[2025] UKUT 366 (LC)

In 2022 the appellant purchased Tremarle Park, where the respondents live in their mobile homes under agreements that are protected by the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The provisions of the 1983 Act determine how and to what extent the pitch fee that they pay to the appellant can be changed. The “pitch fee” is defined in paragraph 29 of Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 2, to the Mobile Homes Act1983, as:

“...the amount which the occupier is required by the agreement to pay to the owner for the right to station the mobile home on the pitch and for use of the common areas of the protected site and their maintenance, but does not include amounts due in respect of gas, electricity, water and sewerage or other services, unless the agreement expressly provides that the pitch fee includes such amounts”

Provisions about changing the pitch fee are made by paragraphs 16 to 20 of Schedule 1, Part 1, Chapter 2 of the 1983 Act; it can only be changed by following the procedure set out in paragraph 17 of the Schedule, and then only with either the agreement of the occupier or if the FTT, on an application by the site owner, considers it reasonable for the fee to be changed and makes an order determining the amount of the new fee. Paragraph 17 prescribes a notice procedure and there is no dispute that it was properly followed in this case.

As to the level of the new fee, paragraph 18 of the Schedule says this (so far as relevant):

“(1)

When determining the amount of the new pitch fee particular regard shall be had to—

(a)

any sums expended by the owner since the last review date on improvements—

(i)

which are for the benefit of the occupiers of mobile homes on the protected site;

(iii)

which were the subject of consultation in accordance with paragraph 22(e) and (f) below; and

(iii)

to which a majority of the occupiers have not disagreed in writing or which, in the case of such disagreement, the [FTT], on the application of the owner, has ordered should be taken into account when determining the amount of the new pitch fee;

(aa) in the case of a protected site in England, any deterioration in the condition, and any decrease in the amenity, of the site or any adjoining land which is occupied or controlled by the owner since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that deterioration or decrease for the purposes of this subparagraph);

(ab) in the case of a protected site in England, any reduction in the services that the owner supplies to the site, pitch or mobile home, and any deterioration in the quality of those services, since the date on which this paragraph came into force (in so far as regard has not previously been had to that reduction or deterioration for the purposes of this subparagraph);

…”

Paragraph 20 says this (again, omitting irrelevant passages):

“(A1)  In the case of a protected site in England, unless this would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1), there is a presumption that the pitch fee shall increase or decrease by a percentage which is no more than any percentage increase or decrease in the retail prices index calculated by reference only to—

(a)

the latest index, and

(b)

the index published for the month which was 12 months before that to which the latest index relates.”

That provision has been amended with effect from July 2023 to refer to the consumer prices index, but at the time relevant to this appeal the text remained as above and retail prices index (“RPI”) is the relevant index for the purposes of this appeal.

The effect of those provisions taken together is that if the FTT decides that it is reasonable for the pitch fee to change, then there is a presumption that it shall increase or decrease in line with the latest change in the RPI, unless the FTT decides that that would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1). Paragraph 18(1) requires the FTT to have regard “in particular” to certain factors, which of course means that other factors can also be taken into account. In Britanniacrest Limited v Bamborough [2016] UKUT 0144 (LC) the Tribunal (the Deputy President, Martin Rodger QC and Mr Peter McCrea FRICS) said:

“31.

…The fundamental point to be noted is that an increase or decrease by reference to RPI is only a presumption; it is neither an entitlement nor a maximum, and in some cases it will only be a starting point of the determination.”