Julie Stanton & Ors v Fury Developments Limited

On a protected park homes site, the occupier’s liability for gas and electricity is limited to the actual unit cost charged by the utility supplier. The statutory implied terms and a standard contractual term requiring payment of charges for utilities do not authorise a separate administration charge for meter reading, billing or payment collection. Those administration costs are ordinarily subsumed in the pitch fee unless the agreement contains a sufficiently clear express service-charge provision. The result is unchanged where a third party performs the administration as agent for the site owner. Park rules which merely echo the statutory or standard contractual wording create no wider liability.

Four conjoined appeals arose from decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) concerning charges imposed on occupiers of mobile homes at Home Farm Park. The site owner arranged for POW Utilities to administer smart-meter payments for electricity and LPG. Occupiers using smart meters were charged 41p per day for each utility, while those requiring manual meter readings were charged £10 or £20 per visit.

The appellants’ written statements either contained a standard utilities clause or relied principally on statutory implied terms under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The FTT held that the charges were recoverable, treating POW’s charges as third-party service charges. The central issue before the Upper Tribunal was whether the statutory and contractual provisions authorised recovery of administration costs, including where the work was undertaken by an agent.

1. Appeals allowed. The FTT had misunderstood the authorities concerning utility charges on protected sites.
2. Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, and the standard contractual term requiring payment of charges for electricity, gas, water, telephone and other services, require the occupier to reimburse the site owner for the actual cost charged by the relevant utility provider. They do not authorise a separate charge for administration.
3. The administration of utilities, including meter reading, calculating charges and collecting payment, is part of the site owner’s obligations and is covered by the regulated pitch fee. A separate service charge may be recoverable only if the written agreement contains an express provision sufficiently clear to create that liability.
4. The fact that administration is performed by a third party does not alter the result. The site owner cannot create a recoverable liability by appointing an agent to perform work which it could not charge for itself. POW was not a utility provider, and its charges could not be passed on to the occupiers merely because it was engaged as an agent.
5. The additional electricity-supply schedule, the proposed incorporation of Ofgem guidance, and the Calor Gas schedule did not establish liability for POW’s charges. The park rule relied upon for two appellants substantially echoed the statutory and contractual wording and could impose no wider obligation. Clear words would have been required to create a contractual service charge.
6. Any payments made for manual meter readings or the 41p daily charge were to be reimbursed by the respondent, whether paid to it or to POW as its agent.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)—made four decisions holding that the manual meter-reading charges and daily administration charges were recoverable.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)—allowed all four appeals and directed reimbursement of qualifying payments.