisdiction (a) to determine any question arising under this Act or any agreement to which it applies; and (b) to entertain any proceedings brought under this Act or any such agreement, subject to certain exceptions which are not material to this dispute.

12. Section 2C of the [COMPANY_5] Act 1983 (as amended by the [COMPANY_5] Act 2013) provides : (1) In the case of a protected site, other than a gypsy and traveller site, for which there are site rules, each of the rules is to be an express term of each agreement to which this Act applies that relates to a pitch on the site (including an agreement made before commencement or one made before the making of the rules). (2) The “site rules” for a protected site are rules made by the owner in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed which relate to – (a) the management and conduct of the site, or (b) such other matters as may be prescribed.

(3) Any rules made by the owner before commencement which relate to a matter mentioned in subsection (2) cease to have effect at the end of such period beginning with commencement as may be prescribed. (4) Site rules come into force at the end of such period beginning with the first consultation day as may be prescribed, if a copy of the rules is deposited with the local authority before the end of that period. (5) Where a site rule is varied, the rule as varied comes into force at the end of such period beginning with the first consultation day as may be prescribed, if – (a) the rule is varied in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, and (b) a copy of the rule as varied is deposited with the local authority before the end of that period. (6) Where a site rule is deleted, the deletion comes into force at the end of such period beginning with the first consultation day as may be prescribed, if – (a) the rule is deleted in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed, and (b) notice of the deletion is deposited with the local authority before the end of that period. (7) Regulations may provide that a site rule may not be made, varied or deleted unless a proposal to make, vary or delete the rule is notified to the occupiers of the site in question in accordance with the regulations. (8) Regulations may provide that site rules, or rules such as are mentioned in subsection (3), are of no effect in so far as they make provision in relation to prescribed matters. (9) Regulations may make provision as to the resolution of disputes – (a) relating to a proposal to make, vary or delete a site rule; (b) as to whether the making, variation or deletion of a site rule was in accordance with the applicable prescribed procedure; (c) as to whether a deposit required to be made by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) was made before the end of the relevant period. (10) Provision under subsection (9) may confer functions on a tribunal. (11) Regulations may – (a) require a local authority to establish and keep up to date a register of site rules in respect of protected sites in its area; (b) require a local authority to publish the up-to-date register; (c) provide that any deposit required to be made by virtue of subsection (4), (5) or (6) must be accompanied by a fee of such amount as the local authority may determine.

13. Section 2D makes supplementary provisions, including definitions for the terms “commencement”, “first consultation day”, and “prescribed” and an explanation of how and by whom regulations may be made.

14. The [COMPANY_5] (Site Rules) (England) Regulations 2014 apply. Rules 4 and 5 provide : 4 Matters prescribed for the purposes of section 2C(2)(b) of the 1983 Act (1) The matters prescribed for the purposes of section 2C(2)(b) are the matters set out in paragraph (2). (2) A site rule must be necessary- (a) to ensure that acceptable standards are maintained on the site, which will be of general benefit to occupiers; or (b) to promote and maintain community cohesion on the site.

5 Matters prescribed for the purposes of section 2C(8) of the 1983 Act A site rule is of no effect in so far as it makes provision in relation to any of the matters prescribed in Schedule 5 to these Regulations.

15. Regulations 7–9 prescribe the procedure for making, varying or deleting site rules, including the requirement to consult every occupier and any qualifying residents’ association using the prescribed proposal notice found in Schedule 1 or a form substantially to the same effect . The local authority does not need to be consulted. If not satisfied with the site owner’s decision following responses to the consultation then a consultee may appeal to the tribunal [Reg 10].

16. By regulation 12(1), where an owner has decided to implement new site rules or the variation or deletion of site rules then, unless there is any pending appeal, the owner must deposit the site rules or deletion notice with the local authority no sooner than 28 days after service of the consultation response document but no later than 42 days after service of the consultation response document. The site owner must then notify every occupier (and qualifying residents’ association) in writing of such deposit within 7 days of doing so. The site rules then come into effect at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date of service of the notification of the deposit.

