Martin Hampton v The Berkeley Leisure Group Limited
[2024] UKUT 260 (LC)
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Julie Truzzi-Franconi
10 February 2023
[2023] UKUT 42 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A landlord sent a notice to raise the rent of a mobile home, but the date on the notice was wrong. A lower court said the notice was invalid because of the wrong date. A higher court said the notice was okay because the mistake was on the official form the landlord had to use, and the tenant understood what was happening anyway. So, the rent increase was allowed, but the correct start date was used.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision that a pitch fee review notice was invalid.
- •Appellant: Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd.
- •Respondent: Mrs Julie Truzzi-Franconi.
- •Dispute concerns a pitch fee review for a mobile home under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.
- •The review notice stated a review date (January 1st, 2022) differing from the agreement's specified date (February 1st).
- •FTT dismissed the application due to the incorrect review date stated in the notice.
- •Appellant argued the notice was valid despite the date error and that the review date was changed by agreement through past dealings.
Legal Principles
Pitch fee changes require occupier agreement or FTT approval (Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraph 16).
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraph 16
Pitch fee review notice must be served at least 28 days before the review date (Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraph 17(2)).
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraph 17(2)
Review date is defined as the date specified in the agreement or the anniversary of the agreement's commencement (Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraph 29).
Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, paragraph 29
A notice is valid if a reasonable recipient would understand its meaning (Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19). A notice must also fulfil its purpose (Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67).
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19; Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FTT's decision.
The UT found the review notice valid despite the incorrect review date, as the error was caused by the misleading prescribed form. The respondent was not prejudiced by the error, and the appellant's actions complied with the statute's requirements. The UT held that a reasonable recipient would understand the intention of the notice.
The UT substituted its own decision that the new fee ran from February 1st, 2022.
To avoid disproportionate further proceedings, the UT determined the pitch fee based on the FTT's findings for other occupiers.