Wickland (Holdings) Limited v Amelia Esterhuyse
[2023] UKUT 147 (LC)
Phillip Robling & Anor v Maurice Fred Doe
8 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 11 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Two people living in their mobile homes on a park had their applications to set their rent fairly rejected because a judge only looked at a written agreement and not at how long they'd lived there. A higher court said the judge was wrong and should have considered the full story.
Key Facts
- •Two appellants, Mr. Robling and Mr. Sprigg, appealed FTT decisions striking out their applications for pitch fee determination under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
- •The FTT struck out the applications based on the wording of a 'Licence Agreement for a Leisure Home', concluding the appellants were not entitled to reside in their mobile homes as their only or main residence.
- •The appellants argued they had lived in their caravans for years as their primary residences, paying council tax.
- •The respondent argued the site was not a protected site under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
Legal Principles
The Mobile Homes Act 1983 applies to agreements where an occupier is entitled to station a mobile home on a protected site and occupy it as their only or main residence.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, section 1(1)
A 'protected site' is defined in section 5A(5) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, section 5A(5)
When considering striking out a case, a court or tribunal should assume the party's account of the facts is true.
Case law (implicitly referenced through the Tingdene Marinas case analogy)
A written licence agreement may not reflect the full agreement between parties; long-standing occupation without protest can imply permission.
Case law (implicitly referenced through the Tingdene Marinas case analogy)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The FTT erred in law by relying solely on the written licence agreement to determine the appellants' entitlement to reside in their mobile homes, without considering their long-standing occupation and the respondent's lack of objection. The FTT also failed to consider whether the site was a protected site.