17. Regulation 15 provides that any pre-commencement site rules shall cease to have effect 12 months after the coming into force of the regulations (i.e. 4th February 2015) or on the date that the new site rules come into force, if earlier. This may be extended if an appeal is not finally determined before then. The evidence 18. As directed, each party produced their own bundle of documents for the tribunal. The applicant did so on paper, the respondent digitally as a pdf file. With two bundles there is a tendency, as here, for some duplication; yet neither contained a copy of the full written agreement. (The applicant thought that she had, but it was in fact only those parts relating to her and her husband taking an assignment of the previous occupier’s interest in the home and the agreement). The respondent produced only the first page of Part IV (Express terms), including the important paragraph 3(b). Both produced copies of the site licence, the proposal notice, and a previous tribunal decision. The respondent provided the site rules.

19. The applicant’s bundle contained a large amount of correspondence with other occupiers on the site, as well as with the respondent’s [NAME_8] (who, as an employee, was incorrectly named as respondent in the application). This correspondence tended to generate more heat than light, but the respondent did acknowledge that a complaint about overcharging for water was caused by a typographical error in the covering letter accompanying a metered water bill.

20. On one matter, though, the applicant sowed confusion by referring in her index, concerning pages 90–97, to a “FTT preliminary response”. On looking at those pages, although her husband wrote to other occupiers about being in contact with the tribunal [97], the truth was in fact that his wife had been in touch by email with the independent (but government-supported) [NAME_7]. The two should not be confused.

21. Importantly, so far as the parking issue is concerned, while the applicant’s bundle contained some evidence – and a witness statement by [NAME_10], of [ADDRESS] (found buried at [117]), the respondent’s statement of case only contained mere assertion that as there are 26 spaces and 26 homes a new site rule for additional cars was required.

22. It is worth noting that condition 5.8 in the local authority’s site licence provides that : Private cars may be parked within the separation distance providing that they do not obstruct entrances to caravans or access around them and they are a minimum of 3 metres from adjacent caravans and 14.1 and 14.2 that : 14.1 Suitably surfaced parking spaces shall be provided to meet the requirements of residents and their visitors. The parking spaces shall be maintained and kept in repair. 14.2 Only one car may be parked between adjoining caravans provided that the door to neither caravan is obstructed and they are a minimum of 3 metres from an adjacent caravan.

23. Among the existing site rules is rule 10. It provides that : Vehicles must keep to the authorised parking spaces and to the roads, which must not be obstructed. It is unclear from the evidence if parking next to homes (and, if so, whether that is in compliance with licence conditions 5.8 and 14.2) has been authorised by the site owner or merely tolerated – save in the case of [NAME_10], who has been refused the right to park next to his home. Discussion and findings 24. The principal issues here are : a. How water charges may be assessed : by equal shares or by metering b. Whether a charge for electricity can be added under paragraph 3(b), and c. Whether the site owner may amend the site rules by imposing a charge for parking an additional vehicle.

25. On the question of site rules, attention has already been drawn to the changes in the law introduced by the 2013 Act and the [COMPANY_5] (Site Rules) (England) Regulations 2014. Importantly, all pre-existing site rules would lapse in 2015 unless action were taken to consult under the new regulations and deposit a set of newly confirmed rules with the local authority.

26. The tribunal applies the presumption of legality, in which case it must be clear that some of the issues raised now were considered (or the owner and occupiers had the opportunity to consider them) just over five years ago.

27. Water charges — It is clear from site rule 7 that in the context of using hosepipes the issue of water metering at some stage was contemplated. The question is fairness as between site owner (1) and pitch occupiers (2), but also as between the various pitch occupiers. Until now the total bill (perhaps minus some items) was simply divided equally between the number of pitches, regardless of the number of occupiers, the frequency with which they bath, shower, wash their car or water their gardens.

28. Fairness as between the site owner and the pitch occupiers can be ensured by : a. No cost being incurred by the latter for installing the meters; and b. The site owner, as re-seller, complying with [NAME_12] regulations concerning pricing.

29. The respondent states that it intends simply to pass on the actual charge incurred by it, as calculated by the individual meter readings. A problem can arise where the meter readings taken by the utility supplier ([NAME_6]) differ by more than a few days from those individual readings taken by the site owner, but this is not insurmountable.

30. As appears from the evidence, quite a few of the occupiers – who perhaps may use less water than others – are keen on metering as that will reduce their annual outlay.

31. Despite this, there was some resistance. A second proposal was then advanced, that those who did not want meters would not have them imposed upon them, and could continue to pay an equal share of the balance after the total metered supplies was deducted from the utility supplier’s bill.

