[2024] UKUT 11 (LC)

Mr Robling has explained, to the FTT and to the Tribunal in written representations, that he has lived in his caravan on this pitch for some years and pays council tax. It is his home. Mr Sprigg is in the same position. The respondent has not disputed that the two appellants live in their caravans but they say that they are not entitled to do so because their written licence is for holiday use only.

I can deal with this point very simply. In determining whether or not a person is entitled to live in a mobile home as their only or main residence, the written licence agreement may not tell the whole story. Someone who has made their home in their caravan for many years without protest from the owner is, on the balance of probabilities, doing so with the permission of the site owner, whether expressed in words or by conduct. That was the position of the resident in Tingdene Marinas where the Tribunal said at paragraph 15:

“Ms Jaffe has a licence agreement with the appellant, which does not say in terms that she can live on the houseboat. But the FTT at paragraph 124 of its decision said that it was agreed that Ms Jaffe was not a trespasser and that she had permission to station her houseboat where it floats and to use it as her sole residence. So her agreement with the appellant goes beyond the terms of her written licence; the FTT at its paragraph 147 found that she had an agreement that gave her permission to station a mobile home on the site and to live in it as her sole residence, and there is no appeal from that finding.”

It is well-established that when considering whether to strike out a party’s case a court or tribunal should assume that that party’s account of the facts is true. Mr Robling and Mr Spriggs say they each live, and been allowed by the respondent to live, in their caravan as their home. If the respondent wants to argue that it has not in fact permitted them to live there, that was a matter for a finding of fact at a hearing. The FTT could not assume that the applicants would fail on that point.

There was no basis on which it could be said, on receipt of their application, that the applicants had no prospect of success in showing that they were entitled, on the basis of permission from the respondent, to live in their mobile homes as their only or main residence. The FTT jumped to a conclusion on the basis of the licence agreement alone (which in Mr Robling’s case was not even signed), and that was an error of law. The order striking out the two applications is set aside for that reason.

That concludes what I have to decide in the appeal. It should be noted that I have not made a decision that the two applicants are in fact entitled to live in their mobile homes as their only or main residence because evidence has not been tested and in this review of the FTT’s decision I cannot make findings of fact. If the point remains in issue before the FTT then it will have to be decided at a hearing. Nor have I (and nor has the FTT) made any decision as to whether the two appellants’ mobile homes are stationed on a protected site.