[2024] UKUT 00279 (LC)

There are a number of strands within this ground of appeal.

One is that it was inconsistent for the FTT to find that there was a decrease in amenity yet no reduction or deterioration in the provision of services for the occupiers. That can be dealt with shortly: there is no inconsistency. The level or quality of services provided on a site may remain constant, or even increase, yet amenity may decrease for reasons unrelated to the provision of services by the site owner. I see no inconsistency there.

In written submissions Mr Ward argued that the FTT was wrong to rely upon what was said in Charles Simpson v Redshaw (paragraph 46, quoted above at paragraph 15), on the basis that it was a decision on permission to appeal and is not binding on the FTT, and in any event was about a different issue. I see no substance in that point either; the FTT did not say it was bound by Charles Simpson v Redshaw and seems to me to have used wording from that decision as a convenient way of paraphrasing or teasing out what is meant by “amenity”. It did not need to do so; amenity is not difficult to understand. But I see no error of law in the reference to Charles Simpson v Redshaw.

At the heart of this ground is the proposition that the FTT ought not to have had regard to a decrease in amenity which was brought about by other residents on the site rather than by the site owner.

The statute requires the FTT to have particular regard to “any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site”. It says nothing about causation. The focus is on what the occupier is paying for; it will be recalled that the pitch fee is defined (paragraph 29 of the Schedule, quoted at paragraph 3 above) as payment “for the right to station the mobile home on the pitch and for use of the common areas of the protected site and their maintenance”. Amenity is obviously relevant to what one pays for a site, whatever the reason why it is as is it. In the present case Mr Clark complained of “abandoned vehicles, anti-social behaviour and dangerous dogs being allowed to roam unchecked”; that falls squarely within amenity, and in my judgment also a “deterioration in condition” of the site.

Mr Ward argued that “if the site owner cannot be expected to have done any more to preserve the condition and amenity by provision of services exceeding the minimum requirement, and the conduct of others who live on the site has caused a deterioration in condition, then any deterioration of condition or amenity … cannot be such as to render it unreasonable to apply the statutory presumption.”

I disagree with that submission for two reasons. One is that the FTT did not find that the appellant could not be expected to have done more to preserve the condition and amenity of the site. It simply said that there had been no reduction in the quality of the services (paragraph 51, quoted at paragraph 15 above), as a result of the fact that the council, in the face of anti-social behaviour by some residents, had “devoted more time and energy in trying to manage the site and maintain the services than ever”. But despite that, the FTT accepted Mr Clark’s evidence that caretaking and maintenance had become less effective. The appellant was doing more, but it had not prevented the decrease in amenity.

The other reason why I disagree with Mr Ward’s submission is that the statute says nothing about causation. That means, I accept, that the statute places the financial consequences of externalities – whether weather conditions or anti-social behaviour or any other cause of a deterioration in the site – on the site owner rather than the occupiers. That is hardly surprising, and certainly not irrational.

Mr Ward also argued that the FTT’s decision was wrong because it amounted to the determination of a reasonable fee in all the circumstances; but again I disagree, The FTT’s decision was firmly rooted in the specific words of the statute and the considerations set out paragraph 18(1)(aa).

Finally Mr Ward argued that it cannot have been the intention of the legislature that residents themselves could prevent a site owner from maintaining a site by behaving anti-socially and thereby prevent an increase in pitch fee. Mr Ward made it clear that it is not suggested that Mr Clark himself had done anything wrong; and that is the important point. The FTT is not limited in the range of factors it can take into consideration, and where an occupier has himself or herself contributed to the deterioration in condition or amenity of the site then that would be an important factor. But that is not the case here and the point is not relevant to this appeal and this respondent.

I find nothing irrational in the fact that the FTT found that the amenity of the site had deteriorated despite the appellant having put more resources into it and maintained its services. This ground of appeal fails..