32. Either of these scenarios is reasonable, and fair as between occupiers as well. No amendment to the agreement or site rules is required.

33. A question is asked about the ban on hosepipes if occupiers are already paying for the water. That is the problem. They may use the water but their neighbours, paying an equal share of the bill, may end up contributing to the true cost. With metering the actual cost is passed on to the actual user, and so the current site rule provides authority to the site owner to refuse permission to use a hosepipe to those who have an unmetered supply.

34. Charging for electricity under paragraph 3(b) — This charge is imposed under the express term in paragraph 3(b) in Part IV of the agreement, viz To pay and discharge all general and/or water rates which may from time to time be assessed charged or payable in respect of the mobile home or the pitch (and/or a proportionate part thereof where the same are assessed in respect of the residential part of the park) and charges in respect of electricity gas water telephone and other services 35. Not only was this considered by the previous tribunal but so too did the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in the case of [NAME_13], which was referred to by the tribunal in its decision. That was also discussed by the Court of Appeal in [COMPANY_14] v [NAME_15], referred to by the adviser from the [NAME_7] in his email to the applicant, appearing in her bundle at [91].

36. On appeal from a decision (itself on appeal) of the Deputy President of the Lands Chamber, [NAME_16] (with whom Davis and Underhill LJJ agreed) held, at [43] : 1 [2013] UKUT 0521 (LC) 2 [2017] EWCA Civ 52; [2017] 4 WLR 59; [2017] HLR 17

The appeal turns on the proper meaning and effect of para.3(b) of Pt IV of the agreements. I consider it is clear that the “charges” mentioned in the second part of that paragraph are charges by third party utility suppliers and the “other services” mentioned are those provided by third parties in respect of third party utility supplies to the pitch. Payment for other third party contractors and for services undertaken by [the site owner itself] is not recoverable under para.3(b) but can be recovered only as part of the site fee.

37. Elaborating on that final point, Sir [NAME_16] said, at [49] : Such costs and expenses incurred by [the site owner], and remuneration for work carried out, are potentially recoverable as part of the site fee. Under the terms of the agreements the site fee is reviewable annually. Paragraph 20 of Ch.2 of Pt 1 of Sch.1 to the MHA provides that the presumption is that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease in proportion to the movement in the RPI. The increase in the pitch fee can be greater, however, if the presumption would produce an unreasonable amount. Paragraph 18 of Ch.2 specifies certain matters to which there must be paid particular regard in determining the amount of the new pitch fee but it does not provide that those are the only matters which can be taken into account on the review. Paragraph 18(1A) and para.19 preclude regard being paid to certain matters on the review but none of those are relevant to [the site owner’s] costs and expenses and the other sums in issue in these proceedings.

38. The purported charge of £2.51 per month for electricity for “pumps/office” that was included in the pitch review form dated 28th April 2020 is thus irrecoverable under paragraph 3(b).

39. Proposed site rule amendment concerning additional parking — The site owner is seeking to change the site rules concerning parking. As noted by the previous tribunal, the current rules do not allow for the imposition of an additional charge.

40. As stated in regulation 4 of the [COMPANY_5] (Site Rules) (England) Regulations 2014 : (1) The matters prescribed for the purposes of section 2C(2)(b) are the matters set out in paragraph (2). (2) A site rule must be necessary- (a) to ensure that acceptable standards are maintained on the site, which will be of general benefit to occupiers; or (b) to promote and maintain community cohesion on the site. The burden of proof is upon the site owner, the party wishing to introduce the new rule or modify an old one.

41. The only evidence is from the applicant, saying that there are plenty of empty spaces in the main car park, and from [NAME_10] to the effect that many of his neighbours are permitted to park next to their homes but he is not, and that if he were so permitted then that would free up another space in the main car park.

42. The respondent has not adequately responded to these allegations, nor sought to justify this proposed rule change.

43. The tribunal has not carried out an inspection and viewing an aerial photograph on Google StreetView is not very enlightening. While the pitches appear quite cramped a walk around with a tape measure cannot be bettered. The tribunal

does not know whether parking next to homes is compliant with conditions 5.8 and 14.2 of the site licence, but if it is and such parking has been tolerated for years then (coupled with [NAME_1]’s assertion that the centre of the car park is largely empty) there appears to be insufficient evidence to prove that such a rule change is “necessary” to ensure that acceptable standards are maintained on the site (which will be of general benefit to occupiers); or to promote and maintain community cohesion on the site.

