[2024] UKUT 00279 (LC)

In full, this ground is that “the Tribunal erred in law in failing to direct itself to the question of whether there was a decrease in amenity or condition which had arisen since the date on which paragraph 18(1)(aa) of Schedule 1 to Mobile Homes Act 1983 came in to force (specifically in or around 2013) and which had not already been taken in to account.”

In my judgment there is no substance in this ground. The pitch fee had not been changed since 2019, and it is apparent from the decision that the deterioration in the site had been recent. Mr Clark’s evidence is reported by the FTT as referring to deterioration “recently”, and Mr Madge referred to problems “during the relevant period”. In its paragraph 50 (paragraph 15 above) the FTT referred to what Mr Clark had told them about “the relevant year”, and in its refusal of permission to appeal the FTT referred to Mr Clark having given evidence about “the last couple of years”. The FTT having referred to the statutory provisions and quoted paragraph 18 of the Schedule was certainly aware of the timing issue, and in my judgment despite the absence of any explicit statement by the FTT that the timing requirements of paragraph 18(1)(aa) were met it is safe to infer that the difficulties reported by Mr Clark had arisen since the last pitch fee review, four years before the present one; accordingly they had arisen long after the relevant statutory provisions came into force in 2013 and had not previously been taken into account. This ground of appeal fails.