Martin Hampton v The Berkeley Leisure Group Limited

A minor error in a pitch fee review notice or prescribed form does not invalidate it where the statutory requirements have been met and a reasonable recipient, informed of the relevant background, would understand the notice's purpose and effect. There is no statutory requirement to state the pitch address.

An incorrect proposed pitch fee, including an error of legal method rather than arithmetic, does not itself invalidate a compliant review form. The First-tier Tribunal may determine the correct fee. The statutory presumption in favour of an index-linked increase remains applicable unless displaced by the relevant statutory considerations.

Martin Hampton appealed against the First-tier Tribunal's determination of the 2023 pitch fee for his mobile home on a protected site regulated by the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

The site owner had served a review letter and prescribed form. The documents omitted the word “Park” from the pitch address and proposed a fee calculated by removing and then reintroducing a share of the site licence cost. The First-tier Tribunal held the documents valid, corrected the calculation, and determined a new fee of £244.22 in line with the retail prices index.

The appeal concerned whether either error rendered the review notice and form of no effect.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to determine the 2023 pitch fee at £244.22.

2. The statutory procedure in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 requires a review notice and, for a proposed increase in England, an accompanying document complying with paragraph 25A. The owner complied with those requirements. Although the documents would ordinarily identify the pitch, the legislation does not require the pitch address to be stated. Paragraph 26(3), by contrast, expressly requires the owner's name and address.

3. The omission of “Park” did not invalidate either document. Applying the objective approach in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] UKHL 19 and Mooney v Whiteland [2023] EWCA Civ 67, a reasonable recipient with the relevant background would plainly understand that the documents concerned the appellant's mobile home and proposed an increase from the review date. They were served on the appellant and his wife, used the site's correct name, explained the proposed amount and calculation, and fulfilled their purpose.

4. The proposed calculation was wrong because the existing pitch fee, including its historic site-licence element, should have been subjected as a whole to the index increase. The error did not invalidate the form. The form disclosed the calculation and did not fail to meet its statutory formal requirements. The tribunal could correct the substantive calculation, as it did.

5. The appeal failed on both grounds. The pitch fee for 2023 was £244.22.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the occupier's appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal's determination that the review documents were valid, while confirming the pitch fee of £244.22.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): determined the 2023 pitch fee following the owner's application after the occupiers did not agree the proposed fee.