44. That part of the application is therefore upheld.

45. Other, more minor questions have already been addressed in this decision. The answers appear in paragraph 3 above.

46. Finally, as a general observation, park homes regularly generate disputes between [NAME_17] and occupiers. Often these arise due to the provision of insufficient information or to misunderstandings. They are often bedevilled by suspicions concerning the other party’s motives. Some reflection, and legal advice, may help to resolve any future issues before they find their way back to the tribunal. Dated 14th October 2020 Judge G K Sinclair First-tier Tribunal Judge

1

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: CAM/42UD/PHC/2021/0008

HMCTS

: Paper

Site

: [ADDRESS], Ipswich, Suffolk [POSTCODE]

Park Home Address : 1, [ADDRESS], Ipswich, Suffolk [POSTCODE]

Applicants

: [redacted]

Respondents

: [redacted] t/a [NAME_32] : Application for Review or Permission to Appeal

Tribunal

: Judge JR [NAME_20], FAAV, REV

Date of Original Decision: 14th July 2022 Date of Application : 8th August 2022 Date of Decision : 20th September 2022

________________________________

DECISION _________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Decision of the Tribunal

1. The Tribunal has decided not to review its Original Decision and refuses permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal because it is of the opinion that there is no realistic prospect of a successful appeal against its Original Decision.

2. In accordance with section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and rule 21 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, the Applicants may make further application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Such application must be made in writing and received by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) no later than 14 days after the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent notice of this refusal to the party applying for permission to appeal. Where possible, you should send your application for permission to

2

appeal by email to [EMAIL], as this will enable the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to deal with it more efficiently.

3. Alternatively, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) may be contacted at: 5th [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (tel: [PHONE]).

Reason for the Decision

4. The reason for the decision is that the Tribunal had considered and taken into account all of the points now raised by the Applicants, when reaching its original decision.

5. The Tribunal’s Original Decision was based on the evidence and submissions before it and the Applicants have not adduced any additional evidence or submitted any new legal arguments in support of the application for review or permission to appeal.

6. For the benefit of the parties and of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (assuming that further application for permission to appeal is made), the Tribunal has set out its comments on the specific points raised by the applicant in the application for permission to appeal, in the Appendix attached.

Judge J R Morris

3

APPENDIX TO THE DECISION REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL

For the benefit of the parties and of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the Tribunal records below its comments on the grounds of appeal. References in square brackets are to those paragraphs in the main body of the Tribunal’s Original Decision (Decision).

Original Application and Decision

1. An Application dated 4th December 2021 was made by the Applicants for a determination of a question arising under the [COMPANY_5] Act 1983 or an agreement to which it relates under section 4 of the [COMPANY_5] Act 1983 as amended, as followings: (1) Whether the site owner must cease charging for parking spaces which are not on the main car park and form part of the 27 spaces which are supposed to be provided for free; (2) Whether the site owner is allowed to charge for any parking on the site; (3) Whether the Site Owner must honour the decision of the site manager to allocate the Applicants the parking space marked 20 on the Site Plan provided.

2. In summary, the Applicants submitted that: a) under the Site Licence parking should be free of charge; b) the Respondents should be prohibited from charging for any parking on the Site; c) [NAME_10] was the Site Manager who initially allocated them parking space No. 1 and subsequently allocated them Parking Space No 20.

3. In summary, the Respondents submitted that: a) parking in the main car park was free with one space for each Park Home plus 4 visitor spaces in accordance in the Site Licence; b) there was no prohibition in the Site Licence, written agreement or Site Rules which precluded the Respondents charging for additional parking spaces by separate agreement; c) [NAME_10] was not the Site Manager and the previous owner of the [NAME_22] had parked in space No. 1

4. The Tribunal determined that:

1. The [NAME_17] have met the conditions of the Site Licence in providing 26 Parking Spaces allocated to specific pitches and 4 visitor Parking Spaces in the [ADDRESS]. In addition, there are two spaces for office staff or contractors and a further 5 spaces identified as Internal Parking.

