[2024] UKUT 11 (LC)

The first appellant, Mr Robling, has his mobile home stationed at 16 Meadow View, Pilgrim’s Retreat. He received a notice of the review of his pitch fee, dated 23 November 2022, said to be given by and signed by the respondent Mr Doe and Mrs E Sines. The notice was in the form prescribed by the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) (Prescribed Forms) (England) Regulations 2013, notifying him that his pitch fee was going to increase on 1 January 2023, from £361,48 per month to £412.81 per month.

The use of such a form is required for the review of the pitch fee under agreements regulated by the Mobile Homes Act 1983, of which section 1(1) states that the Act applies:

“to any agreement under which a person (“the occupier”) is entitled–

(a)

to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and

(b)

to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.”

In accordance with the provisions of the 1983 Act, section 5 of the notice of review of the pitch fee stated (in printed type) that if the recipient did not agree to the proposed pitch fee they are not obliged to pay it but may apply to a tribunal to determine the new pitch fee. That is because paragraph 16 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act provides:

“ 16. The pitch fee can only be changed in accordance with paragraph 17, either—

(a)

with the agreement of the occupier, or

(b)

if the [appropriate judicial body, on the application of the owner or the occupier, considers it reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed and makes an order determining the amount of the new pitch fee.

Paragraph 17 then provides that the pitch fee is to be reviewed annually at the review date, with a notice in the correct form served on the occupier at least 28 days before the review date. It goes on to say:

On 3 December 2022 Mr Robling applied to the FTT in accordance with paragraph 17(4). He supplied with his application an incomplete copy of an unsigned “Licence Agreement for a Leisure Home”, which begins as follows:

“This agreement permits you to station a Leisure Home on the park and to occupy it for leisure and recreational purposes.”

Paragraph 7 of the agreement states that the pitch fee can be reviewed annually with one month’s notice, and that the proposed new pitch fee will become payable with effect from the Review Date.

On receipt of the application the FTT (not a judge but a legal officer) sent a notice under rule 9 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 stating that the FTT was minded to strike out the application because the Tribunal did not appear to have jurisdiction. The notice said:

“2.

The Tribunal reviewed the application and accompanying documentation and noted that a ‘Licence Agreement for a Leisure Home’ had been included.

3.

Section 1(1) of the Mobile Home Act 1983 states:

“This Act applies to any agreement under which a person (“the occupier”) is entitled—

(a)

to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and

(b)

to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence.”

In view of the documents before it, the Tribunal questions whether the Mobile Homes Act 1983 applied to the agreement. On the face of it, the park home is not being occupied as the Applicant’s only or main residence, but that of a leisure/holiday home.

4.

In order to proceed the Tribunal would need to be satisfied that

it had the jurisdiction to deal with the application under the Mobile

Homes Act 1983. It would also need to be satisfied that the site in

question is a ‘protected site’.”

Mr Robling was invited to make representations in response to the notice, and did not make any. The site owner was directed to provide a copy of the site licence, and did so. On16 March 2023 an order was made striking the application out. The order recorded what was said in the notice, stated that representations had been made by the respondent and that a copy of the site licence had been supplied, and concluded:

“The Tribunal notes that the representations received do not alter the fact that the Licence Agreement granted for property in question is not covered under the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

It therefore strikes out the application in accordance with Rule 9(2)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or case or that part of them.”

Mr Robling sought permission to appeal, which the FTT granted on the following ground:

“I am satisfied that the question of whether or not the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the provisions relating to the determination of a pitch fee are on the facts of this case a matter for which I should grant leave to appeal being a matter which has a realistic prospect of success. It is therefore right for them to be considered afresh by an appellate body.”