Heading

Case No: LC-2024-645
AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER
FTT Refs: CHI/19UD/PH1/2023/0625-627 and 631
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand, London WC2A 2LL
20 January 2025
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
PARK HOMES – PITCH FEE REVIEW – flooding affecting some pitches only – intermittent deterioration or loss of amenity – whether incapable of displacing presumption of RPI increase – requirement to undertake valuation where presumption displaced – obligation to provide reasons for nil increase – para.18, Ch.2, Sch.1, Mobile Homes Act 1983 – appeal allowed in part
BETWEEN:
SOUTHERN COUNTRY PARKS LIMITED
Appellant
-and-
MRS EILEEN BIRD (1)
MR AND MRS BURDEN (2)
MR C.J. YOUNG AND MISS SAXTON (3)
MRS KAY FAY (4)
Respondents
Hillbury Park,
Alderholt,
Hampshire
Martin Rodger KC,
Deputy Chamber President
6 January 2025
Victoria Osler, instructed by Apps Legal, for the appellant
The respondents did not attend the hearing
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Whitley [2024] UKUT 55 (LC)
- Heading
- Introduction
- Pitch fee reviews under the 1983 Act
- The FTT’s decision
- Grounds of appeal
- Issue 1: Must a deterioration or decrease in amenity affect the whole or most of the site before the presumption of an RPI increase will be displaced?
- Issue 2: Must a decrease or deterioration be permanent to displace the presumption?
- Issue 3: Did the FTT ask itself the right question before deciding there should be no increase or only a restricted increase?
- Issue 4: Did the FTT take into account irrelevant considerations?
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 00018 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)