Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Limited v D Finch & Ors

On a pitch-fee review under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, the tribunal may reduce the fee below the amount previously agreed or determined where that is reasonable in light of relevant deterioration or reduced amenity. The statutory restriction on repeated consideration of deterioration concerns matters previously taken into account in a tribunal determination; an owner’s unilateral assertion, and an earlier agreement, do not bind the tribunal. The relevant comparison is between the site’s current condition and its previous condition, not a notional minimum contractual standard. Where deterioration is temporary and later remedied, a future above-inflation increase may restore an appropriate part of the reduction.

Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Limited appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), issued on 25 September 2023. The FTT reduced the pitch fees payable by the respondents from 1 January 2023 to their level on 1 January 2021, having found that the park’s condition and amenity had materially deteriorated after Wyldecrest acquired it.

The appeal concerned whether the FTT could reduce the fee below the amount agreed at the previous review, whether deterioration should be assessed against the park’s former “pristine” condition or against a minimum contractual standard, and whether a later improvement could justify restoration of the reduction.

1. Reduction below the previously agreed fee. The appeal was dismissed on the first issue. Paragraph 16 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 permits the pitch fee to be changed, including by reduction, to an amount the FTT considers reasonable. Neither paragraph 18(1)(aa) nor paragraph 20 imposes a floor at the amount previously agreed or limits the adjustment to the change in RPI.
2. Previous consideration of deterioration. The qualification in paragraph 18(1)(aa) concerns deterioration previously taken into account for the purposes of a tribunal determination. An owner’s unilateral statement that deterioration was considered when proposing an earlier increase does not prevent the FTT from considering it. Even an agreement between the parties is not a determination governed by paragraph 18(1), although it is a factor the FTT may consider. The FTT must make its own assessment of the reasonable fee.
3. Relevant comparison. The statutory question is whether the site has deteriorated from a previously superior condition and whether that deterioration has already been taken into account. The comparison is not with a notional minimum standard of cleanliness and tidiness. The maintenance obligation in paragraph 22 may extend to trees, shrubs and landscaped areas, and reduced garden maintenance may also constitute a reduction in services under paragraph 18(1)(ab).
4. Future restoration. Although the issue did not arise from the FTT’s decision, the Tribunal stated provisionally that a temporary reduction in amenity or deterioration may be remedied. If it is cured, an above-RPI increase may be permitted where that produces a reasonable fee. The amount is for the FTT. Catching up on neglected work would not ordinarily be an improvement requiring consultation, and full restoration of the reduction might require restoration of the park to its former high standard.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the First-tier Tribunal’s decision issued on 25 September 2023.