Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark
[2024] UKUT 279 (LC)
Arkley Estates Limited v Kathleen Madigan & Ors
22 November 2024
[2024] UKUT 375 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A park owner wanted to raise pitch fees based on inflation. Some residents didn't respond. The court said the tribunal didn't have to automatically agree to the increase; it can decide what's fair, even using information from other similar cases. The tribunal isn't just there to rubber-stamp requests; it makes sure things are fair for everyone.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decision regarding pitch fee increases at Arkley Park.
- •Nine residents did not respond to pitch fee review notices or participate in tribunal proceedings.
- •The FTT awarded increases of 7.5% and 8.5%, less than the 11.4% RPI increase.
- •The appeal concerns whether the FTT was obliged to award the RPI increase in the absence of resident response and whether the FTT could consider evidence from participating residents when determining the fees for non-participating residents.
Legal Principles
Pitch fee increases under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 are subject to a reasonableness test. The FTT is not a 'rubber stamp' and must determine whether the proposed increase is reasonable.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Chapter 2, Part 1, Schedule 1, paragraphs 16-20
The FTT has broad case management powers and can consolidate proceedings or hear them together. The overriding objective is to deal with cases fairly and justly.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, Rules 3, 6, 18
In rent determination cases, the evidential burden rests on the landlord seeking an increase. However, this analogy isn't fully applicable to pitch fee reviews under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Peabody Trust v Miss Carole Welstead [2024] UKUT 41 (LC)
The FTT can consider its own observations, including those from site inspections, when determining pitch fee increases, even in the absence of evidence from a resident.
Re Sayer [2014] UKUT 283 (LC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The FTT was not obliged to award an RPI/CPI increase where residents did not respond to the application. The FTT is empowered to consider its own observations and evidence from participating residents to determine reasonableness. The FTT's actions were consistent with its overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.