[2025] UKUT 366 (LC)

In more detail, the appellant said in its grounds of appeal that the FTT found that the responsibility for maintaining the pipes was not the appellant’s but that of South West Water (which has now repaired the pipes), and that the FTT erred in finding that a reduction in amenity of the site which was caused by something which was not the responsibility or in the control of the site owner is a reason to displace the presumption of an RPI increase. The appellant also argued that the low water pressure was a long-standing problem, existing before the appellant bought the site, and (I paraphrase) that the appellant should not be penalised for what had happened before it took on the site Finally, the appellant says that the FTT should have explained how it arrived at the reduction in the pitch fee rather than simply stating that it would not increase.

I have read written representations from Mrs Marie Harper and Mrs Anne Hood, which essentially repeat their evidence to the FTT about the water pressure and other matters.

Looking first at the appeal as a matter of legal principle, I think the answer lies in the wording of paragraph 19(1)(aa) and (ab), where there is an obvious contrast between paragraph (aa) which refers simply to deterioration in the condition and decrease in the amenity of the site without reference to the site owner, while paragraph (ab) refers to a reduction in the services “that the owner supplies to the site”. I see no reason in principle why the FTT should be prevented from taking into account a deterioration in the condition or amenity of the site caused by a third party and not by the site owner.

Whether or not it is fair to do so in an individual case will depend on the facts of that case. What swayed the FTT in the present case was that the facts indicated that the appellant actually did resolve the problem with SWW, and took the view (on the basis of the factual evidence that it heard) that it could and should have done something much earlier. The FTT did not have the evidence to determine whose fault the problem was, and indeed that would have required expert evidence; but its view was based on the fact that this was a problem the appellant knew about and could have solved but did not until January 2025. That was a finding of fact with which this Tribunal will not interfere, but I would observe that it rings true; the appellant was obviously more able to persuade SWW to deal with a site-wide problem than were the individual residents. Moreover the FTT expressly found that the problem pre-dated the appellant’s purchase; I do not see that that casts any doubt on the FTT’s decision, which was based not on any suggestion that the appellant caused the problem but upon the findings of fact that it knew about it and could have resolved it much earlier.

As to the final point that the FTT should have explained its thinking rather than simply deciding that there should be no increase, I agree that another sentence or so of explanation would have been appropriate. As the Deputy President explained in Wyldecrest Parks Management Limited [2024] UKUT 55 (LC), to which Mr Sunderland referred:

“Nothing in paragraphs 18 or 20A of the implied terms provides that the pitch fee must either increase by a rate equal to the change in RPI/CPI or stay the same, with no other outcome being possible.  The purpose of disapplying the presumption of an RPI/CPI increase where there has been a loss of amenity is not to punish the park owner for reducing amenities (which they may have been entirely within their rights to do) but to set a new pitch fee which properly reflects the changed circumstances.  Those changed circumstances obviously include the reduction in amenity, but they will also include any change in the value of money i.e. inflation since the last review took place.  For it to be appropriate for there to be no change in the pitch fee at all it would be necessary for factors justifying a reduction to (at least approximately) cancel out inflation and any other factors justifying an increase.”

However, in the present case the FTT expressed concern over the residents’ inability to heat their homes and use their appliances, and in light of the amounts involved I think it is obvious that it took the view that the problem was so serious that no increase at all could be justified.

The appeal fails, and the FTT’s finding that the pitch fees would not increase in 2023 is confirmed.