Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark
[2024] UKUT 279 (LC)
Wickland (Holdings) Limited v Amelia Esterhuyse
30 June 2023
[2023] UKUT 147 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A park owner wanted to raise the rent on a mobile home by the usual amount. The tenant said the ground her home sits on was badly repaired and it's causing problems. A judge agreed with the tenant and said the rent shouldn't go up because of the repairs issue.
Key Facts
- •Ms Esterhuyse's pitch fee at Meadowview Park was subject to an annual review.
- •The appellant sought a 6% increase in line with the RPI.
- •Ms Esterhuyse disputed the increase due to issues with her hardstanding.
- •The hardstanding had been previously repaired, but the repair was considered unsatisfactory.
- •A local authority Compliance Notice was issued regarding the hardstanding's structural integrity.
- •The appellant had not completed the necessary repairs by the time of the pitch fee review.
- •The FTT decided without a hearing, based on undisputed facts.
Legal Principles
Pitch fee increases are subject to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, Chapter 2.
Mobile Homes Act 1983
There's a presumption that the pitch fee will increase or decrease in line with the RPI, unless unreasonable considering factors in paragraph 18(1).
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 20
Factors to consider when determining reasonableness include deterioration in the condition and amenity of the site (paragraph 18(1)(aa)).
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 18(1)(aa)
Other factors beyond paragraph 18 can displace the RPI presumption; these factors must have considerable weight.
Vyse v Wyldecrest Limited [2017] UKUT 24 (LC)
The FTT must first determine whether a change in pitch fee is reasonable, then determine the new pitch fee amount.
Implied from FTT's interpretation of the Act.
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The FTT's decision was upheld because the appellant's failure to repair the hardstanding, causing distress to Ms Esterhuyse, was deemed a factor outweighing the RPI presumption. The FTT did not err in fact or law.