[2024] UKUT 55 (LC)

Each of these appeals is concerned with the determination of new pitch fees for pitches on protected park home sites. In one appeal the site is in England, and is governed by the Mobile Homes Act 1983, while in the other it is in Wales, and the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013 applies, but the issues raised in both appeals are the same.

In each appeal the relevant tribunal (the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the Residential Property Tribunal (Wales) respectively) determined that the amenity of the site had been reduced significantly by the withdrawal of car parking areas to accommodate pitches for additional homes and, in the English case, by the conversion of a large area of open green space in the centre of the park to provide further new pitches.

Each tribunal decided that the reduction in amenity at the site was sufficiently substantial to displace the statutory presumption that pitch fees should increase annually by an amount equal to the increase in the retail prices index (England) or the consumer prices index (Wales). Freed of the statutory RPI/CPI presumption, each tribunal also decided that the pitch fees for every pitch under consideration should not increase at all. Had the presumption been applied, the respective increases would have been 6% at the English park and 11.1% at the Welsh park.

The owner of both parks, Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd, now appeals against the decisions of the two tribunals. It says that they were wrong in principle to take the withdrawal of parking or green space into account because in neither case were the occupiers entitled to the continuation of those amenities under the terms of their agreements with the park owner, and in neither case did the site licence require that parking facilities or green space must be maintained at the same level. Wyldecrest also says that, even if there was a reduction in amenity at the parks sufficient to displace the presumption of an RPI/CPI increase, that should not have caused the tribunal to make no increase at all. Finally, it says that different pitches on each park benefitted from the amenities to a greater or lesser extent depending on the location of the pitch and the characteristics of the occupiers, and the tribunals should have taken those differences into account.

The English appeal concerns Penwortham Park on the outskirts of Preston. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber (the FTT) on 27 March 2023 determined the pitch fee reviews for 16 pitches which were due with effect from 1 January 2022. The respondents to the appeal are the 21 occupiers of 15 of those pitches, who are listed in the first part of the appendix to this decision.

The Welsh appeal concerns Willow Park at Mancot in Flintshire. By its decision of 19 June 2023 the Residential Property Tribunal (Wales) (the RPTW) determined new pitch fees for 23 pitches with effect from 1 January 2023. The 31 occupiers of those pitches who are respondents to the appeal are listed in the second part of the appendix.

I heard the two appeals together. Wyldecrest was represented by its Estates Director, Mr David Sunderland. In the Penwortham Park appeal the Park residents were represented by Mr John Fulham assisted by Mrs Elizabeth Duncan, both of whom live on the Park and are respondents to the appeal. In the Willow Park appeal Mr Alistair Ibbotson, a senior case worker acting for the local Member of Parliament, Mr Mark Tami MP, and Councillor Sam Swash, a member of Flintshire County Council, spoke on behalf of all of the respondents. I am grateful to all of those who participated in the appeal for their assistance.