Wickland (Holdings) Limited v Amelia Esterhuyse

On a pitch-fee review under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the statutory presumption of an increase in line with the retail prices index is a strong steer, not an automatic outcome. The First-tier Tribunal must first consider whether a change is reasonable, then determine whether the presumption is displaced by matters identified in the statutory scheme or by other factors carrying sufficient weight. A failure by the site owner to complete proper repairs may displace the presumption where its effects are materially distressing to the occupier. The relevant deterioration need not have occurred since the previous pitch-fee review, provided it falls within the statutory period and has not previously been taken into account.

The appellant owned a protected park site where the respondent occupied a mobile home under an agreement providing for annual pitch-fee reviews. The appellant sought a 6% increase for 2022, in line with the retail prices index.

The respondent refused the increase, relying principally on the site owner’s failure properly to repair cracked hardstanding beneath her mobile home. The First-tier Tribunal refused the application, finding that the failure to complete the repairs was a factor carrying considerable weight and displacing the statutory presumption.

The appellant appealed on grounds alleging factual error, legal error concerning deterioration or amenity, and misapplication of the statutory test.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The pitch fee for 2022 remained £193.32 per month.
2. Under Chapter 2 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the primary question is whether it is reasonable for the pitch fee to be changed. Paragraph 20 then provides a strong presumption that the change will reflect the increase or decrease in the retail prices index, unless that would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1).
3. The statutory scheme does not make the RPI presumption the beginning and end of the determination. Paragraphs 18 and 19 identify matters requiring consideration or exclusion, and other factors may also displace the presumption if they carry sufficient weight in the context of the statutory scheme.
4. The deterioration referred to in paragraph 18(1)(aa) need not have occurred since the previous pitch-fee review. The provision refers to deterioration since it came into force which has not previously been taken into account.
5. The First-tier Tribunal had not based its decision on deterioration in the condition or amenity of the site under paragraph 18(1)(aa). It had found that the site owner’s failure to complete proper repairs to the hardstanding was an external factor which displaced the RPI presumption. That approach was consistent with Vyse v Wyldecrest Limited and the principles explained in Britanniacrest Limited v Bamborough.
6. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled, on the evidence, to find that the defective repairs caused the respondent distress and worry. That evaluative conclusion could not be disturbed absent an error of law or irrationality.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): refused the site owner’s application for a 6% increase in the respondent’s pitch fee.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal on all grounds and left the pitch fee unchanged.