[2025] UKUT 366 (LC)

I take the facts from the decision of the FTT. In February 2023 the appellant served pitch fee review notices on the four respondents, seeking an increase in the pitch fee in line with the RPI with effect from 1 April 2023. The respondents did not agree the proposed increase and so on 2 May 2023 the appellant made applications to the FTT for a determination of the new pitch fee. Proceedings were stayed pending the determination of an appeal in relation to a different site; in July 2024 the stays were lifted and the FTT gave directions. Shortly afterwards applications were made for determinations of the pitch fees for 2024 for two of the respondents, and the FTT decided both sets of fees together, but this appeal relates only to the 2023 pitch fee and I shall refer only to that one.

The FTT inspected the site; at the hearing it heard argument from the respondents that the pitch fee for 2023 should not be increased for a number of reasons, of which the only one relevant to this appeal is the water pressure in the park, which the appellants said had dropped, to the extent that at times they could not heat their homes or operate domestic appliances. Water for the site is supplied by South West Water (“SWW”); it invoices the residents directly.

Mr Sunderland told the FTT that the appellant is not responsible for the water supply or for the water pressure; however, he had been in contact with SWW which had fixed a number of leaks in January 2025 so that the problem with the water pressure had been resolved. He argued that even if the respondents’ complaints about the water pressure had any merit, the condition of the site had not changed or deteriorated since the appellant acquired it in 2022.

The FTT said this:

“83.

The evidence the Tribunal received and heard identified a significant issue with regard to water supply to the Park which has affected the Respondents for several years. The Applicant did not offer any evidence which suggested otherwise. The Tribunal accepts that the consequences of the low water pressure had a significant impact on the Respondents’ enjoyment of their homes on the Park until this was remedied in January 2025. …

98.

… The Applicant was aware of the ongoing problems with the water pressure in March 2023. The Tribunal does not know if it was aware of the problems before that date but concluded that it should have been aware of the problem, when it acquired the Park in January 2022. …

107.

Before [January 2025], the Applicant had consistently failed to respond to or address any of the Respondents’ complaints about poor water pressure and its impact on their enjoyment of their properties. The Tribunal finds that it should have engaged with SWW as soon as it received complaints to investigate the cause and identify who was responsible for resolving the problem. …

117.

The Tribunal finds, based on the evidence that it has heard, the reduced water pressure which has affected the water supply to the Park before the 2023 pitch fee review, and possibly for some time prior to that has resulted in a significant loss of amenity. It has received no evidence that the identified loss of amenity previously affected the settlement of a pitch fee review….

119.

The Tribunal finds that the presumption that the pitch fees should increase in line with RPI in April 2023 is rebutted.”

Therefore, said the FTT, the pitch fees for the four respondents would not change in 2023.

The FTT added:

“123.

The Tribunal finds that there is no merit in the Applicant’s claim that it has improved the Park because of its actions to force SWW to accept responsibility for the water pipes within the Park and to repair the leaks. It has done nothing to address the problem with the water pressure until 2025, almost two years after it received Mrs Harper’s response to the 2023 pitch fee review. The Applicant is obliged to maintain a satisfactory water supply on the Park. The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that it has failed to comply with this obligation for at least two years and possibly longer.”

The appellant appeals, with permission from this Tribunal, on the ground that it is arguable that a loss of amenity that was not caused by the site provider should not have any effect on the pitch fee.