Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark
[2024] UKUT 279 (LC)
The Beaches Management Ltd v D & J Furbear & Ors
19 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 180 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A mobile home park owner tried to raise fees, but a court said the paperwork was wrong. A higher court fixed the paperwork issue, but sent the case back to court because of other unresolved problems about who owns the park and who should pay fees.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision regarding a pitch fee increase at Beechfield Park, a residential mobile home site.
- •The Beaches Management Ltd (appellant) attempted to raise pitch fees for 12 mobile homes, but the FTT ruled the procedure invalid and/or the increase unreasonable.
- •The Mobile Homes Act 1983 governs the agreements, requiring a specific procedure for pitch fee changes.
- •The appellant combined the pitch fee review notice and form into a single document.
- •The FTT found the combined document invalid due to lack of separate documents, missing owner information, and insufficient authorization for the signature.
- •The FTT also found the RPI presumption for a fee increase was displaced due to a separate service charge covering site services.
- •A subsequent FTT decision questioned the appellant's status as site owner and entitlement to service charges.
Legal Principles
Procedure for changing pitch fees under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraphs 16, 17, 25A, 26
Definition of 'owner' under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, section 5
Presumption of pitch fee increase in line with RPI (or CPI), and factors that can displace this presumption.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraph 20; Vyse v Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Limited [2017] UKUT 24 (LC)
Requirements for pitch fee review notice and form.
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraphs 17(2A), (6A), 25A, 26; Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Form) (England) Regulations 2013.
Outcomes
Appeal successful in part.
The FTT's decision regarding the invalidity of the combined notice and form, and the displacement of the RPI presumption, was overturned. The Upper Tribunal found that combining the notice and form was acceptable, that the signature was not required and sufficiently provided, but that the FTT did not properly explain its finding that it was unreasonable for the pitch fee to be changed.
Matter remitted to the FTT.
Due to unanswered questions about the appellant's ownership status, the respondents' arguments, and a conflicting subsequent FTT decision, the case was remitted to a different FTT panel for further evidence and consideration. The conflicting FTT decision raises the question of issue estoppel.