Arkley Estates Limited v Kathleen Madigan & Ors

Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, a pitch fee increase requires the occupier’s agreement or a tribunal determination. Where the occupier does not respond, the First-tier Tribunal is not required to award an increase equal to the relevant inflation index. It must scrutinise the proposed increase and decide whether, and by how much, the pitch fee should reasonably change.

Where related applications are heard together, the tribunal may consider relevant evidence and submissions from participating occupiers, and matters observed on inspection, provided the parties have a fair opportunity to respond.

Arkley Estates Limited appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s determination of pitch fees for 40 pitches at Arkley Park. The FTT awarded increases of 7.5% or 8.5%, rather than the proposed 11.4% increase in the retail prices index.

Nine occupiers had not responded to the applications or participated in the FTT hearing. The appeal concerned whether the FTT was obliged to allow the index-linked increase in those cases and whether it could use evidence from participating occupiers, together with its inspection, when determining applications concerning non-participants.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The FTT had not erred in determining the pitch fees for residents who had not responded.
2. Paragraphs 16 to 20 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 require an increase to be agreed or determined by the tribunal. The statutory presumption in paragraph 20 is rebuttable and does not create a default entitlement to the index-linked increase.
3. Where the proposed increase has not been agreed, the FTT must apply its own judgment and determine whether it is reasonable for the fee to change and, if so, the amount of the new fee. An unopposed application does not predetermine the outcome. The FTT may consider matters apparent from its inspection, including deterioration or reduced amenities.
4. The applications were heard together under rule 6 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. The FTT was entitled to consider evidence and submissions from participating residents where relevant to other applications. Rule 18(6)(a) permitted evidence whether or not admissible in a civil trial.
5. There was no unfairness. The appellant could question the participating resident and respond to the evidence and submissions. Ignoring relevant material heard at the combined hearing or observed on inspection would have been inconsistent with the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) determined the pitch fees for 40 pitches at Arkley Park on 9 July 2024, awarding increases of 7.5% or 8.5% rather than the proposed 11.4% increase.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) dismissed the appeal on 22 November 2024.