Case No. UKUT-16-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-140

The legal background to the first question18.The first question is not a question about planning permission. Section 1 of the 1983 Act is about an agreement under which the occupier is entitled to station a mobile home on land. The entitlement therefore comes from the agreement. The first question comprises two separate issues: is Ms Jaffe living in a structure that is a mobile home, and is she entitled by the agreement to station it on land?19.Section 5 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 states that “mobile home” has the same meaning as in Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, in which section 29 provides:““caravan” means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted…”20.The parties have referred to a structure so defined as a “statutory caravan”, and I adopt that term. The definition includes a proposition about design or adaptation for human habitation (which is not in issue here), and what has been referred to as the “mobility test” (which is). And it is well established that in order to pass the mobility test the caravan must be capable of being moved as a whole without being dismantled; in Carter v Secretary of State for the Environment [1994] 1 WLR 1212 it was held that a structure made of four prefabricated sections that had to be bolted together on site was not a statutory caravan. There is provision for “twin unit” caravans in section 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which is not relevant here.The FTT’s decision21.In its decision of 25 November 2021 the FTT defined the first issue before it as being “Whether the Property occupied by [Ms Jaffe] is a caravan as defined by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960”. It went on to say (at its paragraph 14) that “references to “the Property” include both Willerby caravan and float”. It recorded Tingdene’s argument that Ms Jaffe’s property had to be considered as a whole and that it is therefore a houseboat, comprising float (with decking and handrail) and caravan, which fails the mobility test. After setting out the parties’ arguments, at paragraphs 129 and following it concluded:“129.The Tribunal found that the Property is a