2. There is no requirement to provide car parking free of charge nor is there a prohibition against charging for car parking in the Site Licence Conditions, the Written Agreement provided or the Site Rules.

3. The [NAME_17] may charge for parking a vehicle under a separate additional agreement to the Written Agreement, negotiated with any Occupier. Any such separate additional agreement, must not derogate from the rights granted to other Occupiers.

4

4. Where an Occupier assigns his or her pitch on the sale of a Park Home, the assignee will have the benefit of the same rights that the assignor enjoyed, including any allocated Parking Space which was assigned as well. Even so, the assignee may still negotiate a separate additional agreement with the Site Owner for some benefit, such as parking for a monthly charge.

5. The assignment of Park Home 1 to the Applicants included Parking Space 1 as enjoyed by the assignee.

Grounds for Appeal and Tribunal’s Response

5. The Applicants made a number of statements as grounds for review or appeal which have been considered carefully by the Tribunal. The Applicants statements are set out in abbreviated form below and each of which is followed by the Tribunal’s Response:

1. Applicants: [redacted] not consider all the evidence of the Applicants whilst considering all the evidence of the Respondents.

Tribunal: The Tribunal made its Decision based upon the written representations, the inspection and the evidence and submission presented at the hearing by both parties. It did not make its determination until after the hearing. The Tribunal determined the size and number of the parking spaces at the inspection [5] and [80].

2. Applicants: [redacted] did not take account of the present situation at the Site which is to provide parking free of charge.

Tribunal: The Tribunal found the Site Licence states “Suitably surfaced parking spaces shall be provided to meet the requirements of residents and their visitors. The parking spaces shall be maintained and kept in repair.” [9]

The Tribunal found that there were 26 Parking Spaces, one for each Park Home and 4 visitor Parking Spaces in the [ADDRESS]. [81]

In addition, there were two spaces adjacent the Office and a further 5 spaces beyond the Office. These formed the Internal parking for which there was a charge. [82]

The Tribunal found that taking into account the number of Park Homes and the size of the Site, the provision in the [ADDRESS] of one parking space for each Park Home plus four visitor spaces met the reasonable requirements of the residents and their visitors. [83]

5

The Site Licence could not require the Site Owner to provide free parking as this would be contrary to the principles of freedom of contract.

3. Applicants: [redacted] 'levelling up' which makes it clear the principle of holding landlords accountable for exploitation and that charging for parking in this instance exploitative.

4. Applicants: [redacted] public road where the only parking is off road, residential parking is always free.

Tribunal re 3 & 4:

The Tribunal’s Decision is based upon the legislation as applied to the Site Licence, the Written Agreement, the Site Rules and the evidence adduced and submission made by the parties. The Tribunal cannot base its decision upon central or local government policy except as expressed in legislation and as interpreted through case law and the rules of statutory interpretation.

5. Applicants: [redacted] case reference CAM/42UD/PHC/2020/0004.

Tribunal: The Tribunal noted the decision of Judge Sinclair in case reference CAM/42UD/PHC/2020/0004 which only stated that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed new Park Rule to limit parking to one vehicle per pitch, with the parking of any additional vehicles (subject to availability) being by separate agreement and at an additional cost was not necessary [76] and [77]. The Tribunal Decision does not change that position. It only states that there is no requirement to provide car parking free of charge nor is there a prohibition against charging for car parking in the Site Licence Conditions, the Applicants’ Written Agreement provided or the Site Rules [1] and [96]. The [NAME_17] may charge for parking a vehicle under a separate additional agreement to the Written Agreement negotiated with any Occupier, in accordance with the principles of freedom of contract; it cannot be part of the pitch fee as per the decision of Judge Edgington in case reference CAM/42UD/PHI/2018/0015 [67] and [71].

6. Applicants: [redacted] parking on the Site without having spaces for which there is a charge.

6

Tribunal: From the Site Map provided, the Tribunal found that each Park Home was allocated a parking space but recognised that there appears to be some flexibility in this arrangement with those not having cars permitting those who have more than one to use their space [72]. The Tribunal’s Decision does not alter this arrangement although there is nothing to prevent new Occupiers purchasing their Park Home and being granted their pitch directly from the Respondents entering additional and separate agreements to park their vehicles at a charge provided this does not impinge on the free of charge parking spaces which have been assigned by existing Occupiers. [73] and [74].

