Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Alan Whitley & Ors
[2024] UKUT 55 (LC)
Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark
12 September 2024
[2024] UKUT 279 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A mobile home owner's pitch fee was increased. The tribunal reduced the increase because the park had become unpleasant due to anti-social behavior. However, the court decided it was wrong for the tribunal to also consider the unusually high inflation rate when making this decision. The case will go back to the tribunal to be decided again without considering the inflation rate.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) decision on pitch fee review for a mobile home.
- •Pitch fee review proposed a 13.4% increase in line with RPI.
- •Occupier (Mr. Clark) did not agree, leading to FTT application.
- •FTT found deterioration in site amenity due to anti-social behavior, reducing the increase to 8%.
- •Appellant (Teignbridge District Council) appeals, arguing the FTT's decision was irrational and legally flawed.
Legal Principles
Pitch fee changes under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 require FTT approval if the occupier disagrees.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 2, paragraphs 16-20
When determining a new pitch fee, particular regard must be had to improvements, deterioration in site condition and amenity, and reduction/deterioration in services (paragraph 18(1)).
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 2, paragraph 18(1)
Presumption that pitch fee increase/decrease is in line with RPI unless unreasonable (paragraph 20). RPI increase is a presumption, not an entitlement or maximum.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 2, paragraph 20; Britanniacrest Limited v Bamborough [2016] UKUT 0144 (LC)
To displace the RPI presumption, a factor of considerable weight must be present.
Vyse v Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd 2017 [UKUT] 24
Amenity refers to the quality of being agreeable or pleasant from the occupier's perspective.
Charles Simpson Organisation Ltd v Redshaw (2010) 2514 (CH)
Outcomes
Appeal partially successful.
The FTT's consideration of site amenity deterioration was not irrational, even if caused by resident behavior. However, considering the exceptional RPI increase was an error of law.
FTT decision set aside regarding RPI.
The level of RPI change is not a relevant factor to displace the presumption, making it an irrelevant consideration.
Case remitted to FTT.
To remake the decision without considering the exceptional RPI increase.