Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Julie Truzzi-Franconi
[2023] UKUT 42 (LC)
Martin Hampton v The Berkeley Leisure Group Limited
29 August 2024
[2024] UKUT 260 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A mobile home owner challenged a rent increase notice because of a small mistake in the address and how the increase was calculated. The judge said these small mistakes didn't matter because the owner knew what the notice meant, and it followed all the rules. The rent increase was upheld.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Martin Hampton appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision concerning a pitch fee increase for his mobile home at Cauldron Barn Farm Park.
- •The appeal focused on the validity of the pitch fee review notice and form due to errors in the address and calculation of the fee.
- •The FTT found the notice valid despite the errors.
- •The address on the notice was slightly incorrect, omitting 'Park' from 'Cauldron Barn Farm Park'.
- •The calculation of the fee increase contained a minor methodological error.
- •The appellant received the notice and understood its contents despite the errors.
Legal Principles
A minor error in a pitch fee review notice does not invalidate it if it meets statutory requirements and does not mislead the recipient.
Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67, Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19
Pitch fee review notices must comply with paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which requires a written notice and a form complying with paragraph 25A.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraphs 17, 25A
The Mobile Homes Act 1983 sets out implied terms in agreements, including the payment of pitch fees.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, Chapter 2, paragraphs 21, 29
The cost of site licenses can be included in the initial pitch fee but should not be treated as a separate, subsequently added sum.
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Kenyon and others [2017] UKUT 28 (LC)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The errors in the address and calculation, while present, were deemed minor and did not invalidate the notice as they did not mislead the appellant or violate statutory requirements. The notice fulfilled its purpose of informing the appellant of the proposed fee increase.