7. Applicants: [redacted]

Tribunal: No evidence was adduced that the Respondents interfered with witnesses.

8. Applicants: [redacted] contrary to the Site Rules by obstructing access to pathways and a park home entrance.

Tribunal: The Tribunal stated at [80] that the space between Park Home 1 and Parking Space 1 was about 1 metre leaving 24 metres for 10 cars being 2.4 metres a space. This gives a 1 metre wide access to the pathway and Park Home 1.

9. Applicants: [redacted] the site owner and said the Applicants should have asked about the parking when they were considering whether or not to purchase their home.

Tribunal: The Tribunal was critical of the Respondents not having formalised the parking arrangements earlier [75] and that the clear marking of the car parking spaces would reduce the likelihood of future disputes [87]. It cannot order the [NAME_17] to carry out works. The onus is always on prospective park home occupiers to satisfy themselves that the particular site is right for them before purchase.

10. Applicants: [redacted] following the Decision.

Tribunal: The Tribunal answered the questions put to it.

7

11. Applicants: [redacted] parking spaces of the 7 homes which do not have cars.

Tribunal: The parking spaces allocated to the 7 homes which do not have cars may be used by the Occupiers of those homes without charge for the use of a visitor or carer or, with their permission, by another Occupier as is currently the case [72]. The Tribunal’s Decision does not alter this.

12. Applicants: [redacted] the Applicants were to ask [NAME_23] where they should park.

Tribunal: The Tribunal found that [NAME_23] was not the Site Manager and did not have the authority to allocate Parking Spaces. The Tribunal was satisfied that [NAME_25] had used the Parking Space identified at 1 on the Site Plan and by reason of the assignment the Applicants were able to enjoy the Parking Space [94].

6. In addition, the Applicants objected to the following paragraphs in the Decision which are set out in abbreviated form below and each of which is followed by the Tribunal’s Response:

Applicants: [redacted] The Tribunal’s finding as to the number of spaces in the main car park is incorrect [1.5]. b. The Tribunal was wrong to find there were 2 parking spaces for staff on the site [1.1]. c. The Tribunal wrongly interpreted the site licence [1.2] d. The Tribunal did not take into account the decision of Judge Sinclair in case refence CAM/42UD/PHC/2020/0004 which stated that a rule change should not be made to allow the Respondents to charge for parking a second car [1.3]. e. The Tribunal stating the Respondents are allowed to charge under a separate agreement is contrary to the decision of Judge Sinclair in case refence CAM/42UD/PHC/2020/0004 [1.4]. f. The Tribunal did not take account of the fact that the Applicants were told to park along the fence which blocked the access [1.5].

Tribunal: a.& b. The Tribunal set out the basis of its findings as to the number of spaces in the car park at [5], [80], [81] and [82]. c. The Tribunal stated it reasoning regarding the Site Licence interpretation at [83] and [84]. d. & e. The Tribunal considered the decision of Judge Sinclair in case refence CAM/42UD/PHC/2020/0004 at [76] and [77]. f. The Tribunal took account of the access to the pathways and Park Home 1 at [80].

8

7. The Applicants objected to the following paragraphs in the Reasons:

g. [3] Applicants: [redacted] with witnesses.

Tribunal: The Tribunal received a letter addressed to [NAME_4] of the Respondents dated 14th June 2022 from [NAME_27] and [NAME_27] stating “We are new to this Park with reflection we have decided to withdraw from this week’s FTT hearing: [NAME_28] v [NAME_29]”. The Tribunal treated this as a withdrawal of their witness evidence. The evidence was therefore not considered.

h. [9] Applicants: [redacted] the map provided by the site owner was poor and the way the site owner has laid out the parking without parking lines has been the cause of the dispute.

Tribunal The quality of the Site Map and the lack of parking lines did not affect the Tribunal’s Decision.

i [53] Applicants: [redacted] required to enter an agreement to pay for parking the Tribunal did not take account of the way in which the Respondents had sought to circumvent the decision of Judge Sinclair in case refence CAM/42UD/PHC/2020/0004.

Tribunal: The Tribunal considered the evidence before it and made its Decision accordingly.

j. [59], k [61] and l [63] and [64] Applicants: [redacted] that [NAME_10] and [NAME_23] were not Site Managers and to consider that a moped, bike, car and boat were all vehicles.

