Wyldecrest Parks (Management) Ltd v Marie Harper & Ors

The RPI presumption governing pitch-fee reviews is a starting point, not an entitlement or ceiling. In deciding whether it would be unreasonable to apply the presumption, the tribunal may take account of deterioration in the site’s condition or amenity caused by a third party. The statutory wording does not require the deterioration to be attributable to the site owner. The assessment is fact-sensitive and may include whether the owner knew of the problem and could have secured its resolution. Disapplying the presumption does not create a binary choice between an RPI increase and no change. The fee should reflect the changed circumstances, including inflation and factors supporting reduction. Nevertheless, where the loss of amenity is sufficiently serious, the tribunal may conclude that no increase is justified.

The appellant operated a protected residential park under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The respondents occupied four pitches and opposed proposed 2023 pitch-fee increases linked to the retail prices index. The First-tier Tribunal found that longstanding low water pressure had significantly reduced the amenity and enjoyment of the site, that the appellant knew of the problem, and that it could have acted earlier to secure a remedy. It concluded that the statutory presumption of an RPI increase was rebutted and directed that the pitch fees should not increase.

The appellant argued that third-party responsibility, and the fact that the problem pre-dated its purchase of the park, prevented the reduction in amenity from affecting the pitch fee. The central issues were whether the deterioration could be considered and whether the FTT had adequately explained its outcome.

1. Appeal dismissed. The FTT’s determination that the four pitch fees should not increase for 2023 was confirmed.
2. Paragraph 18(1)(aa) of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 refers to deterioration in the condition or amenity of the site without attributing responsibility to the site owner. This contrasts with paragraph 18(1)(ab), which concerns reductions in services supplied by the owner. Accordingly, the FTT was entitled in principle to consider deterioration caused by a third party.
3. The question whether it was fair to do so depended on the facts. The FTT found that the appellant knew of the site-wide water-pressure problem, could have pursued its resolution with South West Water, and failed to act until January 2025. Those were findings of fact with which the Upper Tribunal would not interfere. The fact that the problem pre-dated the appellant’s purchase did not undermine the decision, because the FTT relied on the appellant’s knowledge and ability to secure an earlier remedy, not on any finding that it had caused the problem.
4. The RPI presumption is not a statutory entitlement or maximum. As explained in Britanniacrest Limited v Bamborough [2016] UKUT 0144 (LC), it may be only the starting point. Further, as explained in Wyldecrest Parks Management Limited [2024] UKUT 55 (LC), disapplying the presumption does not require the fee either to rise by RPI or remain unchanged. The proper fee should reflect the changed circumstances, including inflation and factors justifying reduction.
5. The FTT ought to have given a further sentence explaining why no increase, rather than a smaller increase, was justified. However, its concern about residents’ inability to heat their homes and use domestic appliances made its conclusion sufficiently clear in context. The seriousness of the amenity loss justified no increase.

• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): determined that the respondents’ 2023 pitch fees should not increase because the loss of amenity caused by low water pressure rebutted the RPI presumption.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): dismissed the appeal and confirmed the FTT’s determination.