[2024] UKUT 00279 (LC)

Ground 1 The Tribunal reaches a decision which is irrational in that it finds there has been a deterioration in amenity affecting the statutory presumption, despite the amenity being affected (if at all) by actions of the residents. The Tribunal finds that as a consequence of the conduct of the residents there is an increase in resources dedicated to the provision of services and accordingly there is no reduction or deterioration in respect of the provision of services. These two findings cannot be reconciled. The Tribunal should have concluded that if there was a deterioration in condition or amenity that it was attributable to resident conduct and accordingly that it should not have been taken into account in determining the new pitch fee.

Ground 2 Without prejudice to the foregoing, 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.

Ground 3 The Tribunal erred in law in considering that the fact that the RPI figure of 13.4% in the index review period would impact those on limited income should be a significant factor in determining the appropriate pitch fee. Respectfully, that is to exceed the discretion afforded to it by the statutory regime.