Phillip Robling & Anor v Maurice Fred Doe

An occupier’s entitlement to occupy a mobile home as an only or main residence for the purposes of Mobile Homes Act 1983 section 1(1) is not determined solely by the written licence. Permission may be express or inferred from the parties’ conduct, including long-standing occupation as a home without objection by the site owner.

On a strike-out application, the tribunal must assume the applicant’s factual case to be true. Where the applicant alleges permission to reside and that allegation could establish statutory entitlement, the issue requires factual determination at a hearing. It is an error of law to strike out the claim solely by reference to an unsigned or holiday-use written agreement.

The appellants each occupied a caravan at Pilgrim’s Retreat and received notices proposing increases to their pitch fees. They applied to the First-tier Tribunal under Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 for determination of the fees.

The FTT struck out both applications under rule 9, relying on licence agreements describing the homes as leisure or holiday accommodation. It did not determine whether the site was a protected site. The appellants appealed on the basis that they had long lived in the caravans as their homes with the respondent’s permission.

The central issue was whether the FTT could conclude, at the strike-out stage and solely from the written agreements, that the appellants lacked entitlement to occupy their mobile homes as their only or main residences.

1. Appeals allowed. The FTT’s orders striking out the appellants’ applications were set aside and the applications were restored.

2. Section 1(1) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 requires both an agreement entitling the occupier to station and occupy a mobile home as an only or main residence, and a protected site. The present appeals concerned only the first requirement. The FTT had neither heard evidence nor made a decision on protected-site status, so the Upper Tribunal could not decide that issue on appeal.

3. The written licence did not conclusively determine the appellants’ entitlement to reside. Long-standing residence in a caravan without protest may support a finding, on the balance of probabilities, that the owner gave permission by conduct. The Tribunal applied the reasoning in Tingdene Marinas, where the operative agreement extended beyond the written licence.

4. On a strike-out application, the tribunal must proceed on the assumption that the applicant’s account of the facts is true. The appellants asserted that they lived in their caravans as homes and had been permitted to do so. If disputed, that assertion required a factual finding after a hearing; the FTT could not assume that it would fail.

5. There was therefore no basis for finding that the appellants had no prospect of establishing entitlement to occupy their homes as their only or main residences. Reliance on the licence agreement alone, particularly where one copy was unsigned, was an error of law. Either party could seek directions from the FTT.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the appeals and set aside the FTT’s strike-out orders.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Struck out the appellants’ pitch-fee applications under rule 9(2)(a), concluding from the licence agreements that they were not covered by the Mobile Homes Act 1983.