[2024] UKUT 294 (LC)

Mrs Brazier first came to live at Home Farm Park in 1999, Mr Askew in 2011, Ms Stanton in February 2020 and Mr and Mrs Mackinnon in September 2020. They all have written agreements, known as written statements, with the site owner entitling them to live there in their mobile homes. It is not in dispute that this is a protected site regulated by the Mobile Homes Act 1983, and that therefore terms are implied in their agreements by the 1983 Act.

The respondent is not the site owner, nor the holder of the licence for the site but I am told that it owns Home Farm Country Park Limited, the site owner and licence holder. No point has been taken about that in the FTT and the respondent has been treated as the site owner throughout; the respondent has not suggested that the appellants brought proceedings against the wrong body, and the appellants have not suggested that the respondent is not entitled to demand charges owed to the site owner.

There is, of course, a supply of electricity to the site, and there is gas in the form of liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) delivered to a tank. Electricity is supplied by Yu Energy and LPG by Northern Energy. Mrs Brazier’s and Mr Askew’s written statements each require the site owner to “use his best endeavours to provide and maintain the facilities and services available to the pitch at the date hereof or such further services as may from time to time be provided to keep the same in proper working order”; Ms Stanton’s written statement and Mr and Mrs Mackinnon’s contain an obligation upon the site owner to “do everything they reasonably can” to provide and maintain services to the pitch.

Each mobile home has a meter recording its consumption of electricity and LPG, and until recently the meters were read by the site manager (employed by the respondent) and an individual bill sent to each occupier who has then paid the respondent in arrears for their consumption.

With effect from 1 January 2003 the maximum price at which electricity may be resold has been set by the energy regulator, Ofgem, and is the same price as that paid by the person re-selling it, including any standing charges. There is no such restriction on the price of LPG. However, what the site owner is able to charge is in any event determined by the implied and express terms of its agreements with the occupiers.

In July 2022 the residents all received letters from POW Utilities stating that the respondent had engaged it to install pre-payment smart meters for LPG and electricity on each pitch. POW does not itself supply electricity or LPG; the suppliers remain as before. POW provides administration services for site owners including metering arrangements. Since September 2022 the site manager has refused to accept payments, and instead the occupiers have been asked to pay POW Utilities. The consequence of having a smart meter is that the occupiers have to pay their bills online. Not all residents have internet access; Mrs Brazier and Mr Askew have none, and while Ms Stanton does have internet access she does not feel confident about paying online. Residents who have refused to have a smart meter installed were told that they must pay an additional charge of £20 for the monthly manual meter reading (amounting to £240 per year); residents with smart meters are required to pay an additional 41p per day for each utility (almost £300 per year) by way of administration charge to POW Utilities.

The FTT has jurisdiction under section 4 of the 1983 Act “to determine any question arising under this Act or any agreement to which it applies”, and the appellants each made an application to the FTT to determine a number of questions arising under the new arrangements for gas and electricity. Slightly different questions arose in each application and the FTT made four separate decisions.

In each of its decisions the FTT noted that Ms Ava, the respondent’s solicitor, confirmed that POW is imposing charges as the agent of the site owner, and she maintained that position in the appeal. I pause to observe that that that must be correct; the appellants have a contractual relationship only with the site owner and have no contractual or other relationship with POW, nor with any utility provider.

The FTT found that the site owner was entitled to charge for manual meter reading, albeit at a rate of £10 per visit rather than £20, and to impose the daily administration charge for each utility. The appellants appeal those two findings with permission from this Tribunal. All now have smart meters, but Mrs Brazier’s has not yet been activated so she is still being charged for manual meter readings; if I have understood correctly the other appellants have been required to make those payments in the past before installation of the meter.

Before examining the FTTs findings we have to look at the law relating to charges for utilities on protected sites.