Tribunal: Whether or not [NAME_10] and [NAME_23] were Site Managers would not have altered the Tribunal’s Decision that [NAME_25] had used the Parking Space identified at 1 on the Site Plan and by reason of the assignment the Applicants were able to enjoy the Parking Space free of charge. There was no evidence to suggest that she had any other additional Parking Space and therefore that is the only Parking Space to which they are entitled.

9

M. [67] and [68] n [71] Applicants: [redacted] Edgington in case reference CAM/42UD/PHI/2018/0015 which said that the charging for parking spaces was only as a means of addressing the limited number of parking spaces on site.

Tribunal: Each Tribunal answered the questions it was asked. The Tribunal was asked could a charge be made for parking to which it provided its answer.

o. [72], [73], [74] Applicants: [redacted] suggest that parking spaces might be paid for.

Tribunal: The Tribunal did not criticise the current parking arrangements other than as to the lack of Site Plan and parking space marking [75] and [87].

p. [79] and [80], r [85] and [86], t [88] and [89] Applicants: [redacted] number of parking spaces.

Tribunal: The Tribunal set out the basis of its findings as to the number of spaces in the car park at [5], [80], [81] and [82].

u. [90] Applicants: [redacted] have made a different decision if he had more evidence.

Tribunal: It is a matter for conjecture what might be decided if the rule were proposed again but consultation would be required.

v [91] to [94] Applicants: [redacted] by [NAME_10] and [NAME_23]. Additional points were also made which were not relevant or supported by evidence.

Tribunal: The Tribunal found that even if [NAME_10] had been the Site Manager at one time he was no longer in that position. [NAME_23] had provided a statement which made it clear that he was not the Site Manager [92]. The Tribunal finds that [NAME_23] was not the Site Manager and did not have the authority to allocate Parking Spaces [94].

w [94] Applicants:

[redacted]

The position of car park space 1 is contrary to Site Rule 26.

Tribunal: The Tribunal took account of the access to the pathways and Park Home 1 at [80].

x [95] Applicants: [redacted] Decision.

Conclusion

8. Having considered each of the grounds raised by the Applicants the Tribunal finds that it had considered and taken into account all of the points now raised by the Applicants, when reaching its Original Decision.

9. The Tribunal’s Original Decision was based on the evidence before it and the Applicants have not adduced any additional evidence or submitted any legal arguments in support of the application for review or permission to appeal.

Judge JR Morris

1

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: CAM/42UD/PHC/2021/0008

HMCTS

: Paper

Site

: [ADDRESS], Ipswich, Suffolk [POSTCODE]

Applicants

: [redacted]

Respondents

Tribunal

: Judge JR [NAME_20], FAAV, REV

________________________________

DECISION _________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Decision of the Tribunal

2

Reason for the Decision

Judge J R Morris

3

APPENDIX TO THE DECISION REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL

Original Application and Decision

4. The Tribunal determined that:

4

Grounds for Appeal and Tribunal’s Response

5

Tribunal re 3 & 4:

6

7. Applicants: [redacted]

10. Applicants: [redacted] following the Decision.

Tribunal: The Tribunal answered the questions put to it.

7

8

g. [3] Applicants: [redacted] with witnesses.

9

w [94] Applicants:

[redacted]

x [95] Applicants: [redacted] Decision.

Conclusion

Judge JR Morris

1

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

: CAM/42UD/PHC/2021/0008

HMCTS

: Paper

Site

: [ADDRESS], Ipswich, Suffolk [POSTCODE]

Applicants

: [redacted]

Respondents

Tribunal

: Judge JR [NAME_20], FAAV, REV

________________________________

DECISION _________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022 Decision of the Tribunal

2

Reason for the Decision

Judge J R Morris

3

APPENDIX TO THE DECISION REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL

Original Application and Decision

4. The Tribunal determined that:

4

Grounds for Appeal and Tribunal’s Response

5

Tribunal re 3 & 4:

6

7. Applicants: [redacted]

10. Applicants: [redacted] following the Decision.

Tribunal: The Tribunal answered the questions put to it.

7

8

g. [3] Applicants: [redacted] with witnesses.

9

w [94] Applicants:

[redacted]

x [95] Applicants: [redacted] Decision.

Conclusion

Judge JR Morris