Teignbridge District Council v Francis Clark

Under the pitch-fee regime in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, an increase or decrease in line with the relevant index is a rebuttable presumption, not an entitlement or a ceiling. A decrease in the condition or amenity of a site may displace that presumption regardless of its cause. The statutory language does not require the deterioration to have been caused by the site owner, although an occupier’s own contribution may be relevant.

The size of the index movement is not itself an “other factor” capable of displacing the presumption. Treating an exceptional rise in the index or its effect on occupiers’ incomes as such a factor would undermine the objective statutory method and invite disproportionate factual and economic disputes.

The council sought to increase the respondent’s pitch fee from £61.50 to £69.74, reflecting a 13.4% rise in the retail prices index. The First-tier Tribunal found that a deterioration in the site’s amenity justified departing from the statutory presumption, but also treated the exceptional size of the RPI increase and its effect on persons with limited incomes as a significant factor. It fixed an 8% increase.

The council appealed on grounds of irrationality, timing under paragraph 18(1)(aa), and the relevance of the unusually high RPI increase. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal could use the level of the index increase as a reason to depart from the statutory presumption.

1. Appeal allowed and remitted. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by giving significant weight to the exceptional 13.4% increase in the RPI and its impact on occupiers with limited incomes. Its decision was set aside and remitted to the same panel to remake the determination without taking account of the level of the RPI increase.

2. The statutory process requires the tribunal first to decide whether a pitch fee should change. It must then apply the presumption in paragraph 20(A1) of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, subject to whether that would be unreasonable having regard to paragraph 18(1). The presumption is not an entitlement or a maximum: Britanniacrest Limited v Bamborough [2016] UKUT 0144 (LC) was approved as correctly expressing that point.

3. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to find a decrease in amenity even though the council had increased resources devoted to management and had not reduced the quality of its services. Amenity may decrease for reasons unrelated to the owner’s service provision. Paragraph 18(1)(aa) contains no causation requirement, so deterioration caused by other residents may be taken into account. An occupier’s own contribution to deterioration could be relevant, but Mr Clark was not alleged to have contributed.

4. The timing ground failed. The First-tier Tribunal had directed itself to the statutory provisions, and the evidence permitted the safe inference that the recent deterioration had occurred after the 2019 review, after paragraph 18(1)(aa) came into force, and had not previously been taken into account.

5. However, the index is the statutory objective mechanism for calculating the presumptive adjustment. Allowing the magnitude of its movement to displace the presumption would create uncertain thresholds and invite complex disputes about economic conditions and individual hardship. That is not a relevant consideration under the statutory regime.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the council’s appeal, set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, and remitted the pitch-fee determination to the same panel.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): Held that reduced site amenity displaced the RPI presumption and determined an 8% pitch-fee increase rather than the proposed 13.4% increase.