Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Julie Truzzi-Franconi

A statutory pitch-fee review notice is not invalid merely because it states an inaccurate review date. Validity depends on whether a reasonable recipient would understand the proposal and whether the notice fulfils its statutory purpose.

Where the prescribed form itself directs the site owner to treat the review date as twelve months after the last review, the owner cannot fairly be penalised for an inaccuracy generated by that direction. The error was immaterial where the occupier could understand the proposal and was not exposed to an automatic increase if no application was made. The statutory review date nevertheless remained the date specified in the agreement.

Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd, the owner of a residential mobile-home site, served Mrs Truzzi-Franconi with a notice proposing an increased pitch fee. Her agreement specified 1 February as the annual review date, but the prescribed form stated that the last review had been on 1 January 2021 and proposed the increase from 1 January 2022.

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) held that the incorrect review date invalidated the notice and dismissed the owner’s application. The owner appealed. The central issue was whether the error, in circumstances where the prescribed form itself equated the review date with twelve months after the last review, made the notice invalid.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law in holding the notice invalid. Its decision was set aside.

2. Under Mobile Homes Act 1983, Schedule 1, the contractual review date remained the date specified in the written agreement. A prior review on a different date did not itself alter that statutory definition. The Tribunal therefore substituted a decision that any new fee ran from 1 February 2022, rather than 1 January 2022.

3. The prescribed form required the owner to state the last review date, but then stated that the review date was twelve months later. That statement was inaccurate where a previous review had occurred on a date other than the contractual review date. The owner had accurately stated the last review date and followed the form’s directions. It would not be fair to invalidate the notice because the form itself produced the inaccuracy.

4. Applying the reasonable-recipient approach in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19, and the requirement identified in Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67 that a notice fulfil its purpose, the notice was effective. The occupier could understand both the owner’s proposal and that the statutory requirements had been followed. Unlike the assured-tenancy notice in Mooney v Whiteland, the proposal could not take effect merely because the occupier failed to apply to the tribunal.

5. The Tribunal invited submissions within 14 days on whether the revised fee should be £117.77 per month, consistently with unappealed First-tier Tribunal findings concerning the other occupiers.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the owner’s appeal and set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the pitch-fee review notice was invalid.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Dismissed the owner’s application concerning pitch 6 because it considered that the notice gave the wrong review date and was invalid.