Southern Country Parks Limited v Eileen Bird & Ors

Under paragraph 18(1)(aa) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, a decrease in the amenity of a protected site may relate to a single pitch. It need not affect the whole site, be permanent, or occur continuously. The relevant question is whether the deterioration or decrease, considered with other relevant factors, makes it unreasonable to apply the statutory presumption of an inflation-linked increase.

Once that presumption is displaced, the tribunal must determine what increase in the existing pitch fee is reasonable. It must assess all relevant circumstances, including inflation, improvements and loss of amenity. A nil or reduced increase requires adequate reasons explaining how the figure was reached.

The owner of Hillbury Park appealed against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber concerning the annual review of pitch fees for four mobile-home pitches. The FTT treated intermittent flooding affecting particular pitches and an access road as a decrease in site amenity. It ordered nil increases for two pitches and increases at half the inflation-linked rate for two others.

The appeal challenged whether a localised or intermittent problem could displace the statutory presumption of an inflation-linked increase, whether the FTT had undertaken the required valuation, and whether it had relied on matters not raised during the hearing. The appeal concerning one pitch was withdrawn after the occupier moved away.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The determinations for pitches 4a, 16 and 69 were set aside and remitted to the FTT. The FTT’s conclusion that the statutory presumption had been displaced did not require reconsideration.
2. Paragraph 18(1)(aa) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 directs particular regard to any deterioration in the condition or decrease in the amenity of the site. The site includes each individual pitch. A decrease seriously affecting one pitch may therefore be relevant, even if other pitches are unaffected.
3. There is no threshold of permanence, frequency or intensity. An intermittent problem may be relevant if, in the FTT’s judgment, it is sufficiently serious, having regard to paragraph 20(A1), to make applying the inflation presumption unreasonable. Localised flooding was therefore capable in principle of displacing the presumption.
4. Displacement of the presumption is not the end of the valuation exercise. The question becomes what increase in the existing pitch fee is reasonable at the review date. The tribunal must consider all relevant matters, including inflation, improvements, deterioration and loss of amenity, and may use any method that best achieves that objective. It is not determining the market rent for a new agreement.
5. The FTT’s reasons were inadequate for pitches 4a, 16 and 69. Its critical passages linked the flooding directly to a nil or 50% increase without explaining how inflation, improvements and other relevant matters had been weighed. In a period of high inflation, a nil increase has a substantial and continuing financial effect and requires particular explanation.
6. The FTT was entitled to record matters observed during its inspection and matters appearing in the site licence. Further submissions would be good practice if an unmentioned matter were to receive particular valuation weight, but there was no basis for concluding that the FTT had acted unfairly here.
7. The applications were remitted to the same FTT panel for reconsideration of the amount of any increase, without a further hearing or submissions unless the FTT considered them necessary.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): The appeals concerning pitches 4a, 16 and 69 were allowed, the FTT’s fee determinations were set aside, and the applications were remitted for reconsideration of the amount of any increase. The appeal concerning pitch 13 was withdrawn.
• First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber: The FTT had determined nil increases for pitches 4a and 69 and 5.7% increases for pitches 13 and 16.