[2024] UKUT 180 (LC)

The applications to the FTT were made in February 2023. Three of them were accompanied by a pitch fee review notice and form dated 21 September 2022, and signed on behalf of Wyldecrest Parks Management Limited; the FTT took the view that that notice and form were defective and in May 2023 issued a notice under rule 9 of the FTT’s rules requiring the appellant to say why the applications should not be struck out. In response, the appellant provided what it said was the correct form and notice, being identical to those sent to the rest of the respondents. On 7 August 2023 the FTT then issued a further rule 9 notice, again on the FTT’s own initiative; there was no application by the respondents to strike out the applications and the concerns expressed in the rule 9 notice were not raised by the respondents. The rule 9 notice extended to 22 pages and 96 paragraphs, and included a lengthy review of the history of the legislation, most of which was reproduced in the eventual decision. After the second rule 9 notice was sent out it was realised that the concerns expressed in that notice applied to all the applications and on 9 August 2023 the FTT gave directions for all the applications to be heard together.

After those directions had been given the respondents filed a statement of case. They made no mention of the formal defects in the notices and forms complained of by the FTT, but expressed concern on two fronts.

First, the respondents said that none of them had an agreement with the appellant and the appellant had never sent out pitch fee review notices before. Their agreements were with a number of other companies, nine of them with Wyldecrest Parks Management Limited (“Wyldecrest”) by which they believed the site was owned and run. They pointed out that of the 25 pitches on the site, all had received a notice on 21 September 2022, which had been withdrawn in relation to these 12 respondents but not in relation to the other 13 residents. None of the September notices was from the appellant; most were from Wyldecrest but some were from Silk Tree Properties Limited or from Silver Lakes Property Investments Limited. There were sub-leases of individual pitches (as referred to in paragraph 6 above). The respondents’ pitch fee and service charge were paid to UK Properties Management Limited. They did not understand what was the role of the appellant in the “tangled web” of companies involved in the site

Second, they explained that many of them had initially entered into occupation agreements in respect of their pitches with Silk Tree Properties Limited for terms expiring in 2027, on the basis that the company’s lease was to expire on that date. Recently they had been approached by Wyldecrest, whom they believed to be the owner of the site (although the registered freeholder was Best Holdings UK Limited) and offered a new lease for an indefinite term; the terms offered for the surrender of their current agreement and the grant of a new one were either a price of £40,000, or a doubling of the pitch fee from something over £200 per month to over £400 per month.

Most of them had accepted that offer. Ms March herself, for example, accepted the offer of a new agreement in 2020, at a new pitch fee of £413 in place of £214 per month. Others had paid the capital sum requested. The respondents’ statement of case concluded:

The FTT’s decision of 20 October 2023 extended to 47 pages, and 211 paragraphs (the final paragraph is numbered 157 because the numbering starts again after 54). It found that the applications were made in accordance with the time limits under paragraph 17(9). It found as follows:

The first two findings have not been appealed by the respondents.

The appellant has permission to appeal points c to f above, and I look at them in turn. As I shall explain, the appeal on those points is successful; I then turn to the question of disposal: should the Tribunal substitute its own decision for that of the FTT, or should it remit the matter to the FTT?